House of Commons

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Monday 27 February 2012

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to ensure that Sure Start children’s centres focus on the most disadvantaged families.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

We published last year a new core purpose for children’s centres, which makes it clear that their core purpose is to improve outcomes for young children and their families, particularly for the most disadvantaged. Local authorities have statutory duties to provide sufficient children’s centres and to reduce inequalities. We are strengthening incentives to deliver the core purpose through revised statutory guidance, which we will publish shortly, through changes to Ofsted’s inspection framework and through payment by results. Children’s centres will also help families to access the new early education entitlement for disadvantaged two-year-olds.

[Tony Baldry]

Sure Start centres such as the Sunshine centre in Banbury do excellent work. What possibility is there of children’s centres’ budgets being ring-fenced within the early intervention grant to provide some security to the centres and to the communities for whom they work, or what possibility is there of children’s centres being given the same option as schools—to become the equivalent of an academy and to receive their funding directly from the Government?

[Sarah Teather]

We took a decision to ensure that the measure was carried out locally because of the importance in early intervention of joining services together. Children’s centres, health services and other aspects of local authority provision are best done locally, and it is right and proper that local authorities make the decision about organisation, strategic planning and commissioning.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister knows that even good local authorities such as mine in Kirklees, because they are not being given the resource by central Government, are being forced to modify the offer of children’s Sure Start centres. Is she not aware that even the most benign Government Member, particularly the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) who just asked that question, wants to take us back to the old Poor Law days, when there was one centre for poor people and other centres for others? That is not the way to provide good child care.

[Sarah Teather]

I think that everybody throughout the House agrees on the importance of early intervention. I accept that there may be differences of opinion on how we deliver it, but Government Members believe that the best way to do so is to devolve decisions to the local level. I do not think that the most disadvantaged families in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency would be best served by me attempting to run everything from my office in Whitehall.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

20. I welcome the Minister’s announcements and comments on the issue, just as I welcome the extension of 15 hours of free education a week to the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, but will she tell us what more we must do to help parents access affordable child care? Under the previous Government the cost of child care rose by 50% and the number of childminders dropped by one third. We have to do better. What does she think?

[Sarah Teather]

I absolutely recognise the points that the hon. Lady makes. Child care is a very difficult pressure on many families’ budgets, and that is precisely why we have invested so much extra money in the area. Despite the tight financial climate because of the mess that the previous Government left us, we have nevertheless invested significant extra money in enabling two-year-olds to access free early education—20% of two-year-olds by 2013 and 40% by 2014.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

The Department’s Sure Start and early intervention funding for the local authority area of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was cut by £30 per child this year. Islington, Knowsley and Tower Hamlets, however, three of the country’s most deprived boroughs, had cuts of £100 or more per child. Does the Minister believe that that is a good example of targeting resources for Sure Start and for early intervention at the most disadvantaged?

[Sarah Teather]

Decisions about the early intervention grant were made on the same formula as that used by the previous Government, so it is not really acceptable for the hon. Lady to claim that there are specific changes in particular constituencies, and suggesting that there is a political motivation is a little beneath her, actually.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s reclassification of vocational qualifications.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

We expect that all schools will now offer courses that benefit students, rather than some offering courses that are designed to inflate the school’s league-table rankings.

[Mrs Glindon]

In North Tyneside, Churchill community college has been deemed by the Government to be one of the top 100 schools in terms of performance, and students taking vocational courses there find that they are provided with the exact skills that local employers want. Will the Secretary of State listen to education and industry professionals and take the opportunity of the curriculum review to strengthen the role of the vocational pathway in order to ensure that all young people are equipped for the demands of our economy?

[Michael Gove]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on having such a strong school—indeed, so many strong schools—in her constituency. It is vital that we ensure that children have the maximum number of opportunities to progress at the age of 16, either on to further study in colleges and universities or into the vocational pathways that may suit them. Professor Alison Wolf’s report provides a strong foundation on which to build for all students of all abilities and aptitudes.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The Government and the Department have acted to allay concerns on the equivalency of some qualifications for the purposes of performance statistics, but will the Secretary of State confirm that the coalition Government are committed to raising the status of vocational education and to recognising the achievements of schools, colleges, teachers and young people?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. I am uniquely fortunate in that I have in the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning a colleague who is passionate about that and who is on record in the latest issue of The House Magazine as having said that he has used the word “apprenticeship” in debates in this House more often than any other Member here. The reason he has done so and the reason we are so committed to increasing the number of apprenticeships—[Interruption.] He is a great Minister and he is part of a coalition Government who have presided over the fastest growth in quality apprenticeships under any Government in history.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that whether in vocational study, university courses or apprenticeships, the essential thing is that courses are relevant for future employment and, indeed, for future employers?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. One of the problems that we have had in the past is that some awarding bodies have offered qualifications that were deemed to be technical or vocational but in fact were not. We need to ensure that those qualifications, which are robust and respected, are increasingly popular and are used in our schools and colleges.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to promote the teaching of emergency life support skills in schools.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

Through non-statutory personal, social, health and economic education, at primary school pupils are taught about basic emergency procedures and where to get help; and at secondary school, about how to develop the skills to cope with emergency situations that require basic first aid procedures, including, at key stage 4, resuscitation techniques. As my hon. Friend knows, we are reviewing PSHE education to consider the core knowledge that young people should have, and we will publish proposals for public consultation later this year.

[Justin Tomlinson]

There has been significant support for the British Heart Foundation’s campaign for emergency life support skills to be included in the curriculum. Many people have called for it to be included in physical education, but what consideration has the Minister given to the merits of teaching it in biology?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. This is something of a personal interest for him, and I pay tribute to him for raising it in this House and in his constituency, where only this week he launched a “Save a Life by Volunteers in Emergencies” scheme for pupils. Our aim, through the review of the national curriculum, is to ensure that the school science curriculum, including biology, is focused on teaching pupils core essential scientific knowledge and about scientific processes, so I do not think that it would necessarily be most appropriate in that context, but it is sensible and helpful for schools to want to teach it to their pupils, and Ofsted will pick up on it as well.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

4. When he plans to make an announcement on the next round of bids for university technical colleges.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

5. What assessment he has made of the role of university technical colleges in bridging the skills gap.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

University technical colleges provide a high-quality technical education. That is why they are a key part of our school reforms and why, in last year’s Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor doubled the funding so that we can open at least 24 UTCs in this Parliament. We intend to make an announcement about the next tranche by the end of May.

[Hazel Blears]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the joint bid for a university technical college at MediaCityUK that is backed by the Lowry arts centre, the Aldridge Foundation, the city council and the university—by everybody in the city. The creative industries are vital for our economic growth. Will he therefore ensure that local young people in Greater Manchester and in Salford have the skills, through the university technical college, to take up the opportunities that will be coming over the next few years?

[Michael Gove]

The revival of Salford over the past few years is a model of how urban regeneration should be led, and the right hon. Lady has played a vital part in that. I have to be fair to all the bids, but undoubtedly this bid, given the heavyweight support that it enjoys, will be taken very seriously by the Department and by the Baker Dearing Educational Trust.

[Ian Swales]

The JCB university technical college is dismayed by the Secretary of State’s decision to devalue the OCR engineering diploma, which was developed by leading manufacturers such as JCB, Rolls-Royce and Toyota and leading universities such as Cambridge, Loughborough and Warwick. At a time when employers in Teesside and elsewhere are desperate for engineering skills, will he review that decision?

[Michael Gove]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the role that he has played in ensuring that the steel industry returns to Redcar. Few people in the House have done more for engineering jobs than he has. It is right to affirm the importance of engineering in schools and colleges, but I believe that it should take its place alongside physics, chemistry and biology as a science subject of value. It is appropriate for those subjects to be judged on a level playing field.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Engineering and technology have some of the lowest levels of participation among women of all the professions. Given that university technical colleges are new institutions that have the opportunity to ensure that more girls take part in these subjects, will the Secretary of State set them the aim of ensuring that 50% of their entrants are girls?

[Michael Gove]

I am always wary of targets and quotas that have 50% at their heart. However, the broader point that the hon. Lady makes about the need for all of us to encourage more girls to contemplate a career in design, technology or engineering is very strong. She authored a report last year that was welcomed by the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, which made a series of recommendations that university technical colleges and, indeed, the whole school and college sector should take to heart.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

The Secretary of State for Education has won funding of more than £600 million for new free schools. If there are enough good UTC bids, such as the bid from Harlow hospital, Anglia Ruskin university and Harlow college, will he consider using some of that £600 million to boost the number of new UTCs?

[Michael Gove]

Thanks to the generosity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not to any negotiating skill on my behalf, there are sufficient resources in the Department for Education budget to support high quality university technical college submissions. It will be on the quality of the bids that a decision is made.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Rosie Cooper. Not here.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

7. What steps he has taken to reduce the amount of paperwork undertaken by teachers.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

10. What steps he has taken to reduce the amount of paperwork undertaken by teachers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The Government are committed to reducing the amount of paperwork undertaken by teachers, heads and governors. We have removed the lengthy self-evaluation form and the financial management standard in schools; introduced a streamlined inspection framework; removed unnecessary duties and regulations in the Education Act 2011; cut the volume of guidance issued to schools by more than half; and made it clear that neither the Department nor Ofsted expects teachers to produce written lesson plans for every lesson. We are reviewing all requirements on schools so that they can focus on raising standards, rather than on unnecessary administrative tasks.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for updating the House on the progress that he is making on the amount of guidance. Will he reassure me that we no longer send teachers and governors thousands of pages of bureaucratic guidance, which at one point was equivalent to reading “War and Peace” from cover to cover three times over?

[Mr Gibb]

And significantly less interesting. My hon. Friend is right that we have swept away pages of guidance. We have reduced the admissions code from 160 pages to 50, the assessment guidance from 220 pages to 30, the attendance guidance from 220 pages to 30, and so on. We have reduced the health and safety guidance from 150 pages to eight, and have taken out important guidance on how to do a headcount, why a headcount is important and why schools should ensure that the school minibus is properly maintained.

[Nigel Mills]

Many teachers complain about the amount of time they have to spend completing lesson plans. Will the Minister confirm that neither he nor Ofsted require plans for every lesson?

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Ofsted does not require written lesson plans for every lesson. Michael Wilshaw, Her Majesty’s chief inspector, has made that absolutely clear.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

One of the most demanding tasks that teachers do outside the classroom is marking books, which allows them to monitor the progress of pupils. The applications for free schools that I have seen have an average of 25 pupils per class. If we value teachers in all sections of our education system, should they not all be teaching classes of 25 pupils? If the Government are serious about reducing the work load of teachers, they should take that on board.

[Mr Gibb]

I would encourage schools that want to have smaller class sizes and more control over how they are run to adopt academy status.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Education recently that teachers have to work only 32.5 hours per week, even if they work full time, did he really believe it or was he just trying to cause offence?

[Mr Gibb]

I am aware that many teachers do enormous amounts of unpaid overtime. That is a tribute to the professionalism of the teachers in our schools today. It is important that that overtime is not spent filling in voluminous forms or reading huge lever arch files of guidance.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

8. How many schools have applied to become an academy in (a) Worcester constituency, (b) Worcestershire and (c) England.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

In the Worcester constituency, three secondary schools have applied for academy status, of which two have successfully converted. In Worcestershire, 25 schools have applied to become academies, of which 19 are open, and there is one sponsored academy open. Across England, there have been a total of 1,861 applications from mainstream funded schools to become academies, of which 1,243 are open, and there are 337 sponsored academies open.

[Mr Walker]

One application that has recently been approved is that of Bishop Perowne college in my constituency, with support from King’s school Worcester a leading local independent school, the university of Worcester, which specialises in teacher training, and a major local employer, Yamazaki Mazak Ltd. Will the Minister join me in welcoming that approach, and will he encourage more such innovative partnerships to bring public and private sector expertise together to offer the best to pupils at our academies?

[Mr Gibb]

I am delighted that Bishop Perowne college received its academy order in January to convert to academy status, and that as my hon. Friend says, it will do so with the support of King’s school, the university of Worcester and Yamazaki Mazak. I strongly encourage other public-private partnerships to come forward to support academy conversions and share their expertise in that important part of our school reform programme.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Presumably, the Minister would expect local authorities to have some strategic view of what should happen to academies in their area. Next time he talks to Birmingham city council, and to councillors Les Lawrence and Mike Whitby, if he can find out what their strategy on academies is, I would be grateful if he passed it on to me.

[Mr Gibb]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had very good meetings with councillors in Birmingham, and I hope that all local authorities will work constructively with the Department as we seek to tackle underperforming schools in the schools network.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

9. What his definition is of a sufficient youth service.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

The Government will consult very shortly on revised statutory guidance on local authorities’ duty to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, a sufficient offer of services for young people. It will propose that a sufficient local offer is one that results in positive feedback from young people on the adequacy and quality of local provision, and positive trends in data indicative of local young people’s well-being and personal and social development.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Minister will be interested to know that late last year, I welcomed to Westminster a group of lads from the Muslim Community Organisation in Nottingham. They told me about their project and why it is important to them. They told me that they felt the Government did not like young people, because they had cut youth services, and they said that their project was under threat. Will the Minister tell Junaid, Awais, Hussam, Umar and their friends why cuts to youth services have been among the biggest in his Department?

[Tim Loughton]

I trust that the hon. Lady, wanting to give a fair representation of what the Government are doing, was very speedy in sending her constituents a copy of “Positive for Youth”, which was published just before Christmas. It is one of the most comprehensive documents bigging up young people produced by any Government ever, and she should be proud to disseminate it among her constituents, as I am mine.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I applaud the Minister on “Positive for Youth”, and last week I was at two voluntary sector youth clubs, Pembroke House and New Image, where there was fantastic talent waiting to be released into the adult community. Will he ensure that every youth club in England, statutory or non-statutory, has all the knowledge that it needs about apprenticeships, training, education and the national citizen service, so that every opportunity can be known by every youngster in every youth club in the country?

[Tim Loughton]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I want a mixed provision of youth services up and down the country, whether in brand spanking new buildings such as the 63 myplace centres, a great investment by this Government, or in well established youth clubs, schools or other buildings. I want young people to have full knowledge about the availability of all those schemes—not just youth services but training opportunities, apprenticeships, the national citizen service and everything that they can do in our communities. “Positive for Youth” is a gateway for young people in this country to see that the Government value them. Our whole society should value them, and we want to do everything we can to ensure that they contribute to society in the future.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Speaking at the National Youth Agency conference last month, the Minister said:

“I know that many people are concerned that youth services have faced disproportionate cuts as councils look to tighten their belts…And, I’ll be honest, I’m concerned too…there is no excuse to neglect youth services, or to treat them as an easy area to make savings.”

However, as a recent parliamentary answer to me showed, many local authorities are making cuts of 30%, 40%, 50% or in some cases 70%, far in excess of the general reduction in local authority spending. What steps is he taking to put his fine words into practice?

[Tim Loughton]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for repeating my words, because they are absolutely right. That is why we issued that document—to send out a very clear message—and why we are revising the guidance, which we are consulting on in the next few weeks. She, like every local authority in the country and youth groups, will have the opportunity to have their say on what their local youth services should offer. That is all about young people having a voice and being able to gauge whether they are being treated seriously within their local authorities. This Government are giving them a voice that was not heard under the previous Labour Government.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

11. What assessment his Department has made of the role of schools in preparing children and young people for entering the workplace.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

Ofsted found that more than half the secondary schools inspected in 2010-11 were either outstanding or good in developing workplace and other skills to assist students’ future economic prospects. However, young people should also have access to high-quality and impartial information, advice and guidance. The new national careers service, which will be launched in April, will provide just that.

[Karl Turner]

Does the Minister agree that a diploma in engineering is an important qualification and an important skill for young people? Downgrading that important qualification is, in my view, damaging to foreign manufacturers such as Siemens, which is hopefully about to invest very heavily in offshore wind in my fantastic constituency.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to learn—I hope—that I plan to visit Hull on 19 April to meet local employers and interested parties. I am very happy to add him to the list of invitees. We will then take forward just the kind of agenda that he suggests.

[Mr Speaker]

If I had known that on Thursday night when I was in Hull I might have told my audience. I didn’t, so I couldn’t, but never mind.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

Having done much work in career guidance and helping young people to enter work, I am now working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to do real-life pilot schemes with real-life business advisers. Could I meet the Minister so that we can have the best cross-departmental support for that scheme?

[Mr Hayes]

It is absolutely right that we should have that, and to understand that the business of providing information, advice and guidance is about giving people the wherewithal to know that the choices they make will affect their future prospects, how they will do so and how we can help. I am determined that such empirical, independent advice and guidance should be available to all. It is about redistributing advantage.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

But how are young children going to be motivated when, as in my constituency, youth unemployment has gone up by 88% in the past 12 months? Where will the jobs come from that schools can use to motivate young children?

[Mr Hayes]

It is partly about people recognising the opportunities that exist through the right kind of advice and guidance. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that economic growth is our key priority—he knows that that permeates all the Government do—but it is absolutely right that we equip people with the right skills on the basis of the right information to make the right choices about job opportunities.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Secondary schools, particularly comprehensives, have a critical role to play in fostering aspiration and getting young people ready for higher education and for work. Has my hon. Friend seen the recent report by the Fair Access to University Group, and does he believe that we can do more to help disadvantaged pupils into our top universities and therefore into our top professions?

[Mr Hayes]

Widening access to higher education and learning is at the heart of what I am trying to achieve, but that is not principally about admissions. It is about good advice and guidance; access points to learning; modes of learning; and prior attainment. Let us be clear about how we can widen access and not be hung up on admissions.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

12. How many 16 to 18-year-olds started an apprenticeship last year.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

Final data for the 2010-11 academic year show that there were 131,700 apprenticeship starts in England by young people aged under 19—the greatest number in modern history. That is an increase of 12.8% in a year and of 32.6% in two years. The whole House will acknowledge that achievement. We are feeding social mobility and nourishing social justice.

[Alok Sharma]

I thank the Minister for his huge personal commitment to making the Government’s apprenticeships policy a success—my constituency had more than 900 apprenticeship starts last year. What is his Department doing to make eligible businesses aware that up to 40,000 incentive payments of £1,500 each are available to employers if they take on young apprentices as part of the youth contract?

[Mr Hayes]

With the modesty for which my hon. Friend is known, he understated his own involvement in national apprenticeship week, when I understand he shadowed an apprentice working in a pre-school. He is right that we need to get more small and medium-sized enterprises involved, and to that end I am delighted that the Prime Minister announced during national apprenticeship week the extra support that we are providing. Every small business that takes on a young apprentice will get £1,500—something that the previous Government never attempted.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

13. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on responsibilities for early intervention.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

The Government agree with the hon. Gentleman that early intervention is important to ensure that all children get the best start in life. Ministers have discussed early intervention—including his two reports—in a range of forums, including the Cabinet Social Justice Committee. The Government responded through “Families in the Foundation Years”, which was published last year. We intend to procure an early intervention foundation, as he recommended, through a fair and open competition.

[Mr Allen]

I thank the Minister for her consistent support for the creation of an early intervention foundation, which will take to scale evidence-based policies to help babies, children and young people. Will she update us on the tender process for an early intervention foundation and on where early intervention in general is in the psyche of the Government?

[Sarah Teather]

I am hugely grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support, help and guidance on this issue. I absolutely agree that there is a moral as well as a financial case for investing in early intervention. It is a priority for the Government. He will be aware that I cannot say too much at the moment about the early intervention foundation, but we are working with other Departments to develop a specification for the foundation and are committed to ensuring that we get best value for money. My Department will issue a public notification shortly, in advance of an open and competitive procurement process.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

A challenge for early intervention can be that the beneficiaries are a self-selecting group, so what is my hon. Friend doing, working with local authorities and other Departments, to ensure that those who will benefit most from early intervention get it? Does this not stress again the importance of those decisions being made locally?

[Sarah Teather]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on this point, which is one reason we are about to begin trials of payment by results with local authorities and children’s centres—to ensure that they are focusing on the families who most need early intervention. It is one of a range of areas where we are trying to focus much more on outcomes, rather than just inputs.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The Department for Education has just published an interesting report showing a clear link between poor parenting and antisocial behaviour in children. What is the Minister’s view on the report and its recommendations for more family support and early intervention, and does she not agree that the short-sighted reductions to the early intervention grant, particularly in deprived areas, run counter to her own Department’s findings?

[Sarah Teather]

As the hon. Lady might know, last summer we announced that we would trial a new offer of parenting classes for all parents in three specific areas. That will be an interesting exercise, and we shall see what happens and whether we can encourage more people to come forward and take part in parenting support. Of course, children’s centres offer this kind of targeted, highly intensive work for families in many situations, and schools can use the pupil premium to pay for that, should they choose to do so

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The House will know that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions have done an enormous amount of work raising awareness of the importance of early intervention. We should thank them for that. Does the Minister agree that all Ministers and Government Members should totally support the Government’s welfare reforms?

[Sarah Teather]

It is always nice to have friendly fire from one’s own side, isn’t it? I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that I was delighted to see the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions introduce transitional arrangements to support children and families in difficult situations.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

14. When he plans to publish a report of his review of sex and relationship education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

We are considering sex and relationship education as part of our review of personal, social, health and economic education. We are currently analysing consultation responses received online and from stakeholder engagement meetings and the evidence from national and international research. We intend to announce proposals for public consultation on these findings in the summer term.

[John Glen]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Given the wide range of successful sex and relationship education programmes across the country, including the APAUSE—Added Power and Understanding in Sex Education—programme, will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to preserving autonomy for individual schools in deciding which programmes they adopt?

[Tim Loughton]

It is of course this Government’s policy to make sure that we give schools more freedoms and more time within the curriculum to teach pupils in the ways they think most appropriate for maximising the effect, but we also want to see a change of emphasis, with a much stronger focus on respect for others in sex and relationship education, building young people’s capacity to say no to things they do not feel are right, and making sense of the portrayals of sex and relationships to which they are exposed through the media. I hope that innovative schools will do that in a way that best gets that message across to their pupils.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

But the most recent statistics show that one in four abortions in this country is to a teenager—a shocking statistic and surely something we must do more about by trying to cut the number of teenage pregnancies in the first place. All the evidence shows that where there is really good sex and relationship education—not just in some schools, but in every single school; not just for some children, but for every single child—we really have a chance of tackling teenage pregnancy. Will the Government not wake up to this and get on with it, and not agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen)?

[Tim Loughton]

I think we are all trying to achieve the same thing. The hon. Gentleman mentions a disastrous statistic, but the problem is not just abortions among teenagers: I have been particularly alarmed about the repeat abortions among teenagers, so we must get the message across clearly. I want all children in this country to have access to good quality sex and relationship education. The problem has been that the picture is very mixed. I want more experts from outside schools who have real skills communicating that message to as many children as possible.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

A survey of more than 1,000 parents for mumsnet last November found that nine out of 10 parents think there should be a statutory duty on all schools to deliver comprehensive sex and relationship education. I welcome what the Minister says about the importance of relationships, particularly given the worrying statistic showing high levels of abuse and sexual pressure in teenage relationships. Does he think that the relationship aspect should therefore be put on the same footing as the requirement for schools to deliver the facts about sex?

[Tim Loughton]

Again, my hon. Friend, who has great expertise in this area, makes some pertinent points. I do not want to pre-empt what the consultation will focus on, given the findings already received. Relationships are absolutely a really important part of this. We have heard a lot about the mechanics of sex; we need to hear much more about the ways sex is carried on through relationships—hopefully consensual. The teaching of sexual consent will be strengthened through the planned revision of PSHE guidance. As I say, relationships are a really important part of it.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The Minister inadvertently and uncharacteristically failed to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). Will he confirm that the responsibility for SRE in the curriculum will remain with individual school governing bodies and parents and not be subject to ministerial fiat?

[Tim Loughton]

I will give my hon. Friend the same answer that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson)—I am not going to pre-empt what the consultation will come up with. When this matter was discussed as part of the then Children, Schools and Familes Bill before the last election, a major consideration of many Conservative Members was that the power of parents to withdraw their children from sex education should remain if they saw fit. I would hope that the quality of sex education would be such that parents would not withdraw their children because they wanted to ensure that they were well informed and confident to make the right choices.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of the breadth and content of the school curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The Government are currently reviewing the national curriculum to make sure it is as rigorous as the curricula used in the most successful education jurisdictions in the world. We are, as part of that work, considering which subjects should be included in the national curriculum and the content of what is taught in those subjects. However, we are clear that, whatever the outcome of the review, all schools should teach a broad and balanced curriculum.

[Hugh Bayley]

It was at the end of 2010 that I wrote to the Minister of State to urge on him the importance of teaching foreign languages at key stage 2 in primary schools. What have the Government done since then to encourage foreign language teaching to primary school children, and when does he think that the national curriculum authority will make a decision on the matter?

[Mr Gibb]

Those issues are being addressed in the review, and we will report on decisions as and when they are made. The introduction of the English baccalaureate, however, has done more to encourage the take-up of modern foreign languages in secondary schools than any decision since 2004, when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government and decided to remove the compulsory element of modern foreign languages. As a consequence of that decision, numbers plummeted.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

Is it not the case that all our leading competitors, including Germany and Canada, insist that pupils learn history and modern foreign languages until the age of 16? Will the Government take that into consideration in the curriculum review?

[Mr Gibb]

The expert panel report which we published towards the end of last year recommended more compulsion until pupils reached the age of 16, and we are considering that. However, as I said to the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), the English baccalaureate has done more to increase the take-up of modern foreign languages and, indeed, history than any other single measure undertaken by the Government.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

16. What recent progress he has made on his plans for capital investment in schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

For the current spending review period, we have a total capital budget of £17.1 billion. In December I announced capital for 2012-13, including £11 million for schools in Cornwall to provide new places and repair buildings.

[George Eustice]

Camborne Science and International Academy, which the Secretary of State will recall visiting last summer, has applied for permission to build some new science laboratories under the priority schools building programme. That will cost a fraction of the amount that was originally required under the Building Schools for the Future programme. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when schools have sharpened their pencils and identified savings in that way, they should be given some credit when their applications are assessed?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very deft case, very well put by my hon. Friend. I am well aware that, for a variety of reasons, a number of schools in Cornwall have missed out on the allocation of capital in the past. One of the things that I have learnt in this job is that sometimes when we publish lists of school buildings it is important to wait a wee while just to make sure that they are right.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Two outstanding schools in my constituency, The Bankfield and The Heath, are waiting for a decision on their capital bid applications, but an application has also been made for funds for a free school. Does the Secretary of State think that capital bids for existing schools that are in desperate need of cash should be given priority, or that a free school should be given priority?

[Michael Gove]

It is the judgment of Solomon, is it not? We must ensure that decaying fabric is repaired, but we must also provide high-quality school places. It is not enough simply to invest in existing schools which may or may not be providing high-quality education; it is also critical that we provide a gateway for people who are going to raise the quality of state education through innovative new ways of helping children to do better.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

17. What steps he has taken to offer guidance to the parents, pupils, governors and teachers of (a) Wilbarston Church of England primary school in Kettering constituency and (b) other schools in England on becoming an academy.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

Although Wilbarston Church of England primary school may be interested in becoming an academy, as of Friday no formal application had been received. If and when such an application is made, the Department will provide the school with a named contact to help it through the process. That applies to all schools in England which apply to become academies.

[Mr Hollobone]

Mrs Andrea Cruse, the head teacher of Wilbarston primary school, and Mr Lawrence Dale, the chair of the governors, have requested me to ask the following supplementary question: “What advantages are there for a small, successful primary school which has always enjoyed a productive and beneficial relationship with the local authority in severing those ties to become an academy?”

[Mr Gibb]

There is no need for the severing of any ties with local authorities, and that school is free to continue its good relationship with its local authority. The key advantage of becoming an academy is the professional autonomy that comes with academy status, which is valued by heads and teachers alike. They are free to innovate, and they have control over the element of their budget that is currently spent on their behalf by the local authority.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

18. How many additional children will become eligible for the pupil premium in (a) St Austell and Newquay constituency and (b) Cornwall in the next financial year.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

Our latest estimate, based on the numbers in the January 2011 census, is that 2,970 children will be eligible for the main deprivation and service premium in the St Austell and Newquay constituency, and that 16,050 will be eligible in Cornwall. We will not know how many pupils will be eligible for the pupil premium next year until the number of eligible pupils from the January 2012 school census is confirmed in June.

[Stephen Gilbert]

Representatives of the Newquay association of primary heads, to whom I spoke on Friday, tell me that the pupil premium is making a real difference on the front line, but they are finding it difficult to access the additional support for children in care. How could that process be made swifter?

[Sarah Teather]

It is extremely clear that the local authority must pass down to the school the money for every child eligible for the pupil premium, regardless of whether that child is at a mainstream school or an academy. I am happy to investigate specific cases where there are difficulties, and I invite my hon. Friend to write to me with any details.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

19. What support his Department offers to schools that wish to seek academy status.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The Government will help every school that wishes to become an academy, because evidence shows that children do better when schools have the freedom to make their own decisions. The Department has published on its website comprehensive information and guidance on becoming an academy. All schools that apply to become an academy are provided with a named contact within the Department to support them through the conversion process. Schools are also able to apply for a grant to support them with the costs of conversion.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful for that reply, and I am pleased to be able to tell the Minister that two schools in my constituency have become academies, and they are doing well. However, should not the decision on whether to seek academy status be left entirely to the school and its local community rather than those schools being pressed and bullied, which is becoming far too frequent, particularly in relation to primary schools?

[Mr Gibb]

There is no bullying going on and schools are free to adopt academy status, but the Secretary of State and I are clear that we cannot allow schools that have underperformed year after year to continue to do so. That is why we are engaged in a process of working co-operatively with local authorities to convert underperforming schools—particularly the 200 worst performing primary schools—and to bring in an experienced academy sponsor to ensure that the children, who are often in the most disadvantaged parts of the country, have a proper education at long last.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

The Darwen Aldridge Community Academy is a school in my constituency that has already achieved academy status. It recently applied to set up a studio school through the same foundation. Will the Minister update the House on when we will have a decision on the first round of bidding for studio schools, and how many applications there have been?

[Mr Gibb]

No numbers have yet been announced, but we will announce figures in due course. I wish that project every success. We need a school system that is diverse and that offers a range of educational opportunities to address all children’s interests and abilities.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Last week I issued some direction on how we can encourage local authorities to prioritise the concerns of children in care who need to be adopted; today my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has issued a written ministerial statement on raising the quality of apprenticeships; and later this week we will be saying more about how we can help children in the weakest primary schools to aspire to a stronger education.

[Mr Burrowes]

On the subject of apprenticeships, may I thank the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning for his support of apprenticeship standards in his recent visit to my constituency? Could that enthusiasm be extended to support the expansion of the Department’s Let’s stick Together pilot programme, which recognises the value in respect of outcomes of mums and dads sticking together?

[Michael Gove]

I know that the Minister of State enjoyed his visit to Enfield, Southgate and was impressed by the quality of apprenticeships being offered to young people there. I also know that my hon. Friend has been a principal campaigner for supporting the family, and the voluntary organisation he mentions is just one of a number that we need to support in the valuable work they do in helping parents to do right by their children.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to read the Daycare Trust’s child care costs survey published today? The trust concludes that extending free early education to 2-year-olds is a step in the right direction, but that cuts to tax credit support and local child care services are two steps backwards. We know that in many areas breakfast clubs have been cut and children’s centres closed. As a matter of urgency will the Secretary of State conduct an audit of child care places across England?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I have not yet had a chance to read the report, but I look forward to doing so. May I take this opportunity to thank the Daycare Trust for the work it has done? It is important that we recognise that the additional investment that has been secured in extra places for disadvantaged 2-year-olds—championed by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), and delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister—has done a great deal, but there are issues that we all need to address to ensure that regulation does not increase the cost of child care and, in particular, that the very poorest have access to the highest quality child care.

[Stephen Twigg]

The Daycare Trust says that cuts to tax credits are forcing families out of work and into poverty. According to The Times this morning’s, the Secretary of State is one of three senior Conservatives who have plotted to scrap the child poverty measure. Might this be another example of the “friendly fire” to which the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), referred? Instead of trying to move the goalposts by changing the measure of child poverty, is it not time to change course?

[Michael Gove]

I have often been tempted to move the goalposts, as a Queens Park Rangers fan, but I realise that the situation is more serious than that. The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the importance of making sure that we tackle child poverty. Following on from the work done by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and the recent work done by the Government’s adviser on social mobility, Alan Milburn, I believe that the really important thing to do is ensure that when we target child poverty we recognise not only an income measure but access to quality services. That is why it is so important that we make sure that more child care places are available and that those places have people of high quality and good qualifications supporting children to do better.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

T2. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement that further education colleges are to be reclassified as private rather than public bodies demonstrates the genuine progress that the Government have made to free colleges from unnecessary central control?

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

Yes, and I have a letter here confirming what my hon. Friend said: the Government have achieved what we set out to do, which was to free further education and sixth-form colleges from unnecessary intervention. The Office for National Statistics decision provides a resounding confirmation of our success in that regard. We are seeing colleges that are trusted, free, ambitious and, at last, treated as grown up.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all deeply grateful to the Minister of State.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

T7. May I welcome today’s decision by the Secretary of State to allocate £2.7 million to English Heritage to encourage schoolchildren to access local history sites, which is often the best way of helping young people to understand history? Does he now regret the Government’s decision to slash English Heritage’s funding by one third and the absurd decision to leave Stoke-on-Trent, the birthplace of the industrial revolution, off the list of pathfinder sites?

[Michael Gove]

Funding for English Heritage is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. I have never known him to make a wrong decision in his life, so I cannot imagine that he has done anything other than find the funding that English Heritage requires in order to do its superb job even better. As for Stoke, I have a confession to make. The hon. Gentleman invited me to the potteries and I welshed on the deal. I would love to come to Stoke, because I am a huge fan of that city and its contribution to our industrial heritage, and of the way in which he has championed its role as a model both of how we can improve education and of urban regeneration.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the Secretary of State meant “reneged” rather than “welshed”.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T4. Does the Minister agree that the National Audit Office report’s conclusion that supporting apprenticeships, such as through the excellent Beartown apprenticeship scheme in my constituency, which partners schools, local businesses, the chamber of commerce and Plus Dane, can generate a return of £18 for every £1 invested? Does that not confirm the Government’s wisdom of putting apprenticeships at the heart of vocational learning?

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that fact. As she says, the NAO report, which I have with me, is absolutely clear: for every £1 we spend on apprenticeships, we get a return of £18. Can you think of any aspect of Government policy that represents better value for money than that, Mr Speaker?

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

T8. To be topical, just a moment ago the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), rightly pointed out the importance of the English baccalaureate in encouraging young people at secondary school to learn modern languages. In order to gain the baccalaureate, young people also have to do well in maths, science and a humanities subject—history or geography. Why not also include religious education as a possible subject here?

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

There has been a large written campaign about religious education and I should make the point that we regard RE as a very important part of the curriculum, as it provides a rigorous subject. However, its study is compulsory until 16 and we were concerned that if we had included it as part of the humanities element, weaker schools would have dropped history or geography and focused only on RE. We want a broad and balanced curriculum taught in our schools, including not only a humanities subject, such as history and geography, but RE.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

T3. The National Audit Office’s conclusions about apprenticeships are very welcome indeed, but can the Minister assure the House that young people who live in truly rural areas are also benefiting from the scheme?

[Mr Hayes]

My own constituency is one of those truly rural areas—true in every respect—that have benefited. In my constituency, the figure is 86%, in Banbury 33%, in Suffolk Coastal 56% and in Mid Norfolk 59%—across rural Britain, apprenticeships are growing.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and the whole House will recognise the deprivation in Newham, Tower Hamlets, Haringey and Hackney. Why, then, has the Secretary of State decided to give more money in his pupil premium to Oxfordshire, Surrey and Devon?

[Michael Gove]

We have not. The pupil premium goes to every child eligible for free school meals and is allocated precisely according to need.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

T5. During a recent visit to a primary school in Clacton, the head teacher raised with me her concerns about Department for Education guidelines issued in March 2005 on the administration of non-prescription drugs by teachers to those in their care. The guidelines appear to rule out, for example, giving a paracetamol to a child in need of a paracetamol. Is that really the case? It does not seem very common sense or very big society.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I must pay tribute to the trade unions, who have been raising, in a similar tone to my hon. Friend, their perplexity that some of the rules and regulations about the administration of medicines are simply too bureaucratic.

May I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for correcting my vocab earlier? I would hate to be thought guilty of Cymryphobia, especially as someone married to a Welsh girl.

[Mr Speaker]

We are very grateful to the Secretary of State for that, for his knowledge and, indeed, for his pronunciation.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Rochdale will get a real-terms increase of less than 1% in its early intervention grant in the next financial year, despite being 25th in the indices of deprivation. Surrey Heath, home to the Secretary of State, is the third least deprived area in the country, yet the local authority is getting a real-terms increase of 7.2%, the biggest of all local authorities. Will the Secretary of State explain to Rochdale people why that is the case when that funding is supposed to tackle deprivation?

[Michael Gove]

It is a fair point, but we are using the formula for allocating money designed by the Government so enthusiastically supported by the hon. Gentleman over 13 years.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

T6. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the strong partnership working between MidKent college, based in my constituency, and the university of Greenwich, BAE Systems and the Royal Engineers to bring a university technical college to Medway?

[Michael Gove]

That sounds like a model of the type of collaboration between local government, industry and schools that we would like to promote and that we are happy to see flourishing under the coalition Government.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Warm words and policy documents—and even Latin—are useless if they are not backed by action. Does the Minister consider that local authorities that have cut youth services completely are providing a sufficient service and, more important, what is he going to do about it?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would know that I have said exactly what we are doing about it. We are issuing a consultation in the next two weeks based on the findings that we have had back from youth services, youth workers and voluntary youth organisations. What matters—as I made clear, and as I hope she will agree—is what young people are saying and their experiences. We are giving them the power and the voice to be able to assess and audit their local youth offer, wherever it comes from, and that is a really important development.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

T9. The Secretary of State will remember his visit to the wonderful Wellington academy, of which I am a governor. The Wellington academy is not eligible for the Teach First scheme, but we are very interested in setting up our own version of it. What advice could he give us?

[Michael Gove]

I was tempted to say, “Come up and see me sometime.” My hon. Friend and I should meet, because Teach First is expanding and it is expanding nationwide. We have tripled the funding for that admirable charity and the organisation received plaudits from all three major parties in their election manifestos. We want to ensure that schools that serve very challenging areas, as that academy does, benefit from the superb work done by the organisation.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

Students who have taken the English baccalaureate and been successful do not understand why they cannot have some acknowledgment of that success in the form of a certificate. The Department for Education website states:

“We are not currently issuing certificates. We are examining possible arrangements for issuing certificates and will confirm decisions in due course.”

Can the Secretary of State tell me when that decision is likely to be made, because students in Stockport would welcome the opportunity to have a certificate?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for the English baccalaureate. We are talking to schools about how we can best recognise those students who succeed in the baccalaureate and generally.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Given the importance of the UK science base to our innovation economy, does the Minister agree that we need to do all we can to support basic science learning in the curriculum and to inspire our young scientists through industry? Will he join me in welcoming the Sir Isaac Newton maths and science free school in Norfolk and my campaign for a Norfolk science day to bring industrial researchers together with our teachers?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, I have to say that Miss Rachel de Souza, the head teacher of the Ormiston Victory academy, who I understand is behind this initiative, is a visionary school leader. I absolutely agree that we need to do more to recognise how we can encourage mathematical and scientific learning among young people. The model of the 16-to-18 maths free schools, with which Ormiston Victory academy is engaging, is one of many ways of encouraging that helpful trend.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

In respect of the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on early intervention, do the Government accept that progress in education and the putting into place of their plan in response could be undermined if there are not sufficient assessments in the health service? Can we look forward to greater integration?

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

Making sure that services join together properly is absolutely key to getting early intervention right. That is precisely why we are rolling out 4,200 extra health visitors and making sure that they work very closely with Sure Start children’s centres. That is really critical. Similarly, the work we are doing on reforming the early years foundation stage, making sure there is more information available to parents, and the check at two and a half-years will really help with all the points the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I welcome the reforms to reduce the amount of paperwork that teachers have to complete, but may I ask the Secretary of State to focus particularly on newly qualified teachers? The amount of paperwork they have to complete in that first year is putting good entrants off joining this important profession.

[Michael Gove]

That is a typically acute point from my hon. Friend. We are seeking to reform initial teacher training at the moment to make sure that there is more practical, hands-on experience of the classroom and that we reward high-flying graduates who want to enter the noblest of professions.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Could the Minister tell the House how many civil servants at the Department for Education are working on the introduction of free schools?

[Michael Gove]

About 100. I popped into the Department on Saturday to see them as many had chosen, voluntarily, to work over the weekend. It is often the case in newspapers and elsewhere that criticism is directed towards public servants and public service, but the fact that people chose, of their own free will to come in and work to ensure that new schools could be established in areas of deprivation was for me an inspiration. It made me proud of the fact that I am the Secretary of State in a Department that has so many brilliant people working for it.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

The number of apprentices in the north-east has gone up from 18,000 to 34,000 in my area. I added one when I became the first MP to employ an apprentice in my Hexham office. What more can the Minister responsible for apprenticeships do to encourage others, including MPs, to take on apprentices?

[Mr Hayes]

The answer is simple: we must evangelise the case for apprenticeships with all our might and power. It is about numbers but it is about standards too. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to our actions to raise standards, get small businesses involved and let people know that all this is good for apprentices, good for businesses and good for Britain.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been contacted by one of my constituents who adopted a child from care. She faces losing the only support she gets from the state—her child benefit. Given that the Secretary of State wants more people to adopt children from care and that they often have many needs that are ongoing for X number of years, will he put aside more money to support such children and their families in the years ahead?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very good point. One thing we are looking at is how we can improve support for parents who do the right thing and adopt. We are looking at a range of ways of doing that. We are also looking at ways in which everything from the schools admissions system to the training of social workers can help to support those parents who are doing such a fantastic job by adopting children.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

I have previously raised concerns about the way in which creativity and culture are being squeezed out of our schools. Tomorrow, in an attempt to resolve that problem, the Henley report into cultural education will be published. Will it get the Department’s full support and the funding needed for its implementation?

[Michael Gove]

I do not want to upstage the curtain call tomorrow at the Royal Opera House for the Henley report, and our response to it is being launched. However, with your permission, Mr Speaker, may I just say that Darren Henley has produced a fantastic report? The leadership shown by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), has been fantastic. The leadership shown by the Arts Council England, English Heritage and a variety of other groups that are interested in enriching the cultural life of the nation has also been wonderful. I am looking forward to the launch of the report, and I know that the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) has played a significant part behind the scenes in making it so good.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

rose—

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Time is against us, but I want to call someone who has not asked a question. I have a choice of two. I know the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) will forgive me on this occasion. I call Jessica Lee.

[Jessica Lee]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate all those at Long Eaton school in Erewash on the recent opening of the Malcolm Parry observatory? It is exactly the sort of innovative project that will encourage budding scientists of the future, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would like to give his seal of approval.

[Michael Gove]

Not only would I like to give my seal of approval, but I hope to visit Long Eaton before too long.

Petition

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I am delighted to have the opportunity to present this petition on UK aid on behalf of my constituents. The signatures were gathered mainly through local churches, and I particularly wish to thank Rev. Robin Hill from Longniddry and Gladsmuir parish churches for his support.

The petition states:

The Petition of citizens of the United Kingdom,

Declares that while around the world UK aid has already made an enormous difference in helping people lift themselves out of poverty, we must not stop now.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enshrine in law their commitment to spending 0.7% of national income on aid by 2013.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001009]

Points of Order

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

15:35

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You might have seen in the past few weeks exchanges between the Prime Minister and me regarding the need for a stalking law. I chaired a parliamentary inquiry in which all parties were represented and whose membership was drawn from both Houses of Parliament. The report, which is evidence-based and has some firm conclusions, was available in the Vote Office until last week, when the authorities said the copies should be taken down and no longer offered to Members of Parliament. How can I ensure the widest possible readership of this very important document? I want it to be read from Tydweiliog to Twickenham—I think it is vital that everyone reads it. Where can I display it for that purpose?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. As I know he, as an experienced Member, will readily understand, the reports of all-party parliamentary groups are not official papers of the House. The Vote Office stocks only official papers and, very occasionally, other documents directly relevant to a debate on the Order Paper.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to make his report more widely known. May I politely suggest that he has just very effectively started to achieve his objective? If he wishes to e-mail the said document to all Members, I suspect that there will be an eager audience, and for my part I will be at or close to the head of the queue.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you look again at the decision by the House of Commons Commission to charge people for going up Clock Tower to see Big Ben, which would cost a family of four up to £60? Are there not other ways of saving money, such as not publishing Hansard and other publications daily, but instead publishing them online? Will you please look at this again, so that we ensure that we are a Parliament for the many, not the few?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. I am bound to say at the outset that this is not a point of order about proceedings of the House; nevertheless, he has raised the point in good faith and it warrants a response.

It would of course be unthinkable to charge members of the public for access to the proceedings of the House and its Committees, or to meet their Members of Parliament. However, Clock Tower tours are special tours, allowing access to an area of the Palace that, realistically, cannot be open to all. The charges agreed by the House of Commons Commission are set at a level that will cover the costs—I emphasise: cover the costs—of providing the tours. No profit will be made. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman, but if he wishes to pursue the matter further my advice to him is that he should in the first instance take it up with the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that on 12 January this House passed unanimously a motion relating to pub companies that called for the Government to commission a review of self-regulation of the pub industry in autumn this year, to be conducted by an independent body approved by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. In a response to a written question, I have been informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), that the Government propose to ignore the will of the House. Is it in order for the Government to vote in favour of something and then act in entirely the opposite way? What is the point in having votable Back-Bench motions if the Government are going to agree to one thing in debate and do the polar opposite afterwards?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving me notice of it. The question of taking action in these circumstances, consequent upon a debate and vote, is a matter for the Government; it is not a matter for the Chair. There are, however, other courses open to the hon. Gentleman, and I know that those at the Table in front of me and in the Table Office will be ready to advise him. Indeed, unless my eyes deceive me, he has already availed himself of that course of action. I hope that he will persevere with that approach, and I feel sure that if he is not satisfied I will hear from him again.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that endorsement. I do not know whether you still read The Daily Telegraph, but page 4 of today’s edition states:

“Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will announce new rules this week meaning migrants working in the UK must earn at least £35,000 a year if they want to stay longer than five years.”

If that is the case, it represents a significant change in public policy that we would all expect to have been announced to this House first, rather than to the national newspapers. That is bad enough, but I understand from two journalists that the Home Office is preparing a briefing session on this policy for journalists tomorrow, which will be embargoed until Wednesday morning so that it can appear in the Wednesday newspapers and be discussed on the Wednesday morning television programmes, before the House of Commons has an opportunity to question Ministers. Will you investigate this matter, Mr Speaker, and ensure that Ministers at the Home Office are not shy and careless about coming to the House and that they come here first? We should know about these matters before the newspapers do.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I read a variety of newspapers, but I have not read the story to which he refers. Embargoed press briefings are not a new phenomenon, although they do carry considerable dangers. The Government are well aware of my view, which I have reiterated on innumerable occasions, that major policy announcements should not be made public before they have been reported to this House by way of a statement or, conceivably, by other means. I will reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said about what might be planned for tomorrow, and I suggest that all those potentially engaged in the activity to which he has referred should reflect very carefully upon it between now and then. I hope that that is clear and helpful.

Estimates Day

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[4th Allotted Day]

Vote on Account 2012-13

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Olympics and Paralympics (Funding)

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Documents: The oral evidence taken by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 14 and 21 December 2010, HC 689-i and -ii, 17 May 2011, HC 689-iii, 15 November 2011, HC 689-iv, and 24 January 2012, HC 689-v.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—

(1) resources, not exceeding £2,705,167,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1756,

(2) resources, not exceeding £390,871,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a sum, not exceeding £2,660,065,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Dunne.)

15:43

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to debate the funding of the Olympics and Paralympics, although I hope that you will be generous in allowing us to examine the wider benefits that will flow from the funding of the Olympics.

It is now nearly seven years since the day on which it was declared that London would be the host city for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games, and I suspect that almost everyone will remember where they were and their reaction when the news was announced. It was undoubtedly fantastic news for Britain, and it was rightly celebrated, but I think that quite a lot of us also thought, “Oh dear, what do we do next?” One of the things that the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, which I chair, decided to do was to hold regular sessions to monitor and scrutinise the work being done to prepare for the greatest sporting event that this country has held. Over the past seven years we have held annual sessions with the chairmen and chief executives of the Olympic Delivery Authority and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—first the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) and now my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt).

It is worth observing at this point that one of the striking things about the policy towards and preparation for the Olympics is that not only did London’s bid enjoy cross-party support from the start, but in all the time since it was announced as the host city, despite occasional, small differences across the Chamber, which were inevitable, in the main both parties have worked well together. Certainly, I believe that my party did what it could to support the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood when she was Secretary of State, and since then she has worked with us to ensure that the preparations go ahead smoothly and are not marred by partisanship or political point scoring. We have now—[Interruption.] I am reminded by a cough that that applies not just to the two main parties. I pay tribute to the support and work throughout the entire seven-year period of the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who has been a stalwart on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

We are now only 151 days away from the start of the games, so it seems an opportune moment to debate the progress that has been made and how close we now are and to focus, in particular, on what we hope to achieve by hosting them. Inevitably, attention initially focused very much on questions of funding and how we would afford to pay for the games. Indeed, there was some anxiety about whether we could finish the work in time for the games—something that has caused concern for previous host cities.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

One of the concerns, if not of many Members of the House, then of many people outside it, is that very little attention seems to have been paid at the beginning to how much this would all cost. Various figures were bandied around at that juncture, and £2.5 billion was suggested as the cost of the overall package. I accept that it is good that we have the games and that there is unity across the House about that, but it is equally important that there is an open debate on funding and other related issues, particularly the question of whether there will be the legacy we all hope for in that part of east London, which we will not have a definite answer to for at least another decade. One of the concerns at the outset—of course, that was a very different economic time—was that there was very little scrutiny of the whole funding issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Gentleman speaks for two cities, as opposed to a smaller area, a degree of economy when intervening from now on would be appreciated.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to disagree with him, but although he may well be right that perhaps insufficient attention was paid to funding outside in the wider world, I can assure him that the Select Committee paid close attention to it. I will deal with that in more detail, as it is the prime focus of the debate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The previous Select Committee, on which I served, spent a great deal of time trying to examine the finances and on one specific issue: transport in London. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many people in London will be extremely irate if the special lanes that are set aside for International Olympic Committee and Olympic traffic are used by Ministers and others seeking to have an easier time of it in a very difficult city and that it would be best if people avoided such conflicts of interest?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I agree that transport is going to be one of the great challenges, and it is one to which I shall refer and about which, I suspect, other Members will want to talk. I agree also that the reserved lanes have the potential to cause a great deal of irritation to people sitting stationary in traffic jams next door to them. I am sure that it is something my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, too, is keenly aware of, and he may wish to speak about it when he responds later.

[Mark Field]

On that related point, sensibly most people recognise that there are huge security issues around the Olympic games that mean that Heads of State and Ministers will need to be looked after. The bigger concern that I have, unlike the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is that a whole lot of flunkeys, hangers-on, junior people with the International Olympic Committee and sponsors are going to get that VIP treatment, when there is no necessity for the security to which I refer.

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend brings up the other issue that is causing some anxiety, security, which I am sure we will discuss as well. To a certain extent, the IOC rules, which have proven to be quite challenging in several different aspects throughout our preparation for the games, dictate some of the issues, but again I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to discuss that.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Public Accounts Committee examined all the finances. People do not mind so much the cost or the special lanes; the thing that really irritates them—what they are fed up with and I am fed up with—is that we applied for tickets but none of us got any bloody tickets! They are all going to the flunkeys and corporate people, so what is the Minister going to do about that?

[Mr Whittingdale]

The third issue, besides transport and security, that I was going to and, indeed, still intend to come on to, is ticketing, which I understand has caused some irritation as well. In that particular regard, however, LOCOG was in an appallingly difficult situation, which I shall come to in greater detail in due course. It was going to be criticised almost whichever way it played the situation.

[Mark Field]

Without wishing to pre-empt a fourth issue, which may come up as well, I just want to say briefly on security that we all recognise that events within 24 hours of our winning the bid in July 2005 meant that the security situation was going to be very different. Although I have, and have long had, concerns about the burgeoning funds for the Olympic games, I recognise equally that we are in a different security position, which therefore inevitably has a cost implication well beyond that which we anticipated back in July 2005.

[Mr Whittingdale]

One of the extraordinary things about how much has been achieved in preparation is that the world is different in quite a number of ways from that of 2005. My hon. Friend is entirely right that the security picture has changed enormously and, I am afraid, for the worse, so it has required much more attention, but the other big change is the economic climate, and many funding issues have been influenced by the fact that the Olympic facilities have had to be built in the teeth of a severe global recession. That has also proved very difficult. One thing that we discovered in talking to previous organisers of Olympic games was that several could not have done so had their work coincided with a recession as deep as the one that we have experienced.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I give way to my colleague, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

I commend the work of the hon. Gentleman’s Committee over several years. He knows that 10,000 athletes will be guarded by 40,000 police officers and security agents, but during his deliberations was he satisfied that the 23,000 private security agents who are going to be involved had been properly trained to deal with the situation?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My understanding was that 23,000 was the figure for the number of security personnel, of whom a substantial proportion will be from the armed forces, but the Minister may be able to explain.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

I shall clear that one up straight away: 23,700 is the total man-guarding number. That comes from four sources: one is an additional commitment from the military here—from our own armed forces—of about 7,500; there is a contribution from the private sector, from G4S; there is a contribution from volunteers; and, finally, there is a contribution from a scheme called Bridging the Gap. That solution—let me give the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) complete assurance on this issue—was felt to be much less risky than looking for the entire balance from the private sector, and that was one of the key drivers behind the announcement that we made in December.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the precise position on the record. However, I am sure that we will come on to debate security at great length, and I want to say a little more about the cost of the games and how it is to be met, which is the area that we focused on to begin with.

The candidature file that was submitted to the IOC originally stated that the cost of staging the games would be £1.5 billion, and once inflation was taken into account that figure increased to an estimated £2 billion. That has largely remained unchanged. The current budget for staging the games is £2.16 billion, 36% of which will come from the IOC, 18% from sponsorship, 20% from ticket sales and 12% from official suppliers. The budget has just about been raised in its entirety, and there is left within it a contingency of £93 million, with risks identified of £88 million. The headroom left in the budget is pretty small; indeed, it was described by the chief executive of LOCOG as being very “finely balanced”. Nevertheless, the Government have so far indicated that they hope that the cost will come in within that figure—understandably, since they will have to fill the gap should it overshoot.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

How much will be spent on the two opening ceremonies and two closing ceremonies, and how many billions of people around the world does the hon. Gentleman estimate will watch them on television?

[Mr Whittingdale]

We examined the Secretary of State on the fact that the Government have doubled the budget for the opening ceremony. That has been subject to some criticism, because these are not easy times and a substantial amount of money—£80 million, I believe—is being put in. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman rightly observes, the occasion will probably achieve almost the greatest global television audience ever recorded, and all those people will be looking at London. This is a huge opportunity for us, and I therefore think it right that we should put on a pretty good show.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

It is also important to recognise the contribution of partnership organisations. In Medway, the Olympic training centre for two countries cost £11 million, and its funding process will be supported by the university of Kent, the council and Sport England.

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend makes a good point in indicating the benefits to his area. One of the challenges, which we have spent some time considering, is how the benefits of our hosting the games can be felt outside London, as the whole country should gain from it. His example of what is happening in Medway is a good illustration of that.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

Returning to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), does the Chairman of the Select Committee agree that spending roughly £80 million on a total of four major events—two opening and two closing ceremonies—will be seen by 4 billion people around the world as good value for money? Is he aware that Martin Sorrell has said that were we to pay for that sort of advertising, it would cost £5 billion?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As I said, although perhaps not as eloquently as he did, that is my view as well. This is a unique opportunity. The alternative—that we put on a poor show that was watched around the entire world—would be so damaging that it is right that we invest in it and make sure that we get it right. I am confident that, under the leadership of Danny Boyle, that is exactly what we will achieve. As I said, the budget for the staging of the games will be tight, but I hope that it can be achieved without cost to the taxpayer. Our initial hopes proved to be rather less accurate as regards the cost of building the facilities. The original candidature file put the cost of preparing for the games at £3.4 billion, of which £2.375 billion was to be spent by the Olympic Delivery Authority. In March 2007, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood came to the House and said that the public sector funding package would actually be £9.325 billion.

[Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman will also recall that when I came to the House in May 2005, before we went to Singapore, I made it clear that in the event of our winning the games, a complete review of the budget would have to be undertaken because of a number of uncertainties, such as the VAT status, the degree of contamination at the site and the extent of our regeneration ambitions. We made that review between 2005 and 2007. The budget as I published it in 2007 remains the budget.

[Mr Whittingdale]

Indeed it does. I was not seeking to criticise the right hon. Lady, but merely making an observation. She is right that one of the two main reasons given for the increase was that, rather surprisingly, VAT had been left out of the original calculation and there was some uncertainty over that.

[Tessa Jowell]

May I just deal with that point, which is tediously technical? When we compiled the budget, the status of the delivery organisation had not been settled. The definition of status could have placed the delivery authority on one side or the other of liability for VAT. If it had been, in effect, a local authority, it would not have been liable for VAT. It was judged not to be a proxy body for a local authority and was therefore liable for VAT. That was not clear until, having won the bid, we were able to nail down the role and function of the delivery authority.

[Mr Speaker]

We are now clear.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I recall having that debate with the right hon. Lady in the Select Committee at the time.

The other element that increased the budget dramatically was the inclusion of the programme contingency. The Select Committee spent some time examining that, because we discovered that the £2.7 billion programme contingency came on top of the contingencies that were built into each of the individual projects. That resulted in an overall contingency within the £9.3 billion budget of £3.5 billion. We observed that that was extraordinarily large. As it happens, it will almost all be spent.

To some extent, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was correct in setting, right at the start, the budget with a substantial contingency, which we all hoped would not be spent, rather than having to come back and increase the budget each time. There is no doubt that there would have been far more adverse publicity if the budget had gone up every single year. The then Government decided—I do not criticise them for this—to set a substantial budget with a large contingency right at the beginning, with the expectation, I imagine, that there was no possibility that it could be overrun. As it is, it will be pretty close, but I hope that the budget will be met.

[Hugh Robertson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although it is not for me to defend the previous Government, it is worth balancing what he says by saying that the money that was expected to come from the private sector for the athletes’ village and the broadcast and media centre was not forthcoming because of the financial situation. Despite the fact that everything he says is correct, it should be balanced by the fact that the Government are already in receipt of money for the sale of the athletes’ village and will, I hope, in due course be in receipt of money for the broadcast and media centre.

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend anticipates me. I was going to say that the clear reason why the contingency has been spent to a far greater extent than we had originally hoped was that the private sector contribution to the athletes’ village and the media centre simply failed to materialise and had to be met from the public purse. Recouping some of that money through future sales is still an issue of some interest to us, and I hope that the Minister might be in a position to say more about it.

There was always a degree of controversy about the extent to which the financing of the facilities would have to be met out of national lottery funding, and the impact that that would have on the lottery’s ability to fund projects in the rest of the country. We were always very clear that if the lottery was to meet a substantial part of the bill for hosting the Olympics, it would inevitably be less able to fund a lot of worthwhile projects elsewhere, and that some causes would therefore not get the funding that they otherwise deserved. For that reason, we expressed the hope that should the contingency not be fully spent, it could be given back to the national lottery. As it transpires, that will not be possible.

I still very much hope that even though the National Audit Office has expressed concern, the funding package will prove just about sufficient to meet all the costs. I am sure the Minister will want to say a few words about that if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr Speaker. I believe it is fair to say that it will be very tight. The NAO’s last estimate identified a residual risk of something between £127 million and £999 million, with the most likely risk being £318 million, to be met out of the remaining contingency of £354 million. That would leave 0.39% of the budget unspent, so I am afraid the national lottery will not get much from that source.

The Committee identified that future receipts from land sales could be used to compensate the national lottery, and the Government included such a provision in the funding agreement. That is still intended, I hope, to raise £675 million. Perfectly understandably, the Minister is reluctant to give a firm guarantee about that, given the uncertainty about the price of land, but I hope he shares my hope that that can be achieved.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the House should not regularly follow the precedent of sequestering money from the national lottery, since it is not general taxation, and that the lottery should be independent of the House? Does he therefore agree that it is important that the lottery is recompensed as much as possible for the funds that it put into the project?

[Mr Whittingdale]

Yes, I basically do agree with my hon. Friend, but the financing of the Olympics seemed to me a legitimate use of lottery funding, because it is a sporting event and that was one of the four good causes that the lottery was originally established to fund.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the area of east London that the money in question is helping to regenerate was in desperate need, and that if we had not had the Olympics, the regeneration of that area may have taken decades more? Does he agree that the economic development of an area that was quite blighted is a wider and possibly more important issue than reimbursing the lottery?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I completely accept the hon. Lady’s point. Indeed, that was one of the principal motivations for making the bid in the first place, and the Olympics will plainly have a dramatic effect on the area. A number of members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee visited the Olympic park in January, and it is absolutely extraordinary. The sporting facilities are world class, and I hope that they will have a lasting benefit and bring up the whole area in the way that she describes.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

As the then Sports Minister, I was able to go to Beijing, and one thing that concerned me was whether London could compare with what went on there. Having visited them, I know that the aquatics centre and velodrome are fantastic facilities. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that they are perhaps better than those in Beijing, so I believe that we have got value for money for the investment that was put in.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I do not know whether Beijing has ever published a final figure of the amount that it spent, but I think it is safe to say that it was rather greater than the amount that we will spend. That makes the hon. Gentleman’s point even stronger. I agree with him that some of the facilities that we saw when we went to the park are just as good as, if not better than, anything in Beijing. I heard the figure of £20 billion rumoured as the cost of the Beijing games, but I do not know whether that is entirely accurate.

[Mark Field]

While we are still talking about funding, I should like to endorse what the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said. It would be a missed opportunity if, in an effort to reimburse the national lottery fund, we were to lose moneys that would otherwise go to regeneration. That is their raison d’être in that part of London for the next 10 years.

May I say to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) that the independence of the lottery has long since been lost? The Big Lottery Fund, which was introduced under the previous Government, means that lottery funding goes, to a large extent, outside those main causes. It is also true that we put a significant amount of money into the millennium fund in advance of 2000. In many ways, that head was transferred into Olympic funding.

[Mr Whittingdale]

Indeed, although I would hope that one achievement of my hon. Friend the Minister will be restoring the lottery to its original purpose and putting the proceeds to the original good causes rather than to some of the causes that my hon. Friend rightly identifies.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous with his time. Surely he recognises the unhappiness that exists in places such as Perthshire and poor places such as inner-city Glasgow at the diversion of lottery funding and at the siphoning off of money from grass-roots sports organisations and good causes. This was probably not the best day for the national lottery or the best way to pay for the Olympics.

Mr Whittingdale: I believe that about 20% of the budget is coming from the lottery, which is a reasonably small amount. I also believe that that is a legitimate use. It is not fair to say that Scotland will receive no benefit—there will be benefits around the country. We can also look forward to the Commonwealth games, which I hope will be beneficial to Scotland in due course.

[Rehman Chishti]

rose—

[Mr Foster]

rose—

[Mr Whittingdale]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath, but I probably should make progress at some point.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. Does he agree that the initial costs could prove in the long term to be a saving to the state, because the sports legacy of the Olympics could deal with health inequalities?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his aspiration, although he identifies probably the hardest challenge for the Olympics to achieve.

[Mr Foster]

I apologise to the Chairman of the Committee for intervening a second time. Will he ensure that we have very clearly on the record the situation regarding the take from the lottery and good causes? He will recall that the previous Government initially wanted to take around £1.5 billion from the national lottery. There was a lot of concern about that, but they later requested a further £675 million. Many people were concerned about that further request, and it was agreed that that the additional £675 million would be returned. Will he therefore remind the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that £1.5 billion of lottery money has gone in to help him and will not be repaid?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right and I am grateful to him for spelling out the detail. That is exactly why the £675 million was identified.

It has rightly been said that legacy is the most important issue facing us. In the course of the Committee’s monitoring of preparations, we have visited a number of previous Olympic cities. In the past seven years, we have been to Athens, Barcelona, Seoul, Munich and Beijing, and have talked to the organisers of the Sydney and Los Angeles games. It is fair to say that none has achieved a successful, lasting legacy. Some cities have achieved some aspects, but the challenge for London was always to succeed where other cities had not.

The first challenge, which is obviously of interest to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), is on the facilities in east London. The Secretary of State told the House recently that six of the eight facilities now have identified tenants and uses, which leaves two. They are the two that have proved the most difficult—the stadium and the media centre. I suspect that we cannot yet say any more about how those two facilities should be used, but obviously the stadium is an extraordinarily expensive facility, and it is important that it is not just used for the Olympics and Paralympics and that we find future uses for it. All the members of the Committee who went to Athens and saw the grass growing out of the tarmac in the Olympic stadium came back determined to avoid such a thing here. I hope that the Minister will talk about that.

The other issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham rightly raised, is the harder task of creating a sporting legacy. Seb Coe, when he originally made the pitch, concentrated on the need to use the Olympics to inspire young people across the country to want to take up sport. The Government have not sustained the 1 million target, but nevertheless I welcome the Places People Play programme and the extra funding given to it. We are most anxious that when young people, watching inspirational sportsmen winning medals in whatever discipline on the television, think, “I’d like to take up that sport”, they should find it easy to do so. It is terribly important that we support local sports clubs, schools and sporting facilities right across the country, so that those facilities are there and we can get that immediate benefit from the inspiration that the games will undoubtedly bring to people.

I will quickly touch on three areas that my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), in particular, have mentioned. As I suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, ticketing was always going to be difficult. LOCOG could either have pitched ticket prices at such a level that anyone who wanted one would have been likely to get one, in which case it would have been criticised for setting prices too high, or it could have done what it did, which was to set prices at such a level that they were within the reach of most people, but as was entirely predictable, I suppose, demand massively outstripped supply.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, ticketing raised £527 million up to December 2011, and could have raised considerably more had it been based on a free-market approach. Given that the model of secondary ticketing has been banned in the Olympics and given the inspirational nature of the Olympics and other cultural and sporting events, does he agree that the same model should be considered for other events too?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend tempts me on to another topic that has occupied the Select Committee for hours and on which I could speak for some time, but I suspect that you might interrupt me, Mr Speaker, if I strayed too far from ticketing. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point.

[Mr Leigh]

I was not making that point. I said that the public do not understand—I am sure that my hon. Friend can reassure me on this—why, given that the taxpayer has paid for it all, so many tickets are being taken by the corporate people. That is what we cannot understand.

[Mr Whittingdale]

One reason is that financing and staging the games, which was not a cost to the public purse, required the attraction of sponsors, in which we have been very successful. However, that required that the corporate sponsors derived some benefit, and that was always going to include tickets.

[Hugh Robertson]

rose—

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend will be able to provide greater detail.

[Hugh Robertson]

Of the tickets available, 75% across the piece were available to the general public. That is a far higher percentage than has ever been available at any other games. Of the remaining 25%, 8% are available to sponsors, in their many different forms—corporate and government. In return, the private sector has provided more than £700 million of private sponsorship. That is a pretty fair deal.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am grateful to the Minister for supplying the figures that I did not have but which strongly demonstrate why this was necessary. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough that the 20,000 people who applied in the first and second rounds of ticket sales but failed to get any will be given priority over the remaining 1 million tickets about to go on sale. If he happens to be one of those who has been unsuccessful, he stands a good chance should he apply again.

[Mr Leigh]

I shall hold the Minister personally responsible.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I may come to regret giving that guarantee.

I understand that this issue is a cause for concern, but LOCOG has done as much as it can to ensure that everybody who really wants to attend the games will have the opportunity to do so.

I do not want to spend a great deal more time speaking. I shall merely note the two big challenges, which have already been raised. The first is security, which we have talked about at some length. Obviously the climate has changed since the original budget was set, but the issue will always be a matter of some concern, and I am sure that the Minister will want to say something about it. The second challenge is transport, which I know has occupied the attention of the Government; indeed, it has also caused some concern to the Committee. Even if we achieve the target of reducing journeys on the part of commuters and businesses by 20% on the busiest days—asking people to change their habits to that extent is quite a demanding target—that will still, we are told, lead to half-hour delays in getting on tube trains at certain stations. That is a measure of the difficulty that the issue has caused. Indeed, if there is one issue that is causing the most anxiety to those responsible for preparing for the games, it is transport, so I am sure that the Minister will want to say a bit more about it.

[Lyn Brown]

rose—

[Mr Whittingdale]

I will give way for the last time.

[Lyn Brown]

I should say that I am off to a European Committee shortly, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to get in quickly on the issue of transport. One of the biggest issues—which we are yet to resolve—for the community living around the stadium is which roads will be open and what special arrangements will be made for that community. Resolution of this issue is now desperately needed, and I hope that this afternoon’s debate might shed some light on that.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am sure that the Minister has heard the hon. Lady’s point and will attempt to shed some light on it, if possible.

[Mark Field]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Whittingdale]

This really will be the last time.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is very generous. Obviously there are concerns about what will happen with transport in July, August and September. However, it is also worth putting on record that it is greatly to the credit of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) and my hon. Friend the Minister that we have placed a lot of focus on getting the broader transport links in the area right. I hope that will augur extremely well for the legacy that we all wish for. There will be new docklands light railway stations and better transport in the area. I accept that there will be massive congestion during the Olympics, but those developments will stand us in good stead for the future.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I think what my hon. Friend says applies more generally. We hope not only that the London Olympic games and Paralympics will be a fantastic event that will be celebrated and enjoyed across this country and around the world, but that we will secure a lasting legacy that will certainly benefit east London and, I hope, people right across the country.

The Select Committee has inevitably concentrated on the areas of concern. We have identified where we think there could be problems and I hope we have done so in a way that has allowed them to be tackled. However, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and her party, the right hon. Member for Bath—whom I could not leave out—and my colleagues on the Front Bench on the work that they have all done. In particular, I also congratulate both the Olympic Delivery Authority, which has done a fantastic job in building such world-class facilities on time and, we hope, within budget, and LOCOG, whose main job is still ahead, but which has nevertheless done a huge amount of impressive work. I look forward to the rest of the debate, but I look forward even more to a fantastic games in July and August.

16:19

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

On 27 July, many if not most of my 90,000 constituents will join the 4 billion or so people around the world who will be watching the Olympics. Brighton, with its strong heritage of culture, media and sports, will be particularly pleased that the world’s eye will be on London and Great Britain as a whole. To those who do not welcome the additional investment, I say this: what kind of opening ceremony should we produce? Should we produce a substandard one for the rest of the world to see? Or should we do our absolute best and ensure that London and Great Britain are put firmly on the map?

I congratulate the whole Olympics team and my right hon. and hon. Friends on delivering the games on budget and on time—a remarkable achievement, which I very much welcome.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend congratulates the Government and other bodies on bringing the games here, but will he pay tribute to Sport England—an excellent and fantastic organisation, which has provided facilities and opportunities to some of the athletes who will be representing our country at the Olympics? At this point, I declare an interest as a parliamentary fellow for Sport England.

[Simon Kirby]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to what is an outstanding organisation.

I welcome the additional investment, and the UK can be proud of its success to date—and there can be no doubt that there has been considerable success to date. We can proud of what I am sure will be a fantastic games and proud of the legacy that the games will leave behind.

These Olympic and Paralympic games represent remarkable value for money, generating both financial benefits and other perhaps less tangible ones as well. The opening and closing ceremonies will be worth potentially £5 billion to the UK. When it comes to global promotion of our great capital city and our great country, this legacy of brand awareness will increase tourism and foreign business investment, which will sell the UK as a destination for many millions of people around the world. We have an interest in students from overseas looking at this brand—and I have to say that brand GB is great product and we should do all we can to sell it. Brand GB will have a huge knock-on effect for years to come. VisitBritain estimates that an additional 4.6 million visitors will visit this country over four years, creating 60,000 extra jobs and a spend of an additional £2.3 billion —a fantastic achievement.

Another part of the games legacy will be a physical legacy, with economic regeneration much needed in this part of east London. Jobs, businesses and money will be created, and the post-Olympic games has the potential to be every bit as exciting as the games themselves.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. He mentions the benefits for east London, but does he recognise that one of the great benefits of the Olympics will be through the sports centres that are being developed as training centres around the country? In Medway, for example, we have Medway park, where Senegal and the Republic of the Congo will be training. This is a socially and economically deprived area, so children from different backgrounds will be inspired to take part in sport.

[Simon Kirby]

As usual, my hon. Friend is right, and I suspect that very few parts of the country will be unaffected by the games. Many young people in Brighton and Peacehaven are involved with sport at a grass-roots level, and I believe the Olympics will act as a catalyst to increase participation and improve health up and down the country.

[Mike Weatherley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that just the sight of the torch going through places such as my constituency of Hove will inspire people?

[Simon Kirby]

I agree. I am sure the torch will light up Hove and act as a beacon for the Brighton and Hove area.

Incidentally, I spent some time this morning at the Meridian school in my constituency in connection with Brighton and Hove Albion’s excellent Albion in the Community project. Sport has always had an ability to reach across barriers and to communicate in a way that few things can equal. It is able to resonate with people of all ages. I welcome that aspect of the games, and of the funding that we are discussing.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Must we not ensure, however, that the inspiration and the benefits of the Olympics are experienced by every region of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland?

[Simon Kirby]

I am sure that many people in every part of the United Kingdom will enjoy watching the games, either in person or on the television, or enjoy the economic benefits that will no doubt be experienced throughout the country. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point.

We should be very proud of our Olympics, because they are our Olympics. We should be proud to fly the flag for our country, and to advertise our nation. It was said in days gone by that the sun never set on the British empire. Our Olympic and Paralympic games will, I am sure, be a huge success, and their influence and impact will also shine around the world. These games will celebrate sport, they will celebrate competition, and, perhaps most important of all, they will celebrate our great country—as a great place to visit, a great place to invest, and a great place to study.

16:31

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), who—like, I hope, many other Members—has been supporting the Olympics and the Paralympics, but in particular ensuring that his own constituency has an opportunity to gain a lasting legacy from them.

The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), began his speech by saying that we probably all remembered exactly where we were at the moment when Jacques Rogge tore open the envelope and said “London”. I can tell the hon. Gentleman—in fact, he already knows—that I was in Singapore at the time, enjoying the celebrations. Even before we had won, there was a genuine cross-party consensus supporting first our bid, and subsequently all the work that has been undertaken to ensure that we experience—as I am absolutely certain we will—the most amazing cultural and sporting extravaganza in the Olympics and Paralympics later this year.

The reason the Liberal Democrats were especially keen to support the bid, and the work that has followed, was not particularly to do with a cultural and sporting extravaganza that would last for a few weeks. Our support was due to the fact that we truly believed that putting on such a fabulous show would provide a lasting benefit for every single part of the country, including Northern Ireland. I have often spoken in the Chamber about some of the things that have happened in the Olympics, but I want to say something now about the important work that is being done in Brighton and in many other places where local committees, under the umbrella of the Nations and Regions Group, have been planning activities that will ensure that there is a lasting legacy in their own communities.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend can remember where he was when that announcement was made. So can I: I was in my office in the Upper Committee Corridor North.

If the Olympic games are to be the success that we wish them to be in all four nations of the United Kingdom and in the regions, they must, from the opening ceremony onwards, be more than London-centric.

[Mr Foster]

I disagree with my hon. Friend. He says that that should be the case from the start of the Olympics, but I believe that all parts of the country should be benefiting from them now, and should have been benefiting from them for some years. I am sure he is aware of the opportunities that have already been provided for building and other contracts, and of the opportunity for schools to benefit through the Get Set programme. He will also be aware of the opportunities offered by the volunteering programme, and of the opportunities for cultural organisations and activities in his constituency and elsewhere to get the Inspire mark. I entirely agree that it is important that the benefits come not only to London but to all parts of the country, but we should also make the point that these benefits should have already started and that we hope they will continue for a long time.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I endorse all those points, but it is essential, in the opening ceremonies, that the nations of the United Kingdom believe it is their Olympics, not just London’s.

[Mr Foster]

I am sure Mr Danny Boyle is listening with great interest to the entirety of this debate and that he will have taken on board my hon. Friend’s comments, with which I entirely concur.

The quarterly report of the Olympic and Paralympic games is due to be published tomorrow, and I am optimistic that the figures will show that we continue to be on course to ensure we are within budget and that the building work will be completed on time. LOCOG and the ODA have already done a fantastic amount of work, not only in building the theatre, but in getting the show ready to be put on.

[Rehman Chishti]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the Olympics and Paralympics. Linked to that, we also have the British transplant games this year, which allow people with transplants to take part in sporting activity. Competitors will be using the excellent facilities in Medway park. We can therefore see the benefits of the legacy, as everyone will have a stake in such facilities.

[Mr Foster]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing attention to that important additional sporting event. The Special Olympics and a number of other important sporting activities are also taking place, ensuring that we give people from all sorts of backgrounds the opportunity to become involved.

[Rehman Chishti]

Last week, I attended a British transplant games event. These games make people aware of the benefits of organ donation, as they can see transplant recipients participating in sports.

[Mr Foster]

I am sure all Members are grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the importance of that event and the wider issue of transplant donation.

The figures to be published tomorrow will only show what has been spent on the national endeavour. They will not include the great deal of money that has been spent up and down the country in ensuring there is a legacy. For example, in my Bristol-Bath area I had the privilege of establishing Team West of England, now jointly chaired by me and the chief executive of the British Paralympic Association, Tim Hollingsworth. We have now been working for five years, with the support of our local councils and various businesses, to maximise legacy opportunity in our sub-region. As a result, in 2008 we were able to bring the UK school games to Bath and Bristol, thereby injecting £2.5 million into the local economy while also enthusing many businesses and schoolchildren. We have been able to ensure far more opportunity for inter-school sport competition. We have been able to provide taster sessions, enabling youngsters to find out about sports they did not know much about, and perhaps find one that truly excites them. We have also been able to engage large numbers of people, getting them involved in volunteering and providing them with training to give them the opportunity to become, perhaps, one of the games makers.

We have ensured that many businesses have developed the skills to be able to sign up for the CompeteFor website and, more importantly, to go on and win contracts with LOCOG and the ODA. We have helped to develop links with various national bodies, too. For example, the British Paralympic Association will locate its training camp at the wonderful Bath university sports facilities. The first deal done after we had won the Olympics was between Bristol university and the Kenyan Olympic team. It involved a 10-point plan, of which only one was that the training camp would be held in Bristol. That demonstrates the importance of legacy, because the deal included business links, other forms of sporting links, educational links between schools in Kenya and in Bristol, cultural links and many other things. Lots of things are happening locally in addition to the work that is going on nationally.

[Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks movingly of the legacy being put in place, particularly for young people in schools. As he mentions the Paralympics, does he agree that it is fantastic that, for the first time, Paralympic sports are being offered in schools as part of the legacy programme? That will offer unrivalled opportunities to disabled children, who in the past have not had such opportunities.

[Mr Foster]

The hon. Lady tempts me into a long peroration about the Paralympics. This country is the home of the Paralympic movement, and I am delighted that so much emphasis is being placed on it. The national media coverage by Channel 4 of those events will shine so much excitement into our homes, and I suspect that many Paralympic sports of which most people are currently unaware will become firm favourites in years to come. I often give a particular mention to the Paralympic sport of goalball in these debates, because I believe that many people will be talking about it in a few months’ time. She correctly says that it is all right having things done at the elite national level, but what is really important is making sure that our children with physical disabilities have an opportunity to participate and excel in sport, and to have competition in which they can demonstrate their excellence. That is why it is so good that the Olympic-style school games that has been developed by the Government includes Paralympic sporting activities. She is absolutely right to raise that issue.

Nationally, lots of legacies will flow from the games and from the funding that has been spent, and the high-profile ones have been adequately discussed by the Chair of the Select Committee. We have heard of the concerns about the security budget, which has increased significantly, but all hon. Members are well aware that the circumstances changed dramatically the day after we heard that we had won the bid, with the tragedy of 7/7. A more detailed analysis of the needs has shown that we now require 23,700 security people instead of 10,000, so the budget has inevitably increased. Everybody would welcome the fact that we have a team of people who have done fantastic work to ensure that these games are the safest they can be given the difficult circumstances, and most people would recognise the importance of providing that necessary funding.

As I mentioned in an intervention, the other thing that seems to be causing much concern, although I genuinely do not understand why, is the £41 million increase in the funding for the four ceremonies—the two opening and two closing ceremonies. That seems an awful lot of money, but we must bear in mind that 4 billion people will be watching, so we have an opportunity to showcase this country and there are potential benefits for tourism and business investment. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, we can all imagine how disastrous it would be if we got those four ceremonies wrong. So that is money well spent, and I welcome the decision to increase the funding.

We need to ensure that we have legacy benefits in the areas of sport, culture, business, tourism, education, volunteering, transport and regeneration. I am confident that there will be benefits in every one of those areas, not only in London, with the huge development and regeneration of part of east London, but in all parts of the country. If we look at any of those in detail, the House will see that real benefits are set to come. Let us consider, for example, the sporting legacy. Of course I expressed disappointment in the early days of this Government about the decision to reduce the funding for the school sport partnership scheme. That had the potential to damage the sporting legacy we could hope for from the 2012 games. Since that time, with the development of some of the other initiatives—not least the school games—we have made up lost ground. I welcome the fact that there are a stack of schemes to ensure that there is a legacy.

It is worth remembering that we have made a commitment as a Government that after the games we will continue to fund elite sport at a high level—the first Government ever to do so following a games. I welcome the fact that we have so many schemes to ensure that there are improved sporting facilities for our local communities, including the Places People Play programme, which I very much welcome, and the London 2012 Changing Places programme, and I also welcome the way in which so many schools have embraced not only the school games but the educational Get Set programme.

One thing that is rarely mentioned but deserves to be is something for which the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), deserves a great deal of credit as she, more than anybody, pushed for the international inspiration scheme. As well as funding activities in this country, we have been funding work around the world. When we were in Singapore, as I mentioned, the now chairman of LOCOG, Lord Seb Coe, said that we would

“reach young people all around the world and connect them to the inspirational power of the Games so they are inspired to choose sport…improving their lives as a result”.

Already, 12 million children around the world in 19 different countries have actively participated in sport, physical education and play as a direct result of that scheme, many of them for the first time; nearly 80,000 teachers, coaches and young leaders have been trained to lead sports and physical educational activities; and 21 legislative changes have taken place around the world influenced by the work we are doing.

These games are important, not just because they will be a fantastic sporting and cultural extravaganza for a few weeks in London and one or two other places, but because they will benefit every part of the country, providing a lasting benefit to our generation and to future generations. The money has been well spent.

16:47

[Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, particularly because it is rare in politics to find a topic on which one can speak with unbridled enthusiasm. This being an imperfect world, almost everything has its caveats, but that is not so with the London 2012 Olympics. I was privileged to be part of the inquiry undertaken by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport into the Olympic and Paralympic games—considering both the games and their legacy—and I can honestly say that in my brief time in this House, I have not come across anything else in politics so wholly impressive, unless it be the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is over there in the corner.

The revised £9.3 billion budget, as set by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), was sensible and sober and it remains intact. It is a slight pity that the right hon. Lady cuts an elegant but solitary figure on the Opposition Benches—although I am sure that, like Horatius, she will be able to hold the bridge against the ravening hordes on this side of the House, especially as there is so much good will towards her over the Olympic project.

With a project of this size and complexity, it is a fact that not everything will go right all the time. LOCOG practically doubled its security budget, adding £271 million to take that budget to just over £500 million in total. As we have heard repeatedly, the opening and closing ceremonies have also approximately doubled their budgets, adding £41 million to the cost. I would say that they are cheap at the price. The deal that had been in place for the Olympic stadium collapsed after legal wrangles, including a complaint about too much state aid being made to our wonderful partners in the European Commission, and a leasehold solution is now being sought, with either a football or non-football option. Tenants have not yet been found for the media centre—I am sure that the Minister will have something to add on that Subject—but the Department and the Olympic authorities are confident that some will be found in due course.

Although those budgetary revisions make the headlines in the papers and are the subject of frothing documentaries by Sky and articles in The Daily Telegraph, the enormous savings achieved by the Olympic Delivery Agency do not—surprise, surprise—cause so much comment. Since 2007 the ODA has managed to save out of its projected budget a total of £910 million. That is one reason why the overall budget envelope of £9.3 billion for the Olympics remains intact. Indeed, in the few months between July and September last year the ODA achieved £42 million in savings. Hon. Members with keen memories will note that that is £1 million more than the additional funding provided for the opening and closing ceremonies. Like a good housekeeper, the ODA is successfully managing its budget; perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will call on it to give him some advice on the difficult task before him next month.

The esteemed Chairman of our Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who has rather heroically remained in his place after his extended speech, in which he skilfully steered us through the inquiry on the Olympics, has said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with the typical forthrightness that is his hallmark:

“If it goes wrong, you are dead.”

Although the National Audit Office has said there is a “real risk” that more money will be needed, I am certain that the Secretary of State can sleep soundly in his bed. Everything our Committee has heard from LOCOG, the ODA and the legacy company indicates that the 2012 Olympics will be an unmitigated triumph—and, furthermore, that they will deliver a successful, sustainable community in Stratford, which will be of immense benefit to London, and indeed the entire country.

From the first tendering of our bid there has been incredibly successful management. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) has just mentioned the bid for the coverage of the Paralympic games, and many people were surprised that the preferred bidder was Channel 4 rather than the BBC. However, Channel 4 is another public service broadcaster—many people do not realise that—and with its edgy brand and appeal to young people it will really be able to showcase the Paralympic games as they have never been showcased before. As has been mentioned, six of the eight legacy venues have been disposed of before the games have even commenced. To put that in context, no other country that has delivered an Olympic games in modern times has come anywhere close to disposing of six out of eight legacy venues before the games even started. Currently the focus is on the disposal of the media centre and the Olympic stadium, but that is because they are the last two venues, and the two most difficult, of which we have to dispose. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was accused of being a “glass half full” person, he responded, quite rightly, that the glass was three-quarters full. I think we have to pay tribute to the legacy company for the incredibly successful way in which it is delivering the Olympic legacy.

I believe—I am prepared to stick my neck out on this right now—that our Olympics will be something that our country perhaps has not been used enough to in the recent past; a textbook case of our getting everything right. Rio de Janeiro is already looking at how we are doing things, and I believe that future hosts of the Olympics will come to Britain and ask how we did it successfully, on time, under budget and with a proper sustainable legacy that will carry us right through to the end of the legacy period in 2016 and beyond.

Hon. Members might remember the surprisingly strong reaction in this country to the London fireworks that opened 2012. There was surprise that for once we had done something really well, and—I hope the House will forgive my language—stuck it to Sydney by producing the best fireworks around the world. Although it was just for one night, there was a great sense of surprise and pride in our nation. Something as short as 12 minutes of fireworks on new year’s eve managed to achieve that, and I give all credit to the Mayor of London, for whom I am happy to be campaigning later this week, for delivering those fireworks. I am prepared to bet that the period of the Olympic and Paralympic games will deliver, on a much larger scale, that same glow of national pride —and perhaps slight national astonishment—that we have managed to pull the event off, as I believe we will.

Here we are, on an estimates day, talking about the cost estimates for the Olympics. In a way they are a difficult subject for us to debate, although it is easy to measure hard metrics, such as the economic benefits, direct and indirect, that will be brought to the country. For example, the Westfield Stratford shopping centre, which opened in September and is one of the largest shopping centres in Europe, would never have been built without the impetus created by the Olympic games. The centre is a fantastic facility for London in general and the people of Stratford in particular. We can measure that type of hard metric far more easily than we can the soft metrics such as happiness, and national and local pride.

In Corby and east Northamptonshire, which I have the privilege to represent, we are massively proud of our local contribution to the Olympics. Our Team GB gymnast, Daniel Keatings, who opened our international pool in Corby, will represent our country in the Olympics, and hurdler William Sharman is in training to qualify. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), I am delighted to be able to say that part of my constituency, Corby, is to be a host venue for the Olympic torch. We look forward to hosting the Olympic flame on 2 July, when the whole town will be out on the streets to welcome it. We plan a cheerleading and swimming display at our international pool, and any Member of the House who wishes to attend is welcome to do so. In the more rural part of my constituency, east Northamptonshire, inter-school games are marking the event. As a community, we have no doubt that although the games are located in London, they will bring their benefits to the heart of Northamptonshire, the rose of the shires.

When I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath, I mentioned that although Sport England’s 1 million figure may have been a little unrealistic, the amount of additional sporting participation that has been achieved is greatly to be welcomed. I especially welcome Sport England’s introduction of Paralympic events into schools. For far too long, our disabled children have felt left out of school sports, they have not had role models to aspire to emulate, and they have not felt part of the national conversation. The one-two punch of investment in school Paralympic sports and Channel 4’s no doubt innovative coverage of the Paralympic events will make a real difference.

We have not yet touched on the Cultural Olympiad, which has also been running since 2008. It has already involved more than 16 million Britons either as participants in workshops run by the Cultural Olympiad or as audience members, and will culminate in the London cultural festival in 2012.

The Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, mentioned how concerned we were to urge the Government to ensure that the opportunity is not lost to drive home the message at grass-roots level. The Committee has urged the Government to look at so-called red button technology, so that when a particular sport is being shown on the Olympic broadcasting channel and networks, people will be able to press the red button on their remote control to find clubs for that sport in their area. Someone watching volleyball, for example, can press the red button to see where and how they can get involved in the sport locally. Every year after Wimbledon, we see a surge in the number of young people enrolling in tennis clubs. It may not last long, as we tend to be eliminated in the quarter finals—I am sure that will change any minute now—but we do see that upsurge in tennis participation. Perhaps the Minister will say in his closing remarks how the Government intend to seize the opportunity to drive home the message about the opportunities that exist up and down the country for participation in sports that may not normally get their moment in the sun.

Although we have heard today about concerns about ticketing, I suggest that they are yet another metric of how successfully the Olympic games are being run. The fact is that there is massive demand for Olympic tickets, even for events where there is normally little demand.

That leads me neatly to a comparison between our games and those in Beijing. As we watched the television coverage of those games we saw vast swaths of empty seats during the various stadium events. The tickets had been given away to corporate sponsors who were not particularly interested in the games, or in some cases to people in provinces and regions of China who found it too difficult to travel into Beijing to attend the games.

I pay tribute to the London Olympics authorities for the way in which they have managed the ticketing. They are trying to make it as fair as possible and to give everyone a chance, but the fact is that demand for Olympics tickets outstrips supply. Neither the Government nor the nation should be upset about that; it is something that we should absolutely celebrate. I should also like to mention the innovative and imaginative way in which the Olympics authorities are trying to ensure that as many people as possible get to see their favourite Olympic sport on the day. They are going to copy the highly successful ticketing system introduced at Wimbledon last year, and anyone leaving the Olympic stadium will be able to hand in their ticket stub, enabling their place to be resold at face value to anyone who wishes to enter. That will ensure that there are no empty seats.

The Olympic authorities have also imaginatively targeted the people who are most likely to be interested in particular sports. For example, they have approached local hockey clubs first to ask whether their members would be interested in tickets for the hockey events. They have thus ensured not only that the seats will be filled during the Olympic games, but that they will be filled by genuine fans, rather than by people who have purchased tickets at vastly inflated prices from ticket touts. This is yet another metric of how well we are doing. If some, like myself, have not been fortunate enough to secure Olympics tickets—

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

[Louise Mensch]

What do you mean, “Hear, hear”?

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment. I, too, did not succeed in my repeated bid for tickets. Does she, however, share my excitement at the prospect of up to 1 million tickets coming to those of us who failed on the first two occasions?

[Louise Mensch]

I do share my hon. Friend’s excitement, and I hope that she and I will be fortunate. If we are not, however, I suggest that that will be a small price to pay for having a well-ticketed, well-attended Olympics that genuine fans can get into. If there is some disappointment, it is only because these Olympics are being run in an absolutely fantastic manner and because the whole country is engaged with the desire to see and participate in them.

Marketing Week has estimated that during the entire 11-year period from the build-up to the end of the designated legacy period in 2016, the gain to the country as a whole from the Olympics will be £36 for every man, woman and child. I almost hesitate to read out the figure for those living in London: the gain to them will be £787 per person. In pure hard cash terms, that is a phenomenal return on investment. However, many right hon. and hon. Members have said that we cannot measure the success of the Olympics in bread, or money, alone.

These Olympics represent a chance in a lifetime for our great capital city and our country as a whole. More or less every penny of that £9.3 billion will be money well spent. The House and the nation are already looking forward to celebrating Her Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee earlier in the summer, and I can honestly say that when we couple the diamond jubilee with the Olympic and Paralympic games, this is going to be a great summer for Great Britain.

16:59

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on the Olympics estimates. It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Louise Mensch). I read her contribution to the Select Committee debate—it provided interesting research material for today’s debate, which has been interesting so far.

I congratulate the previous Government not only on securing the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games but on setting a realistic estimated budget for the delivery of the games. Their announcement, in March 2007, of an increase from the initial estimate of £2.3 billion at the time of the bid to £9.3 billion attracted unwelcome and negative comment at the time, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) said, it is probably much better to announce a large increase in one go than to announce incremental increases over time, and we welcome the fact that they did so.

However, even with the cost savings announced in May 2010 and the recent increase in the security allocation, the estimated budget looks about right. That is important, because previous games have ended up two or three times over budget and in these times of financial constraint it is essential that British taxpayers do not feel that they have overfunded a sporting event.

What is clear—this is why it is important that we welcome the realistic setting of the funding package—is that, although we must not overspend on what is essentially a sporting event, we must not underfund it either. The Olympics are not just any old sporting event; they are the world’s greatest sporting event. More than 200 nations will compete in some form of Olympic game and the event will be watched by a global audience of billions. The 2008 Beijing Olympic games had an estimated global audience of 4.7 billion, which was significantly higher than the 3.9 billion achieved in Athens in 2004. I see no reason why London 2012 will not achieve something around the 4 billion mark, so the world will literally be watching our ability to stage the games. It is therefore essential that we do not fail. Much of the viewing total will be clocked up at the opening ceremony. With 80,000 spectators and 130 heads of state expected to be in the stadium, more than 1 billion people are expected to watch the ceremony on television. Again, an important balancing act must be achieved between providing good value for money for the British taxpayer funding the ceremonies and showcasing the country to the world.

The Secretary of State is right that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I think that everyone acknowledges that our ceremonies will not be as extravagant or expensive as those in Beijing, but we must grasp the opportunity while we have it, because if it succeeds the taxpayer will benefit, but if we fail not only will it be a financial disaster, but it will be the Government who get the blame.

[Louise Mensch]

I completely endorse everything my hon. Friend is saying, but I put it her that, although the ceremonies might not be as expensive as those in Beijing, I have good reason to believe that they will be every bit as extravagant and just as good, if not better.

[Tracey Crouch]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, she demonstrated in her speech that we can put on a good event, as the new year fireworks demonstrated this year—as she so eloquently put it, they put Sydney to shame—so we can certainly do this.

It is important that we get the balancing act right for the taxpayer. Of course, if financial tightrope walking was an Olympic sport, all of us here today would be willing the Minister into the gold medal position. Arguments will take place over funding for specific aspects of the Olympics, such as security, ticketing, ceremonies and so on, but I believe that the most important part is the bit that we probably cannot put a price tag on: the legacy of London 2012. For many youngsters, these will be the first Olympic games they remember, and it is here on their doorsteps. I vaguely remember watching the 1980 games while sitting with my dad on the sofa, but it was the 1984 Los Angeles games that really began to penetrate my memory, with Coe, Ovett and Cram becoming instant playground icons.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I share my hon. Friend’s happy memories. In fact, my friends and I were so inspired that we soon dashed out in our quest to become mini athletes, admittedly at varying levels of success. Clearly our Olympics have the potential to inspire a generation, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we all support the Government’s plans for the school games?

[Tracey Crouch]

I certainly agree. I am lucky to share a county with the Minister, who has been a strong advocate of encouraging people to participate in sport and the games. We would encourage not only greater participation, but inter and intra-school competitiveness, which I think is hugely important.

[Amber Rudd]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the legacy of the Olympics for young people is not just about individual sports, but about the importance of competition within those sports, because competition is such an important part of succeeding in this world?

[Tracey Crouch]

I completely agree. For too long we have had an “everyone should have prizes” culture, and the great thing about sport is that it does encourage competitiveness. Competitiveness is right at a particular age: it is important to ensure that young people at an early age engage in sport, but as they get older competitiveness becomes a hugely important part.

Returning to the 1984 LA Olympics, I only remember the track events to be perfectly honest, perhaps because that is all television showed at the time. There was no red button to switch from the popular track and field events to others.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s recollection of the Los Angeles Olympics. Hockey was given a terrific boost as a result of the success of the men’s team, who won an unprecedented bronze medal at the time. Interest in the sport was given a huge boost.

[Tracey Crouch]

I completely agree, and my hon. Friend will be aware that there are three Kent players in the GB team, so we look forward to an increase in people’s participation in hockey, although my memories of it, at a girl’s school in his constituency, fill me with horror sometimes.

With the advent of multi-platform broadcasting, I am excited for our younger generation, who will be able to watch almost any event live in their front rooms and be awed or inspired by the athleticism of our British competitors. Medway, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said, will host various teams in the run-up to the Olympic and Paralympic games, including the Portuguese gymnastics and trampolining squads and the Barbados Paralympic team.

The Olympic torch will come to Chatham, as it will to other towns, giving local people a real sense of participation in the games. I learned recently that I have a former Olympian living in my constituency. Frank Sando ran the 10,000m in the 1952 and 1956 Olympics, finishing a respectable 5th in Helsinki but 10th in Melbourne. He was, however, a dominant force in international cross-country for most of the ’50s, and I am sure that he will act as an inspiration to many locally, who may go on to join Maidstone Harriers, a popular athletics club.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that her being able to cite people in her constituency who go back to the 1952 games shows the real long-term legacy of the Olympics? People write themselves into history, and the rest of us—in this House and everywhere else—remember them. I am therefore absolutely certain that holding the Olympics in this country is the right thing, and that the legacy will go well beyond £1 billion, or however it might be quantified in monetary terms.

[Tracey Crouch]

I completely agree, and it is not just about the people, but about the clubs that help prepare the athletes to reach major sporting events such as the Olympics. Our investment in that legacy will show a huge return in the long term.

As a Kent and Medway MP I am delighted that we, as a county, have a number of locally born and bred athletes taking part in this year’s Olympics. The county will join the country in being 100% behind each and every one of them in whatever sport.

As the House knows, I remain involved in girls football, and the 13 and 14-year-old girls I see every weekend, and their friends, will be able to watch someone such as the world’s number one trampolinist, Kat Driscoll, who grew up in Chatham and went to the same schools as them, compete for an Olympic gold medal; and she can serve only to inspire and encourage them to remain active. We have an opportunity nationally to showcase Great Britain to the world, and I hope that Kent and Medway athletes will play their part.

[Louise Mensch]

My hon. Friend refers, as I did, to an Olympian in her constituency. Does she not agree that that is part of the answer to those who say that the Olympics are too London-centric? We all see in our local areas, whether through the Olympic torch, schools sports or the Olympians who come from our constituencies, that the games are touching, and providing a legacy to, the whole country. London is merely the location, but the Olympics are held in all our hearts.

[Tracey Crouch]

I completely agree, but let us remember that there are several sporting events in the Olympics and not all will take place in London. Such factors will encourage people from all over the country to go to the Olympics, but the Olympics themselves will be spread far and wide across the nation.

The estimated budget, as supported by today’s motion, was realistically set by the previous Government and has been managed excellently by this Government and by the delivery organisations. I appreciate that it sounds like a lot of money to spend on a few weeks of events, but the benefits, economic and otherwise, of ensuring that we have the world’s greatest, most historic sporting event far outweigh the downsides. I am sure that the whole House will join me in praying that London 2012 runs smoothly and without incident and that we can provide a strong Olympic legacy to benefit many people for years to come.

17:14

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is known, among other things, for being an able sportswoman herself. Sadly, I am no athlete but, like many Members and residents of the country, I will be looking forward enormously to the Olympics.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I must stress that I am not an athlete either, which may come as a surprise to Members of this House, but we have a Sports Minister who, when he was at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, got colours in three separate events. I reckon that that is pretty special, so well done the Minister.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting intervention and for further reason to respect the Minister.

There are many different ways for us to celebrate the Olympics. There will be the huge and exciting drama of the opening ceremony, the actual competition—

[Rehman Chishti]

One of the great things about the Olympic opening ceremony this time is that the people of Tunisia will have there a Head of State who is elected by them, as will the Libyans, who will be represented by a Head of State in whom they have confidence, unlike in years before.

[Amber Rudd]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing to the important political front of house that goes on at the Olympics. It is interesting to remark on that, because we tend to focus on the sporting and cultural elements.

Unfortunately, like many other Members, I did not get tickets. I am hoping to get them in the next round; otherwise, I will be glued to the television at particular points of the event.

[Damian Collins]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the abject failure of Members of this House successfully to apply for tickets shows what an open, honest and transparent system it was?

[Amber Rudd]

I can concur with that, disappointing though the outcome may have been for most of us.

The element that I am particularly excited about is the torch relay, which is taking part throughout the country and is an excellent way of bringing the games to the whole of the United Kingdom. The budget for the torch relay is part of the operating costs for the running of the games and is administered by LOCOG. It is expected to be £3.8 million, which is a small fraction of LOCOG’s overall budget of £2 billion, and I am happy to say that it is being met almost entirely from broadcast rights, sponsorship and ticket sales.

The torch relay will start in Land’s End on 19 May and will then showcase the diversity of the UK by visiting over 1,000 communities. I learned earlier in the debate that the torch is visiting Hove and Corby. That is very good news for those places, but I am afraid that I have to say that the great news for my constituency is that the torch is not only visiting Hastings but spending the night there; it is a very lucky torch indeed. We are planning some fantastic events for that evening to attract more tourists and visitors and to make it a truly spectacular occasion for the residents of Hastings, for those visiting the area, and for the torch’s escorts. I am delighted that we will play our part in this historic occasion, which will provide an excellent opportunity for the whole community to come together to celebrate the Olympics. Lots of my constituents were, like me, disappointed not to be successful in the ballot for tickets, but they are looking forward enormously to the special moment on 17 July when we have the torch in the town and are able to celebrate the Olympics in that way.

[Louise Mensch]

I know my hon. Friend’s beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye very well, having lived next to it before I was so fortunate to be selected for Corby and to move to my natural home in the rose of the shires, and it is steeped in history. In Hastings, as in Corby, people will no doubt line the streets to see the Olympic torch and participate in local events to celebrate its passage through their towns. The torch relay is one way for the Olympics to visit us, given that we cannot all go to London. If not everybody can go to the Olympics, the Olympics can go to an awful lot of people around the country.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. May I remind Members that they should face the Chair when making interventions? That is not just so that I can look at your wonderful faces but so that you are speaking into the microphone.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is well known for having a way with words, and today is no exception.

The Olympic torch relay represents peace, unity and friendship, as the flame is passed from one torch bearer to another. The torch relay in 2012 will give everyone in the UK the chance to be part of this historic occasion. The torch will go to almost every corner of the UK. LOCOG has achieved its ambition of taking the flame to within an hour’s journey of 95% of the population. We should applaud and congratulate it in achieving that endeavour.

The torch and the relay are not innovations. They were important elements of the cultural festivals surrounding the Olympic games of ancient Greece and they are just as important to us in 2012. The torch relay will spread the excitement of the games across the UK and mark the final countdown to the games.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Lord Bates, who has just completed his Olympic walk from Greece to London to raise awareness for the Olympic pledge of peace that will hopefully reign when the Olympics take place?

[Amber Rudd]

I am delighted to join those congratulations. It is always encouraging and exciting when there are new initiatives to draw attention to the Olympics.

Traditionally during the games, a sacred flame burned continually on the altar of the goddess Hera. In addition, heralds were summoned to travel throughout Greece to announce the games, declaring a sacred truce for their duration. Our heralds in 2012 will be 8,000 inspirational people, who have been nominated by their local communities to have their moment to shine. I am sure that many Members have been involved in nominating torch bearers. The focus will be on the nation’s youth, with a large percentage of the torch bearers being 18 years old or under. Even today, a precise ritual for the lighting of the flame is followed at every games. It is lit from the sun’s rays at the temple of Hera in Olypmia in a traditional ceremony among the ruins of the home of the ancient games.

On looking back at the torch relays over the years, one appreciates how important the Olympic torch has been. In the modern games, the Olympic flame represents the positive values that man has always associated with fire. The purity of the flame is guaranteed by the way that it is lit using the sun’s rays. When the UK hosted the games in 1948, the torch delivered a welcome message of peace in a Europe sorely afflicted by the aftermath of the war.

[Rehman Chishti]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being very generous in giving way. With regard to the positive values of the Olympic games, one of the great things that we will see is that some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, will send women to take part for the first time. That will empower women and spread positive values around the world.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting point. I agree that if the Olympics can contribute to the emancipation of women in other countries, it will be a further benefit of what we are doing.

[Louise Mensch]

My hon. Friend is being very patient. I was inspired by her repeated references to white-armed Hera, the consort of the gods, who was well known for her jealousy and envy. Does she agree that the process of submitting bids for heroes and heroines in our communities to be torch bearers, despite many people not being successful, has brought the country together? While the torch bearers will be the spearheads of the Olympic effort, their efforts will be replicated by the volunteers who will be games makers and ambassadors for the Olympics. The good will that is derived from the Olympic spirit has spread throughout the community.

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right. The Olympics are about so much more than the competitors. My remarks focus on the torch relay, but the games are also about the volunteers. These are ways of engaging the whole country, young and old, in the excitement of the games.

If I may, I will finish my little anecdote about 1948, when the Olympics were here. The first runner, Corporal Dimitrelis, symbolically took off his military uniform before carrying the flame, commemorating the sacred truce observed in ancient Greece.

I return to Hastings, where we have the great excitement of the torch staying overnight. I ask the Minister to see whether he can possibly get me some assistance in a negotiation with LOCOG upon which I and my local council are trying to embark. We are very excited about the journey that the torch will make. It is due to come along the coast road, but we are trying to persuade LOCOG to make a small change to the route so that it can go to the William Parker sports college.

If that small diversion can be made, we can ensure that possibly 1,000 or 2,000 young people, who will be meeting for their annual sports event, are present. It would be impossible to get all those young people together in a safe environment on the sea front, where the torch is due to go. That small diversion could have a dramatic impact on them. I wrote to the Minister about that point in January, and he kindly referred me and our initiative to LOCOG. The borough council is now working with LOCOG on the matter, but I would be very grateful for the Minister’s intervention and assistance in making the case to LOCOG.

As we know, there has rightly been much talk about the investment in the Olympics and the legacy that we want from them, but what will be the greatest legacy of all? It will surely be in the minds of the young people who are inspired to take up competition and sports. In that way, the truly life-changing legacy that we hope to get from the Olympics can come to the young people of Hastings.

17:26

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

It may come as no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, unlike Members such as the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), I have absolutely no sporting prowess whatever, and there is none in my family.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend is very modest, but will he be inspired by the Olympics to take part in a sport afterwards?

[Richard Harrington]

In another life, perhaps.

My sporting achievements are somewhat limited. In fact, it is fair to say that even a sprint would be out of the question, and a marathon to me is a former name for a chocolate bar. As far as the high jump is concerned, it is quite clear that with the exception of certain moments in the Whips Office, it will never be open to me. However, I believe that the Olympic games and their legacy are absolutely critical for this country and everything that we stand for.

I know that there has been a lot of discussion about cost overruns, arguments about corporations and sponsorship being involved, people saying, “It’s not like it used to be” and all that sort of thing, but a country such as ours has to have its turn at hosting such tremendous events. For example, we hosted the G20. We hosted the World cup, and I hope we will win it again. A country that depends so much on its international prowess in sport, commerce and trade, and that is one of the leading nations for foreign aid and many other things, must have the Olympic games every so often. I am delighted that we will do so in my lifetime, and I am pleased to hear Members on both sides supporting what we are doing.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend has mentioned other sporting events, and one of our fantastic, well-loved sports is cricket. We had the cricket world cup here, and we won the World Twenty20. On the legacy of the Olympics, does he support the excellent work of Sport England in putting more than £30 million into its Sportivate programme to get 16 to 24 year olds into sport in the long term?

[Richard Harrington]

As I have learned to say in the trade, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. I know he has done a lot of work on the subject.

When I consider the legacy of Olympic games and the other great events that have happened in this country, I think of the museums that came out of such events in the 19th century—the empire exhibitions, or whatever they were. We had the Victoria and Albert museum, the Science museum and the Natural History museum. More recently, in the last century, Wembley, which has become a national institution, was the legacy of the Empire exhibition following the first world war. I am certain that some of the buildings and institutions that will come from this Olympic games will be remembered a long time after current Members of the House are no longer with us—I do not just mean electorally—and for many generations to come. Those are the real legacies of Olympic games.

More of those buildings will have private names following this Olympics and will be sponsored by Sky, Vodafone and whatever. I agree that that is a difference, but it simply reflects how society has moved on. Private enterprise is involved in such huge international events in most countries far more than it ever was—I gave examples previously.

Watford is normally the hub of the universe—it can certainly compete in its own right with Beijing, Manhattan or wherever—and it gives me no pleasure to report that the Olympic torch is taking a wide diversion down the M1 and will not stop there. There are no Olympic events in Watford, but I am a fanatical supporter of the Olympic games and the effect they will have on Watford. Daniela Sposi, for example, is trying hard to get into the British handball team. Everyone that she has known from her schooldays onwards is inspired by the hope that she will get into the team.

Hundreds of schools in Hertfordshire have taken part in the Hertfordshire school games, which the Secretary of State launched not so long ago. A constituency or town, therefore, does not have to be a destination for the Olympic torch. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) spoke about her impressive and excellent town, but those of us who were less fortunate with the Olympic torch route have a lot to play for, and many things will come from the Olympics.

Watford has embraced the Olympics in other ways. We have developed a fitness and play area—the Sports Legacy Zone—which was inspired and opened by two famous Olympians, Steve Backley and Roger Black. We have volunteers rushing to help in the Olympics. Only on Friday I met a young man who had graduated in chemistry from Oxford university who is organising his career so that he can take time to be an Olympic volunteer. There are so many things, other than the Olympic flame and stadiums, that every person in this country and every constituency can take from the games.

[Rehman Chishti]

rose—

[Louise Mensch]

rose—

[Richard Harrington]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Louise Mensch).

[Louise Mensch]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He touched on the matter of private sponsors for the Olympics, which some in the House and elsewhere have decried. Does he agree it should be a matter of great pride for the Olympic Delivery Authority that it has managed to attract such private support for the games, which means that we can deliver a games that will be successful, sustainable and under-budget? Does he also agree that private sponsorship is not necessarily bad? For example, regrettably, there were very many deaths and injuries in the hurried construction of the Olympic stadium in Beijing, but there have been no deaths, and I believe a grand total of one injury, in the construction of our Olympic stadium.

[Richard Harrington]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend, and the criticism that she cites is typical of many journalists and detractors in this country. It is easy to criticise, because the Government and the Olympic authorities cannot win. On the one hand, they would be rightly criticised if the vast sums spent were all public money, but when private money is so intelligently brought in, people say, “In that past this was all provided for the public.” It is a no-win situation. The attitude that the authorities—the previous Government and this one, and the Olympic authorities—have shown in bringing in a reasonable amount of private sponsorship is a credit to both the public and the commercial sectors. The detractors and those who criticise are the kind of people who would criticise anyone. They do not have to take the decisions themselves or live with the responsibilities. They just criticise.

[Rehman Chishti]

rose—

[Richard Harrington]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for my delay in giving way to him.

[Rehman Chishti]

Not at all. My hon. Friend is being exceptionally kind in giving way. Having prosecuted for many years as a barrister at Harrow Crown court and knowing Watford well, I think that he does a fantastic job, and if he wants to make an application to the Minister for the torch to go through his area, I would be more than happy to support it.

[Richard Harrington]

I am more than usually grateful to my hon. Friend. There might be a secret plot to divert the torch at the last minute but I do not think it will come to anything. My point is that although it would be nice to have the torch, there are many other ways in which Members can support the Olympics. For me, that is the most important thing.

Here am I, probably the least qualified of the 600-plus Members to take part in any Olympic event, except possibly for the ladies’ shot put, for which I was once told I had an ideal physique.

[Bob Stewart]

I, too, am unqualified to comment. I am certainly unqualified for Olympic sport.

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, being unduly modest. I am sure that he must have shown great fitness to achieve what he achieved in other walks of life prior to entering the House. I have never done so

To sum up, I think that the Olympics are fantastic. I am extremely proud that I will be in this country and the House when the Olympics are taking place. Despite the griping about the money, the legacy will be fantastic and something of which we can all be proud.

17:36

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Members who have spoken in this debate, particularly my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who spoke with great eloquence about Hastings’ plans for the Olympic torch and the torch relay. I hope that they do not wear it out too much because it is due in my constituency the following day, and it sounds like there will be a full and arduous programme in Hastings.

[Amber Rudd]

I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to accompany the torch and visit his constituency to ensure that they maintain the high standards that we will set in Hastings.

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend has an excellent idea —perhaps we can hand it to each other on the Camber road and wish it well on its way. I am sure that my constituency, which will see the Olympic torch on 18 July, will put on some spectacular events as well. It will truly be the part of an Olympics that inspires the whole country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Louise Mensch), who is a fellow member of the Select Committee, said, it is an opportunity for the games to go to the country as well as for the country to come to the games, which it will do when they are staged in London.

[Rehman Chishti]

As a fellow Kent MP, does my hon. Friend agree that we in Kent are very proud of our colleague, the Sports Minister, for doing such a fantastic job on the Olympics?

[Damian Collins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and fellow Kent Member. It would be churlish of me not to agree with him. All of us in Kent are extremely proud of the role that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) has played, as Sports Minister, in steering the Olympic games safely through the final development of the facilities and planning. He has been ably supported by an excellent team at LOCOG and the ODA, which have done a terrific job in ensuring that the games will be ready on time, We can all be proud of that as we look forward to their happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) referred to how the Olympic games will inspire young people across the country. They are a major sporting event. One of my first sporting memories was probably of Sebastian Coe winning his gold medal in Moscow in 1980. The 1984 Olympics were an inspiration to my generation of school children across the country not only for the great variety of sports on the athletics track but for the hockey, which I mentioned earlier. We know that children will take a great interest in it and find it very exciting. Their memories of the London Olympic games will be a defining moment of their young lives, and might inspire them to take up a new sport or pursue an existing interest in sport. The legacy is difficult to quantify at this stage, but we all have faith that it will be an important part of the games.

[Bob Stewart]

It crosses my mind that the Olympic games will be an inspiration to women worldwide. When the games are broadcast, people across the world will see that it is not possible to take women out of the Olympic games. They will be involved, and women who are not normally allowed to take part in sport in some countries will see that women in London can do so. That will be one of the huge inspirations of our London Olympic games.

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think of Kent and the inspiration of Kelly Holmes, as one of our great Olympians, to young people right across the county. Many streets throughout the country, including in London, are named after famous Olympians. I believe there is a road in south London named after Tessa Sanderson, after she won the javelin gold medal at the LA Olympics. The great athletes of our country, men and women, will be inspirations to generations to come, as they have been in the past, and an important part of the Olympic movement.

I want to touch on some of the local aspects of the Olympic games. The torch relay comes to Hythe, Sandgate and Folkestone on 18 July, before making its way to Dover for its next overnight stop. That is something the whole community can celebrate and enjoy, giving people a chance to see and touch part of the Olympics. It is also an excellent way of building up the excitement and anticipation of the events.

The school games are an excellent initiative, led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, and schools across the country will actively participate in them. The application rate has been incredibly high. Schools such as the Marsh academy, the Harvey grammar school and St Augustine’s primary school in my constituency will be taking part in the games. It will be an inspiration to students that the staging of the games will involve some of the major Olympic facilities in the Olympic park, such as the aquatics centre and the Olympic track. Indeed, some of the first competitive events involving British athletes using those facilities will be at the school games, rather than the main Olympic games. What a fantastic message that sends out about the great importance we attach to developing school games. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend want to intervene?

[Bob Stewart]

I was just shifting position.

[Damian Collins]

Sorry, I misread my hon. Friend’s signals.

[Louise Mensch]

I will be glad to step into the breach. My hon. Friend and colleague on the Select Committee was with us when we visited the aquatics centre. Does he agree that it will also be a great inspiration for local people to know that after the games, the centre will be available for their use and the use of the people of London? It will provide the community with a phenomenal swimming facility where none currently exists and where one is sorely needed.

[Damian Collins]

I completely agree. The aquatics centre is not only a stunning and iconic building, but a venue for elite athletes to compete where one is badly needed. That will benefit not only people in east London, but communities with good access to the Olympic park. My constituency of Folkestone will be only 55 minutes by high-speed rail from the Olympic park, so athletes there will also benefit. However, there will also be a community aspect. The fact that parents can take their children swimming at the aquatics centre at the Olympic park after the games is a wonderful way not only to encourage young people to start swimming, but to inspire them through their surroundings, as they will know that they are swimming in a pool where some of the greatest swimmers in the world have competed. When the Select Committee visited Munich, as part of our inquiry into football governance last year, we saw that the aquatics centre from the Munich games is still used even now, more than 30 years later, by the people of that city as an important and cherished community facility. That is a vision for the future of what the aquatics centre in the Olympic park in London could be like.

[Rehman Chishti]

Does my hon. Friend agree that initiatives such as free swimming for the under-11s and over-65s in Medway is a fantastic way to benefit communities and promote participation in sport, linked to having sports centres such as Medway Olympics park, which also help people to take part in those sports?

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend is a great advocate for Medway and everything it strives to achieve, and I am certainly happy to congratulate it on that excellent initiative.

Earlier, my hon. Friend also touched on the work of Sport England. I would like to add my thanks to Sport England, for its support for sporting facilities in my constituency through the Places People Play fund. I was delighted to join the fund in presenting cheques to the Folkestone sports centre and the Hythe sports pavilion, which have received combined funds of £60,000. That money is being spent now, and those facilities that are being refurbished will be ready before the Olympic games, so that those who are inspired to take part afterwards will have newly refurbished facilities ready and waiting for them. It is good not only that the money has been made available, but that it is being committed and that those facilities are being improved.

The Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), mentioned the sporting participation target and the Government’s decision not to keep to the target of 1 million people increasing their active participation in sport. I think we would all hope that the long-term legacy is indeed a greatly increased participation, but it is difficult to know now exactly what that increase will be, over what period it will happen or even whether we could exceed that target. The Minister and the Government should look, and continue to look, at how targeted intervention through sporting programmes for particularly needy young people could be an effective part of the legacy of the games.

Let me say a little more about that. If money is left in the contingency for the Olympic games by the time the games are staged—I appreciate that there will be many demands on it—perhaps the Department could look at the possibility of using it to help those people. We know from a number of excellent sporting initiatives—the Premier League’s Kickz programme, the Rugby Football Union’s Hitz programme and its Second Chance programme run in young offender institutions—that sports can play a dramatic role in changing the lives of people living in challenging circumstances, particularly young people. These programmes are often delivered at very low cost and are exceptionally good value for money, but the programmes delivered so far are often relatively small projects in relatively few neighbourhoods around the country.

I believe that the research done so far suggests that these programmes can have an excellent impact. An excellent report, “Teenage Kicks”, produced by the Laureus Sport for Good Foundation, focused on a project delivered by the Kickz programme run in partnership with Arsenal football club at Elthorne park in London. It showed that within a one-mile radius, there was a 66% reduction in youth crime. If the project were responsible for only 20% of that reduction, it would have demonstrated a return on investment of £7 for every £1 spent.

I mentioned the Second Chance programme run by the Rugby Football Union. A report was recently produced based on the pilot at the Portland young offenders institution. It followed what happened to those youngsters who had engaged in the sporting programme. It found a reoffending rate among the young men of about one in five. That might sound quite high, but if we consider that the average reoffending rate for young men in that institution is one in two, this shows a dramatic transformation in their fortunes.

As so many of the facilities already exist in young offenders institutions to provide sporting programmes, it is simply a question of bringing in the coaches and support to deliver them. They can be delivered at low cost. It has been estimated that if one of these sporting programmes stopped just one young person from reoffending and from being recommitted to a secure centre, that success could pay for the delivery of the entire programme within that single young offenders institution.

Some excellent work has been done in this area, but we need a proper study, sponsored by the Government, to see how to deliver these sporting programmes both within the community, targeting vulnerable young people in areas of relatively high crime and antisocial behaviour, and within the young offender institutions themselves. We need to ascertain what rules we can devise from the work done so far and work out how to plan these schemes and projects on a much bigger scale. We also need to work out what incentives we could provide to companies and sporting organisations to run and fund more of these trials.

This could be an incredible legacy of the Olympic games. A study with the backing and weight of the Government to demonstrate how best to run these programmes and the success they could bring would be a worthwhile achievement and pave the way for more programmes like this in the future. It would be excellent if we could use sport to touch the lives of more people in some of these hard-to-reach communities. It would require a piece of major research, preferably led by the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, and a unified approach across Government.

The Government have with the aid of lottery money supported the Olympic games, and I believe that hon. Members of all parties are united in their admiration for the start of the process—it was begun by the previous Government and has been continued subsequently with the support of Members across the House. The value of the investment is widely acknowledged. It would be excellent if the Minister could use his position and stature as the Minister responsible for the Olympics to take a lead on understanding how these sporting programmes could work to benefit people throughout the country and if he could work with colleagues in other Departments, particularly with the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Education. The Government have a strategic interest in sport across a wide area of government, and it would be good to see a co-ordinated approach, which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could lead.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend has praised sports centres in deprived areas. In Medway, in north Gillingham, £11 million has been invested in the Medway park centre. There is a difference of seven years between life expectancy in that area and life expectancy in the other part of the constituency. Training centres of that kind perform the important function of inspiring people in socially and economically deprived areas.

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend is right. Such facilities are often most needed in harder-to-reach economic areas. Sporting provision in those areas need not be expensive. The success of the midnight basketball leagues, which have been operating in major urban centres in the United States, is one example. Programmes like that are not expensive to deliver, and they can do a huge amount of good.

So far the debate has not focused on the business legacy, and I want to record my admiration for the initiative to create a business embassy at Lancaster house. Corporations and business people from all over the world will come to London to be part of the Olympic games. It is excellent that there is a venue where they will be able to learn more about what this country has to offer in the long term: about the resources and facilities that exist here, and about the businesses that are ready to take advantage of their being in London and demonstrate, for instance, the way in which we can develop our trade routes and interests around the world.

I note that two days of the session at the business embassy will be dedicated to the creative industries, in which the Select Committee takes a particular interest. We should all be proud of that, because it reinforces the message that the Government are sending in their campaign to market everything that Britain has to offer the world in the run-up to the games. Of course the games themselves will be a great showcase for the United Kingdom and London, but we also want a legacy that will last for many years after they have ended. We want them to serve as a massive advertisement for everything that the country has to offer.

[Louise Mensch]

A couple of Members have described themselves, most self-effacingly, as “not a great sportsman” or as “not having much to do with sport,” but will not the legacy of the Olympics also cover the cultural Olympiad, to which those Members might feel themselves to be more suited? As my hon. Friend has said, there are marketing and tourism opportunities, and opportunities for the creative industries. The Olympics do not exist in a vacuum. Their impact on our whole economy will be enormous, and people will be able to involve themselves in many activities besides sport.

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A fantastic programme of cultural events has been organised to coincide with the games, such as the Damien Hirst and Picasso exhibitions at the Tate. A huge variety of theatre and outdoor performing arts events will form part of the cultural Olympiad, and I think that people will really enjoy those.

Like many other Members, I have not succeeded in obtaining tickets for the Olympic park. I must admit that when I was first elected to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, a number of my constituents came up to me and said, “I suppose you will be all right for Olympics tickets now.” They have been devastated to discover not only that I have no tickets for myself, but that I have none to pass on to them. That has been a great loss. The fact remains, however, that many fortunate people from all over the world will come to London to be part of the Olympic games. They will enjoy their time at the Olympic park and other Olympic venues, but they will also have an awful lot of time to spend in London and elsewhere in England. They will spend some of that time in the centre of the city, enjoying the cultural activities that take place here. They will enjoy shopping in our shops, eating in our restaurants and drinking in our bars, and that will be good for the whole economy of our country. I hope that they will also spend some time touring England, and seeing what we have to offer in such places as Northamptonshire and Kent.

As I have said, the Olympics should serve as a great advertisement for what we can put on. It will encourage future tourism, and I hope that initiatives such as the business embassy will encourage new business investment, export links and further things that we can celebrate. In our constituencies there will be a direct sporting legacy from the games, a legacy of interest stemming from the Olympic torch relays. There will be business benefits, especially in Kent. Most tourism companies are expected to have full books during the games, including campsites and hotels that currently have vacancies, and small regional airports such as Lydd in my constituency are likely to experience a substantial increase in business.

Indeed, a variety of business benefits will be seen during the Olympic year. Admittedly there will be some transport difficulties, and it will be harder to get around. It will certainly not be business as usual, and all of us—as Members of Parliament and as members of the Select Committee—will devote special scrutiny to the implementation of the detailed transport plans. Nevertheless, there is a huge amount for us to be excited about as we enter the final three months leading up to the Olympic games. None of us can truly appreciate what it will be like for Britain, for the first time in the modern era, to host a sporting event that will be televised globally and will reach all parts of our country and all parts of the world. We should all be very excited to be associated with that event this year.

17:55

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate. Members will have to forgive me if, rather than delivering a wide-ranging speech, I concentrate on the specific issue of the Paralympics. They have featured here and there in the debate so far, but not as much I should have liked. It is a bit difficult to separate them from the Olympics, because only one Olympic venue, Eton Manor, has been booked separately—for the wheelchair tennis event—at a cost of £2 million. However, I think it crucial, when we talk about the Olympic legacy, for us to consider the benefits of the Paralympics as well.

I remember Euro 96. I will not try to sing the theme tune, but it contained the words “Football’s coming home”. Indeed it was, and in 2012 the Paralympics are coming home. It was in 1948 that the noted neurologist Dr Ludwig Guttmann first used his expertise in spinal cord rehabilitation for wounded servicemen. He organised a competition between different hospitals and sports clubs at the same time as the London Olympics, and the Paralympics emerged from that. When I was doing my research for the debate, I was surprised to learn that as recently as 1984 the Paralympics were taking place, half in New York and half in London, while the Olympics were taking place in Los Angeles. We have come a long, long way very quickly, and 2012 in London will of course be of a vastly different order of magnitude from what happened in 1948.

Early in the debate we heard a few intimations of concern about the possibility that not everyone in the country was fully imbued with the Olympic spirit. It was thought, for instance, that the games might be considered rather costly. I ask all who have doubts to try to fix their minds on the fact that for a few weeks this summer the entire nation will be transfixed, and not just by the spectacle of sporting prowess. Plenty of us are intimately acquainted with the rules applying to various minority sports, but many more people will be interested in the human dimension represented by people such as Tom Daley and Baroness Grey-Thompson, who face challenges all of which will be relevant and interesting to those who are watching their televisions during this sporting festival.

The last Paralympics event, in Beijing, was an unparalleled success for the United Kingdom. I do not think we celebrate often enough the fact that we came second in the medals table, and out-performed the UK main Olympics team. There were some inspirational individual performances. Young Ellie Simmonds was only 13 when she won a gold medal, and in Blackpool we were able to celebrate the achievement of our multi-medal-winning wheelchair athlete Shelly Woods. We all praise the cycling team in Beijing, but the Paralympic cycling team won 17 out of 31 gold medals, believe it or not. That almost puts the main Olympic team to shame, although they did just as well. We should regard the Paralympics as a fantastic opportunity to put out some positive news stories about the abilities, skills and triumphs of disabled people more generally. At a time when some in the third sector seem to be busy trying to narrow our horizons, I believe that this year’s Paralympics will offer us a chance to give people a vision of the future.

Numerous Members have said today, “I am not an athlete,” or, “I have no athletic prowess at all.” It may surprise Members to learn that I have a track record in disability sport. I have competed at national junior level in dressage with the Riding for the Disabled Association. Indeed, at the age of about 12 I was entered in two classes in the national dressage championships at Stoneleigh. I was thrilled to be able to perform. I came last and next to last, which I thought was a wonderful achievement, so when I hear athletes saying, “It’s an honour just to be here,” and, “I feel I’ve achieved something,” I sympathise with them. More importantly perhaps, that experience taught me the lesson of the school of hard knocks; it taught me that success is not guaranteed and that failure is something we all have to deal with in life. It also gave me confidence. I had to go along there every week, often so unwillingly that my mother would have to drag me into the car saying, “You will go, whether you like it or not.” I was not always keen to go; I was a teenager and, like many other teenagers, I was grumpy. Yet I went along and it gave me confidence.

It also showed me how much commitment so many families put into enabling their children to benefit from sport. At Lymm riding centre we had young people with Down’s syndrome and many with muscular dystrophy. I saw the immense amount of care and effort that families put into such children, and it was awe-inspiring.

Now, as MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, I see similar things on the ground in my constituency. Christine Anderson from Thornton-Cleveleys has, just in the past year, set up a wheelchair sports club called the Cheetahs. Out of nothing, she has managed to generate passionate enthusiasm among a core group of parents. They have dragged in Paralympians and sponsorship from here, there and everywhere, and they have even got me playing wheelchair basketball. I had no idea it was such a violent and frightening experience. My hands were bleeding by the end; it was not pleasant. I have also seen how sport can inspire people who might otherwise be at the margins of society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, they may not feel as if they could play a role in society, but through participating in sports they can start to do so.

There are other organisations like the Cheetahs in my constituency, and they do fantastic work. Just down the road from where I live is Moor Park swimming pool, where Blackpool Polar Bears engage in all sorts of aquatic sports. My local Sainsbury’s has been supporting it as its charity of choice for the past year. Many other such organisations are based at Blackpool leisure centre in Stanley park.

Young people with disabilities across Blackpool and the wider Fylde coast area will be inspired by what they see on their television screens day after day this year. In the coming months they will be able to see people with disabilities performing at the highest levels and achieving in ways that are, perhaps, more meaningful than winning “The X Factor”, which represents the avenue of choice for so many youngsters these days: they think they can win fame and fortune.

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), I did some research ahead of this debate. I read the report of the Minister’s evidence session, for instance. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) suggested that when the Minister next talks to the BBC he should raise the idea of getting details of local provision to flash up whenever viewers press their red button. The Minister might have had that conversation with the BBC by now, and I also urge him to raise the idea with Channel 4, so we can ensure that viewers of the Paralympics have as much access to that information as Olympics viewers.

I commend Parasport. Its website enables people to discover the sports to which they might be best suited. In the international Paralympic classification, I qualify as CP8, which is “impaired, yet fully standing”—and given that I currently have a cracked rib and find sitting down uncomfortable, it is especially true today that I am “impaired, yet fully standing”. Through the Parasport website I discovered that as someone classified as CP8 I might be particularly suited to Nordic skiing, so the Whips Office may want to prepare for some requests to miss votes in the coming weeks. I have no idea how I might do at Nordic skiing, but I can try.

Legacy has been discussed a lot, but I sometimes get concerned that we focus too much on physical infrastructure and on who will take control of facilities after the games and what will happen to the buildings, because I believe that the legacy in cultural attitudes to sport and to disabled people more widely is more important. Recently there have been some negative images of disabled people, and it is said that there has been an increase in disability hate crime. I therefore hope that in the coming months we will see more positive images of disabled people—of them achieving things and having powerful life stories to tell—and that that will help to reverse that trend.

I am chair of the all-party group on young disabled people. We have been looking at the suitability of venues such as leisure centres, in the hope that we can enable more disabled young people to get involved in sport. We found that, for instance, many community swimming pools do not have the necessary hoists or ramps to allow children who use wheelchairs to get into the pool and get swimming. Young disabled people are sometimes unable to access hydrotherapy sessions, too. I therefore welcome the “places people play” fund. It has made a great difference in many constituencies. I cannot yet find an example in my constituency—the nearest is half a mile outside it—but I shall keep trying.

I also welcome the youth and community sport strategy, which was launched in January. I hope that some of the £1 billion will trickle down to local and constituency level, and in particular to the disability sports clubs that are being set up and the many special schools that are trying to develop a sporting aspect to their provision. I welcome the recommendation that schools should be able both to use their facilities throughout the year and to link with community sports clubs. Special schools must also be included in that.

I also want to pay tribute to an event that is not taking place in London: the Special Olympics. They are for people with an intellectual disability, whereas the Paralympics are aimed more at those with physical disabilities. In London there will be some participants with an intellectual disability, but nowhere near as many as I would like. Those who know their Olympic history will be aware that there was an unfortunate experience in 2000. One team was found not to be as intellectually disabled as it claimed to be, and that has queered the pitch somewhat. I am glad that those with intellectual disabilities have been brought back into the Olympic tent. I also commend the Special Olympics for trying to secure health care for those with an intellectual disability. The Special Olympics does not just organise a sporting event; it also campaigns on public health messages.

There is a website that encapsulates all the points I have been trying to make. It is called www.encourage omar.co.uk. Young Omar Haddad is from Widnes in Cheshire. He is a Special Olympics gymnast who won five gold and three bronze medals in Athens last year. His website is a participatory website. In order to watch Omar’s routine, people have to show encouragement to him. There is a volume slider that must be manipulated, and if he is not given enough encouragement he goes back into the changing room; the film rewinds. If he is given enough encouragement, however, he concludes his routine and gives everyone a big smile. When I got to the end of that three-and-a-half-minute video, I began to understand the power of the Paralympics and to realise that we all must give encouragement to these disabled athletes, and that what they are doing matters to us. Their endeavours are not a sideshow that we can ignore or dismiss because they are shown on Channel 4. Instead, they are an integral part of our Olympic experience this year. If we can all give as much encouragement to Omar as we give to all the other people who are participating, I truly believe that in 2012 we will see a much brighter dawn for disability sports in this country.

18:09

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

It is always a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). He is clearly taking the clever man to Cleveleys, as well as demonstrating a greater degree of passion for disability sport than any other Member. Like him, I have a poor record as a dressage performer; I frequently lost my horse from the arena and was eventually demoted and finally fired from the team. I was a much better jockey—but I was not that brilliant a jockey either, as I broke 19 bones, which hurt a great deal, and ended up in hospital more times than I care to name.

A feature of this debate has been that Members of Parliament have attempted to do two things. First, they have attempted to persuade their constituents that they do not have any Olympic tickets. I, too, can assure my constituents that I have no Olympic tickets, despite having made great efforts. I can find nobody who has tickets—[Interruption.] Except my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). People should write to her on a regular basis for her tickets, which are doubtless for the football, as she is a keen Liverpool fan. Other hon. Members who, like me, have no tickets have attempted to assure our constituents that we are people who are well capable—

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

May I enlighten my hon. Friend by letting him know that the next sale of tickets will take place on 15 March?

[Guy Opperman]

I take it that that refers not to my hon. Friend’s tickets but to other Olympic tickets. I wish to assist her, because I know that she was not referring to her tickets.

Secondly, all of us have tried to show an Olympic discipline in which we could be proficient. I was very impressed by the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who is, sadly, no longer in his place. I understood his description of how for him a “marathon” was a large bar of chocolate to be eaten regularly. I once ran the New York marathon for Children with Leukaemia. Most people experience “the wall” during a marathon. Some reach it at 10 miles, but I did so at 20 miles. When I hit the wall and approached the point where I felt like stopping, I was told by a gentleman in the Bronx, “Don’t stop there man. They’ll only steal your shoes!” Nothing could have encouraged me more to start sprinting at that stage.

I am pleased to discuss the north-east tonight, as it is seeing a great deal of the Olympic torch and of the Olympic movement. I agreed with almost everything that the Chair of the Select Committee said, but at one point he said that the eyes of the world will be on London. I accept that that the eyes of the world will largely be on London and its surrounding regions, but if London is the hub, the spokes of the Olympic wheel are going to various other parts of the nation. There is no question but that the north-east will participate in a great deal of the work in terms of the Olympic flame.

As we know, half the world’s population will be watching the Olympics; 83% of our schools are involved in the Get Set programme, with 508 schools games taking place thus far; 40,000 journalists—we greatly welcome them all—will be covering the games and would expose every one of the Minister’s errors but for the fact that none will be made; and the torch relay is to cover 8,000 miles around the country. I greatly welcome the fact that Newcastle will host nine football matches, including the men’s quarter final. I can assure hon. Members that that will take place at St James’ Park, not in some place that none of us have heard of called the “Sports Direct arena”, although we gratefully accept the sponsorship of the Sports Direct brand.

However, this is not all just about sporting events. Obviously I will be cheering people on, as will my constituent Steve Cram, the man who started the Kielder marathon—a man who has won Olympic medals and now lives just up the road from me in Hexham. We will be cheering on Matt Wells and other members of the Hexham community who are in the Olympic squads. But we must celebrate not only the sport but the business element, about which many have spoken.

I stress that it has been a fundamental feature of both the previous Government’s approach—to their great credit—and the present Government’s approach to buy British and to support local organisations. I pay due tribute to: Sotech in Durham, which has provided the roof cladding for the aquatics centre; Hart Door Systems Ltd, which has provided the roof shutters for the Olympic stadium; Hathaway roofing in County Durham, which has provided roof cladding for the international broadcasting centre, keeping all those 40,000 journalists nice and dry and warm; and International Paint in Newcastle, which has supplied the paint for aquatics centre.

The other good thing is that the north-east will see the torch almost more than any other region. We will have it for five days, when it will take in things such as the angel of the north in Gateshead, the Penshaw monument in Sunderland, and Hadrian’s wall. Friday 15 June will be a spectacular day—I recommend this to people above all else—because the torch will travel from the Tyne bridge to the quayside by zip wire. I have doubts about this, because I am nervous that the torch might fall into the water or get otherwise extinguished. However, I am sure, as the organisers have assured me, that that will not happen. That will be a memorable event, and then on Saturday 16 June, I and many of my constituents will be welcoming the torch—indeed, many of them will be carrying it—as it travels across the Hexham constituency and down into County Durham.

We will also have the great benefit of the hundreds of cultural events, which will be based not only in London and the regions around it but in the north-east. I welcome the fact that the north-east band Folkestra, which I heard play fantastically well when the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport came to Newcastle on 26 January, will be playing as part of the cultural Olympiad. I respectfully submit that that is another wonderful example of making the regions part of the main Olympic movement.

The long and the short of all this is that there has to be a wider element, and I wish briefly to discuss the business impact on tourism, which will be huge. I understand that approximately £39 million is being spent on the advertising campaign that will promote Britain as a tourist venue. That is an excellent thing, because we have the chance to showcase this great country. Although the Olympics and the Paralympics will last for just six weeks, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to showcase Great Britain. I warmly welcome what the Government and the previous Government, to their great credit, have done in this respect.

We also need to play our part in supporting tourism, because with the 20.12% discounting scheme and the 2012 tourism initiatives this is surely the year, above all others, when we should be “staycationing”. I shall be walking the entire 270 miles of the Pennine way, starting in Edale, in the great county of Derbyshire. We will travel all the way north through South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Cumbria and Durham and into the great county of Northumberland, where we shall journey the Pennine way through my constituency for five days and then finish up in Scotland. We will be doing that for charity, but on the way I will take advantage of many bed and breakfasts, restaurants and, of course, the odd pub or two. We should all invite our respective organisations to “staycation” and to support tourism in the best way they can, because this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

I shall finish by making a couple of brief points now, because I am conscious that the great sage of Colchester is waiting to enlighten the House. Pre-Olympic training camps are coming to the north, so we will welcome, for example, the Sri Lankans and the Colombians to Newcastle and the north-east. We will also be in a position to have our own games, as multiple local schools are holding multiple local games, and I wish to urge the Minister on this one issue. My sole criticism of the whole Olympic organisation is related to the fact that, as he will know, efforts have been made by lots of local organisations to run their own games. I entirely understand that the word “Olympics” cannot be used in the titles of those games, because of branding and all manner of other issues that would take too long to explain, but it is difficult to promote those games.

I am a big supporter of the East Tynedale games, which are organised by the chair of Wylam parish council and various other organisers in the Prudhoe, Wylam and Bywell region, but they are having great difficulty trying to organise events. For example, when the members of the Women’s Institute of Wylam tried to organise the “Wylimpics”, based on things that the Women’s Institute does, they were disappointed to be told that they were prevented from doing so. I urge the Minister to send out edicts to the organisers and guardians of such matters to be as flexible as it is possible to be within the meaning of the law, so that organisations such as the Women’s Institute and local communities that want to hold events can do so.

For my part, I welcome the games—and I now bow humbly to the sage of Colchester.

18:20

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Numerous speakers have quite rightly praised the previous Government for winning the Olympic games for this country and the coalition Government for taking them forward. Let me be the first Member of this House for many years to say, “Well done, Tony Blair,” as I believe that it was the presence in Singapore of the then Prime Minister that swung it. Indeed, on the Front Benches this evening we have three of the participants in that great achievement in Singapore on the parliamentary podium.

I would say, however—and I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) earlier to do so—that my concern is that if we are not careful the games will be viewed throughout the United Kingdom as a London-centric Olympics. I think that the opening ceremony will be key, and if the nations and regions of the United Kingdom do not feature, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and other parts of the regions of England will feel cheated. All of us who have spoken tonight are anxious to promote this as a UK Olympic games, but as a historical footnote let me point out that for more than 1,000 years Stratford was in the county of Essex. Indeed, until it was annexed when London moved eastwards, it was a proud part of that county, so these could have been the Essex games. I am delighted to say that the mountain biking will take place in Essex and it is my hope that as many as six people from the borough of Colchester will take part in the games if they are successful in the qualifying.

I should place on record my appreciation not only to the people in the Olympic movement in this country who are delivering the games but to the people—more than 40,000 of them—who have worked to deliver the games. I pay tribute to the professionalism and skills of them all, whether they are in the offices or on the building sites that we have seen materialise in east London. I repeat the important point, however, and I hope that the Minister will take this message back with him, if it has not already been received: it is crucial that the opening ceremony, with the greatest global TV audience the world has ever registered—more than 4 billion people—reflects the fact that these are the United Kingdom’s games and not just the London games.

I am delighted that Britain’s oldest recorded town and the first capital of Roman Britain will welcome the torch as one of the 1,018 places that the torch will visit, and I pay tribute to the 8,000 people who will eventually be chosen as torch bearers. We do not know the precise route, but—let me get this plug in—I hope that the route will go past the largest Norman keep in Europe and down the oldest high street in the country, as Colchester High street follows the line of a Roman road. If any countries are still looking for a base for their team or for elements of their team, I can nominate my constituency, a mere 40 minutes away by direct rail link between Colchester main line station and London Liverpool Street, stopping off at Stratford. The university of Essex, Colchester garrison and the town itself house numerous sporting facilities and, in addition, tourists and visitors to this country would be well advised not necessarily to stay in London but to move a journey of 45 minutes to one hour to the east, where they will be warmly welcomed.

I want to mention two other points. It is disappointing that it would appear that a large number of the Olympic souvenirs will not be made in Britain. Even at this late stage, I would like to ask those responsible for souvenirs to take the view that the British Olympics should have British-made souvenirs.

Last but not least—I tried to raise this issue at business questions on Thursday and have been raising it for nearly two years—we know that the games will be a great showpiece for this country. The Olympic village and stadium and all the other sporting venues are fantastic and some visitors will travel to Stratford on the overground line from London Liverpool Street, which is a wonderful example of Victorian Britain and of when we used to be able to build and design things well. I am delighted that we have done that in the 21st century with the Olympic games set-up. Unfortunately, the track from London Liverpool Street to Stratford is arguably the most neglected to be found anywhere in the United Kingdom. There are shabby and derelict buildings along the trackside, graffiti-splattered walls, rotting vegetation and general neglect and decay. Anybody who has travelled into London Liverpool Street will know that because, unsurprisingly, as one approaches a terminus the train goes very slowly and the graffiti can be read. I cannot get anybody to take responsibility for ensuring that that bit of the Olympic area is given the attention it should receive. To my mind, it would be nice to see walls painted with the flags of the nations that are competing and with sporting murals.

I welcome the Olympics, and welcome the fact that this is the third time that London has hosted them. Here is a little challenge: I wonder whether those who are organising the games could find somebody who was born when the games were held here in 1908. There must be somebody of 104 who was born at the time of the 1908 Olympics.

In conclusion, I tell the Minister that these are Britain’s Olympic games. They might be titled the London Olympics, but if the opening ceremony is London-centric and ignores the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, from day one we will have lost it.

18:28

[Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate and the enthusiasm of the many hon. Members who have spoken, as well as their determination to ensure, particularly when the torch makes its tour around the UK, that the towns, villages, cities and communities of Great Britain lead the celebration. We can be very confident on the basis of what we have heard today.

This week will mark 150 days to go until the opening ceremony when, as so often mentioned in the debate, half the world’s population will be watching the Olympic stadium in London. We must all feel a special tingle of anticipation at the prospect of what lies ahead.

I listened carefully to all the speeches and, although he is not in his seat, I would like pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). He captured, certainly better than I could, the spirit of “One Vision” and the equivalence between the summer Olympics and the Paralympics. Indeed, many of the Paralympian wags will say that the summer games are simply a test event for the main event that follows—the Paralympics.

This is a moment to take stock, under the watchful eye of the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), at whose mercy I have spent many hours in the past 10 years. It is a moment to focus again on why we decided to invest £9.3 billion of public money in seeking to host the greatest sporting event in the world. The term “legacy” is used very loosely, but it is important to pin down precisely the legacy commitment we made. It was twofold: first, that an Olympic games would drive the regeneration of east London and, secondly, that an Olympic games in London would transform a generation of young people through sport. As we consider the use and value to the public of that enormous investment of their money, let me set out briefly the achievements regarding each of those legacy promises.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and I join others in commending her for her role in securing the Olympic games for us. One of the legacies of the games is that they are going to be the ethical Olympics. Does she still share my concern about their sponsorship by Dow Chemical, especially given that the Indian Government have today launched a formal protest because of evidence that Dow and Union Carbide used private investigators to spy on activists who were supporting the Bhopal victims?

[Tessa Jowell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. We have shared considerable concerns about the risks of that particular sponsorship and its investment in providing the wrap for the Olympic stadium. We have to be realistic about the degree and fundamental nature of change that the Olympic games alone can achieve, but they provide a moment to shine a bright light on continuing injustice in the world. We should never forget the suffering of the up to 25,000 people who died in the wake of the Union Carbide disaster. Neither should we forget that Saudi Arabia is the only country that will not be sending a team that includes women, flying in the face of the International Olympic Committee commitment—the Olympic commitment—to gender equality. Nor should we forget the stories about the exploitation of children, which I am glad to say were rapidly acted on by LOCOG. The Dow sponsorship will remain controversial, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has raised that issue.

Let me return briefly to the two central commitments on legacy. First, on the regeneration of east London, many have rightly paid tribute to the outstanding work of the Olympic Delivery Authority, led by David Higgins, Dennis Hone and, of course, Sir John Armitt. They have done something that nobody believed possible when we started on this long course nearly 10 years ago. That work is a fantastic advertisement for a bold, confident UK plc and for the work force of the UK and I very much hope that the benefit of that investment—the expertise that been so carefully developed—can be traded around the world after our games.

This has been Europe’s largest public sector construction project and, possibly, the most ambitious exercise in regeneration. We have had many arguments over the Dispatch Box about the Olympic budget. When Labour was in government, we increased the scale of the ambition. Yes, we could have put what was called a flat-pack games on a contaminated site, but if we had not undertaken the regeneration of the site we could never have built homes there or built the polyclinic for which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) has campaigned so hard. Neither could we have had the venues with legacy use for our elite athletes of the future and for the young people of the communities in the six Olympic boroughs. Of the money spent on constructing the park, 75p in every pound has been spent on regeneration—on cleaning the soil, decontaminating the site, getting rid of the waterlogging and installing the wetland area that means that Canning Town will be protected from flooding. That is real regeneration in action. Some 90% of the material derived from demolition at that site was taken to be recycled.

As the hon. Member for Corby (Louise Mensch) rightly said, however, we have to measure the legacy in terms of more than just physical structures. For example, there has been a recreation of opportunity in the lives of the people who have worked on the park and in the lives of people in that part of east London, which houses two of the most deprived boroughs in the country. Of the 40,000 people who have worked in the Olympic park, 20% have come from the six boroughs and 13% were previously unemployed. There has been special focus on apprentices, with three times the regional average working not only in the park but on the construction of the village and at Westfield, where there are 10,000 permanent jobs and a retail skills academy.

There has also been a story around the country, which has been referred to by hon. Members, of contracts being let at a time of severe economic anxiety for small and medium-sized enterprises. The fact that such businesses have won 1,500 contracts means that we can tell a story of the Olympic park—of the steel for the aquatic centre coming from Neath, of the turf in the field of play coming from Huddersfield, of the steel for the Olympic stadium coming from Bolton and of the plants coming from Thetford. So, there has been investment in creating opportunities in the lives of a population who would not have had those opportunities were it not for the Olympic games.

Let me speak briefly about the second commitment—transforming a generation of young people through sport. That is a commitment not only for this country but for others around the world. The whole House can feel proud of the international inspiration programme now going on in 20 countries, which the organisers of the Rio games have agreed to take forward. In Bangladesh, 80,000 children have been taught to swim, and in north-west Brazil there have been leadership programmes. Magic Bus, which I know well—I have the bracelet—is a child development programme that uses sport to engage children in education.

All that has been achieved against a background of absolutely solid cross-party support, but there has been one decision that was incomprehensible: the dismantling of the organisation of sport for children in primary and secondary schools under which every child was doing two hours a week of sport. Those children were competing and had a choice of being involved in up to 14 sports. In the spirit of collaboration that has been such an important part of this process, I am prepared to wait and see how the Government’s plan unfolds, but I think the abandonment of school sport partnerships and of sport and physical activity for children in primary school and for younger children in secondary school is a terrible, missed opportunity. However, I do not hold the Minister or the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport responsible for that.

Many thanks are due: the plaudits for LOCOG will be endless, but we also celebrate the world-class excellence of, the ODA and the fact that it has achieved so much. We thank Sir Charles Allen, who has given life to the nations and regions programme, so that we will see all of the UK celebrating and creating its own experience of the Olympics. The Olympic Park Legacy Company has taken an extraordinary lead. The hon. Member for Corby was right to say how extraordinary it is that seven of the eight venues already have long-term tenants. We can be confident that the site will be a great social, commercial and sporting centre for London in the future.

[Tracey Crouch]

Will the right hon. Lady join me in thanking the private companies that have over a number of years invested in our athletes, but that will get nothing from the Olympic games, perhaps because they are not official sponsors? Aviva, where I worked before entering Parliament, has sponsored elite athletes; British Gas has sponsored swimmers, I believe, and other companies have sponsored gymnasts. They have helped our athletes to perform the best they can at the forthcoming Olympics.

[Tessa Jowell]

I am delighted to support everything the hon. Lady says. Through UK Sport, our athletes have been the beneficiaries of unprecedented funding to enable them to do their very best in front of the home crowd, but this is quintessentially a public-private partnership. I know the support that athletes have received from their sponsors has been indispensable, as has the sponsorship by some of our great companies of the games themselves.

[Mr Foster]

I was remiss in not mentioning this in my speech, but although the right hon. Lady is correct in saying that it is a public-private partnership and we should be grateful to all the private sector bodies that have sponsored and become involved, the one part of the public sector that is often missed and not thanked is local government. My local authority, Bath and North East Somerset council, has put in an enormous amount of effort and money to ensure that we get a lasting legacy.

[Tessa Jowell]

Again, I am delighted to join the right hon. Gentleman —my right hon. Friend for the purpose of Olympic business—in welcoming that work. I met a number of London local authorities last week to hear from them directly about their plans and the efforts they are undertaking. The commitment of so many local authorities is inspirational.

Many references have been made to the importance of cross-party support, which has been fundamental, first, to the stability of the delivery of one of the riskiest programmes imaginable; and, secondly, to maintaining public confidence. In particular, I thank the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) and the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport for the way in which they have maintained that cross-party solidity, from which lessons can be drawn, I believe, for other aspects of public policy that require long-term commitment.

There is a point at which we will hand the games over to the initiative, the passion and the enthusiasm of the British people, because there is only so much that Government, LOCOG and the ODA can do. There will be a moment in the middle of May when, as many hon. Members have said, the Olympic torch is lit and it begins its tour around our country. That will be the moment when the whole country wakes up to the certainty that the Olympic games—the UK’s games—will be held in London in a matter of 30 or 40 days.

18:40

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Today, there are 151 days to go and the good news for the whole House is that the construction is now 96% complete and we are on track to deliver within the much-discussed £9.3 billion funding package. Of the original £9.3 billion, more than £500 million remains as uncommitted contingency, with the ODA holding just over £100 million and the Government about £400 million. The details will be released to the public, as they always are, tomorrow morning.

I thought the best way to wind up the debate would be to go through the various contributions made, the first of which was from the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). As we have come to expect from him, he made a typically sensible, informed and balanced speech and, I am delighted to say, he acted as a lightning conductor for all the early questions, thereby saving me some trouble.

My hon. Friend was right to point out that when the budget was moved from the bid budget to the delivery budget, it contained considerable contingency funding. It is a fair point that, as a result, we have been able to absorb the lack of private sector investment in both the village and the international broadcast centre/main press centre.

My hon. Friend rightly praised the ODA. I believe that the ODA has recalibrated Britain’s reputation abroad, as we saw clearly during the world athletics championship bid at the end of last year. Put simply, we are now trusted to deliver what we promise. That is the real achievement of the ODA. He rightly pointed out that the LOCOG operating budget is finely balanced. Set against that, it has done extraordinarily well both in ticketing revenue—for all that that has given rise to one or two other issues—and in gaining private sponsorship.

My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the repayment of the national lottery, in fulfilment of an undertaking given by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) at the time the new budget was set in March 2007. It will be reimbursed by land receipts. It is also worth pointing out that the national lottery is doing much better now than it was in 2005, and the amount of money that sport receives from it is due to increase from £1.3 billion in 2010 to £1.8 billion by 2016-17. In part, that is because of the change in the shares and the Olympic levy dropping out, but it is also because lottery ticket sales are rising. I believe that when people see lottery cash being spent on projects to which they can relate, they buy more tickets. The Olympic project has a part to play in all that.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is no longer here. He attacked the Scottish position, but as many in his party do, he forgot that the increase in lottery shares and in cash going to sport, the arts and heritage benefits organisations in Scotland just as it does organisations south of the border. Sport in Scotland will benefit precisely when he wants it to—around the time of the Commonwealth games.

I cannot say much about the legacy of the stadium, because we are in a contractual moment. There were 16 expressions of interest in the stadium, which is rather more than we expected, and the process is continuing. We will know at the end of March how that has gone.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon said that two challenges remain. In a sense, for Government there are three main challenges relating to the Olympics: security and transport, which he mentioned, and legacy, which everyone who has spoken in the debate referred to. If we get those things right, everybody will concentrate on the sport and forget about us, which is probably the ideal situation.

[Lyn Brown]

The Minister will know that I wrote to him earlier this month about local transport issues in the area and the need to let local people and local businesses, particularly my small and medium-sized businesses, know about our plans. Will he address that matter with some urgency?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, I will do so. That is the simplest answer to the hon. Lady’s question.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give the House a commitment that the legacy will include working outside the London area? He and I have already discussed the fact that the national lottery has designated an iconic site in my constituency for post-Olympic development. Can we ensure that the Government back that up?

[Hugh Robertson]

Of course we can. A number of Members have mentioned the Places People Play legacy scheme, which involves £135 million worth of funding from Sport England precisely to try to regenerate sports facilities that, for various reasons, have fallen out of previous funding rounds. That has been so successful that Sport England plans to bring forward another £100 million worth of funding in the next cycle. Close to £250 million worth of funding is therefore going into the renovation of grass-roots sports facilities, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s scheme will have as good a chance as any other, provided that it meets the criteria.

[Ian Swales]

The Minister referred to security. Is he aware of the Public Accounts Committee hearing of 14 December and of subsequent letters expressing real concern about the escalation of security costs and, in particular, the trebling of the cost of the G4S contract?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, I am. I am not absolutely sure that the G4S contract will treble, in the end. That judgment was probably made before the re-division of the security numbers—the man-guarding numbers—at the end of December. Let us not pretend that this is not a tricky question, however. The responsibility of every Government is the safety and security of their citizens, and of all those who attend the Olympics, so if it takes a doubling or tripling of the budget to keep people safe, that is what we will do. It is very easy to throw bricks, but it is extraordinarily difficult to get an accurate figure that can act as a comparator. Normally, with events such as these, we would look at the previous games. However, it is very difficult to draw meaningful security comparisons with the Beijing games, or with the Athens games, which took place in the immediate aftermath of a number of terrorist outrages. We therefore use the Sydney games in almost all cases when we need a comparator. They took place before the birth of the modern terrorism age, however, and it is extraordinarily difficult to get this absolutely right. I am as confident as I can be at this stage that the re-division of the security budget that took place at the end of last year will meet the challenge that is being presented to us, that the plans now being put forward are extremely robust, and that the combination of some military presence and some G4S—although not as much as originally envisaged—along with volunteers and the filling-the-gap scheme will produce the right de-risked mix of security that will enable us to deliver a safe games.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) rightly talked about the effect of the opening ceremonies on the national economy. The GREAT campaign is designed precisely to make use of those opportunities. Through him, I would like to congratulate Brighton and Hove Albion, a club with which I have had dealings in the past, on its community work.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) spoke about the use of local committees to ensure benefits. Like him, I want to pay tribute to the work of Team West of England, which is an excellent example of what can be done. Two other Members made points during his contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) mentioned the work being done in Much Wenlock, the original home of the Olympics, and the major exhibition that is to start there. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) talked about the good work that he and Sport England have done to bring about the events that will take place in Medway park.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bath also made some excellent points about the four opening and closing ceremonies. When we have these debates, it is worth remembering that two of those will be Paralympic ceremonies, at which we will celebrate the contribution that this country has made to Paralympic sport. He also rightly mentioned the legacy of increased funding through the lottery, which has allowed us to fund the school games and the Places People Play scheme. He was also absolutely right about international inspiration. All of us who have seen this project from the inside regard that, in some ways, as the great untold success story of the legacy of the London 2012 Olympics. Twelve million children in 19—soon to be 20—countries have been touched directly by London 2012.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Louise Mensch) was right to praise the work of the Olympic Delivery Authority. She was also correct to highlight the work of the Olympic Park Legacy Company on securing legacy uses for six of the eight main venues. The Westfield shopping centre in Stratford has also been a fantastic success. I think I am right in saying that it has broken every record by getting more than 1 million people through its front door in the first seven days.

My hon. Friend also talked about participation, and it is worth saying a few more words about that. We have set ourselves the most extraordinarily difficult task in trying to increase participation, which the national lottery has failed to do despite almost a decade of funding. It is akin to trying to turn round a super-tanker. Australia, with all the great advantages of a sporting nation—a warm climate, lots of outdoor space and so on—failed to do it on the back of the 2000 games.

There are several reasons why we have thus far failed to make much of an impression in that regard. The 1 million target was not, in itself, unrealistic, but the measurement system by which it was assessed almost certainly was. Asking people to record three separate incidents of sport a week in order to contribute to the target rather overlooks the fact that most people who play sport one level below national or international level probably train once a week and play at the weekend. That is certainly what I was doing when I was playing hockey at a reasonable level. Such people would fail the Sport England measurement target. Dave Brailsford, the performance director of British Cycling, is widely respected as a high-performance coach and a mass participation expert. He believes that cycling alone has gained 500,000 participants since the Beijing games, but that the problem is that they do not meet the target of three separate incidents a week, because most people take out their bicycle at the weekend.

It is therefore extraordinarily difficult to increase participation. Allied to that, I do not think that the governing bodies really worked out how to do it, in the early stages of whole sport plans. A lot of consumer-related work needs to be done around the subject, and many of the bodies did not realise what was involved in influencing consumer behaviour. My hon. Friend also made a good point about red button access, and I shall pursue that matter with the BBC later this week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) is my constituency neighbour and a prominent footballer. She was absolutely right to pay attention to the part played by Olympians in inspiring young people to take up sport. It was also great to hear the plans put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) for the torch relay when it stops overnight in Hastings. I will look into the question of the William Parker sports college. The problem is that, since the torch relay route was announced, she is about the 15th or 16th Member to press me to divert it just a tiny distance to take in some well-meaning group or other. I will look into her request, but such diversions almost always have a knock-on effect somewhere else; if we divert the relay to a particular school, for example, we have to take it away from somewhere else, because those days are incredibly congested. I will, however, have a look at the matter for her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) was unnecessarily modest about his sporting talent. He rightly stated that many of the venues constructed for London 2012 will be iconic. Indeed, many of them already are. The velodrome has already won a number of architectural awards, as has the stadium, and the aquatic centre will undoubtedly do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) talked about the benefits of the torch relay to his constituency. He was also absolutely right to mention the inspirational effect of Olympians on young people. Representing the county of Kent, we both know about the work being done by Kelly Holmes, as well as younger athletes such as Georgina Harland and Lisa Dobriskey from Ashford, who have done a huge amount in that regard. He was also right to point out that the Places People Play scheme has been designed to refurbish sporting facilities on the back of London 2012. I absolutely take his point about the effect of sporting programmes on reoffending. The Home Office will no doubt lead on that issue—I am looking along the Bench to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) as I say this—but we will ensure that that work is undertaken.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—the House’s dressage expert, as he is now to be known—made some powerful points about the Paralympics. Britain is of course the home of the Paralympic games; they started here in 1948. There is an interesting parallel involved here. We started the Paralympics in that year precisely because we had so many injured servicemen coming back from the second world war, and when I look at the Paralympic teams that I see training up and down the country today, it is extraordinary to see how many servicemen and women who have been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are finding a new future for themselves through Paralympic sports. My hon. Friend was also right to mention the Special Olympics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) spoke powerfully about the benefits of the Olympics for the north-east. I have been up there twice in the past month, including a visit last week to Durham, where a new sports centre is being opened on the back of the Places People Play programme. He was right to emphasise the tourism benefits for a region such as his, which has so many great cultural and tourism opportunities. Having seen what I have seen on both my visits in the past month, I am sure that this will be a wonderful moment for the region, and that it will definitely make the most of it.

Let me deal with this business about Olympic brands, which is sometimes as frustrating for the Government as it is for organising committees. We were keen to have a schools Olympics but were not allowed to do so. This rule can be infuriating, particularly when we see it applied to flower shows and all the other things that get caught up. However, without it sponsors would not have had the security they needed to commit to the games in the way they have done. I hesitate to make this direct connection, but I think that it is very unlikely that we would have raised £700 million of private sector sponsorship from big firms if it had not been through the security they got through the original London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, infuriating though it is for many small societies and organisations.

I absolutely take the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) about London-centric games, which I think we are all very aware of. I cannot say too much about the opening ceremony, but there is a clue in the title revealed two weeks ago—Isles of Wonder—which does not necessarily suggest anything too London-centric. I think that he will find that his concerns have been met. Of course, the train line between Liverpool Street station and Stratford can be picked up through the “Look of London” funding, so I think that that should be possible.

Finally, I thank the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for not only her contribution, but her ongoing work as a member of the Olympic Board and everything she has done up to now. She was right to lay out the legacy for the bid in two ways: the regeneration of the east end and the ambition to energise young people through sport. I think that we are now in as good a place as we possibly can be to try to meet that. It remains to be seen whether we can do that and then record it in a meaningful way that allows us to show that it has been done. I think that we are at last really beginning to understand what needs to be done to achieve that very laudable aim. I thank her once again for the cross-party support and the way she has dealt with this in government and in opposition. She is absolutely right that, without that, we simply would not have the public confidence in this project.

We have had a good debate today. I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, for all the work that he and the Committee have done. We are on track, on time and just under budget to deliver a great games. Tomorrow, with 150 days to go, we will be in a position to reveal that, of the original budget, over £500 million remains in unused contingency.

Question deferred till tomorrow at Ten o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2011-12

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Forensic Science Service

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Documents: Seventh Report from the Science and Technology Committee, on the Forensic Science Service, HC 855, and the Government’s response, Cm 8215.] Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, for expenditure by the Home Office—

(1) further resources, not exceeding £66,029,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1755,

(2) further resources, not exceeding £4,421,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £173,266,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Newmark.)

19:02

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

On behalf of the Science and Technology Committee, it is my pleasure to open the first debate we have held in the Chamber in this Parliament. Our report on the Forensic Science Service was published in June last year. It was prompted by the Government’s decision to wind down the FSS and the ensuing concerns from the forensic science community and, indeed, Members across the House. Before going any further, I would like to thank the outgoing members of the Committee—motion 4 on today’s Order Paper identifies their replacements, who are welcome—for their contribution to the report and the work of the Committee. I would also like to put on the record my thanks to our scientific specialists and the Clerks for their sterling work.

I point out to the Minister that the report was unanimous, with all Committee members being dissatisfied with not only the situation we found ourselves investigating, but the Government’s response to it. To ensure the House understands the history of the situation, a few dates are relevant, and it goes back rather a long way. In 1991 the FSS became an Executive agency of the Home Office. In 1999 it gained trading fund status. In 2002 it stopped being the preferred supplier of forensic services for the Association of Chief Police Officers. In 2003 a Home Office review recommended that it become a public-private partnership via a government-owned company, a GovCo. The transition to a PPP was never completed. In 2005 the FSS changed from a trading fund to a GovCo. By March 2011, as part of a transformation programme, three FSS sites had been closed. On 14 December 2010 the Home Office announced that the FSS would be wound down and that there would be

“no continuing state interest in a forensics provider by March 2012”.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is very worrying and could lead to future miscarriages of justice?

[Andrew Miller]

I will go through the Committee’s case—hopefully reasonably forensically—but one of the concerns we express is our worry that this could lead, in the worst cases, to miscarriages of justice. At the time the Government made their announcement, the FSS’s operating losses were claimed to be about £2 million a month and the projected shrinking of forensic markets was cited as the reason for the decision.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, does he agree that one of the appalling things about the Government’s decision was that there was no consultation? There were discussions afterwards about how to wind down the FSS, but no consultation either to look at the finances or, in particular, to determine what impact that would have on the science base.

[Andrew Miller]

I not only agree with my hon. Friend, who plays a sterling role in the Committee, but think that the Government, had they undertaken the kind of consultation he envisages, would have made savings by approaching the problem in a different way. There was undoubtedly a problem, because the GovCo would technically have been trading illegally if it had carried on trading at a loss, but for reasons I will set out there were solutions to that.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Before venturing any further, I should say that I have an indirect family interest in the matter.

My hon. Friend says that there were other ways of doing this. One such way was the closure of laboratories at Chepstow and Chorley, which had been envisaged and was itself controversial, but the financial effects of which have not been seen. Therefore, the Government have effectively stepped in with both feet to make this radical change before seeing whether the FSS could have put its own financial house in order.

[Andrew Miller]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I remind all Members that when making an intervention or speaking in the Chamber they must face the Chair and not turn their back to it, because otherwise it is very difficult not only for me, but for other Members to hear their contribution and pick up clearly the point from the microphones.

[Andrew Miller]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I will demonstrate later that when we saw the next set of FSS accounts, the supposed £2 million a month loss had shrunk by a remarkable degree.

The FSS provided forensic services to police forces across England and Wales and to other agencies, such as the Crown Prosecution Service. It held about a 60% share of the market when the closure decision was made. We were told that the decision was based on commercial and legal grounds. The FSS had been struggling for many years, and it had gone through a series of status changes over the previous two decades, eventually becoming Government-owned.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in 2003 the then Minister said:

“The investment required could never be funded year by year out of surplus”—[Official Report, 5 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 282WH].

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I shall cover that issue in a moment, because the whole point of the Committee’s investigation is that the FSS is not simply a trading arm; it incorporates a range of other resources, and the Government now agree that it is necessary to protect some of them, such as the archive.

In 2008 the FSS transformation programme, funded by a Government grant, was designed to turn the service into a profitable and sustainable business. The FSS told us that prior to the 2010 closure decision it had been on track—this supports the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) made—to reduce the headcount and to close three of its sites as part of that programme.

One suspects that had successive Governments—to respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti)—placed in a separate account the cost of primary research and the cost of maintaining the archive, the figures would be quite different today. However, the internal financial struggles of the FSS must be seen in the wider context of the changes to the forensic market.

Anyone who has ever run a business will know that, however much they restructure, the profitability and sustainability of their business ultimately depends on the size of the market. The market for forensic services is largely driven by the police customer, and it is worth clarifying that police forensic expenditure splits into “internal”, what they do in-house, and “external”, what they spend on external providers. External spend constitutes the bulk of the forensics market.

The peculiar factor in the Forensic Science Service is that its initial customer is the investigating police officer, but as time goes on the relationship transforms and ultimately the customer is the jury. This rather unusual transformation means that the customer is initially in one Department but finally in another, the Ministry of Justice.

Our inquiry found that between 2005 and 2011, police external forensic expenditure steadily decreased, and unpublished analysis of the forensics market in September 2010 expected the market to decline from £170 million in 2009 to £110 million in 2015. Ignoring the impact of the 2010 spending review, which had yet to bite on police resources, that analysis represented a 35% decrease in the market.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Science and Technology Committee’s seventh report of Session 2010-12 makes it quite clear, on page 67, that on this matter the previous Parliament called Labour’s approach misleading and confusing?

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading from a Government-prepared brief, but he is right. Let me be clear—

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Miller]

No, I will not.

The Committee’s report is not a partisan attack on the Government; it represents a Committee unanimously criticising the actions of a particular Department under both its current stewardship and its previous ownership. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I am taking a partisan view.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is entirely possible that the previous Government got things wrong, that this Government are also at risk of getting things wrong, and that what matters is not whose fault it is but what we can do to ensure that forensic science in this country is improved?

[Andrew Miller]

I agree. The important point is to get things right, and I hope to demonstrate that that is what the Committee achieved in its recommendations. Indeed, the Government seem to have acted on one of the substantial recommendations, and we welcome that.

Police internal spend on forensics generally increased between 2005 and 2011, but although we have had explanations, such as increased efficiencies, reduced demand, competition and driving down prices, for the decrease in external spend, we have not been able to obtain from the Government a satisfactory explanation either for the increase in internal spend or of how the money was spent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) had a very unsatisfactory response to a series of freedom of information requests, and I raised that with the Minister on 19 December 2011. In answer to my question about whether it would be reasonable to add together revenue and capital to make sense of the figures that the police forces gave us, he rightly said that that would be mixing apples with pears—but that is exactly what the Metropolitan police did in response to my hon. Friend’s inquiry.

Let me put on the record what the Scrutiny Unit had to say about the period covered by the FOI requests. During that period only £10.6 million in total was classified as capital, and that was only by fewer than half the police authorities that provided data. That accounts for less than 2% of total expenditure, but the low level of expenditure might be down partly to how capital expenditure is recorded. The Scrutiny Unit notes, for example, that the Met police stated:

“The budgets for forensic science are revenue budgets and any expenditure incurred would have been through these revenue budgets. This includes any equipment purchases or building works.”

That is not in line with normal accounting practice, whereby expenditure over a pre-determined level on items with a lifespan of more than one year is classified as capital expenditure. That normally covers items such as building works and expensive laboratory equipment, so we agree with the Minister about not mixing apples with pears.

It remains the case, however, that there is no overall control of forensic budgets, and I think the Committee proves beyond doubt that the Government’s case remains seriously damaged. This situation also demonstrates the cavalier attitude of police authorities to a reasonable request from an hon. Member making an FOI inquiry.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is laying out the ambiguities in the finances, but on the two deep issues as the police changed from an FSS customer to a competitor: first, some bodies are not accredited to the right level in forensic science; secondly, the experience from the United States of America is that when the police do their own forensic work they end up with a conflict of interest.

[Andrew Miller]

My hon. Friend’s first observation takes us right back to the first intervention that I took, on the risk of miscarriages of justice. His second point is interesting. Some laboratories that are currently up and running do not meet the standards that the regulator wants, and police authorities that have thought about that have started to bring some of the resources together in house. If we are not careful we will reinvent the FSS, and find that we have wasted a huge amount of money in the meantime.

[Dr Huppert]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are already a number of concerns about this? For example, a survey by New Scientist earlier this month found that 28.6% of analysts said that they sometimes or always feel pressured to produce a particular result. There are problems now, and there is no reason to believe that they will be resolved.

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I hope that every senior official of the Home Office is required to read that New Scientist article, because, first, it would do them good to read some science, and secondly, it underlines an important point about the quest for justice that this should be all about.

Looking forward, one of our key recommendations was that the forensics market must be stabilised. Police in-sourcing must be regulated to ensure that there is a competitive market for remaining providers; otherwise, the UK’s forensic science capabilities could be further damaged.

We also considered the implications of closing the FSS in terms of the risks to the skills base available to the criminal justice system. Our primary concern was whether forensic analysis would be taking place in unaccredited laboratories. Forensic services provided to police forces by the FSS and private companies had to be accredited to the standard of ISO 17025, but police laboratories do not have to be so accredited, and that seems to be an anomaly. That standard assesses the competence of an individual scientist and the organisation in which he or she works, as well as the validity of methods used and impartiality. Adherence to the standard is therefore crucial in maintaining the confidence of the courts and the public in the scientific evidence used in criminal cases.

We concluded that transferring work from the FSS to an unaccredited laboratory would pose significant and unacceptable risks to the operation of criminal justice. We specifically recommended that the forensic science regulator should be given statutory powers to enforce compliance with quality standards, and we remain disappointed that the Home Office has not committed to that. To the regulator’s credit, however, since our report was published we have not heard of any work being transferred to unaccredited environments.

The FSS has maintained an archive of materials, case files and notes—a rich resource that has proved valuable in cold case reviews and investigations of miscarriages of justice. To give a flavour of the scale, the FSS estimated that in May 2011 its archive held 1.78 million case files. We were deeply concerned about the uncertain future of the FSS’s archive, and strongly considered that it should not be fragmented, whatever the future of the organisation. I am pleased to say that the Government agreed with that recommendation. This underlines the fact that both Governments should have dealt with the GovCo’s accounts in a different way. About 21 staff will maintain the archive, and the Government’s estimated running costs are stated to be approximately £2 million a year. It would not be appropriate to put on a side wager with the Minister, but I predict that that cost will inexorably rise significantly, because the bigger the archive gets and the more complex the science gets, the more expensive a project this will become, albeit one that we ought to maintain in the interests of justice.

The long-term future of the archive remains uncertain. There are still several archive-related activities previously undertaken by the FSS that must be picked up elsewhere. In particular, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates alleged miscarriages of justice, will need in future to pay a private forensic service provider for the services previously provided free of charge by the FSS. I would be interested to know what assessment has been made of the impact of these changes. This again illustrates my point about the fact that the issue crosses Government departmental boundaries.

Another facet of our inquiry was to examine the impact of closing the FSS on forensic research and development in the UK. The FSS spent £3 million to £4 million a year on R and D. Private sector players also spend on R and D, but often more towards the development end. Basic forensic science research in universities and other institutions has long struggled for funds, and this area has not been supported by the research councils with the degree of priority that it deserves. We therefore recommended that the Home Office and research councils develop a new national research budget for forensic science. Alas, while there have been some soothing noises, we have not yet seen any real commitments. If this is not the job of the research councils or the Home Office, then whose responsibility is it—or are we just going to leave it in the air?

Last but not least, the strength of any organisation is its people. That is why we took a particular interest in what would happen to the highly skilled forensic scientists facing redundancy. This country is a world leader in the field, having pioneered DNA forensic technologies, for example. One does not become a forensic scientist overnight; it takes years of training and experience. Much of the UK’s intellectual wealth in this area resides within FSS scientists, and once it is lost, I fear that it will not be easily regained. We recommended that transfer of FSS staff to other forensic service providers be conducted under TUPE regulations, which provide the necessary employment protections. Reflecting our concern that forensics expertise may be lost altogether, we were keen for forensic scientists to be retained within the profession and within the UK.

The FSS had over 1,000 staff, about 840 of whom have left since December 2010. Unfortunately, while 103 staff have moved via TUPE to the Metropolitan police service and another 11 staff will move via TUPE to Government agencies, no staff have transferred to other forensic service providers via TUPE. Furthermore, because the FSS is a GovCo rather than a non-departmental public body, FSS staff have thus far been unable to access internal civil service vacancies. I am awaiting a response from the Government on this point, having written to the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 9 February.

Adding this all together, we are talking about the loss of skills to the UK; the damage to the UK’s reputation from closing a world-class service; the cost of running the archive; the fact that what the Government estimated to be a £2 million per month loss was in fact £1 million; the lack of understanding of expenditure in this important area and of the way in which it spills over to other Departments; and the impact on justice. That combination of factors makes this matter far too important to be dealt with on an estimates day, and I regret that this debate cannot take place on a votable motion.

The picture is looking bleak overall. Last week the FSS suggested that the vast majority—up to 80%—of forensic scientists from the FSS have left the industry, with an even larger percentage, closer to 90%, of research and development scientists moving to a different sector. Although there are not yet any definitive data, it appears that the UK is losing that intellectual wealth. We often talk about the brain drain in science. This could be a mass exodus of talent.

I hope that Members will agree that our inquiry into the Forensic Science Service was both necessary and timely. Before I conclude, it is worth mentioning that we put on the record criticisms of the way in which the FSS has been handled by both the previous Government and the current Government. What I would like to see from the Government is a proper well-considered strategy for forensic science in the UK. It is important that this matter be addressed well before the imposition of police and crime commissioners. It is also imperative that the strategy be based on the delivery of justice, not just on the interests of the police as a customer, as important as those are.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely powerful speech on behalf of the Select Committee. He mentioned justice. I advise everybody in the Chamber to read the oral evidence that Dr Tully gave the Committee, in which she made it absolutely clear that there will be cold cases, and perhaps current cases, in which murderers and rapists get off free because of the changes that have been made.

[Andrew Miller]

I repeat what was going to be my final point. It is imperative that the strategy be based on the delivery of justice, not just on the interests of the police, important as those are. I noticed the Minister nodding at that point; I am sure that it is one on which he and I would agree.

19:31

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). To continue the forensic analogies, it is an unquantifiable pleasure.

I want to start by recognising the excellent work that forensic scientists do, no matter where in the country they work. It is often painstaking work and it is often undertaken in unpleasant situations. Much of the work that they do is unsung and they remain largely anonymised within the system. I therefore praise the work of the forensic experts and scientists who do so much to support the criminal justice system in this country.

The Forensic Science Service has been making a significant loss for a considerable period. This is not a new situation that has materialised suddenly in the 18 months since this Government came into being. The Forensic Science Service has had 20 years of fiscal decline and difficulties. It has lost about £2 million a month. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is signalling that it is more like £1 million a month. Even if that were true, and it is not accepted that it is, £1 million a month is a great deal of money to lose, particularly in these straitened times of austerity. One cannot lightly brush aside such significant monthly losses.

[Mr Slaughter]

The overwhelming client of the Forensic Science Service is the police in England and Wales, although there are some other clients. The money is therefore being paid by the police service. If the contracts are adjusted, as they may well be by commercial providers, all that will happen is that the police service will pay more money. These notional losses are a consequence of the way in which the system is set up. What parts of the criminal justice system does the hon. Gentleman think should make a profit?

[Michael Ellis]

The Government have supplied £20 million to maintain operational continuity and some £8.7 million to cover staffing costs in recent months. There is no point in Opposition Members taking the anti-privatisation and anti-capitalist approach and saying that the best approach is for the Government to run everything from the centre. That is not the best approach. We know from numerous examples over the past 20 or 30 years how the commercial sector has driven better results and circumstances for the Government and for the individual.

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman will find that neither I nor any other member of the Select Committee from either side of the House has ever criticised the principle of having private sector providers. LGC and other providers are first-rate scientific laboratories. However, that does not make the economic case.

[Michael Ellis]

It was Sir Robert Peel who set up the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in 1842 to analyse alcohol and tobacco products. It remained in situ until 1996, when it was privatised. There has, in effect, been a managed decline of the Forensic Science Service for years, including under the previous Labour Government.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituents who work as forensic scientists for LGC that since 1991, when the market was opened up, there has been more innovation and investment, quality has been driven up, and prices and turnaround times have been driven down?

[Michael Ellis]

I do agree with that.

In Germany and the United States, both of which are first-world countries and in the group of the 20 leading industrialised nations, it can take up to six weeks for routine forensic results to come through, whereas in this country, as the LGC managing director has confirmed, similar results can be obtained in two to three days. That has been the case for years. Opposition Members express concern about the private sector and ask, “What price justice?” I say to them that the private sector has been used in forensic services for years.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

To support my hon. Friend’s point, I cite Cellmark Forensic Services, which is based in Abingdon in my constituency. It was established in 1987 as the world’s first commercial DNA fingerprinting service. It was involved in presenting the first DNA evidence at the Old Bailey. It highlights the fact that private companies can establish a reputation for quality and for technical evidence. It has had the ISO quality accreditation since 1990 and is fully accredited to submit crime scene profiles and profiles taken under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to the DNA national database. I am concerned that some of the contributions to this debate will undermine public confidence in forensic evidence that comes to the criminal justice system from private companies. I hope that Members wish to avoid that.

[Michael Ellis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) spoke about criminals getting off free. Such scaremongering is not acceptable. One has to juxtapose such suggestions with the fact that the private sector has been involved in forensic science for years and is currently responsible for up to 50% of the work.

[Dr Huppert]

There is no dissent across the Chamber on the fact that the private sector has a role and performs it well in some instances. If we are going to talk about management structures, I understand that 20% of LGC is owned by its management and staff, and that all its staff have phantom shares. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great argument for employee share ownership, because it drives companies to care about their staff and staff to care about what they are trying to achieve?

[Michael Ellis]

That sounds like a perfectly sensible idea.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman referred to what I said earlier, and I should like to clarify two points. First, the private sector does an extremely good job on many occasions. It has sped up DNA analysis, and it has improved things where there is a regular scientific progress to go through.

Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman reads the evidence, he will see that there is likely to be a problem with the interrogation of the database. That service of the FSS is likely to disappear for ever. That was why some of the evidence given to the Committee indicated very strongly that cold cases would not be solved and that in current cases guilty people would go free.

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept that at all, but I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to give his view.

Private companies already provide 35% of forensic services to the criminal justice system. To counter points that Opposition Members have made about a potential conflict of interest in the police analysing forensic evidence, I point out that there are already numerous examples of constabularies up and down the country being responsible for analysing forensic evidence such as footprints, fingerprints and the like. They farm out some areas of forensic science, but there is no suggestion that there have not been numerous examples of the police analysing evidence themselves. I see no reason why we should fear impropriety.

The archives will be retained, which is right. It is also right that staff are being moved prior to the controlled shutdown of the FSS and that work is being safely transferred. I note with some interest that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Keir Starmer, who I believe was appointed by the Labour Government, remains satisfied that the closure is orderly and that things can be properly managed. The financial service regulator has also—

[Andrew Miller]

Not the financial service regulator, the Forensic Science Regulator.

[Michael Ellis]

Forgive me. The Forensic Science Regulator has said that laboratories, prosecuting authorities, professional bodies, the judiciary and the Association of Chief Police Officers all feel that they can support the Government’s measures. The concerns being expressed by one or two Opposition Members are not duplicated by those authoritative organisations.

Twelve new service providers have already been contracted, and some already have vast experience of dealing with particularly significant cases of public fame and notoriety. They already have the type of experience that the FSS has under its belt.

Getting forensics right is important to the defence as well as the prosecution. One tends to hear the argument that it is important to secure prosecutions, but forensic results can also exonerate people who are suspected of criminal offences. They therefore serve the wider public interests of justice. The defence should be factored into what is done, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

As I alluded to in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), the managing director of LGC Forensics, one of the larger companies doing private work in the field, has pointed out that privatisation has provided and will provide capacity where the Forensic Science Service cannot necessarily cope. As in many other fields of privatisation, that greater capacity will provide faster turnaround times, which will be in the wider interests of justice. That gentleman gave the example that it takes six weeks in Germany or the United States to get some results that we in England and Wales can obtain in two to three days.

The private sector can invest in the future and in innovation in a way that Governments tend not to be able to do, or to be as efficient at doing, because of the sheer size of government. Commercial entities must innovate or die, and the private sector companies involved in the field of forensic science will be looking to innovate in certain areas. That will have a beneficial effect on the wider interests of justice.

I give as examples two inventions in the forensic science field that have been credited to LGC. Automated fibre analysis and the analysis of minuscule amounts of DNA are new fields of forensic analysis that were invented by that private company, and apparently both were used to aid the prosecution of the killers of Stephen Lawrence. I do not wish to focus only on that company, but it is right to point out that it has some 650 forensic scientists or experts in its employment and turns over £170 million annually. Such companies can expand, advance and examine what advances are being made internationally. That is another signal reason why privatisation can be in the wider interests of justice.

It has been my experience in the courts of England that juries are not particularly interested in what company a scientist comes from. If anything, they are more focused on their qualifications or experience. They are particularly impressed by how long a scientist has been working in a particular field and what his or her qualifications are. In my view, they are not likely to focus on whether the scientist comes from company A, company B or the Forensic Science Service. That will not influence juries.

[Andrew Miller]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but does he agree with me, and with Andrew Rennison, the regulator, that a jury is much more likely to be persuaded by somebody from an accredited laboratory?

[Michael Ellis]

No, I do not think I do agree with that. Of course I accept that a laboratory must be accredited, but it is most unlikely that a judge, never mind the prosecutor or the defence, would accept without question evidence from unqualified scientists. The scientists will be highly qualified to give persuasive evidence to a court, but it is of course necessary to ensure that scientific laboratories are properly accredited and qualified.

[Andrew Miller]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s last point—that is critical in the interests of justice. The Science and Technology Committee has said that whether laboratories are in the private or the public sector, work should be done in accredited laboratories; otherwise, justice could be at risk.

[Michael Ellis]

There is a very big difference there. Hon. Members will do well to recall that under the McFarland review the previous Labour Government effectively accepted a move towards privatisation but botched the job. There is no point in trying to get away from the fact that the FSS is urgently in need of change, and the Government’s move is the right one for the wider interests of forensics.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree—perhaps this has not been understood—that before a so-called expert can give written or oral evidence to a court the judge has to be satisfied that they are indeed an expert in the field in which they say they are an expert? It matters not where they have come from. What matters to the judge is that they have qualifications, experience and so on, so that it can be determined that they are an expert in the field in which they are giving evidence.

[Michael Ellis]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend—I have made that point already. The reality is that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service would not seek to put a case before a judge and jury that relied on someone who was not actually an expert. Therefore, pursuing that argument is clutching at straws.

[John Howell]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again—he is being incredibly generous—but may I take him back to the point that he was edging towards making? By proposing a £50 million subsidy in March 2009 for the transition arrangements, did the previous Government send a message that they were not interested in the private sector? Does he agree that that did more damage than anything else to their scope for investment at that time?

[Michael Ellis]

I agree. When the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) was Home Secretary, he accepted the recommendations of the McFarland review into the future of forensic science services. The then Government said that the review

“makes a number of helpful observations and recommendations aimed at improving FSS performance, but the most fundamental is that it should be transformed from a trading fund into a government-owned company as a precursor to development into a private sector classified public/private partnership…I am confident that the proposed change will stimulate and broaden the market”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2003; Vol. 651, c. WA167-168.]

The proposals are an extension of that position. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) said at that time:

“The status quo is not an option, and it is clear that we need to act to ensure that the FSS remains a leading-edge forensic organisation.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2011; Vol. 412, c. 280WH.]

That is what will happen now. The Forensic Science Service needs to provide an excellent service, but it need not be in Government hands to do so. Farming it out to the private sector is simply an extension of the current position, to the tune of between 35% and 50%, depending on whom we listen to.

The Committee report states its

“disappointment at the historical inadequacies in government decision-making that brought the FSS to its current dire financial situation.”

I recognise that, but the Committee wished to place

“on record that we consider much of the responsibility for the current problems facing the FSS to lie with previous administrations.”

I am happy to accept that point. I happen to agree with it, but I would go further and say that the FSS is in its current position almost solely because of how it was run down under the previous Labour Administration.

I note that the Committee agreed with the Government that allowing the FSS to go into administration would have been undesirable. I presume that Labour Members agree with that, because allowing the FSS to go into administration would not have been good for the criminal justice system or for FSS staff.

It is clear that the wider interests of the criminal justice system in this country are best met by the actions that the Government are taking. They are taking the bull by the horns, which has to be done to provide the continuation of the excellent service from forensic scientists and experts, who have given such excellent support to the wider criminal justice system in this country for many years.

19:49

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) not only for his Committee’s review, but for his explanation of its position. The Committee, of course, is impartial—there is a majority of coalition Members on the Committee, so it is clearly not biased in any way.

I come to this debate with no scientific expertise, but with some knowledge as a criminal lawyer. I can see on the Government Benches very eminent members of the Bar, for whom I have a fair amount of respect. I understand that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) sits as a recorder in the Crown Court, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—she is clearly not in the same party, but we get on particularly well—is a barrister.

I had suspected, although I did not know this until he spoke, that the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) was probably a member of the Bar too. I was confused about parts of his speech. He seemed to suggest that Opposition Members had said there was no room for the private sector in the FSS. With respect, I suspect that he was reading a speech that he had written in anticipation of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston might have said, rather than speaking in response to what he actually said.

I am concerned. The loss of the FSS is short-sighted and could lead to an increase in miscarriages of justice. My hon. Friend’s first criticism in the review was of the lack of consideration to the future of the FSS and of the Government’s failure to consult scientific experts. The Committee also expressed concerns about the loss of expertise—top scientists exiting the profession—and research and development work. That must be a concern for all Members on both sides of the House.

I echo those concerns, but I shall concentrate on the possible implications for the criminal justice system. Provision could be fragmented, which cannot be positive. Formerly, the FSS would independently deal with evidence from a crime scene, oversee tests and co-ordinate different pieces of evidence. I am concerned that the introduction of a number of different private providers—I do not instinctively dislike private providers—will fragment that process.

Having different providers dealing with different pieces of the jigsaw is fraught with dangers for justice and might lead to miscarriages of justice. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Northampton North, who seemed to say that the proposals are all about money, which is fine. Of course, at times of austerity, we need to be careful about how money is spent, but hon. Members will not think I am a raving lunatic if I suggest that £24 million a year is not an awful lot of money for justice, which is my chief concern.

We need joined-up, experienced teams to deal with those pieces of evidence from a crime to ensure that scientists have the complete picture. My concern is that fragmentation will mean that that will not happen as it does now.

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman does not think that £24 million is a lot to spend, but it is a £24 million loss when areas of the private sector can function without making such a loss. Does he not think it would be better if the cost to the Government were not a £24 million loss?

[Karl Turner]

Of course I do—it would be marvellous if money was not lost—but there are two sides to the argument, and I understand that the FSS says that some of that cost can be put down to the restructuring of the service.

I am also concerned about the potential for police bias. I am worried that moving forensic work in-house could undermine public trust in our judicial system and create a significant risk of police bias. There will be a clear conflict of interest if the police have to decide what evidence to test while under pressure to secure a conviction. We can see examples of that. The public must have complete trust in our judicial system, but that trust might be compromised by convictions based on forensic science that is no longer perceived to be truly independent.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman was kind in his opening comments, and I respond to him in equally warm terms, but does he not agree that the police already conduct all sorts of scientific analysis—for example, relating to fingerprints, footprints and the taking of hair samples for DNA analysis? He is right to be concerned about fairness in such circumstances, but the record shows that the police are perfectly fair when it comes to such scientific evidence.

[Karl Turner]

Of course the police conduct all sorts of inquiries and investigations—the hon. Lady makes a reasonable point—but my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has told us that his Committee had concerns when conducting its review, and it was right to point out those concerns.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the concerns of a constituent of mine about the changes in the FSS that led me to talk to Humberside police chiefs about what was happening. It was clear to me that they were determined to do a good job in the circumstances but that they were concerned about the change and felt that the previous system worked very well.

[Karl Turner]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is worth noting that we are to hold elections for police commissioners in November, which might cause further problems.

Historically, prosecutors have relied on independent expert evidence from forensic specialists who have personally examined evidence collected in police investigations. The closure of this respected major research institution will, I think, lead to the loss of the most experienced forensic scientists. To be honest, I have heard little criticism of the FSS in robing rooms in Hull, and I have not heard members of the judiciary particularly—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Broxtowe looks at me with complete dismay.

[Anna Soubry]

This should not be a competition for anecdotal evidence but, in my experience, there is growing concern about the FSS’s ability to deliver its findings swiftly and efficiently. Those concerns have been growing for a number of years. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us with experience of this part of the criminal justice system take the view that the service, sadly, is no longer fit for purpose?

[Karl Turner]

I do not accept that. Absolutely not. It is true that I have heard grumblings about aspects of expert evidence put before courts, but I do not think that there is a major problem. I have certainly not heard members of the judiciary complain particularly about the service.

One of my major concerns is about the Government’s rushed decision. As with many of their policies, this policy has been rushed and is fraught with difficulties. Their desire to create a market for the provision of scientific support is putting police authorities under unacceptable pressure. The closure of the FSS will have major implications for the criminal justice system and could result in miscarriages of justice.

20:04

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to the work of forensic scientists, who do a wonderful job, whether on national cases, cold cases or, indeed, on the new activities, such as analysing drugs in people’s blood by the roadside, that we should be encouraging. These are all extremely worthwhile activities. However, despite the Opposition’s protestations of support for private companies, that does not come across in what they say; what comes across is that the FSS is the linchpin and only player in the whole sector.

I mentioned in my intervention that LGC Forensics is based in my constituency. It is the largest private sector provider of forensic science services to UK police forces, and it employs 200 people at the Culham science centre. I visited it, and its scientists are exceptional. They are extremely disciplined and dedicated. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) mentioned a private sector provider in her constituency. She is my parliamentary neighbour, and it is perhaps fortuitous that we have a little cluster of forensic scientists, given that our constituencies cover the area of Midsomer. Indeed, probably more television forensic scientists than drinkers have crawled over the tables of my local pub. That is an encouragement to people to drink.

[Nicola Blackwood]

I should point out that I am also the Member of Parliament for Inspector Morse and Lewis.

[John Howell]

I feel trumped in the television stakes, as one would expect.

[Michael Ellis]

Dr Who was born and brought up in my constituency.

[John Howell]

I fear that this is turning into a debate about who has got what television show—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will have no more Dr Whos or anything else. We will stick to the subject before us.

[John Howell]

I am grateful for those comments, Mr Deputy Speaker. I intended to head in that direction anyway.

In 1991, we had a major change with the FSS that attracted new entrants to the market, including companies such as LGC Forensics. It ushered in a period of investment and scientific innovation that has driven up quality and ensured that prices and turnaround times have reduced dramatically. That move has resulted in a safer and more secure society together with better value for the police and taxpayers. That is an important combination of factors.

But what confusing signals the previous Government sent to this emerging sector! We had just encouraged the sector to be innovative and to invest, but then, as I mentioned in my intervention, in March 2009, the Labour Administration agreed to a £50 million subsidy to support business transformation. That was a major subsidy for a company that existed in a competitive market, and it sent a very confusing signal. No one in the private sector wanted to see the end of the FSS. Indeed, some of those private companies have said that they wanted the FSS to continue because a healthy competitive market is good for all. However, doing that through this sort of heavy-handed subsidy was not the way to go.

There are good private sector providers, as even Opposition Members agree, and they have a crucial role to play. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) mentioned the Stephen Lawrence case, because it illustrated the importance of the current investment in technology. It was not available at the time, and I do not think we would have had that result otherwise.

[Andrew Miller]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would also recognise that one of the crucial points about the Stephen Lawrence case was that we were dealing with accredited laboratories. The defence would have had a powerful line of attack had those laboratories not been accredited. That point is agreed by the regulators and the Committee.

[John Howell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. From the point of view of my constituency, nobody is suggesting that LGC Forensics is anything other than a leader in the field whose reputation extends not just to this area of police work, but to a number of other areas where forensics can play a major part.

The only other point I want to make is about how the transition from the FSS is going. My feedback from the market is that the transition is going very well. Therefore, I do not accept that we will lose any of the skills or that the transition will in any way dumb down results or the activities that are undertaken. I am looking to ensure that we continue to bolster the sector. It is a sector that we can be proud of and that offers potential for even more exports, in terms of the scientific discoveries that it makes.

The only other thing I want to do is make an apology. I am grateful that you kindly called me to speak so early in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have another engagement. If I do not make it back for the wind-ups, I apologise.

20:09

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

Let me first place on the record my thanks to the Science and Technology Committee for its report and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) for the excellent leadership he has shown and the way in which he introduced the debate.

I hesitated to speak in this debate for two reasons, both linked. I had responsibility for the Forensic Science Service in the very last months of the previous Government. Therefore, there is inevitably a hesitation when one rises in such debates, not only to say something positive about what we did, but to talk about one’s successor, because the second point is this. I do not think it is fair when Ministers have left office if they jump up at every opportunity to criticise or comment on what their successors have done. The Minister deserves my support, in exactly the same way that he gave me support when I was honoured to hold the position that he now holds. However, I want to make some brief observations, not from the perspective of a criminal lawyer by any means, but from the perspective of what I think is good or bad public policy.

Whatever else has been said, the reality is that the fortunes of the Forensic Science Service have proved difficult for every Government, and would have done for any Government—both for this Government and the previous Government. They have been difficult for all sorts of reasons, not least because of the changing nature of forensics in recent times, particularly with the proliferation of DNA testing, but also because of a market—if one wants to call it that—that has been complex and in which both the Forensic Science Service and a number of private providers have played a part. When I say that in my experience some of those providers proved to be fickle, that is in no way a criticism of those who do an excellent job and are an integral part of the market; indeed, nothing that we did was about undermining what they were trying to do. However, it is true that some companies put their toes in the water and tended to look for the cheap things they could do to make a quick profit before moving on. This particular aspect of the criminal justice system deserves better.

Where I would disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) is that we should not take an either/or approach to the forensics sector. There is no reason to believe that it would be better just in private hands or just in the hands of Government-run bodies. That was the approach that we took, and that is why the transformation programme was necessary. It was not a subsidy, as he suggested; rather, as the name suggests, it was meant to transform the Forensic Science Service from being a loss maker—which we all acknowledge it was—to being a player that could continue in the forensics market. I believe that the FSS brought, and still brings, something of great value to the forensics market. It helps to be a guarantor of the highest standards, which are not simply necessary for criminal justice in our country, but well regarded and well respected elsewhere.

The transformation programme was radical in what it intended to do. It aimed to close four laboratories around the country—not three, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said. Crucially, however, in the seven that remained, work was to be done differently, because it was entirely unacceptable that an organisation such as the FSS could continue to make a loss. That was the whole point of the transformation programme as we saw it.

The Government’s defence, in their response to the Select Committee’s report, is that the FSS was continuing to lose £2 million a month. I dispute that figure, not least because the numbers were coming down. Also, in answer to a point that was raised earlier, the intention was not to have a Forensic Science Service that was continually indebted to the Government and the taxpayer; it was to have one that could stand foursquare on its own two feet. In that sense, therefore, I do not think the transformation programme has been characterised properly. The Government’s response to the report warns:

“Without funding from the Government, the FSS would have entered administration in early 2011.”

I have news for the Minister, although he already knows this: all the discussions that we had throughout the transformation programme took that for granted—not that the FSS would be in administration, but that it would always be on the edge of difficulty. Again, that was the whole point of the transformation programme: to ensure that if we wanted a Forensic Science Service, things would have to change, and they did.

Let me ask the Minister a question that I hope he will address. One of the issues that was in danger of tipping the FSS into difficulties was the black hole in the pension fund. Forgive me, but if the FSS is closed, I would imagine that there necessarily remains a commitment to the pension fund. Somebody will have to fill that hole at some point along the way, so how much of the money that the Government are using to close down the FSS will go into the pension fund?

The previous Government, of whom I am proud to have been a member, introduced a reform programme. However, contrary to what we have heard this evening, we started from an assumption that at one point in the future the FSS would be—could be—privatised. My only concern was that it would have to be demonstrated that it was better to put the FSS into private hands than for the Government to continue to have an interest in it. In my view, that needed to be demonstrable, and the evidence was simply not there. However, as far as I remember, closure was not an option that was seriously considered—or, indeed, seriously sought. I wonder where it came from, because it is quite a major step from where we were. Will the Minister confirm that the Home Office scientific adviser played a key role, not in responding to the decision, but in formulating it? What was the role of the forensic science regulator? The report talks about Andrew Rennison in excellent terms—he is indeed a fine man—and about how he has been reappointed, but was he consulted before the decision was made? Or again, has he simply been asked to make the best of a bad job? What did the police say? We can only really know that once the Government have published ACPO’s response—I refer not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston did, to how the police will cope, now that the Government have already made the decision, but to whether they said it was a good idea or not.

We were criticised for how we introduced the transformation programme. I still have the scars on my back, not least those inflicted by a Deputy Speaker who was, and remains, a doughty fighter for his constituents in Chorley, over one of the labs that was to close. Let me say this. On looking at the decision, how it was announced and the consultation, it makes me think, although Mr Deputy Speaker will not agree, that what we did was a model way of doing it. I am afraid this Government’s response is not acceptable.

I want to pay tribute to the excellent men and women of the Forensic Science Service. They have given, in some cases, decades of commitment, building up decades of experience not just for the service, but for our country. The reality is, as we have heard, that when the FSS goes, some of those people will leave forensics and some will stay in it but go to other countries, which will benefit from the experience that we built up over a long period. I simply ask whether this is the right decision.

[Michael Ellis]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that those excellent scientists will have more places in the private sector to go to and may well end up with a wider choice and earn more money? That is the free market at work.

[Mr Campbell]

They may do. It is entirely their choice if they want to do that, but let me ask the hon. Gentleman a question. When the Gulf states, which are running out of oil and are making investments for a modern state, wanted the very best forensic service for their country—indeed, the best in the world—who did they go to? They did not go to America or to Germany; and when they came to this country, they did not go to the private companies either. I will tell him who they came to and still have a contract with, as far as I understand it: they came to the Forensic Science Service. What is it that the Gulf states appreciate about this service that we apparently no longer do?

I have enormous respect for the police, for the science and, indeed, for the courts, but there is an issue about what will happen if forensics lies mainly or wholly in the hands of those working in police labs. They are doing their best, and we know that they will not cut corners or come up with the wrong decisions for whatever reasons people might suspect. The criminal justice system, however, is about more than that. It is about respect for people in that situation. I want some reassurance from the Minister, who has nodded his head when this matter has been raised, that when the FSS has gone, along with the expertise, status and respect that goes with it, we will not see miscarriages of justice or court situations where cases are thrown out because the police have not only caught the criminal and aided in the prosecution, but have provided the forensic evidence as well.

This debate is about whether we want a forensic science service in the future and what it will look like. We would have known what it looked like if the transformation programme had been given a chance. We asked some hard questions, so I ask the Minister whether those same questions were asked when he looked at the world beyond the FSS. For example, can he guarantee that in a major incident a forensic officer will be in there within four hours? It seems obvious that one will be, but is that the case? We asked that very hard question of the FSS, which sometimes struggled to give us an answer.

What will happen, God forbid, if there is a 7/7 or a 9/11? Is the Minister convinced that we will have the capacity in forensics to deal with that situation? At the time of the report, Durham, Cleveland and South Yorkshire constabularies not only did not have the necessary facilities, but did not have the contracts with external providers either. Yet we are told that the FSS is going to disappear this year. I wonder whether we are taking risks.

My final point is that this is a risky decision. I do not envy the Minister the decisions he has to take; I envy him his job, but not his difficult decisions. This is one decision, but what about all the other things happening across Government? What about the cuts in police numbers? What about the Justice Secretary’s acceptance that crime will inevitably rise in a recession? What about the changes to the rules on DNA that the Government are making in the Protection of Freedoms Bill? Add them together, and I am worried. Whatever the Minister’s motives, this is the wrong decision. I do not doubt that the Minister has gone to the nth degree to look at the issues, but I worry. This is my final question: why is it that instead of spending taxpayers’ money to get an FSS that is fit for purpose, we are spending the same amount of taxpayers’ money to end up with no FSS at the end of it all? It just does not make sense.

20:25

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I have been approached on this issue by a number of constituents, particularly those who used to work in the Huntingdon lab. I also have an interest as a member of the Home Affairs Committee. In fact, I have a number of parliamentary questions on this matter tabled for answer today. Sadly, as I came into the Chamber, they had not yet been answered, but I am sure they will be during the course of our debate, and they will of course be published. As ever, the Government will respond, I am sure, in time.

I congratulate the Science and Technology Committee, and particularly its Chairman, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), on their work. It is a shame that the good and balanced work from the Committee—with one major exception, which I will come to later—has been let down slightly by the quality of the debate on both sides of the House. We have heard a rather tedious debate about who made what mistakes at which point in the past, and a rather odd debate about who is in favour of the private sector and who is in favour of public sector administration. My answer is that I am in favour of whatever gives us the best forensic science services, and I hope that all Members would agree with that.

It is important to have high levels of accreditation and standards. Otherwise, there could be concerns, although they might have been over-egged. It is certainly true that in 2009 the US National Academy of Sciences strongly recommended that forensic labs should be buffered from forces investigating crime. That is because pressures necessarily arise from working too closely with them. What that means is that we must ensure that the new scheme does not fall foul of those traps. We certainly do not want the same police officer who is leading on an investigation to be the same person who does the forensic analysis. I believe, however, that it is possible for the police to find a way around that, as, for example, with the good work done by the National Policing Improvement Agency in looking into serious injuries. It has a rather gruesome collection of images, and I do not believe that suggestions of bias have been made in that case.

It is important for the Government to keep an eye on this issue, and I hope they will consider reviewing the impact of the changes over the coming years, particularly in respect of the trust of the public and ensuring that we do not see miscarriages of justice. I do not think that they will happen, but I want to know that the Government will ensure that they do not. They must ensure that there is enough time to analyse samples. A huge number of analysts in the New Scientist report I mentioned earlier said that they were not given enough time to do that properly. I hope that the Government will make sure that we secure the trust of the public in that respect.

There is a related problem. Programmes such as “CSI” have led the public to believe that forensic science is far more powerful than it really is and much more clear cut. It is simply not as simple, powerful or clear cut as is often portrayed. That causes real problems in both directions when a case is being examined. It means that juries expect simple, clear answers, but also that they could be excessively concerned at the times when they are not given what they expect.

There is also a problem—I hope the Minister will find some way to tackle it—with a recent ruling. As far as I know, it has not been overturned, and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. The issue is how juries are taught to deal with the prosecutor’s fallacy and the statistical errors that can arise when looking at numbers. It was ruled in a recent case that Bayesian statistics could not be used in the court. I find that very worrying, because such statistics are key to the way in which data are interpreted. The premise is simple: the information that is available should be examined before a test is carried out. For example, if we hear the noise of hooves, we know that it could be being made by a horse, a zebra or a unicorn, but given our prior knowledge of which animal is most likely to be proceeding along Horseguards, we conclude that it is probably a horse. That sort of analysis is very simple, and it ought to be possible to employ it in a court. I hope that there will be a way of ensuring that juries know how to use such information, because the generating of information—which is what we are talking about—is useful only if the information is examined correctly.

I was shocked to discover that the regulator did not have the statutory powers that I think are necessary, and that that had clearly been the case for a long time. I had genuinely assumed that we would provide regulators with the powers that they need. I hope that the Government will think again, because providing statutory powers would provide some extra reassurance, particularly given the new world in which we are living. I also hope that regulators will have the resources that they need to do their job, because as providers become more disparate, the process of regulation will be increasingly important.

I had intended to ask what more would happen about cold cases and existing samples, but the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston dealt with that, and I assume the Minister will respond to what he said. Nevertheless, we need to think about how we are to ensure that there is continuity after the FSS.

One aspect of the Committee’s report causes me great concern. It involves the role of the chief scientific adviser, Professor Bernard Silverman. He was personally criticised in the report, and I very much regret that: I do not think that it was appropriate. I think that there is a problem with the way in which the Home Office looks at scientific advice, and with the seniority and the access that the chief scientific adviser is given in the Home Office. I have raised those points in the Committee with the chief scientific adviser, who has a slightly different perspective on the issue of the amount of access provided.

I think that chief scientific advisers should sit on the boards of their Departments, and should have access to information enabling them to deal with any concerns at an early stage rather than waiting to be invited to comment. There is a problem across Government in regard to their role, and that means that there will be similar problems in a number of areas in which advice is sought too late in the process. I fear that the Minister will not be able to tackle that problem alone, and I hope that the Government as a whole will ensure that chief scientific advisers are given an important role.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Surely it is up to the chief scientific adviser to put his spoke in at an early stage, rather than waiting to be invited to comment. He should have enough intelligence—I mean intelligence in the classic military-type form—to understand what is going on, and to say “Look, I want to comment on this.”

[Dr Huppert]

I will not make the standard jokes about military intelligence that would normally arise at this point. I entirely understand what my hon. Friend means. That is precisely why I think it essential for all chief scientific advisers to be provided with all the papers. The problem is how they can know what is going on, because some Departments are not as free with their information as others. I will not single out the Home Office in this instance, but I think it right for chief scientific advisers to have the information at an early stage. It is difficult to comment on things that you do not know about until it is too late.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I will give way once more, but then I must make some progress.

[Diana Johnson]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was as surprised as I was when I read the evidence from the chief scientific adviser, who had said that he did not think it appropriate for him to be consulted about the decision to close the FSS because he thought that it was merely about finance and the possibility that the service would go into administration. Was that not a rather shocking approach for him to take?

[Dr Huppert]

I think the key point is that chief scientific advisers should be consulted, as a matter of routine, at the beginning of the process. That is much more important than raking through the question of exactly what counts as a commercial and hence legitimately non-scientific issue, and what counts as a genuinely scientific issue. Chief scientific advisers should be given more access, and their roles and seniority should be elevated.

Professor Silverman conducted a review of research and development in forensic science, and the findings were published in June 2011. They make a very interesting read, and raise a number of issues. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government will respond to some of the key points.

The report says that, when it comes to forensic sciences,

“improvement in the degree of linkage and communication would drive forward innovation most effectively”.

Will the Minister consider whether the forensic science regulator should have a duty to improve the linkages that are necessary, in order to fill the role that was formerly occupied largely by the FSS?

The report also recommends that there should be a regular cross-disciplinary forensic science conference, and I hope that that will be possible. Perhaps the regulator should be able to deal with it as well, because there are problems with fragmentation of the field.

Another issue that has not been touched on so far is training, and ensuring that the right people enter the forensic science sector. I had a very interesting time when I visited the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. One of the issues that we discussed was the poor quality of the vast majority of training courses in forensic sciences at universities. If I remember correctly, there were only two courses that the LGC considered to be of a sufficiently high standard. I will not test my memory by attempting to remember which two they were, but it is a problem if the right people are not being employed in the sector.

The LGC believes that it should generally take people who have been trained in chemistry and a range of other subjects, and that people are being misled into taking forensic science courses that are not good enough to secure their employment in the sector. I hope that the Government will think about that, because it would be consistent with Government policy to try to steer people away from courses that will not enable them to achieve the expected goals.

Professor Silverman’s report also argued that

“the interdisciplinary nature and societal importance of forensic science, as well as the opportunities that would be created by better communication, make it an appropriate candidate for particular attention by the Research Councils and the Technology Strategy Board.”

In other words, he recommends that we should be investing in it as part of our general science spend. Although I am, of course, aware that there must be limits on how much the Government can tell the research councils what to do, has the Minister had any conversations about whether that recommendation could be implemented?

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the final point we made was that

“we would certainly welcome any further thoughts from you, Professor Silverman, about the relationships with the TSB, the Research Councils and HEFCE. We would be grateful if you, Mr Rennison, would flag up to us any concerns you have about the quality of the science that you see during this very difficult process, because the one thing that we can all agree on, despite all the arguments about whether this was right or wrong, is that the interests of justice have to come first in all of this.”

The Minister then closed the meeting by agreeing with that. I therefore think we can all agree on this point.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Although I have tried to follow what his Select Committee does, I do not necessarily manage to follow every nuance.

How assessment is conducted is also an issue. In respect of the research excellence framework, there is a table in the Silverman review detailing the units of assessment that might apply to forensic science, an approach that creates the risk of falling between many cracks. I do not intend to dwell on the REF, however.

What are the long-term prospects for research and development? When I visited the LGC the staff proudly showed me a field kit they were working on that is intended to enable DNA testing to be done out in the field and therefore speed up getting results. That would be very welcome. They said they had spent about £3 million on developing the kit thus far—it is not finished yet. The LGC is able to do that because it is a large organisation. I cannot imagine a police force being able to invest so much money in such a detailed and specific project. Research and development is not an area in which we can have 10 organisations each doing a tenth of the work. The LGC is clearly able to do that work, so it does not require the help of the FSS. I hope the Government will ensure that we have research and development with a long-term perspective. In areas such as low copy number analysis, there are risks of over-interpretation of data. There must be sufficient coherence in our research and development programme to address such issues.

I do not want to rehearse in detail who did what when. We are where we are, and we must now make sure we go forward in the right direction.

20:37

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I begin by referring to the declaration of interests that I made earlier in this debate? I also wish to praise the contribution—not only in today’s debate, but in leading the Select Committee—of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). He has framed the general discussion on this subject.

I could talk about the many aspects of the Government proposals that I consider to be short-sighted—the effects on the police, on the current staff and on the international reputation of forensic science in this country, for instance—but instead I shall focus on a central point, which the Select Committee report sums up thus:

“The primary consideration throughout must be the health of the criminal justice system.”

The Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Royal Society of Chemistry, Sir Alec Jeffreys—the inventor of DNA profiling—and senior members of the legal profession have all called on the Government to reconsider their decision, citing the serious negative impact it will have on criminal justice. The Government appear to be concerned only with the question of whether other people will do the work; they have not asked what the quality of that work will be.

I say that because the Government conducted no consultation on the wider criminal justice implications of this decision. Instead, they looked at the books, saw an organisation that cost more than it recouped—I shall say more about that shortly—and decided to close it. They did not consult the Director of Public Prosecutions, and they appear to have neglected to talk to the CCRC. Even the Attorney-General was consulted only in the “final clearance processes”.

The Government undertook no investigation. They looked at none of the wider issues. In the words of Sir Alec Jeffreys, this is “bean-counting”. It is no way to make policy, and this decision smacks, above all, of short-sightedness. The Government justify their decision by talking about saving money, yet the amount that could be saved is contested. As we have heard, the Government say it is £24 million, whereas the FSS, which perhaps knows more about its own budget, says that it is about half that—£11 million in the past year.

[Bob Stewart]

Surely the most important thing is the kind of service we will get. If the FSS is at a certain level and we do not get any other system up to the same level, there is no question of abolishing it. We must have a service of at least that level or higher; otherwise we are wasting our time. Justice must be done, and if necessary we will have to pay for it. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points about the worldwide reputation.

[Mr Slaughter]

I most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point clearly and forcefully, and I hope that the Minister will address it head on. However, given that other Government Members have constantly referred to the figure—the £24 million, or the £12 million —I fear that the cost argument is the best the Government have. It is not a good argument, and it is not even very valid. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), although not every piece of FSS work comes from the police services, the overwhelming majority of its work does. So what we are saying is that the FSS is subsidising police services at the moment.

Perhaps the police services have got a good deal. For example, if a particular police force negotiates a fixed fee with the FSS for complex cases and an hourly rate for simple matters, clearly that police service will have got a good deal, as it will get a fixed fee for important and complex cases with many pieces of evidence, and where it thinks that there is not much involved in a case, it will pay just for what it wants. If that is right, it may actually be the right way to do things, as it may take the pressure off the police in terms of not submitting items of evidence. If a police force was paying by the hour or for every piece of evidence, and a complex crime scene had 100 pieces of evidence to be submitted, it might think, “Do we really need to submit every piece of evidence?” Perhaps the police are not expert enough to make those decisions and the systems works well, even if it produces a notional deficit for the FSS.

If that is also right, and the service is running at a deficit now, will commercial companies be prepared to allow such a situation to continue? Will they not renegotiate contracts with police forces over time that ensure that they not only cover their costs but make a profit? At least one Government Member has said, “Good luck to forensic scientists if they go off and earn more money in the private sector.” If that is right, who is going to pay for it? If, instead of working in the FSS, former senior members of its staff are hiring themselves out as consultants at a substantial daily rate, that sum will be picked up by the police and by the taxpayer. The argument about finance really does not hold water.

Let me pick up on the point made in the intervention by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Dependability and expertise do cost money, and without them in criminal justice we would be in the realm of appeals and retrials, which also cost money. We have all received briefing notes detailing the many criminal cases in which the FSS has made a real difference, but the Minister has given us no reassurance that the new arrangements will produce the same essential level of dependability.

Let me set out the practical problems, in terms of criminal justice, with what the Government have proposed. First, although we are told at the 11th hour that the archives have been saved, they are now detached from the FSS—or what will replace it—as indeed is research. We used to have a unitary body that had its expertise not only in its written archive but in its expert staff. It would also have its research arm, and its investigatory and reporting arm. That is the right way to go about things.

Secondly, we must deal with the non-applicability of section 17 powers. Under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the Criminal Cases Review Commission has the power to obtain material held by public bodies. It has requested material at least 150 times from the FSS since 2005, and has indicated that the contractual power to obtain material that will be included in contracts for the provision of private forensic science services is clearly not as satisfactory as a statutory power.

Thirdly, there is the potential for loss of expertise as top scientists exit the profession. That, and the loss of Government funding, will mean a major loss for research and development. Some 75% of forensic scientists have said that the new arrangements will lead to more miscarriages of justice, and there is the potential for that. The Government have provided no reassurance whatsoever on that point, so I hope that the Minister will do so.

[Andrew Miller]

On my hon. Friend’s point about the skills base, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys said in his evidence to the Committee that the closure

“will scare off the new people coming into the field…So, yes, I think it will choke off opportunities and developments in forensic science in the future.”

[Mr Slaughter]

I can only agree.

The Government say that police labs can pick up the slack, but even if the police behave with complete propriety there will be scope for defendants, through counsel, to allege that pressure could have been brought to produce certain results. The Home Office Forensic Science Service was set up as a successor to the Metropolitan police forensic science service, in part for that very reason. Miscarriages of justice—not necessarily in the Met area—in the ’70s and ’80s were the reason why there was seen to be a need for an independent forensic science service. In the Library debate pack there is a quotation from an expert in cognitive behaviour at University college London, Itiel Dror, who says:

“The fact that more forensic work is going to be done by police doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad, but it means you have to take extra measures such as buffering examiners from police detectives, so they are not breathing down their necks saying ‘we think it’s this person’”.

What assurances will the Government give today that such protection will be in place?

Then there is the question of disparity between the resources of police forces. The Met probably will have the resources, given its size, but will Cumbria? Will Suffolk, or Devon and Cornwall, have the ability to run the same sort of operation? I doubt it. We are losing a comprehensive service that is serving the police, the courts and the public well. The FSS does painstaking work in ensuring that perpetrators of serious crimes are brought to account.

I am sorry that we had to wait for my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) to hear proper tribute paid to the people in the FSS—although, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston paid such a tribute too. That, essentially, is what this debate should be about. In terms of reputation, independence and the flexibility and ability to deal with everything from major complex cases to routine work, as well as the comprehensiveness of the service they can offer, we are losing key points. What are we losing? Expert staff and continuity. It is not even certain whether, from next month onwards, forensic scientists who have gone abroad, left the profession or retired, as a consequence of the break up of the FSS, will be available for ongoing cases. We are losing that continuity in the archive and research facility as well as in the operational service. We are losing a huge body of knowledge, and we are wasting equipment as well as human resources, by closing down the service so quickly in such a short space of time.

What is the alternative?

[Bob Stewart]

I think we might also be losing the ability to have seriously world-beating research and development in FSS-type matters. That is what worries me; we must not lose that R and D ability. If we are going to change, things must be just as good as they were before. If they will not be, we should leave them as they are.

[Mr Slaughter]

I wholly agree, and I ask the Minister, even if he is going to rely on the argument about money, to balance that consideration against the opportunity cost—the risk of losing the services that the FSS provides, which are in some cases easily quantifiable but in others are intangible, in terms of both its archives and its research and development.

I am not going to fall into the trap that some hon. Gentlemen on the Government side have fallen into, of playing the private and public sectors off against each other. I regret that one or two Government Members denigrated the FSS, saying that it was not working, and had to go for that reason. They implied that Opposition Members do not see a role for the private sector, but on the contrary, as the Select Committee report—and, I think, every Opposition Member who has spoken—has emphasised, there can be individual scientists and levels of expertise in the private sector. However, private sector companies are profit-making and will have to look at their bottom line. The way in which the changeover is happening means a mass outflow of experienced staff—often near to retirement age, often on a higher grade and often higher paid—who will be replaced, if at all, by the lower-paid and less experienced staff who come into private companies. That process might possibly work over time, but if it happens in a period of months, that will set up real problems in terms of the confidence that the criminal justice system can have in the quality of advice that it is getting.

We are going from a system in which we have a world-respected organisation to one with a very fragmented system made up partly of private sector organisations of different sizes. We have mentioned one of those, LGC, because it is the biggest, but not others that might be taking over some staff or resources from the FSS. On the other hand, we have the 40-plus police authorities that will each run, to a greater or lesser extent, their own operations, no doubt to different standards and with different ambitions and intentions. We are asked to believe that that system will provide the same quality and level of consistency of service as now. A recent survey by the New Scientist showed that more than 90% of forensic scientists, including those in the private and the public sector, thought that the abolition of the FSS would have a negative effect. Also, more than 75% thought there would be an increase in miscarriages of justice. The New Scientist also said:

“forensic science is not so much a coherent discipline as a collection of science-based techniques brought to bear on idiosyncratic questions of guilt and innocence. Since crime scenes are the very opposite of controlled environments, the answers provided by these techniques inevitably require interpretation.”

That is saying, in effect, that forensic science is sometimes as much an art as it is a science. That means—I think this is the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was making—that when someone, whether they are appearing for the prosecution or the defence, is trying to talk to a jury and pull out of very disparate and sometimes contradictory pieces of information the best case that can be made, in fairness, in looking for a way towards the truth, the more expertise and experience that can be brought to bear on doing that, the better. That is what I fear we are losing with this precipitous and hasty measure. We are also losing a service that has been respected around the world, and has built up its reputation over many years. It is irreplaceable. For that reason I ask the Government to think, at this stage, about what they are putting in place instead of the Forensic Science Service that has served the country so well for so many years.

20:54

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Let me start by making a declaration that for the best part of 21 years I was a criminal barrister. In that time I prosecuted about nine murder cases, was involved in the defence of certain cases, and prosecuted and defended well in excess of 150 Crown court trials. Certainly, I will have done 30 to 50 forensics-based cases and worked with the Forensic Science Service a great deal. Like others, I praise the Forensic Science Service as a large body of individuals who work very hard, sometimes for long hours to keep to their deadlines. We have to acknowledge, though, that the system that has developed—I will not play the blame game—is such that there are financial and logistical difficulties that any Government would have to resolve.

I urge the Minister to take on board one point. As one who has studied the work done in the Birmingham six case and the famous Griess test that never was; as one who worked on the great Guildford cheque fraud that never was, when I learned to my detriment while trying to prosecute a case that people sign their name very differently when drunk than they do normally; as one who successfully prosecuted the bigfoot burglar of Blunsdon—I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) in his place—who was apprehended thanks to the good efforts of the FSS and his size 12 boots, whose prints were identified in a large flower patch; and as one who has prosecuted many cases where hair and fibres, especially in sexual offences, as well as drugs and human anatomy, were relevant, I share Opposition Members’s concern about what assurances can be given on pressure brought to bear and on the transfer of exhibits, so that in future no shadow of a doubt can be cast, by those who defend, on the propriety of the process. I do not believe that such difficulties will arise, but it is vital for the Minister to give such assurances and explain how he will deal with that significant concern, which it is legitimate to raise.

I share that view because in the time I spent at the criminal Bar—from about 1989 onwards—I saw the development post-1990 of private contractors’ involvement. It is well known that the killers of Stephen Lawrence, Joanna Yeates, Milly Dowler, Vikki Thompson, Colette Aram, Rachel Nickell and Damilola Taylor have one thing in common: all were convicted with the help of evidence provided not by the police but by scientists working for privately owned suppliers of forensic services. Commercial companies have been providing the majority of the UK’s forensic science services for a considerable time, and I see no difficulty with the quality of their work. Even when, as a prosecution service, we were using the Forensic Science Service—and certainly on every occasion when I was a defence counsel—we would also commission a private report, authorised by the legal aid board, whereby a private company did exactly the same assessment. I see no reason why that will not continue.

[Andrew Miller]

I did not catch all the names that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but the ones I did catch were all cases in which the service was provided by accredited laboratories. Does he agree with me that that is an important factor?

[Guy Opperman]

I accept that accreditation is important, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that, but to a certain extent the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Prosecution teams and police teams will go to organisations that have proved their worth in past cases, but that is not to say that such organisations will always get it right. We have all seen, whether in shaken baby cases or in other cases where there is alternative forensic evidence, how the fact that an organisation may have performed perfectly in a previous case does not mean that it cannot make a mistake in the current case.

I will move on from the Forensic Science Service itself to give a topical example; I ask you to indulge me for a couple of minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a constituent, Tony Pickering of Haydon Bridge in Northumberland, whose son, Aidan, died in Delhi on approximately 8 March 2010. Aidan was only 24 and had only recently gone to Delhi. If there is an example of a forensic science system that is not working, where private organisations should be brought in, the Indian system is that example. A post mortem and toxicology tests were carried out in India in March 2010, and Aidan’s body was subsequently brought home. The coroner cannot carry out an inquest in Newcastle, however, because the toxicology results have not been assessed. I regret to say that it took more than a year for the samples to be sent from the local police station to the Rohini central forensic laboratory in Delhi. Another year has now passed, and the family of young Aidan Pickering still do not know what their fate is.

Sadly, this is not an isolated example. The high commission in India tells me that as of November 2011, it had 64 cases awaiting toxicology and forensic analysis. I urge the Indian authorities to look into this matter. In the context of this debate, this is a good example of how the involvement of private organisations could be a good thing, and could have assisted. I shall be visiting India in April to raise that case personally, and I should say that I have been assisted in this by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who has been an assiduous Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. He has raised the issue of forensic science very successfully, not only here but in other places. He raised this particular case not only with the high commissioner for India but with the Home Minister of India, Mr Chidambaram, and I am grateful for his assistance.

I support the decision that has been made on the Forensic Science Service, although I seek certain clarifications that I hope the Minister will be able to provide. I urge him to move forward on this matter. I also urge him to enable the Home Office to assist in any way it can in the case of my constituents who are struggling with the forensic science laboratories in India.

21:01

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Like all other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I want to congratulate the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), and all its members on the report we are discussing this evening. It has been described by many as a comprehensive and accurate outline of the key issues relating to the closure of the Forensic Science Service. I believe that the report gives a fair account of the history of the FSS and of the background to the decision announced on 10 December 2010 to close it by 31 March 2012.

The Forensic Science Service has a world-class reputation and is recognised as a pioneering body, especially in the field of DNA. It has been responsible for the training of many scientists in other jurisdictions and other forensic science services around the world, as well as being noted for playing a vital role in national emergencies such as the 7/7 bombings. Professor Niels Morling, president of the International Society for Forensic Genetics, has said:

“'So many of us have benefited from the research, development and education offered by the FSS—a worldwide network of scientists is grateful to the FSS and to British society”.

Of course, the most important part of the FSS is its employees, who have a deserved reputation for excellence. Their skills and experience are second to none, and we should pay tribute to all the commitment and hard work of the scientists and staff of the FSS as it faces its final month in operation. I have had the privilege of visiting two of the FSS sites. I visited Wetherby last February, and the site at Lambeth just before Christmas. I met the chair of the FSS with representatives of the trade union, Prospect, which represents many forensic scientists. I have also met representatives of the Law Society in relation to this matter, and many forensic scientists who care about and are committed to forensic science.

As I understand it, following the decision to close the FSS, England and Wales will be the only countries in the world without an independent, accredited forensic science service. We will still have a centrally provided service in Northern Ireland and in Scotland. I am also aware that the United States believes that this decision to close the FSS is a backward step, as it starts to examine the creation of an independent forensic science service of its own. William Thompson of the University of California has said:

“At a time when the deficiencies in forensic science are increasingly apparent, to lose one of the major research institutes is not just a loss for Britain, it’s a loss for the entire world”.

Returning to the Select Committee report, it is clear that the history of the FSS has not been a happy one under successive Governments, and the Chair of the Committee set out that history in his opening speech. We heard a candid, powerful and well-informed contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who was a distinguished Home Office Minister with responsibility for the FSS. He talked, in particular, about the decision by the Government in 2009 to make a grant of £50 million available to the FSS to restructure the business so that it could modernise and become more competitive, for example by closing forensic science sites and laboratories and reducing the number of staff. However, it is now clear that before that transformation could conclude the Government decided to pull the plug on the FSS.

The decision seems to have been taken in a hurried way and with a failure to consult all interested parties. The Government seem to have been working on a set of assumptions that have little evidence to back them up, as the report confirms. I say to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that that seems typical of the way they are making decisions at the moment. They are making decisions quickly and then finding that they have failed to consider all the issues they need to address as a responsible Government, as we are now seeing with the Health and Social Care Bill.

In the light of the excellent Select Committee report, I would like to draw out a number of issues and highlight the concerns of the Opposition and many others who care about forensic science. First, there is huge concern—it has been voiced this evening in the Chamber—about the way the Government decided to close the FSS when they did. The decision was of course announced in a written statement to the House and there was no opportunity at the time to question the Minister. It is clear from the report that only ACPO was consulted before the decision was made, and ACPO provided a report on the planned closure of the FSS to the Home Office through the work of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Unfortunately, the Government have blocked the public release of that report, which is extremely unhelpful, despite their claim to want open and transparent government and to allow proper and effective scrutiny of their decisions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said, a number of experts from the fields of forensic science and criminal justice have recently come forward to express concern that the closure of the FSS will lead to an increase in the number of miscarriages of justice and wrongful acquittals. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister explained why he did not consult the Director of Public Prosecutions, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service or the Criminal Cases Review Board before making his decision. Surprisingly, neither the FSS, nor its regulator, was consulted.

Like the Committee, I was astonished to read the evidence of the chief scientific adviser to the Home Office, who was also not consulted. However, what is even more astonishing in this case is that in his evidence to the Committee he did not seem to think that there was anything wrong with that. He said that the decision to close the FSS was about matters of finance and the FSS possibly going into administration and so apparently had nothing to do with him as the chief scientific adviser. I believe that he failed in his professional duty and agree wholeheartedly with the report’s scathing comments about his approach to his duties.

It is expected that the 60% of the market share that the FSS currently has will transfer seamlessly to the private sector. I am concerned that there appears to have been little attempt to obtain market intelligence about what private sector providers could provide if the FSS closes. The underlying assumption is that the market is fully elastic, which I argue is not the case, as can be seen when looking at the instability recognised by all parties in forensics at the moment. It is also unclear whether the private sector will be able to deal with the volume of work available or has the specialist techniques that the FSS has.

I shall highlight one area in which I think we are going to lose a particular technique. It is known as direct analysis in real time mass spectrometry, or DART-MS, and when I visited the Lambeth site in November I was shown how the FSS uses it. The technology allows chemicals to be analysed very quickly—indeed, it was used in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings—and substances to be identified within hours instead of days. The FSS was the only UK provider able to do that analysis, and no private provider has come forward to pick up the process.

When I asked a written parliamentary question about the matter, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), stated that it was

“not stipulated in any of the work packages of the National Forensic Framework Agreement”—[Official Report, 5 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 237W]

so no information was held on what would happen to it. Does the Minister before us, in his role as the counter-terrorism Minister, feel comfortable with that important technology being lost to the UK?

It is not clear whether the Minister, when making his decision, gave any thought to the broader issues regarding the FSS. They include the research and development for which the FSS is world-renowned, the role of the archive and how important it is to the criminal justice system.

It is generally accepted that the forensics market is currently unstable, especially when police budgets are being cut by 20% and there is the knock-on effect of the police choosing to commission forensics services in-house. The spend on forensics is costed at about £150 million but is mooted to decrease to £110 million by 2015. That might happen much sooner, however, with the police in-sourcing forensics. The budget is being distorted by the police customer becoming increasingly the competitor, so what modelling has been done on the effect of such in-sourcing and on the establishment of a stable market?

The Minister is committed to opening up the market in forensics, but how will that happen in practice? Owing to instability in the marketplace, it is difficult for new providers to enter, and there is no targeted support for new entrants. LGC and Cellmark dominate the market, and LGC, because of the additional work it has been able to attract, has subcontracted some to Key Forensics, but owing to market instability that is unlikely to carry on for long. Key Forensics has had to expand quickly, but that work might dry up just as quickly. That leaves companies with a difficult position in which to operate.

Businesses throughout the economy are finding trading hard, and investment is even harder to come by, so it seems to me that the Minister’s hopes of being able to provide forensics services seamlessly after 31 March are pinned on a very unstable position. Has he given any thought to what would happen if there was a change in the forensics market with, perhaps, one main supplier withdrawing? How would the Government be able to protect the supply of forensics to the criminal justice system?

We all agree that forensics plays a very important role in the criminal justice system by ensuring that bad people are brought to court and convicted. A forensic scientist told me:

“The FSS has always proudly provided all types of forensic discipline in order to best serve the criminal justice system, whether profitable or not. Private sector providers have however carefully selected only profitable areas of forensic science and left specialist, costly disciplines to the trusty supplier of last resort, the FSS. Inevitably, the FSS has therefore suffered financially where other private companies may seem to have succeeded. Clearly, overall forensic science is not a profitable or sustainable business arena. It is an essential service, requiring government support, in order to serve its sole function: to contribute toward a successful criminal justice system”.

Finally in this section, I turn to the financial issues, which appear to have been the only matter that the Home Office and the Minister looked at when reaching their decision. There is some confusion about the rationale that the Government used to take the decision, claiming that the FSS was losing about £2 million a month and that, therefore, a decision had to be made urgently to close it.

The Science and Technology Committee queried that figure in the light of the changes that the service was undergoing as part of the £50 million transformational grant it had been given to reduce its costs. For example, were the savings resulting from the disposal of FSS sites factored in, and were the one-off redundancy costs of staff leaving the FSS treated as just that—one-off costs? The FSS has pointed out that, at the time of the decision, it was in the middle of restructuring, including a transition to a new computer system for processing and assessing work and the introduction of a new DNA analysis technique. Little consideration seems to have been given to the additional costs that the FSS carries in its budgets regarding the compulsory levels of accreditation that it must have, the cost of its archive, and its work in research and development. The FSS claims that its losses for 2010-11 were about £11 million. The Home Office has announced that, after the closure, it will continue to provide funding for the archive, which costs approximately £2 million a year, plus £1 million for drugs and explosives provision. The Home Office is also bearing the cost of the areas that it brought in-house, such as international co-operation on drugs profiling, and police forces are now likely to incur higher costs for complex cases.

The second issue is the employees of the FSS. It is often thought that equipment is the key thing for forensic science but, in fact, it is the analysis, interpretation and contextualisation provided by expert forensic scientists. Many people at the FSS have had decades of experience. I am sure that the House will recognise that forensic scientists cannot be trained overnight. It takes five years to become a fully accredited fingerprint expert and approximately five years to be able to carry out crime scene investigations of serious crimes such as rape and murder. A key recommendation of the Committee was that the Forensic Transition Board must ensure that forensic scientists employed by the FSS are retained within the profession, yet the Government did not introduce any measures to help staff to stay in it, and evidence suggests that up to 90% have left. Does the Minister regret that loss of expertise to the forensics market? Will he update the House on the numbers of people with many years of experience who are leaving the FSS? It is estimated that the redundancy costs are between £100 million and £200 million. Will he update us on the budget for those costs?

I want to highlight a couple of matters that have come to my attention during the transition period in which staff are being TUPE-ed over to other positions or leaving the profession. In Yorkshire, 147 staff were aligned to LGC under TUPE, but in the end only 44 people transferred to LGC under different pay and conditions; the rest took redundancy and were then invited to reapply for their jobs. Can the Minister confirm that the Government, and not LGC, ended up paying for these redundancies? I have been contacted by many employees of the FSS with concerns about what is happening and about the protections that are offered by TUPE, which are apparently being sidestepped. In particular, what pension provision has been given to those who have been TUPE-ed to other companies? My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth asked about the Government’s ongoing pension liability, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that.

The Metropolitan police service TUPE-ed in hundreds of staff from the FSS but says that it will still outsource its analytical work. That means that it will have taken on highly qualified staff who are on higher salaries but whose skills are not being utilised. Does the Minister think that that will improve efficiency? In addition, the sexual offences team from the FSS has been excluded from employment by the Metropolitan police service, which has decided to outsource that work. That loss of very skilled scientists is a worrying development. Will the Minister comment on it? I know that his Secretary of State is greatly concerned to ensure, particularly in rape cases, that more perpetrators are brought to court and convicted. I wonder whether getting rid of these experienced people will assist in that aim.

The third issue that I want to raise is about the police. As we all appreciate, the police are the pre-eminent customer who control the market in forensics. We also know that they face cuts to their budgets of 20%, meaning that their spend on forensics will reduce. Alongside that, there is an expansion in the internal provision of forensic science services by police forces that are banding together. That will mean a loss of access for non-police organisations that in the past could access the FSS. While I have the greatest of respect for the work of the police, there are genuine concerns about criminal justice that have to be addressed. There must be impartiality and the perception of independence in the forensic evidence that is presented to the courts.

The main concern about the Government’s approach, with the new forensics world and the idea of police commissioning, is what it will all cost and whether we will get value for money. It is difficult to get a national picture of what the police are spending, in terms of both revenue and capital. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, my freedom of information request on this issue resulted in a lot of very confusing answers. As the Select Committee report pointed out, it is regrettable that the Home Office does not collate spending on forensics by police forces centrally, because there is no way of knowing what is happening up and down the country. The budget being spent by the police is an important part of the forensics jigsaw puzzle. It would show how the forensics market fits together and what the total cost will be to the taxpayer. I was asked by an FSS scientist whether the money that the Home Office pays for the FSS is different from the money that is paid by the police. The answer is that it is all taxpayers’ money and so needs to be looked at together to get a complete picture of the total spend on forensic science services.

I will now turn to the concern over accreditation in relation to the police, which has been raised by many Members. In the main, the laboratories that have been created by the police do not have accreditation. As we all recognise, accreditation is designed to ensure that all forensic science providers operate to agreed standards and with agreed methods. Of course, all the leading players such as LGC and Cellmark have labs that have been accredited or subcontract to labs that have been accredited. The vast majority of police labs do not have ISO 17025 accreditation, which is the kitemark for standards in forensic science. It is worrying to think that police labs are not at that level. I understand that the Minister has said that four police forces have that level of accreditation. I would be grateful if he confirmed whether that is true of every science lab in each of those four force areas. Will he also confirm that all private sector and police crime scene investigators have ISO 17020 accreditation?

The Minister has said that the 60% of the market that the FSS has will all be transferred to accredited labs. I hope that that is happening. I am concerned about the attitude of the Government, who appear to be relaxed about getting accreditation for police labs before 2014 or 2015. I was told recently that the Metropolitan Police Service was one of the few police forces that had accreditation, but that it relinquished it voluntarily when it moved the lab to the Lambeth site. Why will the roll-out of accreditation for police forces occur after the closure of the FSS? Would it not have been more sensible to ensure that the police labs had accreditation before closing the FSS?

The fourth issue that I will raise is about the Forensic Science Regulator and his role in accrediting labs. As many Members have said, the regulator is powerless to enforce any codes of practice or standards as he has no statutory powers. The Science and Technology Committee report called for the Forensic Science Regulator to be given statutory powers to enforce a code of conduct. Nearly 80% of forensic scientists surveyed by the New Scientist magazine did not feel confident that the regulator had sufficient resources to ensure that standards were adequate and consistent between providers. Although the regulator was content with that situation, he has now changed his mind and wants powers to allow him to do his job effectively. I understand that he has little staffing support. How will the regulator adequately address accreditation with this huge upheaval in the market? Will all providers be accredited, and by when? Will that include independent specialist firms and sole traders, and how will it be funded?

I wish to make two other points about the role of the regulator. First, what role will he play in dealing with the real concerns that have been raised today about the fragmentation of forensic science? My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), in particular, set out his concerns about that. One example of which I have been made aware is a recent stabbing. Blood pattern analysis was sent to seven different analysts in four different organisations. That evidence should have been analysed by one individual who could contextualise it, interpret it and present it in court. Instead, the jury will have to piece together a narrative from seven different expert witnesses. Does the Minister accept that that has made a conviction much harder to achieve? Would it not be appropriate to give the regulator powers to address fragmentation? An anonymous response to the New Scientist survey from a forensic scientist at a private lab said:

“More and more cases are being broken into component parts and incomplete examinations are requested of private laboratories because in-house police laboratories believe they are saving money…This makes the interpretation of the evidence within the context of the whole case very difficult because the scientist does not have a complete picture.”

Secondly, what will happen if a whistleblower comes forward? What procedures are in place to deal with that, and would the regulator take responsibility for dealing with the concerns of whistleblowers in either a private provider or a police force provider?

I turn to the FSS archive. We have heard about the importance of the national archive and how little thought seemed to be given to it when the decision to close the FSS was made. For many victims of crime and families who have lost a loved one, the Government’s cavalier attitude to the archive is frankly shameful. We know that, with advances in forensic science, there have been cold case reviews and, thanks to the integrity of the national archive, opportunities to bring to justice those who have committed horrific murders and rapes.

The president of the Law Society wrote to the Home Secretary on 21 December expressing concerns about the closure of the archive and what would happen to its funding. I now understand that funding of up to £2 million has been made available, but the Minister has indicated that the business case is still being examined. There is no clarity about how the archive will operate, despite his saying to the Select Committee in December that he would write with full details in the spring.

The FSS closes on 31 March, just over a month away, and we are still none the wiser about what will happen. For example, will all forensic providers be able to contribute to the national archive in years to come? That is a really important issue that needs to be addressed by 1 April. Does the Minister recognise that particular skills are needed to run a national archive properly, which need to be factored into the budget?

Perhaps the Minister could spell out his thoughts on the value of the archive in general. Does he not think that a statutory power needs to be introduced for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to obtain files from private forensic providers? At the moment, it has the power to get files only from public bodies.

Finally, I turn to research and development. I noted from reading the Select Committee report that that seemed to be considered only after the decision on closure had been taken. A month later, a review was set up asking for some analysis of what would happen to research and development in forensics with the closure of the FSS. I understand that the regulator believes he has an agreement that if a private company produces some new advancement in forensics, it will share it. I am sceptical about that, because in a commercial environment any investment that a company makes will surely be on the basis that it will be in a position to reap the rewards of innovation.

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee asked the Minister to address whether there will be a strategy for forensic science in the UK, and whether it will be in place before the election of police and crime commissioners in November. He also asked him to put the delivery of justice at the heart of that strategy. I hope the Minister will address those points.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth that the Government’s decision is very risky. Coming alongside the changes to DNA retention and the cuts to the police budget, I believe it was hurried and ill considered. It will mean that we may well see miscarriages of justice and cold cases not being effectively reviewed in future. We are also losing the hugely experienced staff group at the FSS. The Government may well come to regret their decision.

21:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I welcome the opportunity to wind up this debate and I welcome the introduction to it by the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller).

This has been a wide-ranging debate on a number of issues. Clearly, there is not agreement across the House on some aspects, but one note that we can agree on is that forensic science is an indispensible tool in fighting crime. It is the means by which physical evidence finds a voice. In some cases, forensic science is the only source of information on which a court can rely to ascertain guilt or innocence.

At the outset, and in the context of a number of points that were made, I should say that the Government are absolutely committed to safeguarding that central pillar of our criminal justice system. I underline that clearly, and I want to put on the record, in response to a point that was made, that we fully recognise the importance of a healthy forensics situation for the criminal justice system, which is not limited to the police.

[Michael Ellis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that forensic science is important because it can exonerate the innocent as well as prove the guilt of the accused?

[James Brokenshire]

Learned Members of the House have made various contributions on the relevance and significance of forensic evidence. Each has underlined that forensic science is an important and effective tool in seeking to prosecute and convict, but that it is equally important in analysing evidence to ensure that those who are not guilty of crimes are exonerated. That is an important part of the Government’s approach in ensuring that there are clear safeguards and quality thresholds, which I will come to in a moment.

I was struck by a number of hon. Members’ contributions because they almost implied that there had been no competitive market in forensics prior to this Government’s decision. To be clear, there has been a competitive market in forensic science for a number of years. In some ways, the creation of the forensic science market has been a success. Turnaround times have been faster, prices have been lower and quality standards have increased, I believe because of the competitive tensions that have been created, which some hon. Members sought to highlight.

I hope I can say with confidence that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that there is an important role in forensics for private sector providers, although there has been a debate on the role and function of such providers. However, it is fair to say that the creation of a market created problems for the FSS. The Committee recognised in its comments that the problems for the FSS did not suddenly appear on the horizon on the arrival of this Government.

In recognising why the Government had to act as they did, it is important to understand the context. Several hon. Members referred to the McFarland review, which recommended that the FSS should become a Government-owned, contractor-operated company, as a staging point to becoming a public-private partnership. The previous Government accepted the McFarland review and sought to establish the FSS as a Government-owned company as part of a transition towards a more fully commercialised situation. Even the previous Government, in accepting the review, did not see the GovCo arrangement as an end in itself.

The plan was to take the FSS down the path to being a GovCo with the intent to take it to a more commercialised basis. In many ways, the decision in November 2005 not to proceed and, in essence, to say, “So far but no further,” led to the fundamental problems and challenges that the FSS has faced. It was left in a halfway house, having been taken down a path to market but then stopped in its tracks and left in an extraordinarily difficult situation. I respect the contribution from the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell). He and I have debated this issue before, and I remember the Westminster Hall debate to which he referred and from which he still, I think, nurses a few scars on his back. However, the investment made was never going to fulfil the FSS’s full potential because it was stuck in this stasis.

When the FSS was transformed into a Government company in 2005, it was left with higher costs than its competitors as a legacy of its previous status as a Government agency. Clearly, as a result, the company’s ability to compete was hampered. It is important to note that the FSS’s share of the market reduced with every tender held to provide forensic science services to the police. The previous Government were tendering out these services as part of a continuing process, but the FSS was, in essence, left at a competitive disadvantage as a consequence of its structure.

[Michael Ellis]

Is it the Minister’s understanding that anywhere between 35% and 50% of forensics is now outside the control of the FSS?

[James Brokenshire]

I will update the House on the situation relating to transition, but when the decision was made in December 2010 about one third of the forensics market was in the private sector, and about 60%—[Interruption.] The Select Committee Chairman, I think, is querying those figures, but my clear recollection is that, when we were considering the matter, the figure was about 30% to 35%—unless he would like to correct me.

[Andrew Miller]

When the decision was made in December 2010, the FSS had about 60% of the market. There is no dispute about that.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that confirmation.

I hear some of the points that have been made about whether there has been a reduction in the overall forensics market as a consequence of police in-sourcing. Indeed, I remember the Westminster Hall debate in which the hon. Member for Tynemouth was clear that there was no evidence of a vast swathe of police in-sourcing. Even at that time it was being postulated that it was the cause of some of the challenges facing the FSS.

[Mr Alan Campbell]

Does the Minister not accept that since that debate—of which we both have memories, and certainly not fond ones—the context has changed? We were talking about the police making decisions when they had budgets that were rising year on year. How much does he believe the decisions that the police are now making about forensics are driven by the cuts they see coming down the line?

[James Brokenshire]

The police have been looking carefully at their forensics spend and how to ensure that it is used effectively. Indeed, I congratulate ACPO and a number of police forces up and down the country on how they have approached this issue, which in many ways is about the ability to focus on the delivery of forensics spend. It is also worth highlighting the fact that, I would argue, the market was stimulated to a huge extent by the DNA expansion programme and how it unwound over that period. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the impact that that had on the market was not sustainable. Indeed, the development of DNA technology has moved on further, and I am sure that it will continue to do so, with innovations such as the concept, even, of “DNA in a box”, as it is sometimes described, which enables people to undertake DNA testing immediately, at scene.

By December 2010 the FSS was in serious financial difficulty, with significant operating losses and the prospect of further shrinkage in demand for forensics services, as the police continued to drive efficiencies in their use of forensic services. We judged it vital to take clear and decisive action to protect the supply of forensic science services to the criminal justice system. Without funding from the Government, the FSS would have entered administration in early 2011—that was the clear statement that the company was making to us at the time, and that was the situation with which we were presented. That would have seriously damaged the forensics capability available to the criminal justice system. We were not prepared to expose the criminal justice system to that level of risk. I note that the Select Committee, while critical in other ways, agreed with the analysis that simply letting the FSS go into administration would not have been the right thing to do.

We maintain that the managed wind-down of the FSS was the right choice, both financially and for the criminal justice system. The orderly wind-down of the company ensures that the police and the criminal justice system as a whole continue to have the forensics capability that they need to protect the public and bring criminals to justice. The transition process has underlined how that has been achieved. The costs of closure are being carefully managed, and obviously this estimates day debate underlines the costs that have been provided for. We are clear, and we maintain, that costs are not escalating and will be delivered within the provision that has been made. The National Audit Office has reviewed the calculation of the Home Office’s provision and is content that it is reasonable.

[Mr Slaughter]

Will the Minister tell the House what he believes the total cost of the closure of the Forensic Science Service will be, including costs arising from any obligations for redundancies, pensions or other matters? If he cannot give a ballpark figure now, will he write to Members who have taken part in this debate to give them the figure?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the provisions made in the estimates. As we reported previously to the Science and Technology Committee, the likely total cost in cash terms is about £100 million, and this remains the position. In 2010-11, £28.7 million was provided to allow the FSS to continue to operate while the transition was managed, and for staff redundancies. Provision has been made subsequently for a further £71 million of costs. That has been clearly stated on the record.

[Mr Slaughter]

If that is right and the cost is £100 million, while I acknowledge that the Minister might not accept the FSS figure that the “lost losses”—to put in those terms—were about £11 million last year, does he accept that the £100 million would cover the current deficit for a number of years in the future, before the effect of other cost savings and contractions have been made? That being the case, does he still think that this is a sensible use of public money?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, I do, for this reason. We considered the options carefully, and determined that allowing the FSS to go into administration was simply not acceptable. We considered the prospect of making a further capital injection to follow on from the £50 million injected a few years previously. Against the backdrop of the structure and the situation that we saw, however, we were not convinced that such an injection would prevent the FSS from being in the same situation 12 months, 18 months or two years later. We thought it was better to provide certainty for the criminal justice system, and to take the action that we did.

It is notable that although the Select Committee report made comments about process and timing, it did not criticise the decision itself or postulate that we should have made a different decision. I thought it was interesting to note that from the Select Committee report. I see that the Chairman of that Committee is seeking to catch my eye.

[Andrew Miller]

What concerns me about what the Minister says is that some of these costs are going to be borne by the public purse for some considerable time. Contrary to what was said earlier, the Crown Prosecution Service was not 100% happy with the situation. What it said was:

“None of the suppliers are…accredited in all forensic disciplines, and thus can only take on a limited range of forensic work”—

until, of course, they are accredited. The CPS went on to say:

“Gaining accreditation in these fields is a time consuming and potentially expensive process and the appetite of the suppliers”—

including the police—

“to undertake this exercise is not yet known.”

The regulators are going to have to make that happen. The point I am making to the Minister is that we need to keep an eye on those burgeoning costs, including in police forces, because we do not want money spent on this that could otherwise have been spent on front-line policing.

[James Brokenshire]

I do not accept the analysis relating to burgeoning costs. If the hon. Gentleman talked to ACPO about how the transition and retendering processes have been created, he would find that savings have been delivered through a real focus on the manner in which forensics are used. It is important to view the concept of further burgeoning costs in that light—by recognising that forensic providers are already accredited and by looking at the process undertaken by the police and at the clear statements made at the time that there would be no transfer of services to a non-accredited environment.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) talked about the Metropolitan Police Service handing back its accreditation. I tell her that this would happen to a commercial provider in that situation as well. It is not a reflection of any delinquency or limitation in the Metropolitan police’s standards, quality or approach; it is simply the fact that if new personnel and new arrangements are taken on, a process of re-accreditation has to be gone through, following on from all the processes and procedures that have previously been accredited. I wanted to give the hon. Lady that reassurance.

We have been working closely with key partners throughout the criminal justice system during the transition. A forensics transition board has been overseeing the process, and includes representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Policing Improvement Agency, with a wider advisory group whose members include the forensic science regulator and the Ministry of Justice. The regulator has attended a number of meetings to offer his input.

I believe that, thanks to the hard work and commitment of FSS staff and partners across the criminal justice system, the transition has been successful. It has ensured the continued supply of effective forensic science services to the criminal justice system, and has created a stable and competitive market for forensics that will provide cost-effective and innovative forensic services to support the criminal justice system.

Over the past 12 months there has been a significant amount of work and operational planning to manage the transition of services from the FSS to alternative providers in a controlled way, in order to reduce risk and ensure continuity of service. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the National Policing Improvement Agency have re-procured forensic supply across the midlands and the south-east, and for the 14 forces making up the west coast consortium. The transfer of evidence recovery, interpretation and reporting of forensic science examinations from the FSS to the Metropolitan Police Service has been successfully completed, and in parallel the MPS has also re-procured its analytical forensics services.

It was suggested earlier that appropriate arrangements had not been made for the north-east. I think that that is partly because continuing contractual negotiations at the time of the publication of the report did not allow us to be entirely open. What I can say, however, is that there is a separate transition process in the north-east. Negotiations were concluded in December for a managed transfer of work to a new supplier for the north-east and Yorkshire. That followed close working between the FSS and the north-east forces. In the interim, the FSS has continued to provide forensic science services for the north-east forces to ensure that continuity of supply is maintained. The last new cases will be taken by the FSS on 1 March. That is the final part of the transition of its services to other providers.

[Guy Opperman]

Can my hon. Friend assure us that there is no fundamental difference between the situation facing the north-east and the situation facing the rest of the country?

[James Brokenshire]

I can say that one of the fundamental parts of the process, and one of the things on which I was absolutely clear throughout, was the need to ensure that there was continuity of supply of forensic services to the police and the criminal justice system, and I believe that that has been maintained throughout the process. I am hugely grateful for the considerable contribution of ACPO, the NPIA and the FSS to the reaching of these milestones, and for the way in which the process has been managed at national and local level. This has been a challenging time for FSS staff, who I believe have behaved with complete professionalism throughout. I want to record my, and the Government’s, appreciation for and recognition of their dedication and commitment throughout this difficult process.

The Government continue to support the orderly transition of work from the FSS. As part of that process, some of the current staff are moving to a range of other forensic services in the private and public sectors. We have pursued options to transfer elements of FSS business, including staff whenever possible. I have committed myself to providing an update for the Select Committee in June, following the completion of the process. We intend to conduct a survey of the private sector forensic service providers so that we can give a clear indication to the Committee, and therefore more publicly, in relation to the transfer of FSS staff from the FSS to other positions.

[Andrew Miller]

Will the Minister add to his list of commitments for that period the making of a clear statement on how the dialogue with the research councils and the Technology Strategy Board is progressing? We must ensure that the science base is protected so that we avoid the negative consequences that I described earlier.

[James Brokenshire]

I gave evidence before Christmas in conjunction with the Forensic Science Regulator and the chief scientific adviser at the Home Office, Bernard Silverman. He is an excellent CSA. He and I have regular meetings, not only about the FSS but on Home Office science issues in general. I want to put on record my appreciation for his work and expert input.

There are various recommendations on research and development in Professor Silverman’s report, one of which addresses questions to do with the various funding councils and the different available options. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) highlighted interdisciplinary issues, and there might be a conference to address some of them. I will take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about providing updates and following through on Professor Silverman’s report. I will consider how best to do that for his Select Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) highlighted a constituency case. I do not necessarily think there is a direct role for the Home Office in that, but I have no doubt that colleagues at the Foreign Office will have noted his comments.

Forensic findings can mean the difference between guilt and innocence. It is vital that forensic conclusions are reliable, error-free and beyond doubt. Forensic scientists must work to rigorous and robust scientific principles, methods and evaluations. That is why we have made sure that all new and transferred forensics work by commercial forensic service providers must be carried out by accredited laboratories.

Commercial forensic service providers have provided high-quality forensic science services for the criminal justice system for a number of years, and there is no reason why the closure of the FSS will reduce impartiality or affect the accuracy of their work. The extensive and detailed forensic work by LGC Forensics that formed the core of the evidence in the recent trial of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the murder of Stephen Lawrence is an example of the good work being carried out by commercial forensic service providers. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) made that point.

I have made it clear from the outset that any FSS work taken in-house by police forces must be carried out to the same high standards as the work of accredited private sector laboratories. I utterly reject any suggestion that the closure of the FSS will lead to miscarriages of justice.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I have two minutes left and I want to address a key point about fragmentation, which both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) raised. Dr Gary Pugh, head of forensics at the Metropolitan Police Service, and Chief Constable Sims of West Midlands Police said in their evidence to the Committee:

“it is not general police practice to send exhibits from the same crime scene to different providers. There are a very small number of exceptions in rare cases where a highly specialised piece of analysis is only offered by a niche provider. In such cases, care is taken to ensure continuity is maintained.”

Roger Coe-Salazar confirmed that if fragmentation were taking place,

“it is not creating an operational delivery problem”

from the CPS’s perspective. It is important to put that clearly on the record.

I also wish to highlight the work taking place on the archive. I have made clear all the way through this process, even before the publication of the report, the importance that I attach to the continued availability of the archive. That work is ongoing and is clearly being undertaken. We have made significant progress since the announcement in December 2010—

22:00

Debate interrupted, and Question deferred till tomorrow at Ten o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).

Business without Debate

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Delegated legislation

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Local Government

That the draft St Albans and Welwyn Hatfield (Boundary Change) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.—(Mr Dunne.)

Question agreed to.

Committees

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 and 4 together, and I look to the esteemed Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) to move them.

Ordered,

Public Accounts

That Joseph Johnson be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr Stewart Jackson be added.

Science and Technology

That Gavin Barwell, Gregg McClymont, Stephen McPartland and David Morris be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Caroline Dinenage, Gareth Johnson, Sarah Newton and Hywel Williams be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

UK Aid

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

22:00

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to present this petition on UK aid on behalf of my constituents. The signatures were gathered mainly through local churches, and I particularly wish to thank Rev. Robin Hill from Longniddry and Gladsmuir parish churches for his support.

The petition states:

The Petition of citizens of the United Kingdom,

Declares that while around the world UK aid has already made an enormous difference in helping people lift themselves out of poverty, we must not stop now.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enshrine in law their commitment to spending 0.7% of national income on aid by 2013.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001009]

Printed Photo ID Market

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Bill Wiggin.)

22:02

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am particularly delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) on the Front Bench, as he has been aware of correspondence from other hon. Members, as well as from me, on this matter, and an early-day motion. Although the subject looks obscure, it is of considerable importance to a number of MPs. Much of the correspondence has been between me and Department for Transport Ministers. As part of the complaint goes across government, I have initiated correspondence with Cabinet Office Ministers. To complicate matters, at least one letter from Ministers to me did not arrive.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, I am concerned that the Post Office is entering the commercial business of providing identity photographs for Government documents such as passports and driving licences. That is in direct commercial competition with the extensive UK printed photo ID market. In his reply tonight, I suspect he will repeat comments made in one of his letters, in which he states that

“the Department for Transport, in common with a number of other departments, has recent legal advice that suggests Post Office Ltd has to be treated fully equally with any other potential providers when bidding for government work, even though it is owned by the government. This is based on European Union Procurement Directives but since these are in place to promote competition and this is essential for us to maximise benefit to the public and customers, this is acceptable.”

If the Minister will permit me a slang phrase, may I say that I recognise that an argument on the directive is outside his portfolio and perhaps above his pay grade? Nevertheless, for me, this approach is an appalling creep back to the old days of the Callaghan Labour Government, when organisations owned by government or, even more so, by local government were able to bid for private sector work, often at a loss, supported by the taxpayer or the ratepayer, as it was in those days. Admittedly, this is narrower as we are talking here of bidding for Government work only.

I am seeking ministerial reassurance that as far as his Department is concerned there is no Post Office monopoly and the private sector can compete fairly for any contract with his Department in the UK printed photo ID market. In addition, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified why there must be a contract, which would obviously limit the outlets, particularly if the contract was won by the Post Office. Better still, in my opinion; there should be an open house on photo provision in co-operation with the Post Office to achieve the same ends.

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the commercial market’s deep concern that it will be locked out of a huge business serving the public in the provision of photographs for driving licences, possibly for passports and other photographs that might be required by the Government.

The issue has been bought to my notice by Mr Olivier Gimpel, chief operating officer of Photo-Me. The company’s headquarters are in my constituency—indeed, in my home village—and every MP will be aware of the firm as its ID photo booth is situated in the same short corridor as the cash machines, which are effectively one floor below us now. Photo-Me is not the only firm to be deeply concerned about this issue. There are 7,500 outlets in the UK providing ID photo services to the public, which include 6,600 photo booths.

The provision of ID photos represents the core business of about 900 retail outlets, including retailers such as Photo-Me, along with firms such as Jessops, Snappy Snaps and Timpsons. In addition, there are uncounted numbers of independent photographic shops and photographers. I was astonished to find the size of the market for official ID photographs: approximately 5 million to 6 million a year for passports; 2 million to 2.5 million for 10-year driving licence renewals and other new driving licence applications; and about 1 million a year for foreign residents. The market is worth £45 million to £50 million a year and it is estimated that ID photo suppliers derive approximately half of their turnover from the official ID market.

As the Minister set out in one of his letters to me, in 2008-09 the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency faced the prospect of processing an additional 2.3 to 2.6 million 10-year renewal driving licence transactions, which could have required capital investment and scanning as well as 300 to 400 additional staff. As a result, the DVLA decided to supplement the existing paper channel with two further ways of renewing photographs to provide customer convenience and to contain costs. The first was the development of a web channel similar to that already used for first driver applications, taking photographs from the passport database, which, to me, makes eminent sense. However, the second was the extension by variation of the existing Post Office check and send channel by adding the capture of an image to the six-step transaction already undertaken by the Post Office, which meant that it was acting as a face-to-face intermediary of the DVLA and taking the ID photos. That would have required vast sums to be spent by the Post Office combined with training to provide a service that was already and is available from the commercial printed photo ID market.

The check and send service provided by the Post Office before 2010 was charged at £4 to each consumer, whereas under the new service it will cost £4.50 to have both the check and send and to capture the customer’s digital ID picture and digital ID signature electronically. In order to deliver the service, the Post Office is investing £42 million of our money over five years with Cogent, a firm that is supplying the equipment and maintenance. The new service is to be charged to the consumer, as I have just said, at 50p. I recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister is exceptionally quick with mathematics—it is part of an Army training—but to save him the strain, my reckoning is that to generate turnover equivalent to the investment made by the Post Office would need 84 million transactions over five years, 100 times more than the demand estimated by the Department for Transport.

In effect, we therefore have a taxpayer-subsidised organisation providing a loss-making service. What makes that even more obnoxious is that the so-called efficiency plans could well run at a loss at the expense of the private sector, particularly at this difficult economic time. It is estimated that approximately 5,000 jobs are under threat and that hundreds of high street stores face partial or imminent closure if we cannot find a means of co-existence. I hope the Minister can help us with that tonight.

I am focusing on the Department for Transport because I understand that a contract is to be launched on 6 March. UK printed photo ID companies want to be assured that they will be able to bid openly, for which there must be a requirement in the contract specifications that printed ID pictures that can be scanned into a digital format may be used. The ID photo industry does not want a Government-subsidised organisation in the form of the Post Office to win a contract and continue to lose money on the provision of that contract at its expense. Furthermore, I, and I guess most people in the House, do not wish to have such a service running at a loss at the taxpayer’s expense.

If the Minister cannot reassure me and therefore the photo industry, which will be watching his response carefully, I ask him to delay the contract so that there can be further discussions. If it is not inappropriate because of the Department’s timetable I would be grateful for an urgent opportunity to meet the Minister face to face, quietly at the table, with one or two people from the UK printed photo ID market to discuss directly the opportunity of opening this market and perhaps saving me and every other taxpayer the prospect of funding the kind of losing service that I would have expected from the previous Government but not from this one.

22:11

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing the debate. This has been an ongoing campaign for him and other colleagues, to the extent that there have been something like 56 letters from MPs, which have been responded to by Cabinet Ministers, particularly my right hon. Friends the Transport Secretary and the Business Secretary.

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and a delegation from the industry to discuss this matter, but that might be the only part of this debate in which he will smile at me, because I think we are going to disagree on some points. I apologise for that, but I have to do what I think is right. I am not going to get into a debate about the number of jobs that might be lost on the high street, which he discussed, but the figure seems to change with each letter on this issue. I am not deriding his mathematics, but the industry moves around on this point. As the Minister responsible to the public in relation to the DVLA, I have to look at several things, one of which is the cost to the public of something that they are required to have. The photo ID driving licence has been in place for many years—since 1998. We also need to look at the new technology that has come forward. One thing that my hon. Friend has not picked up on this evening is the issue of fraud with driving licences and passports, which I shall spend some time discussing.

Since 1998, image quality has become more and more important, particularly with digital technology. The police, the courts and the Driving Standards Agency, the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and the DVLA in my Department have made it a priority to increase the quality of the photographs that are produced as evidence of someone’s ID when they want to procure, among other things, a driving licence with their photograph on it. As you may be aware, Mr Speaker, in recent years we have moved from black-and-white photographs to colour technology with driving licences, but technology continues to move forward. Digital photos are cheaper and much better in quality than they used to be and the secure management of such electronic technology becomes more and more important.

As my hon. Friend said, we have in recent years looked closely at how we can improve the quality of the photograph as part of the system of proving the identity of the person applying for the driving licence. Some 15% of this system is dealt with on the web, and it goes straight through to the DVLA on a regular basis, and that figure continues to increase. I shall come back to the significance of that figure in a moment.

In the past 18 months, the Post Office service—the contract is to be launched in March, as my hon. Friend said—has taken 35% of the market in photographs for driving licences. That leaves 50% still being done in the old-fashioned way, by capturing the photograph and the photograph then being used in, normally paper, documents.

Why are the Government doing this? As my hon. Friend rightly said, it comes down to cost. There are enormous savings for DVLA if the photograph can be captured and transported electronically on to the system immediately and in the most cost-efficient way. The DVLA is funded by people paying fees, and the fees charged for a driving licence or other DVLA service reflect our costs. Naturally, in these difficult economic times, we have been trying to drive down costs as far as possible. That is therefore a significant factor.

Another significant factor of which I was unaware until I took this job is fraud. Recently in the press I have stated my concern about fraud when foreign driving licences are exchanged for British driving licences, but when I went to the DVLA fraud unit in Swansea, on one of my first ministerial visits, I was amazed to discover the extent to which members of the public fraudulently try to obtain a British driving licence. I accept that a British driving licence is a valuable item, because it can be used as ID and for many different purposes. Even though it was not designed as a means of identification, it is often used as one—for example, a person needs a driving licence to hire a vehicle, because it is regarded as an entitlement to drive as well as proof of age and address.

There are frequent attempts—hundreds every day—by people to obtain a British driving licence using a fraudulent photograph. They employ a vast range of methods, of which cut and paste is only one. We pick up as many such attempts as possible—we cannot guarantee to get all of them—and one option for us is digital scanning. One of the great benefits we have seen in the past couple of months from having a direct link to web or being able to scan at a post office directly into the DVLA database is that very soon after the application has been made, particularly at night when we can use computer downtime, we can compare the scanned photograph with the millions of photographs kept on the database. We do that not because we suspect that everyone is attempting to obtain a driving licence fraudulently, but because we know that a large number of people apply using multiple names and addresses. We can do that with the new technology, whereas the older technology makes it very difficult.

Let me take this opportunity to say that we will pursue people who apply fraudulently for a driving licence through the courts, because making such an application is a criminal offence.

Even with the new technology, the market stands at 50:50. We have no intention of stopping people from choosing to use the traditional—I prefer to say old-fashioned—method. They can carry on doing that. Are we promoting the digital side of it? Yes, we are—of course we are—and that is why the contract is being issued. It is imperative that we are honest about that and that we ensure the public continue to have a choice wherever possible. There will be a market for both older technology and web facilities. All the evidence we have seen at DVLA, especially as we roll out the VED car tax arrangements, is that more is being done online and less in person.

My hon. Friend asked whether there will be a continuation of the older method. Yes. He asked whether I would consider delaying the bidding process in March. We have done a lot of work on that, and I do not intend to delay the March contract launch.

I was also asked whether it is open to others to bid. Yes, but only on a like-for-like basis, because this is an example of technology benefiting the public. My hon. Friend asked whether we could meet in the near future. He knows that my door is always open to him. If any Member wants to see me, it is always my honour and privilege to meet them.

The two-stage approach that has been highlighted—I nearly said “pushed”—by the high street photo industry would take away the two classic advantages that I have just described: those of cost and convenience. However, the most significant factor, which I have dealt with at some length tonight, is fraud. I desperately need to clamp down on fraud. It is one of the burdens that this nation suffers from in that people desperately want to get hold of a British driving licence or a British passport.

The technology is being rolled out across government, and it is important that that should happen. At the same time, however, we must endeavour to keep costs down so as not to impose a burden on the public purse. Similarly, we must be conscious of imposing a time burden. The post office process will now take about 3.5 minutes from the person standing in front of the camera to receiving their entitlement to proceed. I continue to say that we are keeping an open mind, and that there is a place for the traditional high street photo market. At the same time, however, the Government have to move on. We need to do our level best for the public in relation to costs, time and fraud. That is why we are going to push on with this project.

Question put and agreed to.

22:21

House adjourned.

Petitions

Monday 27th February 2012 Petitions

Monday 27 February 2012

HMS Concord

Monday 27th February 2012 Petitions

The Petition of William Leitch,

Declares that the Petitioner believes that it is a grievous injustice that the 1949 ship’s complement of HMS Concord were not recognised as a unit involved in the 1949 Yangtze campaign, due to what the Petitioner believes was a wrongful omission of important relevant documents relating to the role of HMS Concord between 28 and 31 July 1949, and declares that the Petitioner believes that those who served on HMS Concord between 28 and 31 July 1949 deserve justice, remedy and reparation.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons sets up a Select Committee to conduct a comprehensive enquiry into the role of HMS Concord in the Yangtze campaign between 28 and 31 July 1949.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by Graeme Morrice, Official Report, 8 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 5P.]

[P000987]

Observations from the Leader of the House of Commons:

It is for the House of Commons, and not the Government, to consider the creation of new Select Committees.

In considering the creation of any new Committee, the House will want to be mindful of approach set out in the First Report 2008-09 of the House of Commons Reform Committee, that

“The House must also seek to reduce the numbers of committees, ending overlapping or duplicate remits and rationing the scarce resource of Members time and commitment.” (Paragraph 55)

This is a view that the Government fully support.

It would be for existing committees of the House of Commons, such as the Defence Select Committee, to consider whether the issues raised by the petitioner are in need of inquiry.

Send our Sister to School Campaign

Monday 27th February 2012 Petitions

The Petition of pupils of Overfields Primary School, Middlesbrough,

Declares that the Petitioners support the Send our Sister to School Campaign which aims to give girls the same chance as boys to benefit from an education and that the Petitioners support the international agreement to get all children into education by 2015.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to raise the commitment to get all children into education by 2015 at the G20 summit in November.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Ian Swales, Official Report, 26 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 434.]

[P000972]

Observations from the Secretary of State for International Development:

It is a tragedy that 67 million children around the world are still out of school. Investing in education is very important, as education provides children with the best route out of poverty, giving them the power to improve their own lives and the lives of others in their community. This is particularly true for girls: educating girls in the poor world is one of the most transformative actions we can take.

The UK Government support work to achieve all the Millennium Development Goals and we will make sure that aid is spent wisely to ensure that new progress is made to give poor people better access to clean water, sanitation, healthcare and education. We are also committed to making sure that every pound we spend is used in the best way to benefit as many children as possible. All children should have equal access to a good quality basic education.

Following a root and branch review of all the UK’s aid spending we published our priorities for the next four years in the document “UK Aid: Changing Lives, Delivering Results”, which can be found on the DFID website at: www.dfid.gov.uk/aidreviews. In this document we promise to support at least 9 million children in primary school, over half of whom will be girls, and 2 million children in secondary school by 2014.

In addition, we announced a new Girls’ Education Challenge last September. This will focus on the poorest girls who currently do not get any support. Through this programme, we will work with charities and businesses to find new and effective ways to educate up to an additional million of the world’s poorest girls by 2015.

The UK Government are working hard to deliver a better future for every child but more needs to be done and this is a shared responsibility. In order to ensure that girls have equal access to education in the future it is vital that by 2015, the international community keeps its promise to achieve the internationally agreed target to support all children, boys and girls alike, to complete primary education.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 27th February 2012 Written Statements

Monday 27 February 2012

Classification of Colleges

Monday 27th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

I am writing to inform the House that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has recently reviewed the classification of colleges and notified HM Treasury on 23 February 2012 that both further education colleges and sixth-form colleges will be reclassified to the private sector upon commencement, in April 2012, of the relevant parts of the Education Act 2011.

On 14 October 2010, I informed the House of the decision by the ONS to reclassify general further education colleges as part of central Government for the purposes of national accounts. FE colleges had previously been classified as part of the private sector. On the same date ONS announced that sixth-form college corporations were classified as local government entities for national accounts purposes.

Confirming the Government’s commitment to reduce burdens on further education colleges and to give them freedoms to make their own decisions on how best to manage their affairs for the benefit of learners, employers and wider communities, I pledged to work to challenge the original classification.

Through the Education Act 2011, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education have removed a wide range of restrictions and controls on further education and sixth-form college corporations, putting them on a similar footing to charities operating within the independent/private sector.

Having reviewed the changes we have made, the ONS has concluded that they are sufficient to remove public sector control over these corporations, and they will consequently be reclassified to the private sector. This reclassification is provisional upon ensuring that there are no other public sector controls in other documentation, such as the funding agreements, and keeping under review the use of remaining Government powers within legislation.

I am today writing to the Association of Colleges to inform it of this achievement. Lord Hill is similarly communicating with the sixth-form colleges’ sector.

Apprenticeships

Monday 27th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

Apprenticeships are now providing a record number of opportunities for individuals and employers, and the benefits that programme delivers can be felt across every community in our country and every sector in our economy. Apprenticeships deliver strong wage returns for individuals and boost their career progression; deliver higher productivity and a motivated workforce for employers; benefit communities by supporting social mobility and employment opportunity; and help to build a workforce equipped with the skills needed to compete globally.

Apprenticeships are delivering results, and the momentum that has been created will continue to reap rewards in terms of future growth in the programme. Delivering these results for individuals and employers depends upon ensuring that the value, impact and brand of apprenticeships remains strong and continues to be strengthened, raising the status of vocational learning and so for vocational learners. In this way the real and perceived value of apprenticeships impacts upon the self-worth of those that complete them and the view that others have of their achievement. So it is right that we now look to build upon this growth and momentum with a renewed and relentless focus on quality—to help ensure all apprenticeships are as good as the best, to identify and root out any instances of poor quality provision, and to raise the bar on standards.

Last year, statutory standards for apprenticeships came into effect for the first time. Following which I announced a series of further measures to improve the quality of the programme, and asked the National Apprenticeship Service to develop a comprehensive quality action plan. Now I want to direct you to the progress that has been achieved so far and the next steps.

In delivering these improvements, we will work closely with the FE and skills sector, who are best placed to drive up quality, and continue to strive to give the sector the freedoms and responsibility to tailor their provision to meet learner and employer need.

Short duration

First, an apprenticeship must involve significant new learning and time spent achieving competence and confidence in the job, which is why I am taking steps to ensure all apprenticeships are of a sufficient length to allow this learning to be embedded. Following my announcement in December, the National Apprenticeship Service will shortly publish the detail of a new 12-month duration requirement for all 16-18 year olds. This will come into effect for all starts from August 2012, although we expect many providers to change their delivery models before then.

NAS and the agency are pressing ahead with their comprehensive review of all short duration programmes:

87 training organisations providers, subcontractors and directly funded employers delivering apprenticeships of short duration (six months or less) warranted review by the agency and NAS.

29 cases have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. These will continue to be monitored to ensure that issues do not occur and in preparation for the new requirements on duration from August 2012.

Where cases have been concluded, providers have changed their delivery models to be fully compliant or ended the delivery of frameworks that do not meet the requirements.

Most providers have revised their programmes to meet the challenge in quality standards that are required.

So far, the review has identified 10 primary contractors and three subcontractors where the agency and NAS have significant and unresolved concerns. NAS and the agency will work closely with these providers to conclude a full investigation of the specifics of the cases and identify suitable resolutions, including improving, adapting or, if necessary, withdrawing provision.

Following major reviews, in the case of three subcontractors, prime contractors have decided to end their contractual relationship.

At least one case has been referred to the agency’s special investigations unit.

It has been made clear to providers that contracts which meet funding requirements technically but fail to meet the more comprehensive quality standards we expect of apprenticeships are not acceptable. The agency will significantly tighten the contract and funding guidance from August 2012 to eliminate poor practice.

The reviews of the majority of the cases that remain will be finalised by April 2012.

Provider management and Subcontracting

Secondly, in order to ensure that all those who are being funded to deliver apprenticeship training are fit for purpose and fulfilling their responsibilities in a proper manner, I have asked the National Apprenticeship Service, working with the Skills Funding Agency, to strengthen monitoring, reporting and subcontracting arrangements to ensure quality concerns are thoroughly and systematically identified and managed routinely:

A new “enquiry panel”, which will report directly to me, will manage contractual and quality weakness as it is identified, outlining the shape and scale of any investigations being undertaken.

The agency will ensure that the contracting system is strengthened to remove any ambiguity and to protect the quality and standards of the apprenticeship programme through the funding rules, policies and contractual obligations of training organisations and employers.

A new contractual clause will be introduced to ensure training organisations and employers act within both the stated policy intent as well as the regulations of the system. Failure to uphold standards will constitute a breach of contract.

The agency will publish clear guidance on the funding that can be drawn down when an apprentice has prior learning—ensuring a clear link between delivery and investment by the Government. New funding guidance will clearly stipulate these requirements.

Effective immediately, all subcontractors over a value of £500,000 will be required from now on to pass the same due diligence test that we apply to lead providers; meaning that subcontractors will be regulated through the Register of Training Organisations. We will work to extend this condition to all subcontractors by December 2012.

From February, the agency will publish the list of all subcontracted provision that amounts to over £100,000.

The agency will publish the list of training organisations that breech its terms and conditions once all legal action and recovery of funds has been completed.

The agency will enforce minimum levels of performance on all apprenticeship providers. We are currently reviewing these to ensure that the thresholds that apply to apprenticeships are suitably rigorous.

Lead providers are now contractually required to publish details of subcontractors. We will withhold payments to any lead provider that fails to do so.

Wider next steps

Taken together, this strong and decisive action is already having a positive impact on the overall programme. But constant vigilance is necessary to ensure that every aspect of the apprenticeship programme is recognised as meeting the high quality standards I have set; to protect the taxpayer’s investment; and most importantly to ensure the greatest impact on young people, employers and the wider economy.

So over the coming months, still further measures will include:

Taking steps following our commitment to introduce minimum durations for apprenticeships for under 19-year-olds, to ensure adult apprenticeships are also of sufficient length to deliver and embed learning.

An NAS review of a number of apprenticeship frameworks and models of delivery which have been identified as needing quality improvements.

Published revised guidance on the application of SASE, and a commitment to review SASE periodically to ensure its currency and relevance

Publication of a revised quality delivery statement by NAS setting out how apprenticeship framework content should be delivered, and including final details on the new delivery and funding rules.

Confirmation of our commitment that all apprentices who do not have level 2 in English and maths should have the opportunity to progress towards this.

As these detailed measures set out, we will take every necessary step in the months ahead to protect and improve the quality of the apprenticeship programme, so that we can be confident that, as more people than ever have the opportunity to undertake an apprenticeship, they will receive the high quality training that learners and employers deserve.

Tax Measures

Monday 27th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government are fully committed to tackling tax avoidance and will take necessary steps to protect the Exchequer and maintain fairness in the tax system.

The Government are therefore acting today to tackle two aggressive tax avoidance schemes that have been disclosed by a bank to HM Revenue and Customs. By acting immediately, the Government will ensure the payment of over half a billion pounds in tax, protect further billions of pounds of tax from being lost and maintain fairness in the tax system.

Debt buybacks

The first scheme seeks to exploit corporation tax rules that apply to releases of debt. Normally a debtor company is taxed on the profit that arises when a liability is released for less than the amount borrowed, but special rules apply to connected companies. In such cases, a tax charge arises where a company connected to the debtor company buys the debt from the original creditor, or where debt is held between companies that become connected. These rules were amended in Finance Act 2010 to block schemes under which banks bought back their issued debt that was trading at a discount in the market. When closing these previous attempts by companies to profit from buying back their own debt without being taxed, the Government at the time made it clear in two written ministerial statements that they expected such profits to be subject to corporation tax.

Despite these clear statements, the bank has now entered into a scheme using contrived arrangements that once again seeks to ensure that the profit on a buyback of such debt is not subject to corporation tax and therefore that a substantial amount of tax, of around £300 million, is avoided.

The Government will amend these rules in Finance Bill 2012, effective from today, so that the legislation in question cannot be circumvented in future. It will also make retrospective amendments to the legislation in relation to debt acquisitions on or after 1 December 2011 to ensure the bank, and any other company that has engaged in a similar scheme in the same period, is taxed as it should be on this transaction. This is not action that the Government are taking lightly. But the potential tax loss from this scheme and the history of previous abuse in this area, means that the Government believe that this is a circumstance where action to change the legislation with full retrospective effect is justified to ensure that the system is fair for all and that those who seek to benefit from this aggressive avoidance do not get an unfair advantage.

The bank has adopted the code of practice which contains a commitment not to engage in tax avoidance. The Government are clear that this not a transaction that a bank that has adopted the code should be undertaking.

The protocol on unscheduled announcements of changes in tax law published by the Government at Budget 2011 states that

“changes to tax legislation where the change takes effect from a date earlier than the date of announcement will be wholly exceptional”.

The Government view the avoidance outlined here and the circumstances as being a “wholly exceptional” case as envisaged by the protocol.

The draft legislation, explanatory note and technical note published today will form part of Finance Bill 2012 and will be available on the HMRC website.

Authorised Investment Funds

The second avoidance scheme seeks to exploit provisions of the authorised investment fund (AIF) regulations to generate the repayment of tax (whether directly or through set off against other liabilities) that has never been paid.

Legislation to block this scheme, which is effective from today’s date, has been made by regulations and will be available at legislation.gov.uk.

The Government have acted on a number of occasions in the past to block avoidance schemes exploiting both these areas of the law. The previous action and this Government’s action in the present case makes it clear that the Government consider that certain contrived arrangements—these are arrangements involving financial products designed to create tax credits that can be repaid or offset against a bank’s other income where the tax in question has not been paid, or to avoid being taxed on profits on buyback of the bank’s own debt—are wholly unacceptable, against the intentions of Parliament and the spirit of the law.

Ministers will consider closing any future avoidance schemes involving such arrangements with full retrospective effect to ensure that the system is fair for all and that those that seek to benefit from this aggressive tax avoidance do not get an unfair advantage.

National Citizen Service 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

As previously published, the Government will deliver 30,000 national citizen service (NCS) places in 2012.

I am very pleased to be able to provide information about the location of national citizen service places available during summer 2012. Further places will be available in the autumn.

The places are listed by local authority, with the names of the organisations providing the places. NCS places are available in 95% of English local authorities.

These figures may be subject to amendment as preparation for delivery and recruitment progresses.

This information is included in the table below.

EU-Central America Association Agreement

Monday 27th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I wish to inform the House that the Government has opted in to the following measures:

(i) the Council decision relating to the proposal on the signature and provisional application of an association agreement between EU and central America.

ii) the Council decision relating to the proposal on the conclusion of the association agreement between the EU and central America.

The EU proposes to enter into an association agreement with central America. The UK supports the agreement, which covers all aspects of the bi-regional relationship. Its objectives are to strengthen political dialogue and co-operation on issues of common interest, and to boost respective trade flows and investments.

The agreement will contribute to UK security and prosperity, and to the further development of the UK’s bilateral relationships with the countries of central America and the region as a whole. Its measures are in line with the Government’s trade policy objectives on liberalisation of services and investment, as well as with the Government’s wider policy towards central America.

Following signature, those parts of the agreement in which the EU has exclusive competence will be provisionally applied. These areas are contained in part IV, the trade part. With regard to part IV, the agreement aims to eliminate high tariffs, tackle technical barriers to trade, liberalise services markets, protect EU geographical indications, open up public procurement markets, include commitments on the enforcement of labour and environmental standards and offer effective and swift dispute settlement procedures. Its measures go beyond WTO commitments and ensure a level playing field with competitors in the region. It includes robust clauses on human rights, sustainable development and international labour standards, any of which can be invoked as reason for suspension of trade preferences.

The Council decisions extend the UK’s commitments in mode 4, thus triggering the UK Justice and Home Affairs opt-in. The agreement contains obligations which fall within the scope of title V (Area of Freedom, Justice and Security) of the treaty on the functioning of the EU (TFEU), specifically those in article 49(4) on readmission. The provisions within this article, on the temporary movement of natural persons for business purposes (known as “Mode-4” trade-in services), trigger the opt-in. I believe it is in the UK’s interest to opt in to these measures, which are an integral part of our wider approach on trade and support our other commitments in services and investment liberalisation.

London Conference on Somalia

Monday 27th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

This statement is also published in the names of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development. On 23 February the UK hosted the London conference on Somalia. When he announced this initiative in November, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of the real and pressing need to pull together the international effort on Somalia. The conference brought together 55 delegations representing over 40 countries, the United Nations, African Union, Intergovernmental Authority on Development, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and other international organisations to discuss how the international community could reinvigorate its approach towards Somalia. Somali leaders, including President Sheikh Sharif, Prime Minister Abdiweli, President Farole of Puntland and President Silanyo of Somaliland also took part.

The conference took place at a key moment in Somalia’s history. Somalia is emerging from the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. African and Somali troops have pushed Al Shabaab out of Mogadishu and other areas. The transitional institutions come to an end in August 2012, and the people of Somalia want clarity on what will follow. The situation remains precarious, and in urgent need of support from the international community.

Decisions on Somalia’s future rest with the Somali people. The Somali political leadership must be accountable to the people. The international community’s role is to facilitate Somalia’s progress and development: our strength is in unity and co-ordinated support to Somalia. The conference noted the importance of listening to and working with Somalis inside and outside Somalia, and welcomed their engagement in the run-up to this conference.

The conference focused on the underlying causes of instability, as well as the symptoms (famine, piracy, and terrorism). The international community agreed: to inject new momentum into the political process; to strengthen the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and help Somalia develop its own security forces; to help build stability at local level; and to step up action to tackle pirates and terrorists.

More specifically, the conference agreed practical measures in seven areas:

Political process—Agreement that the transition must end in August 2012, and that the political process must be broad-based and inclusive, building on agreement at the Garowe consultative meetings; the establishment of a joint financial management board to increase the transparency and accountability of transitional federal Government, and future Government, spending.

Security and justice—Agreement to create a framework for international support to develop Somali security and justice capacity.

Piracy—Agreement on the need to address the causes of piracy on land, and to build judicial and imprisonment capacity in the region; welcome for the establishment of a regional anti-piracy prosecutions intelligence co-ordination centre in the Seychelles. Ministers also signed bilateral memorandum of understanding with Tanzania on transferring suspected pirates for prosecution, with the Netherlands and Seychelles on the regional anti-piracy prosecutions intelligence coordination centre, and a regional burden-sharing statement of principles. Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also announced the creation of an international taskforce on piracy ransoms and welcomed the announcement from the shipping industry of funding for the UN development programme (UNDP) coastal community projects in Puntland.

Terrorism—Agreement to build capacity to disrupt terrorism in the region, including disrupting terrorists’ travel to and from Somalia and terrorist finances.

Humanitarian—The conference was preceded by a separate meeting on the humanitarian situation, chaired jointly by the International Development Secretary, Baroness Amos (United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs) and the United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister. Prominent themes included the continuing fragility of the humanitarian situation in Somalia and the need to create the conditions for voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced people.

Stability and recovery—Launch of a new stability fund to channel development support, such as for basic services, jobs, security and justice, to emerging areas of stability across Somalia. Founder members are the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Arab Emirates and Denmark. Agreement to a set of principles for local support.

International co-ordination—Welcome for the international contact group on Somalia’s decision to consider restructuring to improve its effectiveness, and a recommendation to establish working groups on the political process, security and justice, and stability and development. The creation of a core group of engaged countries to drive progress in support of United Nations, African Union and Intergovernmental Authority on Development efforts.

We have placed copies of the Communiqué agreed by international partners at the conference and the conclusions of the separate humanitarian meeting in the Libraries of both Houses.

Health Select Committee Report on Public Expenditure (Government Response)

Monday 27th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I have today laid before Parliament the Government response to the House of Commons Health Committee’s report “Public Expenditure: Thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12” (Cm 8283). The Committee’s report was published on 24 January 2012.

The modernisation and efficiency challenges we are seeking across health and social care are exceptional; ones that are vitally necessary to secure sustainable and improving services. They are also inextricably linked and mutually supportive. These changes are critical to bringing about a modern care system that is fit to deliver the high quality, responsive, personalised services wanted by people today. As a part of these reforms, we are protecting funding for the NHS and allocating additional funding for social care.

Passenger Name Records

Monday 27th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The coalition Government are firmly committed to protecting the security of UK citizens and to defending civil liberties. Our experience is that both security and privacy are possible. We must resist trading one off against the other as some would wish us to do.

We are firmly committed to consistency in our approach to civil liberties and will seek to translate our domestic agenda to the EU level—this includes purpose limitation; rigorous evidence-based arguments; the principles of necessity and proportionality; stringent data protection safeguards, especially when handling sensitive personal data; independent data protection oversight; and, of course, full compliance with EU law and the EU treaties.

We fully recognise the importance of working with partners outside the EU given that the threats we face are global in nature and, in common with other EU member states, we view the US as a key partner.

The UK, in common with many other EU member states and third countries, places considerable value on the collection and analysis of passenger name record (PNR) data (that data collected by carriers in the exercise of their business) for the purpose of preventing terrorism and serious crime. The appropriate use of PNR data is vital in keeping the public safe.

In line with this view, the Government continue to press for an EU PNR directive that includes provision for intra-EU flights. The Government also believe that clear PNR agreements between the EU and third countries play a vital role in removing legal uncertainty for air carriers flying to those countries, and help ensure that PNR information can be shared quickly and securely, with all necessary data protection safeguards in place. It is for this reason the Government have opted in to the EU-US agreement on the exchange of passenger name record data, notifying the President of the Council on 9 February 2012.

This agreement replaces the EU-US PNR agreement which has been applied provisionally from July 2007. The European Parliament postponed its vote on that agreement and asked the Commission to come forward with a single model for international agreements before it took a final vote. On 21 September 2010 the European Commission published a communication on the global approach to transfers of PNR data to third countries, together with a package of draft negotiating mandates for PNR agreements with Australia, Canada and the United States. In response to this, the Council presented a draft Council decision to authorise the Commission to open negotiations for PNR agreements with Australia, Canada and the US, together with draft negotiating guidelines (collectively referred to as the negotiating mandates). The UK opted in to these negotiating mandates in December 2010 and announced this decision to Parliament on 20 December 2010.

I listened very carefully to what hon. Members had to say during the scrutiny process and am pleased that the Committee agreed with the Government’s recommendation to participate in this agreement.

The agreement:

Restricts the purposes for which data can be processed to the prevention of and combating of terrorist offences and serious trans-national crime;

Makes express provision for data security;

Requires data to be masked after six months and transferred to a dormant database after five years. Data may be retained in the dormant database for a period of up to 10 years, during which additional controls will apply (including a more restricted number of personnel authorised to access it as well as a higher level of supervisory approval required).

Provides that masked data can only be re-personalised in connection with an identifiable case, threat or risk. After five years in the dormant database (10 years in total) data can only be re-personalised for the purpose of preventing and combating terrorist offences;

Provides that sensitive personal data must be filtered out and may only be accessed in exceptional circumstances where the life of an individual may be imperilled or seriously impaired;

Provides for independent review and oversight by departmental privacy officers with a proven record of autonomy, such as the Department of Homeland Security’s Chief Privacy Officer;

Sets out rights of access, rectification and erasure and redress;

Regulates the transfer of PNR data to other US Government authorities;

Only permits onward data transmission to a third country on a case-by-case basis and for the purposes outlined above.

The Council decisions to sign and conclude the agreement were deposited on 28 November 2011. These can be found at the following links:

Council Decision to Sign:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=COM:2011:0807:FIN:EN:PDF.

Council Decision to Conclude:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=COM:2011:0805:FIN:EN:PDF.

Northern Ireland Security Situation

Monday 27th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

In July 2011, when I laid the final report of the IMC before the House, I made a commitment to provide twice yearly updates summarising the threat. This statement is the first such update and represents our assessment of the current position.

During the past six months all the dissident republican groups have remained active in Northern Ireland, and the threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe meaning an attack is highly likely.

The threat level in Great Britain is substantial, meaning that an attack is a strong possibility.

There have been 13 attacks against national security targets in Northern Ireland since 1 August 2011. These have included attacks on police officers as well as small bombs deployed against a bank in Newry and the city of culture offices in Londonderry. The most recent attacks have included the attempted murder of a soldier on 5 January 2012, a pipe bomb recovered at the scene of a fire in West Belfast on 17 January 2012 and two pipe bombs set off in Londonderry on 19 January 2012.

Many other potential attacks have been prevented by the actions of security and law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border.

While there were fewer attacks in 2011 than in 2010, the intent and capability of dissident republican terrorists remains high. At present, the threat appears to have stabilised as a result of the activities of security and law enforcement agencies. However, there remains a high level of underlying terrorist activity and planning.

The most active groups at present are:

The Real IRA (RIRA);

The Continuity IRA (CIRA);

Óglaigh na hÉireann (ONH).

In addition, there are a number of unaffiliated terrorists who are also active. All of these groups are dangerous and pose a real threat—primarily to police officers but also, through their actions, to the wider public.

The UDA and UVF leaderships remain committed to their ceasefires, although there has been unsanctioned violent activity by members of both groups.

Both loyalist and republican groups continue to be involved in a wide range of acts of criminality. Both also continue to carry out paramilitary style assaults and shootings.

I am grateful to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, An Garda Síochána and the Security Service for their tireless efforts to address the real and severe threat posed by terrorists in Northern Ireland.

I am confident that the national security arrangements are operating in line with the principles set out in annex E to the St Andrew’s Agreement. As I informed the House on 19 December 2011, Official Report, column l45WS, Lord Carlile’s recent report on the operation of arrangements for handling national security matters in Northern Ireland expressed satisfaction that there are no difficulties of any significance in the inter-operability between the PSNI and the Security Service. He concluded that their sound working partnership should be commended. Lord Carlile said that he believed that, compared with 2010, 2011 saw more success in containing and stabilising the threat and noted that there were fewer incidents and fewer major attacks.

As this House is well aware, tackling terrorism in all its forms and within the rule of law remains the highest priority for this Government. We will continue to work as closely as possible with our strategic partners in the PSNI, Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to counter this threat.

Government Car and Despatch Agency

Monday 27th February 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

On 16 January 2012, I announced the significant operating cost reductions we have made in running the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) since May 2010. The previous Government had ministerial cars for most Ministers, costing £6.8 million in 09-10. We are now spending just £3.8 million or 55% percent of that, and the number of Ministers requiring cars has reduced by around half

Today, I am announcing our plans for the coming year in which we expect to deliver further operating cost savings of around one third. This is part of our ongoing commitment to driving efficiency and improving value for money and transparency for taxpayers. It will also allow us to start to reduce the overhead costs associated with the service.

To reflect the Government’s approach to providing vehicles for Ministers’ official travel while maintaining adequate levels of security, I am taking this opportunity to identify a better taxpayer value service, reduce the vehicle fleet and maximise driver and vehicle utilisation. This approach will enable us to reshape the agency and its estate to deliver a leaner and substantially smaller organisation.

We are working closely with Departments to deliver the main elements of this efficiency and reform programme which are:

the phased closure of the Government mail despatch service by the end of the year. I expect current users to make alternative, cost-effective arrangements with their existing service providers or to utilise existing Government frameworks to secure new services from the private sector;

a 50% reduction in the GCDA fleet with a new approach that gives greater control over management of the resource to Departments;

a review of estate options;

a review of the GCDA’s agency status and whether, in the light of the much smaller scale of the operation, that continues to offer the best value for money.

The GCDA is working with Departments to help manage the transition to new arrangements. Subject to those discussions, I expect the changes to the car service to be fully operational by April this year and the transition to new mail arrangements to be completed by the end of the year.

Grand Committee

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Monday, 27 February 2012.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes)]

My Lords, before the first Motion is considered I remind noble Lords that, in respect of each item of business today, the Motion before the Committee is that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. The Motions to approve the instruments will subsequently be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. I further remind noble Lords that if there is a Division in the Chamber, we shall immediately adjourn for 10 minutes.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Domestic Violence) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:31

Moved by

[Lord Freud]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Domestic Violence) (Amendment) Regulations 2012.

Relevant document: 39th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Domestic Violence) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 were laid in draft before the House on 19 January. They are regarded as being compatible with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and are being introduced so that recipients of jobseeker’s allowance who have been victims of actual or threatened domestic violence can continue to receive jobseeker’s allowance without having to meet the requirements to be available for and actively seek employment, and to have a jobseeker’s agreement. The term “domestic violence” is defined in the regulations and includes physical, psychological, financial, emotional and sexual abuse.

The regulations apply to victims of actual or threatened domestic violence by a partner, former partner or certain family members of the claimant, their partner or former partner, and allow them to access the exemption from the jobseeking conditions for an initial period of four weeks if the incident took place within the 26 weeks before the claimant notifies Jobcentre Plus about it, provided that the claimant is not living at the same address as the perpetrator at the time of the notification. If the claimant then provides written evidence of the kind required by the regulations during the initial four-week period, the easement period will in effect be extended to 13 weeks. Claimants will be able to access the easement only once in any 12-month period.

During debates on the Welfare Reform Act 2009, the Lords requested an automatic 13-week period due to concerns that jobcentre advisers might refuse access to the existing domestic emergency exemption in such cases because they may not understand the impact of domestic abuse on individuals and their children. The domestic emergency deferrals are allowed at the discretion of Jobcentre Plus advisers and allow four one-week periods within 12 months for individual incidents of emergency, such as a death in the family or domestic violence. These four one-week periods can run consecutively, if appropriate. For those with dependent children, one of the weeks may be extended to eight weeks, resulting in a total maximum of 11 weeks’ deferral.

The main differences between the domestic emergency process and the new domestic violence process is the need for evidence in the 13-week deferral and the fact that victims without dependent children receive the same number of weeks’ exemption as those who do not have dependent children. Clearly the domestic emergency exemption also covers a wider range of situations. We would not expect victims of domestic violence to use both exemptions routinely, but the fact that they have an alternative available when they do not want to produce evidence, and in appropriate cases could use both exemptions in order to extend the time they are exempted from the jobseeking conditions, shows how seriously the Government take this issue.

During the debates on the Welfare Reform Bill 2009, noble Lords were concerned about the impact of domestic violence on lone parents with older children as, prior to the introduction of changes to entitlement to income support for lone parents, this group would have claimed income support and not have been required actively to seek work until their youngest child reached the age of 16.

Currently, a lone parent can claim income support only until their youngest child reaches the age of seven and this age is being lowered to five later this year, subject to Royal Assent of relevant provisions in the Welfare Reform Bill and the making of regulations. There is strong evidence to support the amendment. Although no research exists on the impact of domestic violence on JSA recipients in particular, there are data on the incidence of domestic violence in the wider community.

We are aware that 7 per cent of women and 5 per cent of men reported having experienced domestic abuse in 2010-11. This is the equivalent to an estimated 1.2 million female victims of domestic abuse and 800,000 male victims. We also know that non-physical abuse, such as emotional and financial abuse, was the most common type of abuse, with the figures showing around 57 per cent of women and 46 per cent of men being victims. Furthermore, the British Crime Survey 2010-11 showed that three-quarters of all incidents of domestic violence were experienced by previous victims. Of the victims interviewed, just under one-half had been victimised more than once and nearly one-quarter had been victimised three or more times. We are also aware that four out of 10 lone parents reported domestic abuse in their previous relationship.

The proposed exemption is designed to reflect the fact that victims may experience domestic abuse at the hands not just of partners but of other family members. This can include parents and a range of other relatives, including children. This is wider than the group originally envisaged by noble Lords in the original debates in 2009 as the Government recognise that domestic violence is not restricted to those in intimate relationships and believe that support should be offered to those victimised by family members, including members of a partner or a former partner’s family.

For victims on JSA to take advantage of the exemption they would need to disclose the abuse. There is a consensus within the evidence that domestic abuse is underreported and that victims may be unwilling to disclose abuse, particularly to officials. For example, figures from the British Crime Survey 2008-09 show that only 3 per cent of victims have disclosed abuse to a benefits agency. For this reason we think that the exemption may be taken up by about 3,000 JSA claimants per year.

In order to help formulate the policy, the department undertook informal consultations with specialist organisations, such as Women’s Aid and the Child Poverty Action Group. As a result, a number of changes were accepted. These included the first four weeks to be consecutive; all claimants will be able to access this time, if they meet the conditions, without the need to provide evidence. The remaining nine weeks need not be consecutive and can be accessed only on the production of relevant evidence.

Jobcentre Plus will introduce a pro forma for use by victims and organisations who wish to use it; and employers and trade union representatives were added to the list of those eligible to provide evidence. Those consulted expressed concern about imposing limits on the time a claimant can have to obtain evidence and about having a maximum allowable deferral period. This was because research on behaviour in abuse cases shows that victims may take two or three years to leave the abusive relationship permanently, there may be a number of incidents of abuse in that time and the victim may therefore need support over a longer period than 13 weeks.

The Government consider it unacceptable to offer longer periods on jobseeker’s allowance without the need to meet the jobseeking conditions, because JSA must remain a benefit for those able to seek and undertake work. It is therefore necessary to limit the time that claimants can be treated as meeting the jobseeking conditions. Those with problems that cannot be resolved within the 13 weeks of the deferral may be able to be treated as available for and actively seeking employment for up to a further 11 weeks under the procedures for claimants experiencing domestic emergencies. The Government consider that anyone who is not able to undertake jobseeking activity after the maximum periods that these two deferral periods allow should not be eligible for JSA.

Although the easement has much to commend it, thanks in large part to the research and consultation that have been undertaken since the introduction of the easement under the Welfare Reform Act 2009, it leaves us with duplicate processes that are more complex to operate than we would wish. I have therefore requested that, in advance of the introduction of universal credit in October 2013, staff should consider ways of streamlining the support system for victims of domestic violence who are jobseekers to keep the best of the two systems and to simplify the process.

I hope noble Lords will agree that these current changes are worth while and necessary to ensure that victims of domestic violence receive the support they require to help them achieve financial independence at a time when they are unable to take up work. With those words, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations so comprehensively and for setting out the scale of domestic violence, which sadly is prevalent in our society. As he says, the measure flows from the Welfare Reform Act 2009. I recall being pressed hard on some of the issues in which we engaged at that time.

I have a few questions for the Minister. I understood that he referred to a definition that included psychological pressure. However, the definition in the regulations states that,

“‘domestic violence’ means abuse of a kind specified on page 11 of section 2.2 of ‘Responding to domestic abuse: a handbook for health professionals’”.

I raise that in particular because a cross-government consultation has been undertaken to look at a general definition of “domestic violence” that could be shared across all departments. I want to be clear about that. I am not sure whether I have missed anything, but that is what I understand the position to be.

Why does the measure apply only once in a 12-month period? Why is that a “magic” cut-off point and does it reflect reality? Why can it operate only when the victim, or potential victim, of domestic violence is not living at the same address as the alleged perpetrator? That seems to me to be a valid point, particularly as part of the rationale for the four-week and 13-week periods was to enable someone to look for alternative accommodation. They may have short-term accommodation in a refuge, but I am not sure that an individual would be able to move out of a house in all circumstances, particularly if the abuse is threatened rather than actual. I wonder why that constraint is included. How will the measure be carried into universal credit? I accept entirely what the Minister said about rationalising the two systems so that they operate more effectively, which I think includes the assurance that the measure will be carried forward into universal credit.

In a similar vein, there are provisions in the housing benefit regulations that allow housing benefit to continue to be paid—I think sometimes for two addresses—when someone has had to move out of accommodation because of domestic violence or a threat of domestic violence. Do we have an alignment of the definitions for those purposes so that the two concepts sit together? The reforms to legal aid will restrict access to representation in family court proceedings, which makes these provisions all the more important. As regards legal aid, there are concerns about the high level of evidence that has to be produced. I do not know whether the Minister can comment further on the type of evidence that it is envisaged will be needed to access the benefit of these easements. I was pleased that, as I understand it, after 13 weeks there can be, if necessary, a further 11 weeks under the domestic emergency provisions, after which someone should cease to be on JSA if they are traumatised and in difficulty because of these circumstances.

As I understand it, the cross-government consultation has not just looked at making sure that coercive control using power and psychological control is brought within the definition of domestic violence or threats of domestic violence but at the age cut-off point. Currently, the definition extends only to someone who is 18 or over and not to 16 or 17 year-olds. Clearly there could be some circumstances in which 16 or 17 year-olds come within the scope and are able to claim JSA. There is a mismatch here, and I wonder how it will be dealt with.

All in all, I am pleased that the regulations have been brought forward and I congratulate the Government. However, I would be grateful for the answers to my few questions.

15:44

[Lord German]

My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord’s questions with a number of other issues that relate to these regulations. The first concerns the title. I am always in favour of government being connected across the piece. The regulations refer to page 11 of the handbook for health professionals. On page 10 there is a straightforward definition of domestic abuse that was provided by the Home Office and adopted across government. I will read the subsequent paragraph because it refers to something that is in the title of these regulations and to a change that it is seeking. Perhaps the Minister will consider it.

The handbook states:

“The term ‘domestic violence’ obviously covers a wide range of abuse—physical and otherwise. It also covers issues that mainly concern women from minority ethnic backgrounds, such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation and so-called ‘honour violence’. Throughout this handbook, we use the term ‘domestic abuse’ instead of ‘domestic violence’ wherever possible, because we are concerned that the latter might be interpreted as physical abuse only. We have, however, made use of information and statistics on ‘domestic violence’ and so have kept to that terminology in those instances”—

of straightforward domestic violence. Over the page are the definitions, which the regulations refer to. They are really a set of examples—physical, sexual, psychological, financial and emotional. If there is a cross-governmental approach to this, why do the regulations not use the term “domestic abuse” instead of “domestic violence”? It is a wider definition. The examples on page 11, which the regulations refer to, are not examples of domestic violence but of domestic abuse—the term used on the previous page. Perhaps my noble friend will consider whether the title of the regulations is wholly appropriate.

My second question concerns the evidence that should be provided. A broad range of people—Members of the House of Lords are not mentioned—can produce evidence on behalf of a claimant. The group includes the police. I presume that this is because when someone has resorted to making a complaint to the police, the police will be required to provide that evidence. Perhaps my noble friend will explain what evidence the police will be expected to provide in order to justify the continuation of a claim before them for discretionary easement.

My third question concerns discretion levels. There is a clear process that moves from four weeks to a total of 11, with individual weeks being added up as necessary rather than being taken en bloc, and with nine of the 13 weeks being taken in blocks as necessary. However, sometimes in the first four weeks that people have to provide the evidence, it may not be possible to provide that evidence if they require a public body such as the police to provide a letter or a pro forma to be completed, because sometimes the public bodies are not quite as quick as you might wish them to be. Is there any discretion for the Jobcentre Plus adviser to ease that four-week period and make it a little longer, if evidence is on its way from a public body that might exceed the four-week exemption period, and extend it to a further nine weeks?

I welcome the order before us. It seems a very sensible and very helpful move, and I commend the Minister for bringing it forward.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the order. I particularly welcome the very broad consultation that appears to have taken place, and the fact that—for once—there have been changes as a result of that consultation, which is very good to see.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that concerns were raised about some of the detail. In particular, it discusses:

“imposing time limits on the time a claimant can have to obtain evidence, and about having a maximum allowable deferral period”.

Were any other concerns raised that are not discussed in the Explanatory Memorandum? If so, perhaps the Minister could relay them.

The main issue I want to raise is in support of what my noble friend Lord McKenzie said about this being confined to victims of domestic violence or abuse where the perpetrator is living at a different address. Research in the United States shows that it is not unusual for a man who is abusing his partner to use violence to prevent her seeking paid work—for the obvious reason that he wants that woman under his control and if she gets paid work she can be independent of him economically. We know that economic dependence is linked to psychological dependence and makes women much more vulnerable to abuse. I am not aware of similar research having been done in this country but it seems quite plausible, now that partners are subjected to conditionality rules, that there will be situations in which someone may be prevented from seeking work by the violence or abuse of someone they are living with—and this will not allow for that. I would welcome the Minister’s response on that.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as one would expect, this has been an interesting debate with some valuable contributions. I shall try to deal with the questions—slightly at random, if noble Lords will forgive me.

The evidence can be supplied by a very wide range of bodies: healthcare professionals, the police, registered social workers, employers, trade union reps, and public, voluntary or charitable bodies. My noble friend Lord German was concerned about the process being slow, but that is probably a pretty rare circumstance. Clearly there is the back-up of the domestic emergency discretion that is allowed to Jobcentre Plus when, after four weeks, the letter has not arrived and it looks as though the body is being slow in supplying it.

Both the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the issue of not living at the same address. Of course, that is how the primary legislation was framed; it says something about having to leave the address. The regulations provide financial support for a person when they have left the address, and the support is provided in order to help a person to move on. However, this is an interesting point. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about the interplay between conditionality and violence. I will bear that in mind as we look at universal credit, for which we are ramping up the conditionality. There might be households in which on the one hand the state says “go to work” and on the other hand the partner is using violence to prevent that. I suggest that that is an interesting, although I suspect rather narrow, group, but we need to keep it in mind. Overall, the purpose of this easement is to support changes in individual circumstances. That is what it is for, and clearly staying in the same place would not mean that such a change was made.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

It would be consistent with what the noble Lord has just said if a claim could be made without the claimant having had to have moved out of the accommodation. The claimant might wish to do that and be in the process of trying to move on. I am not sure how this is framed in the primary legislation and maybe that is where the problem lies. The prohibition seems to relate to living at the same address at the point when the claim is made, but that might just be a temporary transitional arrangement as someone seeks to move on for obvious reasons.

[Lord Freud]

I will come back with formal written confirmation, but my understanding is that the legislation is framed in terms of there having been a move rather than a move being contemplated. As I say, I will write to confirm that, but I feel relatively confident about that point.

I want to pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord German and by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the definition. For technical reasons the word “abuse” was not used in 2009. The term used was “violence”, but I think that things are moving on. However, the substance of the title makes it clear that we are not referring to situations in which there is physical abuse—my noble friend read out the wide definition set out in the handbook. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, we are using a wider definition than the cross-government one that is in current use. I refer in particular to the point about the under-18s because we do have people who are less than 18 years old and they are not excluded from this regulation. That is one of the issues that the Government are looking at in the cross-government discussion.

16:00

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I must say that I think that all the areas of concern have been dealt with in the Explanatory Memorandum—both those that we accepted and the couple that we did not. I think that I have responded to all the questions that I can remember, although I will quickly double check. There is a last one: why does the provision apply only once in a 12-month period? There are other reasons. I talked about the domestic emergency provisions that are available. This regulation reflects what was agreed in the primary regulation, which is why it applies once in every 12-month period.

As I said earlier, this provision clearly protects a vulnerable group, and it is important to do so. This is even more important in light of the reduction in the age at which the youngest child moves from income support to jobseeker’s allowance. As I said earlier, I am concerned about the level of complexity in the interplay between discretionary and automatic. I am trying with universal credit to drive towards a system that is simple both in enabling the claimants to understand their rights and for Jobcentre Plus to operate. As we are talking about 3,000-odd people who are currently likely to claim under this scheme, that is not much more than three or four people per Jobcentre Plus. Having two sets of regulations to cover what is in practice a very rare occurrence is not a very clever way to run any kind of business. I am therefore very keen to simplify this without losing any of the protections. Indeed, I am determined to maintain them. People need to understand what kind of protection they can look for without needing a PhD in reading regulations. With that, I commend these regulations to the House.

Motion agreed.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:02

Moved by

[Lord Freud]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012, the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2012 and the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2012 were laid before the House on 30 January 2012, and I am satisfied that they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I will speak first to the two smaller orders: the first order makes minor amendments to protected rights; the second order increases guaranteed minimum pensions—GMPs. We will then discuss the up rating of state pensions and benefits.

The Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2012 makes minor amendments to the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2011 in relation to amendments to be made to the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Pensions Schemes Act 1993 in respect of protected rights payments. By way of context, the 2011 order, which was approved by the House early in June last year, makes consequential amendments to primary legislation as a result of abolishing contracting out on a defined contribution basis on 6 April 2012, which is provided for in the Pensions Act 2007 and the Pensions Act 2008.

Just before the debate in the House last June, an issue was noted that related to how the proposed amendments in Article 3 of the 2011 order would work. When introducing the debate, I therefore outlined the background to the Committee and said that we would address the issue, which we are doing now. Having previously made that statement, I do not propose to take up more time with further explanation, other than to say that the instrument before the Committee amends the 2011 order, before it comes into force, to remove the exclusion of protected rights payments from what counts as income for the purposes of income payments orders made under Section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986, and from the scope of Section 159 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, which provides that GMPs and protected rights payments cannot be assigned or charged. Both the amendments will ensure consistency with changes made to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 by Article 2 of the 2011 order. This is consistent with our original policy intention that the tracking of protected rights would cease after the abolition of DC contracting out.

The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2012 provides for contracted out, defined benefit schemes to increase their members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997 by 3 per cent. Such increases are in line with the growth in prices or 3 per cent, whichever is the lower, and this year the 3 per cent cap will apply as inflation is higher.

On the uprating order, I am sure noble Lords will welcome our decisions on increases to benefits in 2012. In total, the Government will spend £6.6 billion on uprating benefits in 2012. Alongside other measures that we have taken, it will deliver fairness to those who have worked hard all their lives, and protection to the most vulnerable in society during these difficult economic times.

The consumer prices index, the CPI, remains our preferred measure for pensions and benefits indexation. We made this change at last year’s uprating; some noble Lords may remember our extensive discussion on the relative merits of the price indices. I will not repeat myself on these points—despite the enjoyment I would gain—save to reiterate that the CPI is the Bank of England’s target and the headline measure of inflation in the UK. It relates to a basket of goods, which is more appropriate for pensioners and benefit recipients because it excludes mortgage interest and is less volatile than the retail prices index, the RPI, which fell negative two years ago, with the result that many pensioners had their additional state pension frozen. The CPI methodology takes into account how consumers respond to price changes—an advantage that has won the support of many experts. Last year, the High Court upheld the Government’s decision that the CPI could be used for pensions and benefits uprating, and we have robustly defended our case in the Court of Appeal. In April the Government will implement the full September CPI increase of 5.2 per cent across pensions and social security benefits.

I will now discuss in more detail the individual benefit rates amended by the legislation. One of this Government’s first actions was to restore the earnings link with the basic state pension. We went a step further and promised a triple guarantee to increase the basic state pension by the highest of the growth in earnings, the growth in prices or 2.5 per cent. In line with the triple guarantee, the basic state pension will rise 5.2 per cent to £107.45 per week, in line with the growth in the consumer prices index. This is an increase of £5.30—the largest ever cash increase to the basic state pension. This means that this year the basic state pension is forecast to increase to 17.1 per cent of average earnings, which is a higher share of average earnings than in any year since 1997.

The basic state pension goes to more than 11 million pensioners in this country, and both this year and in the long term the triple guarantee will ensure that the basic state pension will provide a solid foundation on which recipients can build a retirement income. The triple guarantee will protect the value of the basic state pension in the long term. It is estimated that the average pensioner retiring this year on a full basic state pension will gain £13,000 over the course of their retirement as a result of the triple guarantee, compared with the old prices link.

From April this year the additional state pension will also rise by 5.2 per cent, which will mean that those with a state second pension or state earnings-related pension, SERPs, will see the 5.2 per cent increase in both their basic and additional state pension income. This means that the increase in total state pension income for someone with a full basic state pension and an average additional state pension will be about £6.70 a week: £348 a year.

The standard minimum guarantee in pension credit is the means-tested support that ensures all pensioners a minimum level of income in retirement. The legislation requires us to increase the minimum guarantee at least in line with earnings, so that over the long term the poorest pensioners see their incomes rise in line with that of the working population. However, this year the relevant earnings index stood below inflation at 2.8 per cent. We judged it unacceptable that the poorest pensioners on the guarantee credit would see the lowest increases. We wanted to ensure that those pensioners saw the full increase given to the basic state pension, and we will therefore increase the single rate of the standard minimum guarantee by £5.35, taking it to £142.70 per week in 2012.

To ensure that the overindexation of the guaranteed credit is affordable, we will make some changes to the savings credit element of pension credit. In April, we will increase the savings credit threshold to £111.80 for individuals. This will mean that those with higher levels of income may see less of an increase, but no one should have a lower weekly income as a result of the uprating. This policy also enables us to focus spending on the poorest pensioners on guaranteed credit.

On working age benefits, the Government have ensured that, even in these difficult economic times, benefits for disabled people and their carers and for those out of work and seeking employment will see the full CPI increase of 5.2 per cent. This increase will ensure that the most vulnerable people in society are protected and that those looking for work get the support they need to move into the labour market.

Through the uprating order, the Government are spending an additional £6.6 billion in 2012. This means £4.5 billion more on pensioners, more than £1 billion more on disabled people and their carers, and more than £1 billion more on people who are unable to work through sickness or unemployment. Even in these tough economic times, the uprating commitment that I have outlined today will give real support to the poorest and most vulnerable in society. I therefore commend the orders to the House. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, at the start, we acknowledge that the Government have rejected the voices within their ranks that would have watered down even the full CPI increase for these upratings. The order before us deals with most out-of-work benefits, but it of course does not deal with changes to tax credits, which we shall debate shortly.

We have heard from the Minister that the upratings order amounts to increasing benefits by £6.6 billion, but that is dealing on one basis with the effects of inflation; it is not addressing the real cuts that are being made to employment support allowance, housing benefit, support for disabled children, DLA, council tax benefit, child benefit and tax credits. By 2015-16, just three years hence, the Government will be pocketing £10 billion-plus per year from the CPI switch to benefits, tax credits and public service pensions.

We have no points to raise on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order, and support it.

On the abolition of protected rights consequential amendments order, we have some brief questions. Post-abolition of contracting out on a DC basis, schemes will not be required to keep track of protected rights payments, so, as we have heard, the court will not be able to identify them when setting income payment orders for a debtor. Consequently, protection of accrued rights payments from income payment orders will now be retrospectively removed. Does that mean that creditors can ask for income payment orders to be revisited in the light of that loss of protection? If trustees amend their scheme rules to reflect the abolition of protected rights and a scheme member is subsequently subject to an income payment order, could the trustees be in breach of Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995, a section that protects accrued rights and for which there is no statutory override? The order has the consequence of retrospectively removing protected rights accrued, albeit in the instance of an income payments order being issued. Is a precedent being set here, and would it not have been possible to set some sort of pension income threshold below which the courts cannot take account of income when issuing income payment orders as an alternative approach?

16:15

As in the other place, the Minister referred to the triple lock for pensioners, but without being too repetitive, as my right honourable friend Stephen Timms made clear it had to be set aside last year, with RPI being used to uprate the basic state pension rather than the CPI. For 2012-13, the CPI again gives a lower increase, but on this occasion it is not to be set aside. The basic state pension increase is 5.2 per cent—the relevant inflation factor under the triple lock, as we have heard—but the minimum guarantee element of pension credit is being increased by 3.9 per cent, which is equal to the cash value of the increase in the basic state pension.

The earnings increase for the relevant period was 2.8 per cent. We recognise that both the basic state pension and the guaranteed pension credit have increased by more than earnings, but the guaranteed credit has fallen in relation to the basic state pension, which means that the poorest pensioners have become poorer relative to those on a full state entitlement. The pension reforms intended that pension credit should keep its value relative to the basic state pension so that the poorest pensioners did not get relatively poorer. This will be the consequence of applying the triple lock to basic state pension but not to the guaranteed credit. Although state pension reforms will improve the position for future pensioners, research produced by the PPI confirms that pension credit will continue to play a significant role in addressing pensioner poverty for some time to come. Perhaps the Minister will confirm the Government’s intention as to the value of the guaranteed pension credit over time when compared with the basic state pension.

On some further points of detail, I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to the following questions. Last year, the uprating statement was accompanied by an equality impact assessment. Is an updated one to be prepared? Paragraph 4.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum explains that, as for last year, certain rates of invalidity allowance, age addition and age-related additions payable with any capacity benefits are to be reduced to further align rates of incapacity benefit with those of ESA prior to completion of the IB reassessment process. Can the Minister say how this sits with the commitments to transitional protection on migration to ESA and remind us of what those commitments were?

Paragraph 7.5 refers to the savings credit threshold increases that, it recites, are to fund the increases in the standard minimum guarantee—indeed, the Minister confirmed that a moment ago. However, can he please provide us with a breakdown of the figures? How many people will cease to be eligible for pension savings credit because of this level of increase? How many will suffer a reduction in the savings credit? Have the savings on passported benefits been taken into account, and what are these benefits? With regard to non-dependant deductions, can the Minister tell us what the estimated reduction in housing benefit and council tax benefit arising from the above-inflation increase is for those items in 2012-13?

Paragraph 7.11 refers to deductions made where a service charge is included in a rental agreement. The deduction is to be uprated by 18.3 per cent, which we understand is the CPI rate for fuel. How is this supposed to work? Is this increased deduction to be applied only to any component of the service charge that relates to heating and lighting, and is it irrespective of the actual rates of increase of the particular service charge involved?

I turn to a point that cropped up in the other place. Can the Minister also confirm that local housing allowance rates are to be frozen from April 2012 in preparation for the linking to CPI? Can he further say what CPI measure will be applied: that is, the CPI at what date?

Paragraph 11 relates to the impact on small business. It confirms that small businesses are fully reimbursed for statutory adoption pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory maternity pay, and small businesses are defined as those whose annual gross national insurance payments are £45,000 or less. Can the Minister tell us when the £45,000 figure was last uprated, and approximately how many small businesses now benefit from the full reimbursement?

Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the full impact assessment has not been published for the uprating order because the annually recurring costs are already in the government expenditure plans. This raises the obvious question of the performance of the work programme, because any slippage in performance will mean that uprated benefits dealt with in this order will increase government expenditure. There are lots of issues swirling around this programme and its effectiveness, not least the participation of A4e, which was awarded five contracts in April last year, and press reports express concerns about the position of subcontractors, especially from the voluntary sector. As part of an impact assessment on this uprating, especially as it affects JSA and ESA, can we now have the publication of performance data, and can the Minister say what guidance providers have been given about data that they should be gathering for monitoring purposes?

As explained in the other place, some elements of these orders are acceptable but some are not—in particular, the permanent adoption of a lower rate of inflation uprating for pensions and other benefits, which we cannot support. Had it been adopted as a temporary measure to support the deficit reduction programme, we would have considered supporting it. However, we know from the DWP’s own figures that over a 15-year period it would impact on, for example, occupational pensions to the tune of £70 billion. Over a longer period, the hit on pensioners would be even greater, and this is why we cannot support it.

Nevertheless, can the Minister say whether, should the CPI be refined—and there is some work going on to do this—to show a higher rate for inflation than the current basis, the Government would adopt that?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I will focus on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, particularly its implications for people of working age.

As someone who is always quick to criticise the Government when I think they are doing the wrong thing, it is only proper to acknowledge and applaud the Government when they are doing the right thing. As my noble friend Lord McKenzie said, they have ignored the siren voices calling on them to tamper with the normal uprating mechanism in order to save money simply because inflation happened to peak in the month on which the uprating is based.

One reason why it is so important that the uprating is maintained, as the Minister himself said in a Written Answer on 10 January, is that:

“The increase in the cost of living faced by those receiving benefits is likely to be higher than for other groups, as those on the lowest incomes spend a greater proportion of their incomes on food, fuel and energy, the prices of which are rising particularly rapidly”.—[Official Report, 10/1/12; col. WA 9.]

This was borne out by a recent Resolution Foundation report, which states:

“Because the costs of essential goods and services have been rising much faster than standard rates of inflation for some time, households on modest incomes have fared far worse than official data suggests … With the cost of an essential basket of goods now rising significantly faster than general inflation, more and more low to middle income households will not just fall behind those above them, but also behind what is widely considered to be a minimum acceptable standard of living”.

The report further states that,

“indices based on average spending, like the CPI or RPI, are much more appropriate for households at the average than for households on lower incomes”.

The Resolution Foundation suggests a new index based on the minimum income standard, which, as the Minister will remember, we discussed at some length in Grand Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill. It is an idea that is worth looking at. The Resolution Foundation report also points out how the switch from the RPI to the CPI aggravates the situation. This is where I have to part company with the Minister, as I am sure he would expect.

An Institute for Fiscal Studies press release on the September inflation rate points out that the adoption of the CPI means that many,

“benefit recipients will be worse off than they would otherwise have been … Over time this change will prove to be the biggest change to the welfare system so far implemented by the government”.

Although the impact so far is relatively small, it will compound indefinitely over time. Even a small impact is significant for people on very low incomes.

Like the Minister, I will not go into all the technical arguments that we had on the previous occasion about CPI. The Minister said something about economists being very supportive of this, but after our previous debate I received a letter from a retired economist who had written to the Minister challenging what he had said in the debate about the technical arguments. I will not bore the Committee with it now but I should just remind him that it is perhaps just as well that he did not repeat them today.

My noble friend Lord McKenzie referred briefly to my final point. Steve Webb in the House of Commons talked about the burdens on the low paid. He said:

“That is why we are keen to raise the tax-free personal allowance”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/2/12; col. 1070.]

In that debate in the Commons, however, no one mentioned child benefit. I talked about this last year. I do not apologise for talking about it this year and I will talk about it again next year. As long as child benefit is frozen, it is crucial that we remind people of its significance and tell those who are too young to know that child benefit replaced personal tax allowances as well as family allowances. It therefore should be treated as the equivalent of personal tax allowances. It makes no sense to freeze child benefit when so much emphasis is being put on raising personal tax allowances as a way to help low income people in work, in particular those with children. Obviously, child benefit will help only those with children, but it helps those whose income from work is too low to pay tax. The more that the Government succeed in raising personal tax allowances, the more people will be in that situation every year and their child benefit will be frozen.

This message is perhaps as much for Liberal Democrat colleagues. I hope that they will take it back to the Deputy Prime Minister in the very public negotiations that are going on about the Budget at present.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I am happy to add that to my long list of things that I will be taking to the Deputy Prime Minister from time to time. I am pleased to make a short intervention in this debate. I, too, was massively relieved that the full uprating undertaking was delivered. It must have been very difficult for Ministers. I was frightened to death that the pressures on them would make them buckle and I am genuinely pleased, as well as massively relieved, that the commitment was held to. It is a very important signal. I do not care who gets the credit in the coalition. Ministers did well and I want to recognise that openly.

I have a couple of technical, almost philosophical matters with which to worry the Minister. We always have these arguments. I know that this is a pay-as-you-go system and that this is not money just lying in a bank. The thing that has changed for me is the table at item 6, where the Government Actuary is looking at projections beyond April 2013. The balance in the National Insurance Fund goes from 55 per cent in 2010-11 to 30 per cent in 2016-17. That is a dramatic drop. Can the Minister explain that? It may be a deliberate contribution to deficit reduction, but the balance in the National Insurance Fund has been quite high for some time. Perhaps that reflects the buoyancy of the economy. I am not an actuary, but perhaps the Minister could say a word about that. If he cannot, a letter would do. The Committee would like to hear a little more about going from 55 per cent to 30 per cent in that relatively short space of time, because we may want to return to it.

16:30

The Chancellor made the interesting comment, almost as an aside because there are so many other things happening at the moment, that he was going to look at how the national insurance contributory system fitted with income tax and all that. It may have a significant effect on the orders in front of us this afternoon if that work was to mature any time soon. It may be too early to say anything about that, but I encourage grown-up consideration of what can be done. That plays into the absolutely sensible point made by the Minister, who brings a fresh mind to all this. All this stuff is too ineffably complicated to make any sense. This is not just about domestic violence. You need to study algebra to understand this document, with 20 pages of different rates and changes at different times. I know that that is part of the Minister's core reason for getting up in the morning, and I encourage him to see what he can do to consider how we simplify all that.

I am sure that universal credit will help, but the Minister should look at going beyond that. I serve on the council of the IFS, which made the important point to me the other day about how these benefits change over time. It is hard to anticipate how the relativities change over a 30-year period and, year on year, to get a grip of that. We should have an indexation policy that is rational and simple. If we want to change benefit rates, we should change the level, not the uprating. That would be a much more transparent way to orchestrate debates. I have concerns about the working poor. We would have a much better grasp of the costs and benefits, the winners and losers, if we looked at levels rather than upratings over time to change how those big spends are made.

The quantities of money are also very confusing for ordinary people. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was quite right to say that this is inflation-proofing, but to the man and woman in the high street these are colossal sums of money and people get frightened. The terms of the debate can be skewed unreasonably, especially when the press get hold of the raw figures, because they are enormous sums of money that frighten people.

The consumer prices index versus the retail prices index debate is not yet finished. I am pleased that the Government have recognised that with local housing allowances. It is absolutely correct that we should look at that for three years. I am confident that the Minister will be as good as his word, because otherwise people will find themselves priced out of all sorts of housing markets. The debate that continues to be held with statistical authorities needs to play into the consumer prices index, with all its attendant dangers. It is correct to say that, over a long period, the relativities go poorly against low-income households. The very least we need to do is continue the work on housing. Owner-occupied housing costs within the consumer prices index is still a work in progress and I am not yet entirely convinced that the CPI is the right measure for a number of reasons. I am sure that the Government are alive to the fact that these arguments will continue, but I would settle for coming back and looking at these things over the longer term.

As I say, the Minister brings a fresh approach to some of this and he has not been daunted by taking on universal credit. I hope he will not be daunted when he turns his attention to the importance of simplification so that we have a debate that ordinary people can understand. That is now the important thing we can do beyond looking at the facts of benefit levels, pressures on the squeezed middle and so on. I am confident that, if the Minister can find the time, he could do a lot of technical work on these, and I will support him. It might be hard territory because there will be winners and losers, but we should be brave about it so that the debate becomes more intelligent and future policy-makers can make rational choices. I support these orders and, again, I am relieved beyond belief that we have managed to get the full uprating delivered. That is a massive accolade to the work of Ministers and I am pleased to acknowledge it.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I shall take up the point on which my noble friend concluded, and that is about the certainty which the Government have provided for those with pensions. The Government have done what they said they intended to do in terms of providing the triple lock, to which I shall come back in a moment. I am a little sorry that we have not been able to engage the Minister on geometric means. We had a very interesting discussion about that. He may want to refer, of course, to the ratio of averages or the average of relatives. These are important matters in relation to the CPI and the RPI. However, I will say this. For those who are advocates of one firm RPI framework, we need to look carefully at what makes up the CPI framework because we can derive a lot of benefit from it.

By way of illustration, the weighting that is given for food and clothing, which are the staples that underpin the prices index for poorer families, is 16.4 per cent for the CPI and 16.2 per cent for RPI. There is not a great deal of difference, but those are the staples. However, if you look at it carefully, you can see that, strangely, alcohol and tobacco are weighted at 9.1 per cent under RPI, yet only 4 per cent under CPI. I think that these are factors which we need to consider carefully when we try to come down heavily on RPI. It is the case, of course, that the CPI includes rent and the RPI includes mortgage interest payments. The Government have acknowledged that the discussion about the whole issue of housing costs is moving on and that there will be further debate as evidence comes forward from the various bodies that the Government are consulting on this matter. What we should celebrate, however, is the fact that we are providing certainty and that we have included the full 5.2 per cent in uprating both pensions and benefits.

I worry that those who seek a single lock rather than a triple lock do not get the real message that seems to come out of the triple lock, which is that in some years it is costs, in other years it is wages, and in others it is the increase in prices. The triple lock itself means that it will be the highest of those three which is provided. For those who advocate only the RPI, if you do not have a lock with those three mechanisms, you will not do well for people in the future. The actuary’s analysis provided under table 3 of the key assumptions looks at the CPI increase from year to year, and for the year we are currently looking at, it is 5.2 per cent, which falls to 2 per cent by 2014, and in fact to 2.1 per cent by 2013. If you were to take only that as the prices figure, no matter what measure you choose you would not fulfil the obligation which you get from a triple lock, which gives the highest of the three measures—wages, prices and costs. All three form part of what the Government are providing as a measure for the future. Those on pensions will know that in future years, whatever geometric means or factors relating to housing are improved or changed within the CPI, there will always be a firm basis on which those pensions will be increased. Uncertainty was a factor in the past as reliance on a single lock produced increases for pensioners in the early 2000s that amounted to pence. At the same time, we did not get the benefit of being able to keep up with those factors which influence most people’s lives. Therefore, we need to celebrate the triple lock and ensure that it is a permanent—not temporary—feature, and that it is built into any discussion on CPI.

I understand that two factors are involved in the switch from the savings credit to the guarantee credit, one of which is the need to provide support for poorer pensioners. The savings credit involves switching provision from pensioners with more income to those with less. The challenge was to provide a higher figure than the £5.30 pensions increase. As I understand it, the relevant figure would be about £5.35. Was the figure chosen to ensure that it was higher than the pensions increase? If it was, that was an admirable thing to do.

Do the Government expect there to be a much broader debate about spending a further £4.5 billion or £5 billion in the 12 months after April? Sometimes our debates focus on small amounts of money, but this is a substantial amount of money. We should celebrate the fact that we are able to provide that money to those who need it most.

I will gladly take messages to the Deputy Prime Minister, but as regards the working poor, whom my noble friend mentioned, I would like to raise the tax-free threshold as rapidly as possible. That is the message I would like to take to the Deputy Prime Minister.

16:45

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it is a lot easier to spend £6.6 billion extra than to remove it. I accept that noble Lords are pleased that we are sticking to the CPI September figure—the 5.2 per cent—even though it is a high figure. It is important for the Government to do that because once you start moving the figure around to suit your convenience the suspicion arises that there is no principle behind that decision and that it is done to save money. Therefore, you save money in one year but there is a lack of confidence in the longer-term strategy. The point about the CPI is that these things even out, although the figure that is arrived at in a particular year might be painful for the Government’s finances. Clearly, this year it is painful to stick with that figure. However, if you stick with the same month, given that it is an annualised figure—it lasts a whole year—it should even out. Albeit that this is a very difficult year, there were some siren voices demanding that we take a particular course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said. However, it was decided that to do something other than what we have done would undermine the principle of the measure.

I would like to pick up on the point about the triple lock. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has been a little grudging about what we are doing with that, which is trying to drive up, over the long term, the level of the basic pension compared with average earnings, because it has lost that relationship. The problem with that is that more and more people go on means-tested pension support, with all the complexity that noble Lords complain about. Clearly one thing that we are trying to do with the pension reform that we have consulted on is to get a liveable rate without all these special levels of support, and the triple lock is another mechanism to do that.

While I am on the topic, I confirm to my noble friend Lord German that the switch from the guaranteed credit to the savings credit and the closing of the thresholds was done precisely so there would not be a cut in the basic pension for those pensioners. While I am touching on CPI versus RPI—we will not have a major debate on that, although we all enjoy it—I want to make the point that there is work going on on the CPI. Only a relatively small proportion of the difference between RPI and CPI is because of the housing element; the rest is the substitution effect—the bulk, as noble Lords will all remember. When that work on a new CPI comes in, the Government will need to look at it and take a decision on what to do. I think that that is the best response I can give to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

However, I need to defend myself slightly from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on what was a very interesting and excellent letter that I got on my description of the differences between CPI and RPI. I must point out that it was only one letter, which is unusual—I did not get every economist in the world writing to complain or differentiate—but I did enjoy it.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked a large number of very good questions—as I would expect—some of which I can answer and others I will write to him about. In particular, I will write to him on the issue of guaranteed minimum protections on contracted-out pensions. That really is complex and I need to provide specific chapter and verse on those protected arrangements.

The noble Lord asked about the local housing allowance. It will be set in April 2012 to establish the baseline, and it will be uprated from a year on, based on September-to-September figures. On the migration from IB to ESA, these are technical provisions but there are some potential effects for individuals. Again, I think that that is a matter for a letter. On service charges, it is the elements of the individual items such as fuel that are raised in line with their particular price increases, and that is done—and has been done for some time—by convention rather than the aggregate.

On non-dependant deductions, as noble Lords will remember, there was an announcement that they would be moved up to match the level that they would have been at if they had not been frozen in 2001. The increases in 2012-13 have been calculated based on forecast rent growth. New income bands determine the amount of the deduction, based on earnings growth. Will passported benefits be taken into account? The answer is yes, when looking at the financial effects of uprating individual benefit elements that give rise to derived entitlements.

With regard to the effect of statutory payments on small businesses, again, I think that that is a matter for writing. We will discuss this with colleagues in BIS who are responsible for those payments and get the most up-to-date figure for the number of small businesses that have been reimbursed.

On the savings credit changes, the £200 million savings on savings credit are recycled into the guaranteed credit, so there is no net saving to the Government. This means that 30,000 fewer people will receive savings credit. Some will have their entitlement extinguished because their income is above the new maximum savings credit level. I say that in response to my noble friend Lord McKenzie—sorry, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I was looking at my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, who is the other person who asks impossible questions.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the impact assessment. In practice, last year’s assessment sets out the shape of the effects of applying CPI as the preferred index. That is why we have only conducted an additional equality impact assessment this year for the pension credit measures, as they are the novel measures.

I will talk to my noble friend Lord Kirkwood about his particular interest, the national insurance fund, where he looks at the way that the fund balance is moving. It is expected that it will be above the recommended level, which is a sixth of annual benefit expenditure, but I think that I will need to write to him about any change in the balance in recent years.

I think that I have dealt with all the questions. If I have missed anything, I will, of course, write. In the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the uprating order of 2012 will provide support for those who have worked hard all their lives—

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Perhaps I may intervene. I am sorry, but I did not know whether the Minister was about to wind up, so perhaps I could revert to a couple of the questions which are left outstanding.

In relation to the savings credit and passported benefit, the issue is that if there are, as we now know, 30,000 fewer people claiming savings credit, presumably there are some savings in respect of passported benefits that would go with that. The question is whether those savings are factored into the savings needed to produce the guaranteed credit upratings.

There were a couple of other items. In relation to non-dependant deductions, it was asked whether we could be told what the reduction in housing benefit and council tax benefit is estimated to be as a result of those changes. In relation to the small business issue, and the £45,000 threshold, I was trying to determine whether, because of increases in national insurance and fiscal or national insurance drift, the same thing would happen as with tax drift, where effectively more people are being excluded from the benefit of 100 per cent reimbursement, because in real terms it is declining.

There is one other issue—perhaps the Minister could deal with it in writing—which is the relationship between the uprating of guaranteed credit and the basic state pension. I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Drake for bringing to my attention some interesting material produced by the PPI showing the impact of pension credit over several years. The component that would produce the biggest reduction in the percentage of pensioners living below 60 per cent of median income would be if the current policy plus guaranteed credit were indexed to the triple lock. That would have a more beneficial outcome than the current policy, where guaranteed credit is indexed to earnings, although I accept that this year it is earnings-plus, but that is still not the same as earnings plus the 5.2 per cent.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To save the Minister getting up and down, I would appreciate a comment on the point that I made about child benefit. Perhaps it is more appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon. What is the logic of putting so much emphasis on increasing personal tax allowance in real terms and then freezing child benefit, which is the equivalent of a personal tax allowance?

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I may deal first with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, although I am sure that my noble friend Lord Sassoon will provide a much more sparkling answer. My answer is that, as we look forward into a world where the poorest are supported by universal credit, which is very targeted—

16:56

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:07

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I was talking about child benefit, which was an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. She referred to the relationship between child benefit and tax thresholds. As you move towards the universal credit system, that is the way you keep the incomes of the poorest in line. That can be done elegantly and in a more focused way than by using universal benefits, which of course is what child benefit is—using a lot of money and giving it to all in order to target the poorest. That is certainly the direction of travel that I am taking. We could possibly debate this at great length at some stage, and no doubt we will.

I will write to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on the question of those excluded on the non-dependant deductions. That is a matter for a letter. I will also write on the point about small businesses because I do not have all the information to hand. On the point about passported benefits and savings credit, the 30,000 who will not receive savings credit would actually not have been passported to the full housing benefit or council tax benefit, so they could establish a claim on the ground of low income. However, the £200 million being recycled to the poorest pensioners includes an assessment of the additional cost of passporting more of those pensioners by disproportionately uprating the standard minimum guarantee.

As regards the triple lock on guaranteed credit, we are planning to retain the link with earnings. Clearly, our aims are to reduce reliance on means-testing, which is why we are protecting the position of those receiving the contributory state pension. But we do not have the funding to uprate the guarantee credit on the same basis as the underlying state pension. Depending on how we change the system, the basic pension would be larger and protected in that way.

This order will provide support for those who have worked hard all their lives, poorer pensioners, people who are not able to work through their disabilities and those who through no fault of their own have lost their jobs and are trying to find work.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I tried to avoid getting to my feet but there is an outstanding issue related to the Work Programme and the reports on that.

[Lord Freud]

My concentration has been completely broken as to that point.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Because there was no impact assessment with the orders and the issues around the Work Programme, can we have an update on its performance?

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Lord for reminding me. Because the Work Programme is a payment-by-results system, you see the results later than with those programmes paid for on a pro forma basis. I am not sure of the exact date but I think that we are looking to publish the entrants to the programme in the next couple of months. We expect to start publishing the performance figures of the Work Programme providers in the autumn. These figures are being done to the sophisticated standards required in order to become national statistics.

Perhaps I may correct myself as regards referrals. They are expected rather sooner than in two months’ time. The first set of figures is expected this month.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Are they expected in February?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, so we are expecting them reasonably soon. I can say to the noble Lord—I cannot give anything away and I have only anecdotal feedback—that I am looking forward very much to these figures. I know that he will want, as he has in the past, to say that the Work Programme was a stepping stone from some of the programmes introduced by the previous Government. I am happy with that and I think that he will want to be associated with it. I feel that I will enjoy myself when I make some of these announcements later in the year. I just want to let him know that, because it is based on my own feelings.

Despite these difficult economic times, this year’s uprating will put an additional £6.6 billion into the pockets of the poorest in our society. We have discussed the GMP increase and the amendment order to the Pensions Act 2008. I commend the order to the House.

Motion agreed.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:14

Moved by

[Lord Freud]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2012.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:14

Moved by

[Lord Freud]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2012.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:15

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 2012.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 2012 to the Committee. As both the regulations and the order deal with national insurance contributions, it seems sensible to debate them together. I can confirm that the provisions in the regulations and the order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

All the changes covered by these two instruments were announced as part of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement last November. It is worth noting from the start that the basis of indexation that has been used to calculate most of the changes covered by these two instruments is different from that used for the 2011-12 tax year. In the Budget last year we announced that from the 2012-13 tax year the basis for indexation of most national insurance contribution rate limits and thresholds would be the consumer prices index, CPI, instead of the retail prices index, RPI. This is because the Government believe that the CPI is the most appropriate measure of the general level of prices. The exceptions to this are the secondary threshold and the upper earnings and upper profits limits. I will explain why in a moment.

I will start with the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations. These regulations are necessary in order to set the class 1 national insurance contributions lower earnings limit, primary and secondary thresholds and the upper earnings limit for the 2012-13 tax year. The class 1 lower earnings limit will be increased from £102 to £107 per week from 6 April 2012. The lower earnings limit is the level of earnings at which contributory benefit entitlement is secured. However, NICs do not need to be paid by the employee until earnings reach the primary threshold. The class 1 primary threshold will be increased to £146 per week from 6 April 2012. The secondary threshold is the point at which employers start to pay class 1 NICs. In line with the commitment given in last year’s Budget, this is being increased by RPI to £144 per week. This will help employers, large and small, during this difficult economic climate.

From April, the personal allowance for people under 65 will be increased above indexation by £630 from £7,475 to £8,105, and the basic rate limit will be decreased by £630 to £34,370. This means that the point at which higher tax kicks in will remain at £42,475 in 2012-13. As I mentioned, the upper earnings limit is not subject to CPI indexation. In order to maintain the existing alignment of the upper earnings limit with the point at which higher rate tax is paid, the UEL will remain at £817 per week. The regulations also set the prescribed equivalents of the primary and secondary thresholds for employees paid monthly or annually.

There will be no changes to NICs rates in 2012-13. Employees will continue to pay 12 per cent on earnings between the primary threshold and the upper earnings limit, and 2 per cent on earnings above that. Employers will continue to pay contributions at 13.8 per cent on all earnings above the secondary threshold.

The social security order sets out the NICs rates and thresholds for the self-employed and those paying voluntary contributions. Starting with the self-employed, the order raises the small earnings exception below which the self-employed may claim exemption from paying class 2 contributions. The exception will rise in April from £5,315 to £5,595 a year. Many self-employed people choose to pay these contributions to protect their benefit entitlement, although they may claim exemption from paying class 2 contributions. The rate of class 2 contributions for 2012-13 will rise from £2.50 to £2.65 a week. The rate of voluntary class 3 contributions will also increase from £12.60 to £13.25 a week.

Today’s order also sets the profit limit from which main rate class 4 contributions are paid. The lower limit at which these contributions are due will increase from £7,225 to £7,605 a year, in line with the increase to the class 1 primary threshold.

At the other end of the scale, the upper profits limit will remain at the same level as the 2011-12 tax year. This is to maintain the alignment of the upper profits limit with the upper earnings limit for employees. The changes to class 4 limits will ensure that the self-employed pay contributions at the main rate of 9 per cent on a similar range of earnings as employees paying class 1 contributions at the main rate of 12 per cent. Profits above the upper profits limit are subject to the additional rate of 2 per cent, in line with the 2 per cent paid by employees.

My Lords, I commend the draft Social Security Contributions Limits and Thresholds Amendment Regulations 2012 and the draft Social Security Contributions Re-rating Order 2012 to the Committee.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, when the index number used to calculate and evaluate the performance of the Bank of England was changed from RPI to CPI a few years ago, the target inflation rate was lowered from 2.5 per cent to 2 per cent to take account of the difference in the indices. No such change has been enjoyed by the rest of us. The Bank of England has a better arm-lock on the Treasury than does the general public, particularly those of us who pay national insurance contributions or, as we shall discuss later, receive tax credits.

As someone who has taught a course on index number theory for a number of years, one of the most important lessons one can take from index number analysis is that there is no such thing as a true measure of any particular variable in a complex index. In this case, there is no such thing as a true measure of inflation. The choice of index is purely a matter of the purpose for which it is to be used. In the cases before us today, the purpose of the change in the index is to increase taxation by stealth. The role of indexation is supposed to be to protect real positions, whether of benefits or contributions. As is evident from the Government’s own impact statement, which shows a benefit to the Treasury of £1 billion a year by the fiscal year 2015-16, real values are not being protected in this case.

Much has been made in the discussion of the changes to personal taxation and national insurance of the increase in the personal tax threshold. The change in the level of national insurance contributions debated today may appear minor in comparison and has received far less attention—but as it stands, the decision to index direct taxes by CPI and to contract out national insurance rebates produces a net increase to the Treasury revenue of £1 billion.

There is more to come. The two orders combine to create a fiscal drag which by 2015-16 will increase the tax burden by £1 billion a year, as I mentioned. With contribution thresholds increasing at CPI—the lower of the two standard measures of inflation—more workers will be caught in the higher bracket of payments than would otherwise have been the case. I note with interest that the impact assessment note issued by the Treasury indicates that 21 million employees will lose out by £6 a year on average in the next fiscal year. The Government are rather coy and do not tell us what will happen in the subsequent fiscal years of 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, even though they give the aggregate figure, so they must know what is happening. Why are they not telling us? If they do not know, the aggregate figure is simply a fiction. I believe the aggregate figure, so what is happening to individuals in this case? Given that the Treasury expects to raise £1 billion in 2015-16, what is the impact of the change on individuals over the course of the Parliament?

Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could offer his view on what the benefit is of a whole variety of uprating mechanisms being used by the Government across various departments, different benefits and payments, and contributions. For example, he will be aware that other price rises such as student loan repayments or rail fares continue to be uprated at RPI. Why is one on the CPI and the other on the RPI? The answer is simply that it maximises the benefit to the Treasury. We all know that. The Minister will also be aware that the Chancellor has previously stated that he has an ambition for the default indexation assumption for indirect taxes to be moved to CPI when the fiscal position allows. Why can we not move to it now? The answer is that it would reduce the rate of taxation, and so we are sticking with the higher rate on indirect taxes so as to get the biggest benefit for the Treasury.

Let us not be deceived by this uprating story. It is a minimalist move, and one which with respect to thresholds has been designed to extract more from the contributor to national insurance. That is what is clearly conveyed in the Government’s own assessment of the figures. So in presenting the changes to thresholds and contributions, why does the Minister not simply come clean and say, “We have increased contributions”? The last Budget was one that actually increased direct taxation, contrary to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us.

17:30

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, that was a brief and focused debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for focusing on what is clearly an important issue, which is the question of the basis on which benefits and contributions are uprated. The noble Lord asked about the targeting of the Bank of England as changed by the previous Government of rail fares and a host of other things. Certainly the starting point on which we agree is one on which he is the acknowledged expert and I am not: that the measurement of inflation is far from an easy matter, as was shown when the last Government moved the targeting of the Bank of England but did not seek to change the basis on which a number of other government-related measures, such as the ones we are talking about today were not changed. Getting consistency across the piece, even if that is theoretically the right answer, is something which his Government certainly did not do.

In answer to the questions about the effects of the move of some of the indexation to the CPI it is important to point out, first, that in some cases lower increases may be beneficial. For example, increasing the lower earnings limit by the CPI, which is typically lower than the RPI, means that over time more people will qualify for contributory benefits because the lower earnings limit will rise more slowly. Similarly, the weekly class 2 and class 3 national insurance contribution rates will rise more slowly over time under CPI indexation.

If you look at national insurance contributions in isolation, some people will be worse off because the primary thresholds and the lower profits limit—the point at which they start to pay class 1 or class 4 national insurance contributions—has risen by less in 2012-13, but I should point out, as I did in my opening remarks, that the income tax personal allowance will go up significantly, by £630.

We are trying to get what the Government believe to be the most appropriate measure of the general level of prices, given that CPI is calculated in a way that more accurately reflects consumer shopping habits in response to price changes. I see a wry smile across the face of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. We probably do not have time for an intellectual analysis, but that is the underlying basis on which the switch has been made. As has already been pointed out, the CPI forms the basis of the Bank of England’s inflation target and is indeed more consistent with the European Central Bank harmonised index of consumer prices. I am not sure that there were questions about that, but there were assertions about it, and I hope that that clarifies the Government’s position on the noble Lord’s main points about the RPI and CPI.

On the question of the impact on individuals, let me give as much information as I have to hand. About 40,000 people will have to pay national insurance contributions because of the changes; 21 million people will lose by £6 a year; but the increase in the income tax personal allowance to £8,105 in 2012-13, to which I just referred, reduces tax bills by £214 for basic rate taxpayers, easily outweighing the small increase in national insurance contributions through the CPI indexation—£6 versus £214 as the impact of those two offsetting measures.

In addition, the Government have introduced a significant above-indexation increase in the primary threshold in 2011-12 of £29 per week, so all class 1 national insurance contribution payers earning up to about £21,600 will pay less in national insurance contributions in 2012-13 than they would have done under the usual indexation of national insurance contribution thresholds since 2010-11. I am not aware that there is available information on the impact on individuals, which clearly depends on all sorts of future decisions, not least about what happens to personal allowances in future years.

[Lord Eatwell]

Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. The Treasury document tells us that the overall impact of the changes and benefits to the Treasury will exceed £1 billion by 2015-16. That figure must be made up of the assessment of the impact on the various people who are contributing to national insurance. If we have the overall figure, why can we not be told what are the components?

[Lord Sassoon]

I was going on to say that I will certainly undertake to take that question away. As the noble Lord will be aware, sometimes only aggregate figures can be given up to the auditable standard that is required. If the information is available, subject to the usual way that these things are announced, I will see whether I can help. I will look at that and write if there is something I can do to be helpful to the Committee. However, the changes to the contribution rates generally speak for themselves. They are in the normal form of these things that are done on an annual basis other than the major change which we have debated. I commend the regulations and order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:34

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations 2012.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:35

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2012.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the draft Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2012, the draft Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2012 and the draft Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2012. In my view these regulations and orders are all compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The regulations and orders before the Committee put into effect a number of reforms to tax credits announced in Budget 2010 and the Autumn Statement last November. The changes I will now outline will ensure that we tackle the deficit in a fair way and that tax credits are targeted at those who need them most. Tax credits are made up of a number of different elements for people in different circumstances. Some of these elements will continue to be increased by the CPI at 5.2 per cent, including elements for disabled workers and severely disabled workers, for children, disabled children and severely disabled children. However, the couple and lone parent elements of working tax credit will be frozen and the basic element and 30 working- hour element will remain frozen.

The family element of child tax credit is currently payable to families with an income of up to £40,000. From April 2012, this threshold will be removed and therefore the family element will be withdrawn immediately after the child element. A disregard of £2,500 for falls in income will be introduced, meaning that any in-year falls of less than £2,500 will be disregarded when recalculating the award. The 50+ element of working tax credit will also be removed. This is time limited to one year and will not affect anyone who is currently claiming. Couples with children will need to work at least 24 hours combined, with one partner working at least 16 hours per week, to qualify for working tax credit. Previously, depending on a family’s circumstances, new claims and changes of circumstance could be backdated by 93 days. From April 2012, this will be reduced to one month.

The changes the Government have made will ensure that we tackle the deficit in a fair way and ensure that tax credits are targeted at those who need them most. Reforms to tax credits included within these regulations and orders mean that support for higher income households will be reduced by increasing the rate at which tax credits are withdrawn while reducing the threshold at which tax credits are paid. Under the previous system around nine out of 10 families with children were eligible for tax credits. This reduced to closer to seven out of 10 families in April 2011 and will be reduced further to six out of 10 from April 2012.

Spending on tax credits has increased from £18 billion in 2003-04 to an estimated £30 billion in 2010-11. The system of tax credits under the previous Government was not only unsustainable in fiscal terms, it was also unrealistic in terms of meeting its stated policy objectives. Let me be clear that this Government are committed to making work pay. The best way to help working people is by taking them out of tax altogether. In April 2012 we will make a £630 increase in the income tax personal allowance, taking it up to £8,105. This is in addition to the £1,000 increase in April 2011. Together, these increases will benefit 25 million individuals and take 1.1 million low-income individuals out of tax from April 2012.

Universal credit will unify the current complex system of means-tested out-of-work benefits, tax credits and support for housing in one single payment. The award will be withdrawn at a single rate, with the aim of offering a smooth transition into work and encouraging progression in work. For parents on working tax credit, the Government continue to provide support for 70 per cent of childcare costs, up to a weekly limit of £175 for families with one child and £300 for two or more children. This support will be extended under universal credit to those working fewer than 16 hours, allowing 80,000 additional families to receive help with childcare costs. This will give second earners and lone parents, typically women, a stronger incentive to work.

This Government are committed to restoring the country to sustainable growth and prosperity. We know that it is not an easy path to tread and we have not shirked our responsibility to take the tough decisions to return the UK to economic stability. It is in that context that I commend these regulations and orders to the Committee.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, once again these indexing procedures are being used as a stealth tax. As the noble Lord has actually admitted, the shift imposes a significant cost on the poorest families. He has described this as providing an incentive to work. When the economy is growing at 0 per cent a year, there are no extra jobs. What is the point of an incentive to work when there are no jobs for people to work in? In these circumstances, the overall effect is exacerbated by the number of technical changes and by a failure to uprate various thresholds even at the rate of the CPI.

Will the Minister tell us the net benefit to the Treasury—that is, the net loss to the receivers of tax credits—of the changes that are made in these orders? The changes that derive from uprating less than the CPI, and various technical changes, represent one set of losses to the recipients of tax credits. Will he also tell us the overall impact on recipients of tax credits of using the CPI rather than the RPI? Those are the two components of the extra burden that the Government have decided to impose in increasing the incentive to work—while their policies are destroying jobs.

Will the Minister also confirm that the shift from the RPI to the CPI is deemed by the Government to be a permanent aspect of future policies rather than a measure to deal simply with any fiscal difficulties that the Government are encountering? Will he tell us the Treasury’s estimate of the reduction in tax credits by the time the universal credit is introduced?

Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum contains the extraordinary statement:

“This instrument has no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.

Surely this cannot be the case. All charities and voluntary bodies that provide services—for example, to poor children, to the disabled or indeed to anyone struggling to get by—will be shocked by this pathetic excuse for failing to estimate the impact of the Government’s actions. How can the Government justify the statement that there is no impact on the charitable or voluntary sector, which at its most obvious and trivial level is untrue?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I have a few brief points to make about the Tax Credits Up-Rating Regulations 2012. The Minister mentioned the change for couples, the 16 to 24-hour rule. Can he tell the Committee how many people are going to lose tax credits as a result of this and how this improves incentives for that group to take mini-jobs?

The Minister also mentioned working tax credit and childcare costs and went on to talk about how the measures are improving incentives to work, especially for women. I am sure that he is aware of the report published today by the Daycare Trust about childcare and how the cuts in the level of childcare costs to be met by tax credits are contributing to the crisis in childcare. Growing numbers are unable to afford childcare because no affordable and accessible childcare is available. This certainly does not improve incentives for women to take paid work. On the contrary, some women are having to leave paid work because they cannot afford the childcare, particularly when this is combined with the changes that will come in with universal credit where the withdrawal rate will be worse for second earners, the great majority of whom are women. It is difficult to see how these will be a great improvement in incentives for women.

I want to raise one other point. When the Minister repeated the Autumn Statement in your Lordships’ House, I asked him about the decision to renege on the pledge to increase child tax credit in real terms and what impact that would have on children living in poverty. I was referred to the Treasury website. I realised why, of course, when I discovered that the impact would be to increase the number of children living in poverty by 100,000. Perhaps that was not something the Minister particularly wanted to tell the House. I then had another go with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, in Oral Questions when I asked him why the Government had dismissed the projected 100,000 increase in child poverty due to the change in tax credits—reneging on the tax credits increase—as a statistical quirk that arose from the relative nature of that poverty, even though in opposition the Prime Minister had made the loud and clear promise that,

“the Conservative Party recognises, will measure and will act on relative poverty”.

The answer that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Freud, seemed to be a response to a different question. I hope that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, may now be able to give me the answer to that question, given its relevance to the tax credits uprating order.

17:45

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, let me deal with some of those questions. I do not like to do this, but I think this may be a case where I had better go away and follow up by writing to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, because I suspect that I will not cover all their questions in the detail that they merit. I shall make one or two broad points in response and then, as I say, I will follow those up with detailed answers.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, talked about the context in which these orders and regulations are coming forward. It is clear that the level of unemployment is higher than the Government would wish to see. Of course that is the case, but nevertheless, it is a level of unemployment within which the private sector has been vigorously generating new jobs—in excess of half a million new jobs in that sector in the past two years. On the specific point raised by the noble Lord about the availability of jobs, the latest monthly figures show that there are some 476,000 vacancies in the country.

It is simply not the case that jobs are unavailable, and the private sector has been investing vigorously in what are very difficult economic circumstances as we rebalance the economy from an overreliance on the public sector and on excessive leverage. It is critically important that we press on with everything we are doing to encourage people into work, partly through the construct we are talking about this afternoon, by raising the starting rate of tax and with the other measures we are taking.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, raised the question of RPI and CPI. Again, this is not a measure that we take lightly or will reverse in some way. It is a change that we are making because, as I explained in our previous debate and on other occasions, we believe that CPI is the better measure in this instance.

The overall impact of the effects of the measures is best looked at in the distributional effects set out in each of the Budgets and Autumn Statements since the election. These distributional analyses were never published by previous Governments. They are all laid out. If one looks at the cumulative impact on households of tax, tax credit and benefit reforms introduced up to the Autumn Statement, and including the previous fiscal events, the critical thing is that the top income decile sees the largest reduction in income, both in cash terms and as a percentage of net income. In cash terms, the top income decile sees losses 9.8 times that of the bottom decile. The cash losses of the bottom expenditure decile are less than one-tenth—in fact, 6 per cent—of that for the top expenditure decile.

The Government have been concerned to make absolutely sure that the distributional effects of the measures taken as a whole are progressive and that the top 20 per cent of households will make the greatest contribution to what is a challenging deficit reduction.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, would the noble Lord concede that the impact on the upper decile is almost entirely due to the 50 per cent tax rate introduced by my right honourable friend Mr Alistair Darling?

[Lord Sassoon]

What I will concede is that we look at the effects of tax, tax credits and benefits together. Therefore, whatever makes up the bundle—some of it inherited, some not—comes in to that mix. Regardless of where individual measures came from, it is important to look at them in the round, which is what we have done and will continue to do.

In relation to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I concede that I will probably fall into the trap of answering in a way that does not quite get to the nub of one or two of them, but I will come back to them. In headline terms, regarding the impact of the Autumn Statement on the number of children in relative income poverty, analysis shows an estimated increase of around 100,000 in 2012-13 on the measure used previously. However, this does not represent a forecast of the actual change in child poverty year on year because the measurement does not take into account, among other things, the value of public services that benefit children such as education and healthcare. These are very important in improving life chances, particularly among poorer households. Again, we have to be very careful here about whether we are using measures that properly capture the full effect of government policies.

In relation specifically to childcare, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, the Government are investing a further £380 million a year by 2014-15 to extend the offer of 15 hours’ free education and care a week to disadvantaged two year-olds, and to cover an extra 130,000 children. Under the universal credit we are investing an extra £300 million so that 80,000 more families will get help with their childcare costs. However, I have not had a chance to see what has been published today. As I say, I will write on those points.

As I said in my opening remarks, the employment situation in this country is not easy. However, we had to take urgent action to tackle the deficit that we inherited, particularly the unsustainable welfare bill. I have mentioned the extraordinary increase in expenditure on tax credits in seven years from £18 billion to £30 billion a year. It is spending that is poorly targeted and totally unsustainable. The reforms to tax credits in these regulations and orders that we have been discussing are a fair and proportionate way to deal with this very difficult inheritance, as I have explained.

Essentially we have ensured that those most able to contribute to the deficit do so while those with the lowest incomes continue to be supported. It is because of that commitment that the highest decile of earners will make the greatest contribution towards reducing the deficit both in cash terms and as a percentage of their income, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, recognises. In that context, the orders and regulations before the Committee are an important step towards realising our ambition to restore the UK to economic stability, but in a way that drives prosperity and means that we tackle the deficit in a fair and responsible manner. I commend the orders and regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Will the noble Lord write to me on the question I asked about the impact on couples of the change from 16 to 24 hours?

[Lord Sassoon]

I will write. I do not know what information I will be able to give but I assure the noble Baroness that I will cover the point.

Motion agreed.

Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:57

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating (Northern Ireland) Order 2012.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:58

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2012.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:59

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2012.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2012 has been laid under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. It is intended to give the Comptroller and Auditor-General public audit responsibility for auditing the accounts of a number of public sector bodies and companies. It also removes the Comptroller and Auditor-General from auditing a number of public bodies and companies because they have been abolished, merged or ceased to meet the criteria for public sector audit.

The main provision in the order is to give the Comptroller and Auditor-General statutory audit responsibility for 34 English probation trusts. The English probation trusts are currently subject to audit by the Audit Commission. As noble Lords will be aware, the Audit Commission is to be abolished and it is necessary to find suitable auditors for the probation trusts to take the Audit Commission’s place. While there are plans to introduce an Audit Bill to implement a new local audit framework, the parliamentary timetable is uncertain. In line with discussions with the probation trusts, it makes sense to make the change now, using the powers in the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

It is already the case that the Comptroller and Auditor-General exerts his influence over the external audit of trust accounts by the issue of group instructions. Those instructions are necessary to obtain the assurance needed to certify the consolidated accounts of the National Offender Management Service. The new arrangements envisaged under this order will not lead to any loss of autonomy for the trusts.

The Horserace Betting Levy Board is also included in the order. It is not the role of government to be involved in horseracing matters and Ministers are exploring how the body might be reformed or replaced. Until final decisions are made on the future of the levy or the board, it remains a central government body and should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. This order also removes four museums from the C&AG audit, as they have been subsumed within the new National Museum of the Royal Navy and their accounts will be consolidated with the accounts of the new body. The National Museum of the Royal Navy is one of the companies made subject to C&AG audit, thus retaining parliamentary accountability for the museums. The other two companies are HS2 Ltd and UK Anti-Doping. I think that that is not to do with horseracing explicitly but with other aspects of sport. We will come to that later.

HS2 was set up to carry out a feasibility study for a new rail line in the UK. Following a triennial review of its future, it was decided that HS2 should remain a non-departmental public body and continue to focus on the West Midlands line from London to Birmingham and the link to Heathrow. As a non-departmental public body, it is right that HS2 be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. As the principal adviser to government on drug-free sport, UK Anti-Doping is responsible for protecting sport from the threat of doping in the UK. It is an NDPB and therefore also should be audited by the C&AG.

Finally, the order removes three non-profit-making companies from the scope of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Non-Profit-Making Companies) Order 2009 because they are no longer eligible for audit by the C&AG either because they have been moved into the private sector or have ceased operation. These companies are Firebuy Ltd, Phoenix Sports and the School Food Trust.

In conclusion, the proposals in the draft order confirm the Government’s commitment to achieve consistency in the public audit arrangements for public bodies and provide a net gain for Parliament and the public. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I have no comments on this order.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am sorry to detain the Committee. A number of years ago I was an adviser to the School Food Trust and I should simply like to ask which of the two categories it falls into. I believe that it has become a private sector body rather than abolished. Both the Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister’s speech have failed to clarify into which of those two groupings it falls.

[Lord Sassoon]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for giving me an easier time. I hope that this is a precedent he will follow on many occasions after this. In answer to my noble friend Lord Newby, the School Food Trust has been redesignated as of September 2011 by the ONS to the NPISH. In effect, it is removed from the public sector and has become a private-sector body. I can confirm that he is right in his supposition. There is no more that I need to say other than to commend this order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 6.05 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Monday, 27 February 2012.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Deaths of Members

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:35

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the deaths of the noble Lords, Lord Carr of Hadley, on 17 February, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale on 19 February, and Lord Hooson on 21 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our deep condolences to the noble Lords’ families and friends.

Roads: Traffic Lights

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Lord Spicer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to allowing traffic to turn left at a red traffic light in the way that certain authorities in the United States permit vehicles to turn right.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we believe it is unnecessary since, unlike in the United States, most UK traffic lights use traffic-responsive systems to reduce delays and improve traffic flow. In addition, the majority of UK signal junctions are provided with pedestrian facilities, which give a green signal only when conflicting traffic is stopped. Any proposal to allow traffic to turn through pedestrian signals would need to resolve the potential for pedestrian safety to be compromised.

[Lord Spicer]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer but the position in the United States needs to be made clear. According to the American embassy, ever since 7 December 1975 every state has permitted right turning on red traffic lights with no consequent detrimental effect on safety, and with a positive effect on the flow of traffic and, therefore, on energy conservation. Why can we not try something similar with left-turning traffic lights here?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord’s last point—why can we not try something similar here—is that we believe that it would increase the accident rate. It is very important to understand that the road layout in the United States, particularly in urban areas, is very different from that in the United Kingdom. There is far more space, the junctions are much larger and the cities tend to be laid out on the grid system.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the main difference between the United States and here is that being a pedestrian is thoroughly discouraged in the US? You are supposed to drive around 50 yards if you have to and I do not think that there are any bicycles at all. Given that we have lots of pedestrians and a growing number of cyclists, does he agree that, if anyone is going to turn left on a red light, it would be much better if they were cyclists, if it is to be done carefully?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, noble Lords behind me are saying, “No way”, and I think they are right. There are already ways of giving cyclists priority over other traffic and improving their safety at junctions—for example, by introducing advance stop lines and cycle bypasses, and providing dedicated traffic signals for cyclists if required.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will be aware that New York City does not permit the right turn on red precisely because its layout is so similar to the kind that we see in cities and towns across the UK. Having spent many years driving in the United States, in places that permit a right turn on red, I can say that the problem is not traffic. You can see clearly whether traffic is in the way ahead and to the left, but it is virtually impossible to see whether pedestrians are crossing ahead and to the right. Therefore, in support of all those Members who have said that the difference is that we live in a pedestrian’s world, the United States regards pedestrians pretty much as aliens.

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend is absolutely right in all respects.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am normally in favour of the British public moving leftwards with the greatest possible facility but on this occasion I agree with the Minister. Very serious accidents have recently been caused by large vehicles turning left and hitting either cyclists or pedestrians because their visibility was restricted. As the Minister has indicated, the fact that our junctions are so much more difficult than the grid system in the United States creates an additional danger and disadvantage.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s observations.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, although this question refers specifically to the United States, has my noble friend considered the position in France, where the conditions are very similar to our own?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, if you look at Paris the conditions are more similar but, as I understand it, Paris was relaid out at one point so the road conditions there are different from those in the United Kingdom. In addition, as I said in my initial Answer, our traffic light system is responsive, so allowing left turns would not give the improvements in productivity that you would get in other countries.

Organ Transplantation

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:41

Asked by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to reduce any waste of organs for transplantation arising from inadequate co-ordination of the process and the extent of out-of-hours and weekend services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, the National Organ Retrieval Service—NORS—provides continuous 24/7 cover. I understand there have been two exceptional occasions when a NORS team could not be provided. Contingency arrangements enable other teams to stand in when needed or for local kidney transplant centres to be reimbursed for retrieving from kidney-only donors. NHS Blood and Transplant is also considering a tariff to fund National Organ Retrieval Service teams willing to provide additional cover.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Can the Minister confirm for me a statement that was made when I was chairman of one of the London teaching hospitals—that when you die your body is no longer your own? That is a highly significant point in the case of people who carry donor cards but whose relatives reject them. Can he also assure me that they will do something to ensure that when potential donors come to accident and emergency at weekends due to accidents, the retrieval team is alerted to the possibility that such organs—each of which is very precious to the recipient—may be available?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, it is a well established principle of law that there is no property in a corpse. This means that, as a general rule, the law does not regard a corpse as property protected by rights. In other words, there can be no ownership of a dead body. However, the law does prescribe what may lawfully be done with the body of a deceased person. For example, a person can say while they are alive what they would like to happen to their body after death, such as donation of organs. My noble friend raises an extremely important point about A&E. The number of donors from A&E units is improving but it is generally recognised that it had to because performance was not good. Since 2007-08 there has been a 388 per cent increase in donations from emergency medicine, which is good news, but there is much more that could be done. The transitional steering group that we have set up under the chairmanship of Chris Rudge is looking at that area as a priority.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, it is widely recognised that the Government and the previous Government have made huge strides in this area but from a fairly low position. Many countries in Europe—particularly Spain—do much better than we do. What are we doing to ensure that we are learning from others and making the improvement even faster? Every day is someone else’s life.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The record in Spain is particularly interesting because the rate of donation is about twice what it is in this country. It is interesting to observe that Dr Matesanz, who is head of the transplantation effort in Spain, observed that this was not, in his opinion, due to the opt-out system which Spain employed in 1979. It is much more to do with the organisation of the service which came in about 10 years later. That is what we are trying to replicate in this country.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, is it not the case that despite the great advances that have been made there is still a problem, whereby if someone carries a donor card the relatives still have to be consulted, and very often they say no? Can we do something to speed that up, if we cannot go for the proper opt-out system?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord makes a good point. It is generally the practice that the relatives are consulted even where someone has expressed a wish to donate an organ after death. Doctors will normally respect the wishes of the relatives; however, it is equally true that that person’s wishes will be emphasised to the relatives. There is a delicate balance to be struck here. The moment that action by medical teams is seen to be high-handed, it risks damaging the credibility of the transplant service.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, what is the Government’s response to the recent BMA report on increasing donation, particularly regarding the obligation introduced last year on individuals who apply or reapply for documents such as driving licences and passports to answer a question about donation of organs?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the report from the BMA was very useful and we are looking at it extremely carefully. It made some useful suggestions about how we might expand the number of donor organs. A number of initiatives have already been taken: for example, there is a prompt when you apply for a driving licence online as to whether you wish to donate an organ. In general, public awareness is being raised in a number of useful ways, which has led to the increase in the number of people donating organs.

[The Lord Bishop of Liverpool]

My Lords, I very much welcome the increase in the number of donors. I have been pastorally involved with the Alder Hey families and seen the devastating effect of the taking of organs without consent, and I have been involved in the burial of 10,000 bodies and body parts. Can the Minister assure the House that in the work towards a more efficient and effective system of harvesting organs, the principle of requiring the consent of next of kin will not be compromised?

[Earl Howe]

The right reverend Prelate is absolutely correct. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Human Tissue Act 2004 requires that appropriate consent be given for the removal, storage and use of material from a deceased person for a range of purposes, including transplantation. Appropriate consent means the deceased person’s consent or that of his or her nominated representative, or of a person who stands in a qualifying relationship to the dead person. There are no plans to change that principle.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords, can the Minister—

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, while we have seen an improvement over the years in the number of donors from minority and ethnic groups, particularly the south Asian community, for a whole host of reasons, including religious and cultural matters, the number of donors needed to come through the system remains very short of what is required. What are the Government doing to improve the situation?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is quite right: 75 per cent of people from a BME background refuse to donate organs when asked to, compared with an average figure of 40 per cent across the population. We are completely committed to increasing organ donor rates among the BME population, and there has been funding to support specific projects to work with local faith leaders and explore issues around organ donation. We held a workshop on 7 February with national and local groups to identify the barriers that exist in the BME and mixed-race communities, and plans are being developed to take forward that work. We have public awareness campaigns on local radio stations and through organisations such as the African-Caribbean Leukaemia Trust.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, if a donor expressed his or her wish in a will, would that not be legally binding?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am advised that it would not be legally binding.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords, the question that I was going to ask earlier has been answered. However, the question I am going to put now is this: are the same people who will not participate in the donation of organs also reluctant to receive organs from donors?

[Earl Howe]

No, my Lords, and that is part of the problem.

[Baroness Walmsley]

Will the Minister accept that it can be very difficult for doctors to approach a bereaved family to ask about organ donation? I know this from personal experience, because doctors did not approach me when I lost my late husband; I had to raise the matter myself. It is understandable that they do not want to upset the family. However, can it not be even more upsetting for a bereaved family who have not been asked about donation to realise some time later that they have missed the opportunity for their loved one to give life to other people?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend raises an extremely important set of issues. This was one issue identified by Chris Rudge when he took up the post as National Clinical Director. A great deal of work has been done in the NHS to increase the number of organs available to patients and to have the kinds of conversations with families that are necessary but very delicate. There has been an increase in the number of specialist nurses for organ donation who are of course highly trained in that area, and appointments of clinical leads for organ donation have also helped.

Film Industry: Development and Production

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:51

Asked By

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider requiring all major United Kingdom broadcasters to invest in British film development and production.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, the independent review panel of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, recently recommended to government that discussions should be initiated with the major broadcasters with the aim of agreeing a memorandum of understanding with each, setting out agreed commitments to support British film. Should discussions prove unproductive, the panel recommends that the Government consider legislative solutions. We are actively considering the report and will respond to its recommendations in the spring.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I thank the Minister for that reply and extend my congratulations to last night’s Oscar nominees of films produced and filmed in the UK. It is widely acknowledged that British film is able to compete with the best in the world. However, although we have the creativity and talent, the noble Baroness will know that filmmakers still struggle to raise the finance to make independent UK films. Channel 4 and the BBC make an important contribution through their separate film production arms, but other national broadcasters are effectively able to freeload on the investment of others. I very much acknowledge that the noble Baroness said that she was considering the report of the noble Lord, Lord Smith. However, given the importance of UK film to both our economy and our national identity, are the Government prepared to follow the example of several other European countries and require all broadcasters to invest in future film production at similar levels to that of Film4 and BBC Films?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I happily join the noble Baroness in congratulating the Oscar winners, and indeed Channel 4 on its recent BAFTA successes and the BBC on its highly acclaimed BAFTA nominations. I entirely agree with her about the important contribution that Channel 4 and the BBC make to British films. However, on her other point, at the moment the Government do not have the levers to require broadcasters to invest in film. As I indicated, we are actively looking at the wide-ranging recommendations put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in his review, and we will respond to those after due consideration.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, in the aftermath of the success of the film “The Artist” at both the BAFTAs and the Oscars, will the Minister recognise that in France the broadcasters are required, in return for their licence, to invest in French film production? This resulted last year in investment of £420 million in French film production. Here in the UK, the BBC currently invests £10 million, Channel 4 invests £15 million, and Sky and ITV invest precisely nothing. Is it not time that all the major broadcasters here in the UK stepped up to the table and played their part in investing in British independent film production?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I thank the noble Lord for his review, which has some very important recommendations in it. The points that he makes about other countries investing in film are indeed well made and we shall be looking at the patterns that they suggest. However, public funding for film is reasonably substantial. It is estimated to have been £296 million in the financial year 2009-10, which is an increase on the previous year and does not include local authority, research council or higher and further education funding. There is possibly room for more investment from some of the television channels but at the moment British film is not doing too badly from public sector money.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

My Lords, is it not true that this would create an enormous precedent? Is there any other industry where investment in something would be insisted on? Surely any organisation has the right to decide what it invests in on the basis of the business plan it is marketing. I do not feel that we should make an exception for film, even though it is part of the creative industries. I think that a fantastic job has been done in film without asking people to invest in it.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My noble friend is of course right that those other channels are commercial and therefore they have to take decisions on commercial grounds. However, as I said, all these issues will come under much deeper consideration as we look through the recommendations from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Smith.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness join me in congratulating particularly those in further and higher education who in this area and the areas of arts and culture often find that the high level of work that they do and the very good opportunities and careers that many of their students have are depressed when there is a generalised attack on what are called “soft subjects”?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

Yes, I would indeed agree with the noble Baroness on that. The cultural industries make a huge contribution to the nation. Regarding her reference to education, in his report the noble Lord, Lord Smith, makes a point about trying to bring a new unified offer for film education, suggesting that making, seeing and learning about film should be available to schools in an easy and accessible offer. That enthusiasm within schools will also build on and strengthen the offerings to this area being made in further and higher education.

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, we have a wealth of creative talent here in the UK, as we have already heard, and I add my congratulations regarding all the BAFTA and Oscar nominated British productions. However, we have a wealth of talent which is grossly underused because of the lack of British-made and British-produced films for children. Will the Government consider following the examples of other European countries, especially that of Denmark? As well as asking UK broadcasters to fund films dedicated to children and teenagers, will they also encourage the BFI to ring-fence a percentage of its budget for such productions? Will the Government also consider implementing a tax credit for the UK animation sector?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My noble friend is a great champion of programmes for children and young people. Indeed, the review recognises that British independent films aimed at children and families may be underrepresented. Tomorrow, Darren Henley’s cultural review will be published. Without pre-empting it, I imagine that it will also fuel further discussion in this area on programming for children and young people.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the availability of public funds for film production. Can she say whether in future the quantum of funding available through the BFI arrangements will be protected and indeed whether it has any chance of growing?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, future funding is a matter for further discussion. There are some very strong arguments about why it makes economic sense, as well as sense in all sorts of other areas, to keep that funding at its current levels. However, that will have to be taken into consideration along with other funding demands.

Health: Neurological Conditions

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked by

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they propose to improve outcomes-led neurological services following the National Audit Office report Services for People with Neurological Conditions published in December 2011.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as a former neurologist holding honorary positions with many neurological charities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, we will be providing a detailed written response to the National Audit Office report Services for People with Neurological Conditions in due course. While some progress has been made, we acknowledge that there is more to do to improve care for people with neurological conditions. Work is under way to develop a new outcome strategy for long-term conditions and to introduce more personalised care, including piloting of personal health budgets.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. This report was extremely critical in demonstrating serious inequalities in the standards of care for patients with various neurological conditions, not least Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, neuromuscular disease and many more, in different parts of the UK. That is highlighted by two major inquiries conducted by all-party groups demonstrating serious deficiencies in the care of patients with parkinsonism and neuromuscular disease. Is it not time that the Government appointed a neurological tsar to oversee the situation and to recommend improvements?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s extensive work in Parliament on behalf of those with neurological conditions. We have taken the view that the appointment of a tsar or a clinical specialist in this area should be one for the NHS Commissioning Board. It is satisfied with that position and we must await its determination on that.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, the report also highlighted important indicators that the quality of care for people with neurological conditions in some instances had worsened. For example, the number of people admitted to hospital as an emergency had increased significantly and, indeed, emergency readmissions after spending a night in hospital have increased for patients with Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease, to give three examples. What are the Government doing to address this?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is quite right. We know that people with long-term neurological conditions are high users of NHS services and, as the NAO report identifies, they often have high levels of unplanned admissions to hospital. To help to provide personalised care and to support better-planned care, there is quite a deal of evidence—of the generic kind, but nevertheless very useful—out there for neurological patients. It focuses on the individual, on planning, on supported self-care and on how patients themselves can improve their own outcomes. We are building a strategy on that model to set out how local authorities, the voluntary sector and government agencies can work together to prevent the kind of emergency admissions to which my noble friend refers.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that specialised nurses working on these very complicated neurological conditions are very important? Would he see to it that their services are not cut but increased?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness is quite right that specialist nurses provide an important source of support and advice to patients with a range of neurological conditions. They enable patients to manage their own condition effectively, as I mentioned just now. Guidance issued by NICE is clear on the important role that specialist nurses can play in the provision of effective services for those living with a range of neurological conditions.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Has the Minister seen the reports in the newspaper today about the worry that people have about the shortage of medication for those with Parkinson’s disease, for example? Is it a worry more in the press than in reality? How can the Government ensure adequate supplies of necessary medication for these cases?

[Earl Howe]

There have been shortages of certain medicines over the past two or three years for a number of reasons; there is not a single reason. The Department of Health is working with the medicines supply chain established under the previous Government, and is doing very effective work. It is liaising with manufacturers, wholesalers and the pharmacy trade to ensure that medicines are available when needed. I have not seen the article to which my noble friend refers, but we are not of the view that there is any need for undue concern. However, we are keeping the position under review.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, it has been suggested that the UK currently does not have enough neurologists—that there should be one neurologist per 40,000 people, and at the moment we have one neurologist per 125,000 people. How will the Government increase the number of neurologists; and how will they do that under the current proposals for the reform of the NHS? Who will drive that increase?

[Earl Howe]

As the noble Baroness may remember, the National Service Framework for Long-term Neurological Conditions set out as a principal requirement the need for an appropriately skilled workforce to manage the care of people with long-term neurological conditions. At the moment that is the responsibility of primary care trusts. The good news is that full-time equivalent numbers of consultants have been rising steadily. According to the Information Centre census, there were 523 in 2010, an increase from 517 the previous year and from 449 in 2004. To answer the latter part of the noble Baroness’s question, I can say that the Centre for Workforce Intelligence will feed into Health Education England, which will in turn inform the local partnerships that we intend to establish under the reforms, so that there is both a national and a local input on workforce numbers and the numbers we need to train to deliver the service that patients require.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, in the context of the all-party report to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, referred, is my noble friend aware that, of the time invested in the production of that report, some 97 per cent was provided by Members of your Lordships’ House? Does he think that that has any relevance in the context of discussion about the future of the House of Lords?

[Earl Howe]

I am sure that my noble friend will introduce that and other considerations when we come to debate House of Lords reform. I will observe that, when I was on the opposition Benches and used to attend all-party group meetings on neurological conditions, practically the only people there were Members of your Lordships’ House.

Licensing Act 2003 (Diamond Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2012

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:07

Moved by

[Lord Henley]

That the draft order laid before the House on 12 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 38th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 14 February.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I speak to this Motion in relation to a matter of business that the Government would like your Lordships’ House to take on Wednesday of this week—namely, consideration of Commons amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill.

During the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill we on these Benches have risen on business Motions to speak to a number of matters, including Commons financial privilege. I apologise to the House for having to do so again today, but the lack of proper opportunities to raise points of order about the business of this House is a gap in the procedure of this House. I intend to write to the chairman of the Procedure Committee, the Chairman of Committees, proposing that the committee consider this issue. It will not be a surprise to the Leader of this House that I am raising my concerns today about the ping-pong arrangements for the Welfare Reform Bill, because we discussed the matter in a telephone call on Thursday.

The Government have decided that this business should take place on Wednesday as dinner-break business. We believe that that is completely inappropriate for this Bill, which is a major piece of government legislation that affects large numbers of people in this country, especially vulnerable ones. We on this side of the House believe that welfare in this country needs reform. However, we do not believe that some of the changes put forward in the Bill are the right ones. It is precisely because we believe in welfare reform that we believe that the Bill should at all times be handled and considered properly by this House. In line with that, we do not believe that considering what the Commons wishes to put before this House should be done as a piece of dinner-time business during another major Bill. This Bill and the House deserve better.

We also object to the way in which this business is being scheduled for your Lordships’ House. This House is not like the other place, and we rightly pride ourselves on self-regulation. This House is proud, too, that in many respects we proceed by agreement and consensus. This House wants to see these points reflected in the way that business is organised here, which in turn means the smooth running of the usual channels arrangement. We have a very good relationship between the usual channels of this House.

However, the usual channels, of course, occasionally have their ups and downs. We do not believe that announcing that a stage of a Bill of this magnitude will be taken as dinner-break business should be done without the agreement of the usual channels. To make such an announcement simply by changing the forthcoming business publication makes things that much worse, especially when it happens during a week when your Lordships' House is in recess. I believe that this could be to the inconvenience of the whole House, and we do not believe that this is what the Government should be doing. Whatever the scale of the Government’s political majority in this House, we do not believe that this is the sort of behaviour that your Lordships’ House wants to see.

We on these Benches have put all these points to the Government previously, but even at this late hour we urge them to reconsider. We urge them not to take this important parliamentary stage of this important Bill as dinner-break business on Wednesday, but to allow the matter to be considered by the House properly and in full. We urge the Government to reflect on this and to think again.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I am astonished and a little disappointed by what the noble Baroness has just said. I would understand it if there were some sort of government ploy to catch out your Lordships by giving the House just under a week’s notice of ping-pong, but everything that we have done on this Bill has been entirely precedented. It is well precedented to take more than one Bill in a day; it is well precedented to take divisible business, including ping-pong, in the dinner break; and it is well precedented not to take ping-pong as first business. What is so appalling about what the noble Baroness has just said is that each was done under her own Administration and, indeed, under her leadership.

I should remind the House that the Standing Orders allow us to take ping-pong not only at any point in the day but as last business and without notice, both of which are also well precedented. On this occasion, we advertised a date for this second round of ping-pong last Thursday, in time for each party’s Whip and group notices. The Government can hardly be accused of squirreling away the business when we have given the House nearly a whole week’s notice.

I am at a loss to understand what is going on. However, there was brought to my attention a twitter by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who calls himself—

[A noble Lord]

A tweet.

[Lord Strathclyde]

A tweet, rather. He calls himself LordPhilofBrum. In it, he said:

“Appallingly the Govt have scheduled vote out of normal voting time on Wednesday evening”.

But the last time we voted on this issue it was 8.17 at night. The idea that we vote only before 7 pm is entirely new to me in the 25 years that I have been a Member of this House. This is a bogus protest and I very much hope that we can carry on with the Motion before us.

Motion agreed.

Health and Social Care Bill

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Report (3rd Day)

Relevant documents: 18th and 22nd Reports from the Constitution Committee

15:15

Clause 19 : Regulations as to the exercise of functions by the Board or clinical commissioning groups

Amendment 38A

Moved by

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

38A: Clause 19, page 14, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) The regulations must require the Board to include in terms and conditions prepared by virtue of subsection (5)(a) provision for a requirement to be placed upon any organisation that enters into a commissioning contract to provide healthcare with the Board or with a clinical commissioning group to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a patient or, in the event of death or incapacity, their next of kin, is fully informed about incidents which occur as a consequence of providing the contracted healthcare to that patient where the incident has resulted in—
(a) any injury to a patient which, in the reasonable opinion of a health care professional, has resulted in—(i) an impairment of the sensory, motor or intellectual functions of the patient which is not likely to be temporary,(ii) changes to the structure of a patient’s body,(iii) the patient experiencing prolonged pain or prolonged psychological harm, or(iv) the significant shortening of the life expectancy of the patient; or(b) any injury to a patient which, in the reasonable opinion of a health care professional, requires treatment by that, or another, health care professional in order to prevent—(i) the death of the patient, or(ii) an injury to the patient which, if left untreated, would lead to one or more of the outcomes mentioned in paragraph (a).”

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 38A, I must explain to your Lordships why it is so important. I wish only that the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was moving it.

When legislation is before your Lordships it is our duty to try to improve it. For years there has been a serious cover-up and a closing of ranks in many cases when something has gone wrong with patients’ treatment and they or their next of kin have not been kept informed. If there is not openness and honesty, there could be years of frustration and consternation resulting from trying to find the truth through litigation. The only winners are the lawyers.

Last Monday at 8 pm on Radio 4, and today, there was a programme entitled “Doctor—Tell Me the Truth”. The programme explores how patient safety can be improved by doctors admitting to mistakes. In some states in America, medical practitioners must be open about their errors. Instead of increasing litigation, this has lessened it.

I was involved through the Patients Association with some of the next of kin of the patients who tragically died in the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust hospital. I congratulate the Government on holding a review into the hospital, where the culture was the very worst and there was a fear to disclose the truth. Surely it is time we put something into legislation to help change this culture.

I was sorry that the amendment which I previously moved—which would have introduced a statutory obligation to provide a duty of candour applying to all providers registered with the Care Quality Commission—did not succeed. However, it was made clear by the Minister that the CQC could not undertake this role. Perhaps it has too much to do satisfactorily and it is just not up to it.

The Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said:

“I remind the House that the Government’s preferred position is to place a duty of candour in the NHS standard contracts. We have chosen that route because we feel that it has the best chance of working. The view that we have taken, on the basis of clinical advice, is that responsibility for ensuring openness needs to rest as close to the front line as possible, rather than being the responsibility of a remote organisation such as the CQC”.—[Official Report, 13/2/12; col. 591.]

An independent body still seems to me to be the best option as it is transparency and honesty that we need, and front-line medical personnel may still try to cover the mistakes made by members of their profession. I hope not.

Amendment 38A covers what the Government say is the best route to go down. I have had letters imploring me not to give up as so many members of the public, who have been patients or who are their next of kin, have had bad experiences and feel now is the time to change this culture of fear and secrecy. The amendment makes provision for,

“a requirement to be placed upon any organisation that enters into a commissioning contract to provide healthcare with the Board or with a clinical commissioning group to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a patient or, in the event of death or incapacity, their next of kin, is fully informed about incidents which occur as a consequence of providing the contracted healthcare to that patient where the incident has resulted in”—

and the amendment goes on to mention various harms. If the amendment is not quite correct, perhaps the Minister would accept it and correct it for Third Reading. It would be a start to something that must happen if patients and families are to have much-needed trust in the professionals who care for them. I beg to move.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment for one reason and one reason only: in the hope of seeking assurances from the Minister. When I first joined the General Medical Council in 1971, the president was the late Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, who was a wonderful man. He was a fine physician, but he was an autocrat and his views were very traditional and in some respects, I have to say, somewhat backward. He told me, “Never apologise to a patient. The lawyers will get after you”. He told me, as a young man, “Never speak to the press or to the television. They will misquote you always”. Happily, since that time the General Medical Council has progressively changed its view. Now the recommendation made to all medical practitioners is that, if you have made a mistake, if you have committed an error, it is your duty to apologise to that patient sincerely. An apology does not mean an admission of liability; it is simply a sincere apology for a mistake. I hope that is the case in respect of all other healthcare professionals whose activity is regulated by law. I would like an assurance from the Minister that that is the case.

The purpose of this amendment, which has been so well proposed by my noble friend, is to confer on health bodies, whether clinical commissioning groups, independent foundation trusts or other organisations providing medical care, a similar obligation and, indeed, the duty to apologise for errors that have occurred under the auspices of those organisations. I simply ask the Minister whether, in the contracts that these bodies hold with the NHS, such an obligation is a part of the contract. If it is, it may not be necessary to have such an amendment on the face of the Bill. I hope the Minister can give me those assurances.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I support this amendment because I believe that it is a sincere attempt by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to help the Government out. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that we had a few days ago on Report about placing on institutions a rather stronger statutory obligation to inform patients where mistakes had taken place, partly because we have had that debate. During that debate, the Minister repeatedly expressed the view that the objectives of the amendment could be achieved by placing a contractual obligation on organisation to do this. This amendment quite simply requires that that contractual obligation takes place. I am assuming, therefore, that the Minister will accept the amendment, because it does exactly what he said he wanted to do in his previous speech.

The amendment also expresses the concerns raised by a number of your Lordships in Committee and one or two on Report that perhaps placing the duty and obligation directly on organisations and the individuals involved would be inappropriate and that that would provide too rigid a framework. However, as the amendment does what the Government said would solve the problem, I hope that the Minister will indicate that he is happy to accept it in this form.

The reason why I think that it is helpful to the Government is, as may not have escaped the Minister’s attention, a certain amount of criticism of the Department of Health and of this Bill is prevalent at the moment. For example, a letter was published in the Telegraph this morning which said:

“The Coalition Government promised to ensure greater NHS accountability to patients and the public. We believe this aspiration has now been abandoned”.

That was signed by a large number of people active in representing the interests of patients around the country. It is not specifically about this issue; it is about an issue that we will come on to very shortly in terms of HealthWatch. But there is a very widespread concern that, despite all the rhetoric that we have heard from the Government about “no decision about me without me”, that aspiration has been lost in this Bill.

Part of the way of getting patients to have confidence in their health service is through the knowledge that if something goes wrong the fact will be shared with them. The Government said that they did not want a statutory obligation to be placed on individuals or institutions to do that, but they said that they would like contractual arrangements to be put in place. This amendment makes sure that those contractual arrangements are put in place, and I would have thought that the Government would want to accept it so as to demonstrate that even now there is some good faith left around their desire to put patients at the centre of the NHS changes.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I support this amendment and urge the Government to accept it as it is written. I hope that the Government can see that this is very helpful; it fits with the points made by the Minister in his summing up in response to the previous amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Masham about there being agreement on the importance of openness and candour in healthcare. The Minister went on to say that,

“the NHS could only call itself a world-class health service if it embraced openness wholeheartedly”.—[Official Report, 13/2/12; col. 590.]

He added that there was agreement that something needed to change.

The beauty of the way in which the amendment is worded is that it distinguishes between major and minor occurrences. It emphasises the true duty of candour to disclose events that have affected a patient either medically or physically and that may have long-term effects. It does not focus in any way on anything trivial and requires the contractual duty of candour to be put into the contracts, which was exactly the content of the Minister’s summing-up speech last time.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I remember well the degree of consensus in your Lordships' House when we debated the statutory duty of candour—namely, that everything should be done to embed in the NHS the culture of openness and to be against any form of cover-ups. However, as I said on that occasion, the world has moved on a little since the days of Lord Cohen—with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Walton. A number of initiatives have resulted in greater openness by clinicians and a sense of responsibility, which one can find right across the health service. All is not perfect, of course. The duty of candour has been much discussed in academic circles, and the noble Baroness referred to the experience in America where some states—not many—have a duty of candour. But there are very serious arguments that run to the effect that imposing a duty of candour can have adverse effects in that many are thereby encouraged to sue in circumstances where they might not otherwise have sued.

The form of this amendment is certainly good in the sense that it focuses on the serious rather than the trivial. None the less, it does contain the word “incidents”, which is extremely difficult to define. In what circumstances does a clinician, or those employing a clinician, have to go through the processes that the amendment involves? From what the noble Earl said on the last occasion, the Government clearly take the matter of candour extremely seriously. There is a consultation about it and, in due course, there will be reflections of that duty in the contract. Although I am entirely sympathetic to what lies behind this amendment, I am a little concerned that imposing terms, with the inevitable imprecision that this form of amendment carries with it, is not at the moment the answer.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, I, too, spoke briefly in the debate last time about the statutory duty of candour. At the end of that debate the Minister gave a number of important reassurances. One was to review the contractual duty in a specified period to see how effectively it was working. The second was to do with further work to explore how this whole issue could be taken forward in the area of primary care—an area which I, and certainly colleagues on these Benches, still feel is extremely important. I would be grateful if the noble Lord, in summing up, could say anything further about how a contractual duty of candour would apply to those in primary care. Also, could he give any further reassurances at this stage about the reasons why he feels that a contractual duty of candour in the way which is set out in this particular amendment would be effective?

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

I very briefly take the point made about an apology for the mistake. I do this because when I was an advocate I appeared before the BMA for quite a lot of medical professionals. If your client says, “I am terribly sorry for my mistake”, it puts one in a very difficult position; the advocate must show that the mistake had nothing to do with the result. I will not take up time, but say merely, as an erstwhile advocate, watch it.

[Lord Faulks]

Before the noble Lord sits down, could he confirm that, since the Compensation Act 2006, an apology is no longer deemed to be an admission of liability?

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I support the amendment, particularly because it draws attention to the point that often patients experience prolonged psychological harm after an incident, something that is not well understood across the whole of the medical field. Such psychological harm is often overlooked. However, there is plenty of evidence that an honest and prompt apology can do so much to help the person and their family going forward. It is fair to say that delaying a response is very much like denying a response. The timeliness of a response is critical.

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, As someone who taught medical students for many years that it is very important to be absolutely open and candid with your patients, and that, if something has gone wrong, to explain it in full to the patients and their relatives—explaining that that is not necessarily an admission of guilt in some way—I am very keen on the sort of sentiment that is being expressed in this amendment. I am particularly keen on the GMC imposing on doctors the duty of being open. I am all behind the sentiments of this amendment. I have some anxiety, though, about how this can be put into law. How can you legislate for someone to be candid? How will it work? How do you know that someone has been candid or not? There is a great deal of subtlety about this candour and about putting it into law as a duty on every occasion. I am slightly apprehensive about the amendment, even though I support everything about the principle.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, I find it very difficult, as I have said before, to accept or support this kind of amendment, but I strongly believe in candour and I totally support what many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Turnberg, have said around the House. However, there are major problems with putting this kind of amendment into legislation, which would make it extremely difficult to be reasonable. There would be real risks of serious psychological harm to quite a lot of patients. One of the last things we want to do is to involve patients in a perceived injustice or perceived negligence which turns out to fail miserably in the courts of law. I have seen that as horribly damaging with patients I had in the past when I was a medical practitioner, which I am of course no longer.

The other issue not adequately dealt with in this amendment is that of time. At what stage is it justified no longer to be candid? Should somebody who, let us say, sees something from that same health authority a year or two later, or three or four, still be candid about what they think may have gone wrong, or where they are not absolutely certain that it has gone wrong? There is a colossal difficulty in trying to enforce this. Far better is the idea of having some kind of code of practice, to which I think my noble friend Lord Turnberg referred, which ought to be acceptable to doctors.

When I was a trainee surgeon, we did innumerable partial gastrectomies. We now know that that operation was really mutilating and totally wrong; it actually resulted in many people losing weight and not being able to hold down a proper diet. Subsequently, of course, peptic ulceration could be treated by a simple antibiotic therapy. Now, at what stage does that treatment become established or a gastrectomy become a negligent operation? These are very difficult things to define, and I urge that we should not write this proposal into law in the way that is proposed.

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, we had a long debate on this very important issue of the duty of candour before the Recess, and I do not intend to take up very much of the House’s time on this amendment by responding to the issues that we covered then, or by repeating our views on why we are concerned that the Government’s current proposal for a contractual duty will not address the need for the huge cultural change in the NHS that has to take place in order to ensure openness and honesty when things go wrong in the care and treatment of patients.

Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will accept the case for regulations on including the duty of candour in commissioning contracts. We on these Benches emphasise our commitment to trying to help to make the contractual duty work. I therefore place it on record that we welcome the Minister’s reassurance during the previous debate that he will come back to the House on the outcome and actions resulting from the current government consultation on the contractual duty. I also hope that he will be magnanimous in the victory that he had before the Recess in the vote rejecting statutory requirement by standing by his assurances on a future review of the effectiveness of the contractual duty, after an appropriate period, and whether its effectiveness is being held back by the lack of statutory provision. My third hope is that the NHS Commissioning Board will issue clear and strong guidance to assist CCGs in this matter, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, this has been another very good debate on the duty of candour. As we have discussed previously, the Government’s position is that the NHS contracts are the most appropriate mechanism through which to implement a further requirement for openness. Amendment 38A proposes that the contractual duty of candour should be given a specific reference in primary legislation. I hope that I can satisfy the House on this and that the undertakings I am about to give the noble Baroness from this Dispatch Box will reassure her sufficiently to enable her to withdraw the amendment.

I give an assurance to the House that the Government propose to use the provisions in Clause 19 relating to the standing rules to specify that the contractual duty of candour must be included in the NHS standard contract, developed by the NHS Commissioning Board. If that assurance is accepted, as I hope it will be, a specific reference is not required to ensure that a contractual duty of candour is imposed. The question, therefore, is whether, despite my assurance, it is necessary or appropriate to include a provision in Clause 19. I have given this proposal substantial thought, and I admit that it is one which on the surface has some appeal. I have spent a good deal of time discussing the matter with noble Lords as well as with Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS Medical Director.

Let me explain where my deliberations have taken me. At present there is a very wide range of issues that we incorporate into the standard contract. These include issues of paramount importance to the quality and safety of healthcare. For example, the contract is used as one of the mechanisms that we are using to drive improvements in prevention of venous thromboembolism, or VTE. It has been estimated that every year 25,000 people in England die from VTE that they have contracted in hospital. We also use the standard contract for driving improvements in cancer treatments and referrals in healthcare-associated infections in issues such as consent and many other areas.

As the Bill stands, it does not contain a list of the requirements which are to be included in the standard contracts, and for good reason. The Bill should not contain unnecessary detail. On top of that—and I think that this is perhaps a more important point—there should be sufficient flexibility for the Secretary of State and the board to consider and draft appropriate terms and conditions and adapt them to changing circumstances.

The question I pose to myself is this: if, through a reference to the duty of candour, we are to start down the road of specifying particular quality and safety contractual requirements in the Bill, then where do we stop? Just including the few issues that I have briefly mentioned, without any others, means that we will almost certainly land up with a cumbersome and unwieldy list. There are many other areas besides those which some might see as having a similarly valid claim to be mentioned. We should not use primary legislation to cherry-pick priorities to the detriment of other equally important areas.

We have further concerns about precisely what the amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide in the standing rules. We are still looking at what the appropriate contractual term should be in the light of the recent consultation that was mentioned. Imposing a duty in the Bill to adopt a specific formulation, as the amendment would have us do, constrains our ability to take proper account of the consultation and the engagement that we have had with stakeholders—it risks forcing us to implement an inappropriate requirement—and from easily improving it in the future, if the evidence supports that.

I was struck by the very powerful speech of my noble friend Lord Faulks during our last debate on this topic, and indeed by his words today, when he challenged the House to consider the difficulties involved in drafting a duty which adequately encapsulates these obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, was very wise in what he said. For example, how would we specify the types of incidents to which any contractual requirement would apply? The contractual duty and provision in the regulations must be neither too wide nor too narrow in order to be effective and proportionate. We need the flexibility to consider this in more detail.

The noble Baroness’s amendment would have us require particular steps to be taken in particular defined circumstances and adopt a particular definition of the incidents to be covered by the duty of candour. I am extremely uncomfortable with that. Apart from anything else, we specifically asked this question in the public consultation, so we would be undermining that process if we were not properly to consider the responses we received. I really think, therefore, that it would be better to let that consultation guide us as to the precise way in which the duty should be framed. It is for those reasons that, after considerable thought, I can tell the noble Baroness that I do not think it would be wise for us to accept Amendment 38A.

The noble Lord, Lord Walton, asked about the duty placed on individual doctors within a trust. Doctors are expected to follow the code of practice laid down by the GMC, as he will know, and failure to do so may lead to action against a doctor by the regulator in the exercise of its statutory powers. I can confirm to the noble Lord that the code is not just words; it is backed up by real regulatory force. Indeed, I have the wording of the code in front of me:

“If a patient under your care has suffered harm or distress, you must act immediately to put matters right, if that is possible. You should offer an apology and explain fully and promptly to the patient what has happened, and the likely short-term and long-term effects”.

There are similar provisions in the Nursing and Midwifery Council code as well.

15:45

My noble friend Lady Tyler asked about the time period for the review of the contractual duty that I promised last time we debated this. My view at present is that about three years from the implementation of the duty would be an appropriate period. We will be setting out in more detail when we propose to conduct that review when we respond to the consultation.

I reiterate on the record the Government’s and my commitment to introduce a contractual duty of candour to require openness and transparency in the NHS. I understand the strength of feeling on the topic; indeed, it is for exactly that reason that I promised in our earlier debate that the Government would undertake a review in future of the effectiveness of the contractual duty of candour, and to include that within a specific analysis of whether its effectiveness was being substantially held back by the lack of a reference in primary legislation. If that review were to highlight that this was indeed happening, the Government would give that fact significant consideration and take it fully into account in the context of any future primary legislation. On top of that, I reiterate the commitment that I have given today that the Government intend to use the “standing rules” regulations to specify that the contractual duty of candour must be included in the NHS standard contract. I hope that I have provided the noble Baroness with cast-iron reassurance upon this topic, and I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I think that because I was thanking the Minister last time, I forgot to thank all those who had spoken then, so I thank them now as well.

This is a complicated Bill, and I do not think it is a very popular one—certainly not outside your Lordships’ House. I worry intensely that while patients were said to have been centred in the Bill, in fact they are getting less and less so. However, we will come on to that later.

I am passionate about patient safety. I thank the Minister for his assurances. We have moved on a little. Things take a long time, but a lot of people now feel that doctors, patients, and all those looking after them should be a team. I hope that this will happen.

I am pleased that the GMC has come out against the gagging clause. It was terrible and extremely confusing for doctors when they were told by managers that they were not allowed to say when something had gone wrong. I am glad. We are moving on, and I hope that this debate has been useful. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 38A withdrawn.

Amendment 38B

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

38B: Clause 19, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(8A) The standing rules under subsection (1) shall make provision as to how clinical commissioning groups are required to register, manage and report upon conflicts of interests of both members and employees of a clinical commissioning group, or any individual engaged by a clinical commissioning group to be involved in any part of the process of commissioning NHS services (“the Conflict and Financial Interests Rules”).
(8B) The Secretary of State shall consult upon and then publish a Code of Conduct for members of clinical commissioning groups concerning the registration of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests by members of a clinical commissioning group, and setting out how clinical commissioning groups shall manage actual or potential conflicts of interests amongst its members, which shall include provisions concerning the provision of services (other than NHS services) to NHS patients.
(8C) The Conflict and Financial Interests Rules shall include the following provisions—
(a) a duty on members of a clinical commissioning group to abide by the terms of the Code of Conduct to be published by the Secretary of State under subsection (8B) hereof;(b) that each clinical commissioning group shall maintain a register of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests of members of the clinical commissioning group;(c) a requirement that each member of a clinical commissioning group shall register all of his pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in the Register unless the said interest shall be within a de minimis classification set out in the Regulations, and shall keep the said register up to date;(d) a requirement that the register of interests of each clinical commissioning group shall be published and made available for public inspection;(e) a requirement that, unless approved by the Board, a clinical commissioning group shall not be entitled to enter into any arrangements to commission healthcare or other services with any person where any member of the clinical commissioning group has a financial interest or link to that person of a type set out in Regulations (“a Conflicted Arrangement”);(f) a procedure (“the Exemption Procedure”) under which a clinical commissioning group shall be entitled to request an exemption from the Board so as to permit the clinical commissioning group to enter into any a Conflicted Arrangement;(g) that the Exemption Procedure shall require the clinical commissioning group to publicise the application for the exemption and to permit any objections thereto to be considered by the Board;(h) that the Exemption Procedure shall provide that, after considering the merits of the individual application, the Board shall be entitled to approve the arrangement if but only if the Board is satisfied that the proposal to enter into any such arrangement has been the subject of an open and transparent procurement process, that it provides the best value for money for the clinical commissioning group and that there are appropriate safeguards proposed by the clinical commissioning group to manage any conflict of interest in the management of the said arrangement;(i) that no member of a clinical commissioning group shall be permitted to take any part in any discussion of or decision making process concerning any arrangement or proposed arrangement with a provider of services with whom that person has a registerable interest;(j) a procedure for complaints to be made to the Secretary of State by any person who alleges that a member of a clinical commissioning group has acted in breach of the Code of Conduct or in breach of the Conflict and Financial Interests Regulations;(k) a procedure for the Secretary of State to appoint an adjudicator to investigate and to rule upon any such complaint; and(l) for the adjudicator to be able to impose sanctions on any member of a clinical commissioning group has been found by an adjudicator to have acted in breach of the Code of Conduct or in breach of the Conflict and Financial Interests Rules including—(i) such financial sanctions as the Secretary of State shall consider appropriate;(ii) suspension of such a person from being a member of a clinical commissioning group; (iii) removal of such a person from current membership of a clinical commissioning group;(iv) a bar on such a person being a member of a clinical commissioning group for a period of up to 10 years;(v) the referral to the Board for action to be taken against any individual who is a performer under the National Health Service (Performers List) Regulations 2004; and(vi) the suspension or termination of any contract or arrangement for the provision of NHS services that may exist between the Board or any clinical commissioning group and that person or any partnership, company or other organisation with whom that person shall have a registerable interest.(8D) Where any contract or other arrangement is suspended or terminated by the action of an adjudicator following an adjudication under sub-section (8C)(I), no other person shall be entitled to assert any legal right or make any claim for damages or financial compensation on any other basis whatsoever against the Board or any clinical commissioning group as a result of the said adjudication.”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we return to one of the most important matters in the Bill: clinical commissioning groups and their effective corporate governance, or lack of it—specifically, the question of how conflicts of interest are to be dealt with. In his letter of 16 February to putative clinical commissioning groups, the Secretary of State spoke enthusiastically of the freedoms that they were to receive. There can be little doubt that they are one of the most important features of this Bill. They are to be given a huge amount of money. They are to be given freedom to commission services. They are to be given freedom to decide when and how competition should be used. Because clinical commissioning groups will exercise such important roles, I would have thought that public interest demands that the principles of good corporate governance should apply as much to them as to any other public body.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, drew attention to the seven principles of public life and asked whether they applied to clinical commissioning groups. I asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whether independently appointed non-executives would be on the board of clinical commissioning groups. I also asked how conflicts of interest were to be dealt with. He said that the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State,

“to publish a code of conduct for CCGs, incorporating the Nolan principles on public life”.—[Official Report, 14/11/11; col. 564.]

To my suggestion that each clinical commissioning group board should have on it a majority of non-executives and be independently appointed, he said—disappointingly—that each group must only have at least two lay members and that one must be either the chair or deputy chair of the governing body.

On the conflicts of interest, the noble Earl said that the Bill had three safeguards: statutory requirements on clinical commissioning groups to make arrangements to manage conflicts of interest, governance arrangements, and specific regulations on good practice in the procurement and commissioning of healthcare services. Is that sufficient? I do not think that it is. These groups are unique. In essence they represent groupings of small businesses which have had handed over to them billions of pounds, a proportion of which they can spend on primary care services. Sometimes these are to be provided in the surgeries of GPs who are members of the clinical commissioning group, or perhaps are to be provided by companies in which GPs within a clinical commissioning group may have a financial interest. The potential conflict of interest is so obvious that it surely begs the question as to why the Government are not putting safeguards on this matter in the Bill.

My amendment is a lengthy one, but I hope comprehensive. It sets up a register of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests. It places an obligation on clinical commissioning groups to register. It prevents any arrangements being entered into between a clinical commissioning group and a party with whom a member has an interest. It provides for an exemption procedure whereby the board could approve the arrangement if it was open and transparent. It prohibits a member of a clinical commissioning group taking part in discussions with any business in which he or she has an interest. It also provides a process under which an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State can adjudicate on complaints about members of clinical commissioning groups breaching the code of conduct, which is provided for in my proposed new subsection (8C). The sanctions include removing the individual as a member of the clinical commissioning group and the termination of any contract which has been put in place between the group and anyone with whom the member has a registerable interest.

A clinical commissioning group board will have a majority of GPs sitting on it. They are involved in running businesses which are largely dependent on the NHS for their income. The role of a clinical commissioning group will be to commission services, some of which will be commissioned from those GPs who are members of that group or, as I said earlier, from companies in which some of those GPs may well have an interest. Independent lay members will be in a minority and we have yet to receive assurance that they will be independently appointed. We have not even been assured that the chairman of the clinical commissioning group will be an independent lay member. It will have the weakest corporate governance of any public body in this country.

We know that over the past 20 or 30 years any number of inquiries have shown the problems of poor corporate governance. After all, the Nolan commission was started because of such problems. This will explode in the Government’s face unless they strengthen the corporate governance of clinical commissioning groups. If you combine these weak corporate governance arrangements with the ability of a clinical commissioning group to make decisions that could be to the financial advantage of GPs who are members of that group, you are heading for trouble. We need robust safeguards and they ought to be in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, noble Lords will recall that in Committee I too highlighted the issue of conflicts of interest. I did so because, like many other noble Lords, I had listened to and read the briefings sent by the professional bodies, many of which raised fears and concerns about conflicts of interest. Like many other noble Lords, I believe it is important not only that members of the public have faith in the integrity of the decisions being made by CCGs but that members of the professions believe in those decision-making processes and feel able to participate in them. They should also have the protection of good governance and good conflict-of-interest policies to enable them to carry out what will be a difficult role.

Before we look at the detail of this, it is important to remind ourselves a little of the context. There are conflicts of interest in the National Health Service now. There always have been, as anyone who has ever sat around the table at a joint finance meeting at which every single person has an interest in the discussion will know. It may not be a direct financial interest; it could be about a post, a project or money. Managing conflicts of interest is something that the NHS and PCTs do now. That is not to say that we should not take the opportunity of the Bill to make the principles according to which the NHS should act more overt. They should be the highest of principles.

It is for that reason that my colleagues and I raised the matter in Committee. We then drafted a set of amendments that are in this group—Amendments 84, 89, 91, 92, 93 and 116. I am very grateful to several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who looked at those amendments with the seasoned eye of an ex-Health Minister. His response was, “Very good but an awful lot of this needs to be in regulation, not in the Bill”. I took his comments to heart, which is why my colleagues and I withdrew those amendments on Friday and noble Lords now have Amendments 79A, 82A, 86A and 86B before them on the Marshalled List.

It is also important that noble Lords understand one particular point about the interpretation of the Bill. A great deal of anxiety has been expressed by some of the professional bodies about the role of commissioning support organisations. Noble Lords may recall that I raised that in Committee. I have been in discussion with several members of the professions to try to understand the source of that concern. As far as I can understand, there is a view within some of the professional bodies that commissioning support and the commissioning of services are one and the same thing, whereas the Minister was at great pains in Committee to stress that they are two different processes that go side by side.

16:00

Noble Lords may have seen a briefing by Professor Allyson Pollock on her interpretation of Schedule 2. Would the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his response to these amendments, talk particularly about the role of commissioning support? There is a view outside, which is informed by some of those briefings, that people who are not clinicians will have a responsibility for commissioning clinical services. In Committee he was at pains to stress that that was not the case; that it would be members of CCGs only who had that responsibility and that they would be given support to do that only by CSOs.

I return to the issue of conflicts of interest. They are extremely difficult things to legislate for because they take a number of different forms. On the ground, a conflict of interest can be financial or non-financial—it is a difficult thing to define in legislation. In our amendments, and particularly Amendment 79A, we state that there must be a register of interests of members of a CCG, the governing body, its sub-committees and its employees. Noble Lords might find it helpful to know that, for the purposes of the legislation, “employees” covers people who work as consultants. I do not mean medical consultants, but people who work in a consultancy capacity to the CCG. Under the amendment, they must publish registers of those interests and ensure public access to them; and the registers must be kept up to date, with information being placed on them within 28 days. Why is that important? People’s interests change and these organisations will be in the business of giving out contracts to providers. It is therefore important that if someone has a material interest and that interest changes—particularly around the time of the contract being issued—this is brought to public attention quickly.

Proposed new subsection (4) in our Amendment 79A states that CCGs,

“must make arrangements for managing conflicts and potential conflicts of interest in such a way as to ensure that they do not, and do not appear to, affect the integrity of the group’s decision-making processes”.

It is extremely important that these groups not only set out to uphold the highest standards but that they are seen to uphold them.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Could she clarify what happens in the situation that she has laid out in these amendments if a member of a CCG does not do the right thing? Are there any sanctions in her amendment?

[Baroness Barker]

The noble Lord is quite right and I will come on to that.

These amendments also refer to the board publishing guidance and what that guidance would include. As I understand it, members of CCGs who are in material or consistent breach of a conflict-of-interest policy might be referred to their professional body. Amendment 86A is a regulation-making power. It is under that power that many of the important details could be included. They would, I imagine, include issues such as the ones which the noble Lord has just raised about the sorts of sanctions which CCGs should include in their guidance and policy.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, she has withdrawn some amendments and put in some substitutes, so I think it is fair to ask her these questions. Without sanctions, this is not going to have any teeth. There is a major concern about corporate governance in CCGs. Surely it would be better to put it on the face of the Bill rather than, as it seems to me she is doing, leaving it up to CCGs to do the necessary.

[Baroness Barker]

Not entirely, my Lords. As I was coming on to say, an important piece of work is that the GMC is updating its guidance on how its members should work in the new setup. It is important that members of bodies such as the GMC, the BMA and other professional bodies are involved, should they wish to be, in setting out the detail of what those sanctions should be. We should end up with something that is effective and workable, as well as principled. The noble Lord’s argument does not therefore stand up. Nothing in these amendments would preclude that sort of sanction being put into regulations or guidance.

Our amendments are, admittedly, not as detailed as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, nor do they—as his amendment does—incorporate language from the world of commercial legislation. The terminology of conflicted arrangements and exemption procedures comes from commercial law, and I am not sure that that is appropriate for what we are seeking to do. At the end of this debate we should achieve the objective that all noble Lords are seeking—transparency and accountability around the decision-making processes of CCGs, and the legislation and regulations around them should be sufficiently robust so that not only can members of the public have faith in those procedures but the procedures should be workable. I accept that our previous amendments included provisions that were so draconian that they would not work in practice. We could have ended up in a position whereby the very people who should be making decisions on CCGs would not have been eligible to do so, particularly at the precise moment at which their expertise would be necessary.

Our amendments are not by any means the end of the matter; they are the beginning of a process that should move on further in the discussion on regulations and guidance. That is where much of the detail of this should come to the fore, but the principles that we have set out in these amendments are robust and workable, and I hope that in his reply the Minister will accept them.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I support the amendments relating to conflict of interest and I agree that there needs to be something in the Bill. I will give an example to indicate why I believe that more strongly following a seminar that we attended before the Recess. For those noble Lords who were not there, we had a presentation from a GP who told us, first, that he was salaried, and I therefore presume he did not have a standard general medical services contract, and that his salary came from somewhere else—it may well have come from another general practitioner. He said, secondly, that he was involved in commissioning and, thirdly, that the commissioners had found that the provision of some services in his area was not satisfactory or of the quality that they had asked for—particularly, in relation to hand surgery. They therefore set up an independent provider of surgical services, of which the GP was a non-executive director. The conflicts of interest are quite obvious: here is a commissioner who is a salaried doctor, and that raises a question. If the commissioning board is to hold the contracts of primary care providers, will they not include those who have a general medical services contract, or will they include those who are salaried? More and more primary care providers are salaried GPs employed by other practitioners. We therefore also need to clarify who will be asked to be a member of the commissioning group: will it be only those who hold the general medical services contract, or will it be all those who provide primary care services? The conflict of interest here is many-fold, and therefore we need to address how it is to be resolved.

While I was, and still am, very attracted to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, because I had not seen those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the question of sanctions needs to be addressed more clearly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the need for this question of sanctions to be clarified so that those who may be involved in conflict know from the very beginning how those sanctions will apply to them.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, perhaps I may deal very briefly with one area of medicine with which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I are particularly familiar. One problem raised is that increasingly general practitioners are doing minor surgical procedures; increasingly in practice, often in groups. I know of one large practice in south-east England, for example, that is now carrying out a procedure called a hysteroscopy, which is an endoscopic or telescopic examination of the inside of the uterus. This is quite a specialised procedure designed to identify cancers of the uterus at an early stage. The problem is that general practitioners may well be able to carry out this procedure somewhat more cheaply than gynaecologists in a practising group. Of course, there is clearly a conflict of interest here, because they may well be in the very practice that is also commissioning this procedure, and a patient might perhaps be wrongly given a particular treatment when a slightly more expensive treatment, done elsewhere, may be more effective and reduce the risk of the cancer.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, this group of amendments and this debate has focused on conflicts of interest. For clinical commissioning groups, conflict of interest will arise where the leaders of the groups have financial interests, but also where private companies which may have separate provider arms competing as a qualified provider are contracted to provide commissioning support. The other area of conflict which has not been addressed is where quality rewards for commissioning are linked to financial performance of clinical commissioning groups. Further, there are cases where local medical committee officers are key officials in a clinical commissioning group.

The clinical commissioning group is meant to represent the constituent practices. Indeed, there have been articles in the press about commissioning support and commissioning support organisations. Many of those have raised alarm among clinicians who have become increasingly concerned by the talk revealed in the press about the profit to be made by commissioning support organisations. There has also been a realisation that profit going to the commissioning support organisations will reduce the amount of money going into the provision of core NHS services at any level—whether in the community or in secondary care and the hospital sector.

Several amendments are tabled here. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is very comprehensive and deals with an area which the other amendments do not. There is also an amendment, on which my name is the first, regarding conflict of interest. I can see that Amendment 79A is more detailed than the amendment which I have tabled, and therefore goes further and would be better. However, I am concerned that it does not go quite as far as the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and that some of the principles in there need to be incorporated into Amendment 79A if the Government are minded to accept that amendment. We may have to come back to amend the amendment should it be accepted and incorporated.

16:15

My Amendment 102 in this group addresses a quite different aspect of the commissioning process. It aims to ensure that the registered secondary care specialist who is to be included on the governing board of each clinical commissioning group can be someone working within the area that the clinical commissioning group covers, the reason being that a person working in an area will be able to establish integrated care across that area far better than someone who comes from outside. In Teams without Walls—a document on which the Royal College of Physicians led but which was written in conjunction with the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health—it was made very clear that the complementary skills of the different groups need to be integrated. There has been quite a lot of concern at the suggestion that the secondary care specialist should not be employed by a local provider and should therefore come from outside the area or even be a retired person.

That concern arises because there will be nobody in the local community who understands that community, who knows the clinicians across the community and, indeed, who has an interest in the patient services for that community. Furthermore, if it is a rural area, such a clinician may be relatively disadvantaged in having to travel many miles to attend meetings and in not being embedded in the healthcare delivery system. It seems to go counter to a localism agenda to insist on taking somebody from outside the area. Therefore, the amendment is designed to allow a clinical commissioning group to take the best person, whether they are from within or from just outside the area, to drive forward integration and collaborative working. One would hope that a representative from primary care would also be invited on to the trust board within an area so that there was a degree of reciprocity—again, to build bridges rather than to create a division between the primary and secondary care sectors.

Conflicts of interest will have to be declared at every stage, and obviously the secondary care doctor will have no right of veto. The argument that the secondary care doctor from within an area would argue only in favour of their own discipline or trust is fallacious. I have not seen a strong evidence-base for that, given that medical directors and others currently work in an area representing different disciplines. A criterion of the person’s job description, appointment and regular appraisal could be that they are seen to represent all providers within an area so that trust is built up across all the providers with which a clinical commissioning group enters into some form of contract.

We have a group of amendments here covering a wide range of aspects of the structure and functioning of clinical commissioning groups. I hope that we will shortly find that a declaration of interests is included in the Bill, in whatever form, and that the Minister will be amenable to revising the rigid stance taken over insisting that the secondary care representative and nurse come from outside the area.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, this is an exceptionally complex issue and I believe it is absolutely crucial that in some way and in some form the issue of a conflict of interests is covered in the Bill. The membership of clinical commissioning groups will consist very largely of general practitioners, but it is important to remember that GPs are not employed by the National Health Service but are independent contractors. As such, it is therefore inevitable that they will have a pecuniary interest in the activity of the clinical commissioning group. I am aware of a number of general practitioners from large practices who have shares in or part-ownership of care homes for elderly patients. I am also aware of some who have shares in private hospitals and in many other organisations. If we were too rigid about declarations of interest, we could end up excluding virtually every GP from membership of clinical commissioning groups, meaning that CCGs could not really exist. Therefore, the provisions must not be too draconian, but at the same time, it is desperately important that they should protect the public interest and that some mechanism be found to ensure that matters of financial and other public interest are not in any way detrimental to the work of the clinical commissioning groups.

I am therefore very attracted by Amendment 79A, which I believe goes a long way towards covering the major issues concerned with conflicts of interest. The amendment so ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt has many attractive features, but it is immensely lengthy and complex. I appreciate entirely the point that he made about sanctions, but to go back for a moment, the Minister misunderstood me when I was talking about the duty of candour. I fully appreciate that doctors working for clinical commissioning groups, foundation trusts, and so on, have the same duty of candour as defined by the regulations of the GMC as any other doctor. I intended to ask the Minister whether the actual clinical commissioning groups and foundation trusts, as corporate bodies—not the individual employees of those organisations—had the same responsibility of a duty of candour in relation to patients.

Here, of course, the same problem arises in relation to the whole issue of conflict of interest. How is it defined? It is necessary to recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, that there has to be a sanction. But the same sanctions apply to individual doctors and other healthcare professionals working for clinical commissioning groups. If they were seen to breach the rules laid down in such an amendment on conflicts of interest, they could be called to account by their regulatory authority. The GMC would no doubt take a serious view of anyone who breached that duty under conflicts of interest. It is crucial that the Government should put something about conflicts of interest in the Bill based, I hope largely, on Amendment 79A, which I strongly support. That is an excellent basis on which to go ahead, and I shall be fascinated to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak for very long on this set of amendments but some issues have cropped up which are worth reflecting on, particularly by those of us who have sat in Richmond House and have had to deal with them. It is easy to assume from listening to the debate that we have a wonderful set of arrangements in place to deal with conflicts of interest. That is very far from the case. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, made the point very well that many doctors already do a range of activities—rightly, appropriately and well within their competence—that potentially involve conflicts of interest. One of the great dangers in this area is that we tie ourselves up in a labyrinth of controls that actually work against innovation in an area where science is driving change rapidly. We want people to use their creativity and to change the way they work. We want them to take on new roles. We should not always assume that in doing that they are just seeking to line their pockets. There is a danger that we might do a very British thing and create a large number of rules that will prevent innovation. We had that debate over research and we are in danger of going down the same track in this area.

The other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, which is very important, is in relation to the role of professional bodies. We had a case—I will not mention the name—of an eminent businessman doctor who was the chief executive of a large chain of nursing homes. He was taken to the GMC because of something that went wrong in one of the nursing homes for which he had no direct responsibility whatever. Although the governing bodies of the professions have an important role, their role was constructed in relation to the actions of a doctor towards individual patients, not in relation to a doctor who was performing other business and organisational functions. It is very important that we do not rely on professional bodies to deal with what is organisational malfeasance rather than lack of professional integrity in dealing with individual patients.

My noble friend Lord Hunt made a very important point. It is very strange that at this stage we are still arguing the toss around corporate governance of some of the bodies in the Bill, particularly the clinical commissioning groups. That is a bit of an indictment of the Government for not getting some of this material thought through at an earlier stage rather than well into Report stage in the House of Lords after having gone through the Commons. However, we are where we are and I think we should not tie ourselves up in knots and prevent incumbents.

Lastly, a very important point that has come out in a number of speeches today is that two issues are critical. First, it should be clear legally to all people participating in these new sets of arrangements that declarations of interest are essential. Secondly, it should also be clear in the Bill exactly what the consequences are of not declaring those interests and pursuing deliberately a conflict of interest for your own advancement, financially and otherwise. Those are the two issues about which we need to be clear in the Bill and I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that much of the rest of it should be for regulation, provided that the Bill has sufficiently powerful regulation-making powers.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I too have my name to one of the amendments in this group and would like to reiterate much of what has been said in this very helpful discussion. There is no doubt that there remains considerable anxiety about potential conflict of interest. If, early after enactment of the Bill, the new structures that come into place with regard specifically to clinical commissioning groups were to be attended by serious conflict of interest failings, very rapidly confidence in these new structures would be eroded. That is of very considerable concern.

In Committee, I proposed an amendment suggesting that the Nolan principles be included in this Bill. The Nolan principles are well accepted in public life and play an important role in the conduct of acute and foundation trusts. They have served those organisations well in providing a framework and drawing the attention of those involved in the discharge and governance of those organisations to their obligations with regard to potential conflicts of interest and their conduct more broadly with regard to execution of public responsibility.

In Committee, the Minister felt that adoption specifically of the Nolan principles was not an appropriate course of action and may have a rather unhelpful limiting effect on more broadly ensuring that conflict was dealt with appropriately. Having listened to debate in your Lordships’ House today, it is very clear that considerable anxiety continues. It is important that something is done to ensure that in having taken this Bill forward the Government well recognise the potential for conflict of interest and provide the specific obligations for those who for the first time are going to be directly involved in commissioning and therefore the spending of large amounts of taxpayers’ money. Those obligations are in many ways different from acting as a private individual and it will help those discharging these new responsibilities to understand the high standards to which they will inevitably be held and ensure that they discharge those responsibilities for the benefit of the general public and patients.

16:30

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this has been a very good debate indeed and I thank noble Lords for the careful consideration that they have given to how CCGs should best manage conflicts of interest. I have listened carefully to the various points raised and it is clear that this is an area of key concern. I hope that the House will therefore forgive me if I start by setting out the position on this issue before I turn to the detail of the amendments before us.

At the heart of the Bill is an intention to balance autonomy with accountability. We are giving freedom to those best placed to take decisions in the interests of patients to do so, but we will also hold them to account, not only for the outcomes they achieve but also for their managing this responsibility effectively, transparently and with integrity.

CCGs will be the guardians of significant amounts of taxpayers’ money, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly pointed out, so it is only right that there are strict requirements in terms of governance, probity and transparency of decision-making. We must balance the benefits of the clinical autonomy of doctors with a robust management of potential or actual conflicts of interest. It is essential to get this right, and that means a proportionate and reasonable approach.

I reinforce the point that the Bill already provides very real safeguards in relation to conflicts of interest. The CCG must make arrangements in its constitution for managing conflicts and ensuring the transparency of its decision-making process. The CCG must have appropriate governance arrangements, including a governing body with lay members and other health professionals. These arrangements will be scrutinised by the NHS Commissioning Board as part of the process of ensuring that a CCG is fit to be established as a commissioner.

Let me be clear that this is not just about declaring conflicts of interests, which of course is vital, but also about putting in effective and appropriate arrangements to manage these conflicts where they arise. There is not, and cannot be, a one-size-fits-all approach to managing conflict, as it depends on the interest itself and where it may become a conflict. However, likely methods may include absenting the person from decisions in that area, or bringing in others—for example, the independent lay members—to oversee the process for decision-making in a particular area. The key factor here is that they cannot avoid the need to manage the conflict and to be clear about how they are going to do so.

The provisions around conflict of interest apply to all aspects of a CCG’s commissioning activity, which means that they would apply to how it worked with a commissioning support organisation. I appreciate that there is apprehension and, in some cases, misunderstanding about the role of commissioning support organisations, so I shall set out the facts about this issue for the benefit of noble Lords today, in particular my noble friend Lady Barker, to whom I was grateful for referencing the brief on this issue provided by Professor Allyson Pollock.

Commissioning support organisations are not intended to act on behalf of a CCG in making decisions. They provide support, which might take the form of analysis of performance or finance data, supporting procurement or the management of a contract, and back-office functions. Let me be clear: at no point can they take decisions for the CCG or assume responsibility for a CCG’s statutory duties. It would be unlawful for a CCG to sub-delegate its commissioning responsibility to another organisation.

I am, however, conscious of the concerns, particularly those raised by my noble friend Lady Barker, about whether members of commissioning support organisations could sit on a CCG governing body. I give noble Lords a commitment today that we will prohibit any representative of a commissioning support organisation sitting on a CCG governing body through our secondary legislation-making powers under new Section 14N.

I should also like to explain some of the other safeguards in the Bill relating to management of conflicts of interest. Under Clause 73, the Secretary of State may make regulations which we intend will impose specific requirements in relation to the management of conflicts of interest. They will also confer on Monitor various powers to investigate the actions of a CCG and take remedial action. Monitor will be required to issue guidance on these regulations.

The NHS Commissioning Board may also provide guidance on conflicts of interest. This renders unnecessary any additional amendment requiring the Secretary of State to issue guidance on conflicts of interest, as Amendments 86 and 93 would do, or to issue a specific code of conduct or financial interest rules, as Amendment 38B requires. I shall return to that point in a moment.

The Bill is also clear on the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process. Schedule 2 provides that the CCG constitution must specify arrangements for securing transparency about the decisions of the CCG and governing body. The NHS Commissioning Board will be able to issue guidance on the publication of minutes and will ensure that the constitution meets these requirements. This meets the intention behind Amendment 92. We cannot accept the amendment because it might not always be appropriate to publish details of all decisions made by a governing body.

Transparency and accountability must not be achieved at the expense of the effectiveness of the commissioner. PCTs are not required to discuss all matters in public now and we should ensure that CCGs are not subject to more onerous requirements. Amendment 91 may well prevent CCG governing bodies discussing potentially commercially sensitive issues relating to contract values or performance without the public being present, which could pose difficulties.

I can fully understand the intention behind Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to ensure that local knowledge informs the work of the CCG. However, we have always maintained that the presence of health professionals on a CCG governing body is not intended to be a means for the CCG to obtain advice to inform its commissioning decisions. The non-GP members of the governing body are there to provide an independent perspective, informed by their expertise and experience, in the body responsible for ensuring that the CCG adheres to the principles of good governance. They must have no conflict of interest in relation to the clinical commissioning group’s responsibilities. Amendment 102 would mean that a CCG could have only local professionals in the governing body. This would obviously limit the CCG in its choice of governing body members and risks a conflict of interests. I urge the House not to accept that amendment.

GPs in CCGs have to meet the ethical standards set by the General Medical Council in good medical practice. That includes provision to avoid conflicts of interest. Anyone may raise a concern that a doctor has failed to meet the conditions of their registration with the regulator. However, a failure to meet the conditions which Amendment 93 would impose would not necessarily mean that a GP had been in breach of their conditions of registration, and the duty which Amendment 110 would place on the board would be disproportionate. I know that there is a real concern among some noble Lords and that it is felt that this is a necessary sanction, but it is far better to ensure the robustness of the approach that CCGs take and that it is appropriately overseen. It is more appropriate for an independent monitor to police the transactional behaviour of CCGs and to be able to take effective remedial action where it discovers evidence that a CCG has not followed regulations in relation to procurement and the management of conflicts of interest, which is the approach taken in the Bill.

I similarly urge that we do not place in legislation an indiscriminate requirement, as Amendments 38B, 93 and 116 would do, that people with an interest withdraw from the relevant decision-making process of the CCG. Clearly, that is often going to be the most appropriate means to manage a conflict of interest, and that is made clear by the NHS Commissioning Board Authority’s guidance, Towards Establishment, which was published recently. However, it should not lead us to impose on CCGs a blanket ban on individuals being involved in a decision-making process or sitting on the governing body in all circumstances in which they have an interest. It ignores the fine line that can be drawn between situations in which withdrawal is absolutely necessary and those in which it would be more effective for the CCG’s exercise of its commissioning function for the conflict to be managed, carefully and with external oversight, in a different way that maintains the integrity of the CCG.

I listened with great care in particular to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Walton, on this theme. The best example of the second category that I mentioned is where a CCG is commissioning for local community-based alternatives to hospital services and it determines that the most effective and appropriate way to secure these is from all local GP providers within its geographic area. There are already inherent safeguards in the legislation to help manage conflicts in this scenario. The CCG would have to declare its commissioning intentions as part of its annual commissioning plan, on which it would consult the public, and it would engage with health and well-being boards in developing; and that makes the proposal transparent. It enables the health and well-being board and others to challenge the proposals. CCGs could similarly secure additional involvement in the decision-making process—for instance, by involving members of the health and well-being board or, indeed, other CCGs or members of the CCG’s audit committee. There is a choice. We have not identified one single right way of doing this. We think it is important to allow best practice to evolve rather than trying to pin it down in legislation. If all GP members of the CCG had to withdraw from the decision-making, it would be extremely hard for the CCG to actually make a valid decision, as it could not be delegated to the non-GP members of the governing body or a similar arrangement. It is only in certain circumstances that we would expect individuals with a conflict not to withdraw absolutely, but we have to keep this option open in legislation.

For the same reasons, I cannot support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in Amendment 38B, which would either require a CCG not to contract with a provider in which any member of the CCG had an interest, or require them to secure an exemption from this rule from the NHS Commissioning Board. The conflict and financial interests rules, which this amendment references, already require an individual to withdraw from any part of the decision-making process with a provider in which they have an interest. It is hard to see why it would be necessary also to prevent the CCG from contracting with such a provider or undergo a cumbersome—I have to say cumbersome—exemption process. That approach would make the board have to scrutinise individual procurements and generally police the transactional behaviour of CCGs. It would not allow for alternative local arrangements for quality-assuring the openness and transparency of a CCG’s approach. It should not have to be the board only that can ensure the probity of the commissioning decision. As I have suggested, the health and well-being board might provide a suitable external view, as might another CCG.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way so freely. I understand what he is saying about the bureaucratic process. However, will he not accept that the reason for that is that the corporate governance processes around the clinical commissioning group are so weak? For instance, why is there not to be a majority of independently appointed non-execs, as there would be on any other public board?

[Earl Howe]

I will come to that point in a moment. I do not agree with the noble Lord that the governance arrangements are weak. As I have said, one of the things that the board will have to do when authorising CCGs is to assure itself that there are fit and proper governance procedures in place.

I turn to the question of sanctions, which has been raised by a number of noble Lords. It is essential that patients and clinicians remain confident that members of clinical commissioning groups will always put their duty to patients before any personal financial interest. It is important that CCGs take all possible steps to avoid conflicts of interest. We foresee that the guidance that Amendment 79A requires the board to produce would set out the need for CCGs to make clear in their conflict of interest policy that any member of a CCG found to have failed to declare an interest may face a number of possible sanctions and individuals may also be referred to their professional body, which is a serious matter. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, was quite right in all that he said. I am very drawn to the provision of Amendment 79A, and I will come on to that more fully in a moment.

16:45

When there is any breach of the provisions in proposed new Section 14NA, the board would have a range of powers to intervene. The GMC is currently updating its advice to doctors about how they will be expected to exercise their professional responsibilities within the new structure of CCGs. The board’s guidance we expect to be consistent with the profession’s own high standards.

Amendment 38B would also give the Secretary of State the role of appointing an adjudicator with a range of sanctions, including suspension or removal of a person from being a member of a CCG for up to 10 years. Such a sanction could of course result in the patients of the GP so removed not having their interests represented in the decision-making of the CCG. That would strike at the heart of the principle of clinical commissioning. There is already in the Bill provision for independent scrutiny of the behaviour of CCGs in relation to procurements by Monitor, as I have mentioned. The Secretary of State’ regulations will give Monitor the power to investigate commissioning behaviour and, if necessary, take a range of remedial actions, including rendering a contract ineffective.

I do not want noble Lords to be in any doubt as to how seriously we take ensuring the integrity of clinical commissioning, or that we have not considered carefully their concerns. So while I cannot support most of the amendments in this group as they stand, I am supportive of elements of some of them. I am persuaded of the necessity to have a register of interests, placing the CCG under a duty to ensure that interests are declared in a timely manner, and that the CCG acts on those declarations. I am therefore persuaded to accept the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Barker, Amendments 79A, 82A, 86A and 86B. I see those amendments as absolutely consistent with the guidance towards the establishment, as I mentioned a moment ago. In my judgment, they would provide the best additional safeguards to those in the Bill. The amendments will deliver much of what is proposed by other amendments, in the most effective way, and I hope and trust that they will therefore receive support from across the House.

I add for reassurance that in placing a new duty on the board to issue guidance on conflicts, the board can build towards establishment and set out unequivocally the expectations of CCGs in how they should manage conflicts of interest and hold CCGs to account. I would also expect the guidance to reinforce the existing GMC guidelines, making clear to CCG members their accountability to the board and the GMC. A number of amendments call for new guidance or codes of conduct. I think that allowing the board to issue statutory guidance in that respect will deliver the intentions of those amendments.

As a consequence of my support for the amendments tabled by my noble friend, I do not intend to move the four government amendments in this group, Amendments 83, 85, 88 and 90, because they will be superseded.

I hope that I have said enough to reassure the House that the Government have acknowledged the concerns on these issues around conflicts of interest. We have listened to the concerns and are willing to amend the Bill accordingly.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I think that that is a very disappointing response. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that clinical commissioning groups will balance autonomy with accountability, and he acknowledged that they will be guardians of billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money. He went on to say that there were three safeguards: the constitution, transparency and the governing bodies. However, he still fails to respond to the fundamental gap, which is the lack of proper corporate governance around clinical commissioning groups. Looking at other public sector bodies—NHS trusts, for instance; not foundation trusts, but NHS trusts—how would we feel if the Government came forward with proposals stating that the board of an NHS trust would consist of executive directors and one or two lay members? It is just possible—but it is not certain—that one of those lay members will be the chairman of the trust, or they could, indeed, be the chief executive. That, in essence, is what the Government are proposing for the governance of clinical commissioning groups. A group of GPs will sit round the table. They will have a couple of lay members who presumably will be appointed by the clinical commissioning group, because the Government consistently fail to say whether there will be an independent appointments process. The noble Earl never responds to me on this point. They will be deciding how billions of pounds should be spent. The noble Earl refuses to acknowledge that these GPs are business people who run businesses which depend mainly on contracts—

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I realise that I did not answer the noble Lord and I apologise to him. It may be helpful for him to know that we intend to work with patient and professional groups and with emerging clinical commissioning groups to determine the best arrangements for appointing members of governing bodies. We will be issuing regulations in due course setting out in more detail the requirements for appointing clinical—that is to say, non-GP—members to the governing body.

The report that we had from the NHS Future Forum stated that it would be unhelpful for clinical commissioning groups’ governing bodies to be representative of every group under the sun. We agreed with that. Requiring a bigger group of professionals on the governing body itself, or expanding it in any way at all, would not really mean that a broader range of interests are involved in designing patient services. It would just lead to governing bodies that are too large and slow to do their job well. However, we think that it is important for clinical commissioning groups to be led clinically. That is the point.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. However, that ultimately means that a majority of the people on the board of a clinical commissioning group will potentially be able to take advantage of the commissioning decisions of that group. That is why the corporate governance is so concerning. I accept that my amendment might be regarded as rather lengthy. However, I am pushing this forward because I am trying to replace the lack of effective corporate governance.

The noble Earl says that sanctions will be contained in guidance, but I do not think that that is sufficient. The potential for conflicts of interest are so great and the amount of public money involved so considerable that we should have in the Bill a clear commitment to sanctions. I do not agree with the noble Earl that this is something that can be left to professional bodies. My noble friend Lord Warner was absolutely right to mention that case. It shows some of the risks of what essentially was, in that person’s case, a managerial issue being pursued by a regulatory body. I do not think that that is the right way of dealing with GPs who, it was alleged, had pursued actions in breach of whatever guidance was issued.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord should not forget what I said about Monitor’s powers to look at improper conduct at the CCG level.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure that Monitor will play an extremely useful role, but surely it would be much better to give further and clear guarantees that these matters will be dealt with effectively. I believe that we need more provision in the Bill specifically on sanctions. I should like to test the opinion of the House.

16:56

Division 1

Ayes: 186

---

Labour: 149
Crossbench: 23
Independent: 4
Bishops: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 259

---

Conservative: 139
Liberal Democrat: 63
Crossbench: 49
Ulster Unionist Party: 2

17:08

Amendment 38C

Moved by

[Lord Warner]

38C: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—
“Integration of services
(1) In discharging any duties under this Act, or any related regulations or guidance, “integration” means the integration of health and social care commissioning, assessment, service provision or payment arrangements with the primary purpose of improving the delivery of integrated care and treatment to individual patients or service users or groups of such individuals.
(2) Annual reports produced in accordance with this Act by the National Commissioning Board; and a clinical commissioning group shall report progress made by that body on improving the delivery of integrated care and treatment in accordance with this definition.
(3) The National Commissioning Board’s annual business plan must explain how it proposes to improve integration of services in accordance with this definition.
(4) In developing tariffs, both the National Commissioning Board and Monitor shall have regard to improving integrated care and treatment in accordance with this definition.”

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 143.

[A noble Lord]

Not before time.

[Lord Warner]

Better late than never, my Lords. This brings us back to the issue of integration that we discussed in Committee. Since those discussions, which themselves followed the report of the Future Forum, we have had two important and relevant reports from the Commons Health Select Committee, one on public expenditure and one on social care. There was also a robust report in January by the King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust for the Department of Health and the Future Forum on the case for moving forward with greater pace on integrated care. It is clear to me and my fellow signatories to these amendments that it would be a mistake not to use this Bill to provide some stronger requirements and make it more likely that integration of services to benefit patients will actually happen. None of us believes that legislation on its own will deliver integration, but providing a stronger legislative framework is more likely to make it happen. That is the purpose of these amendments.

Let me remind the House what the three reports that I have mentioned actually said. The King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust said that the Department of Health and the NHS Commissioning Board should,

“develop a consistent and compelling narrative that puts well-co-ordinated care for people with complex needs at the heart of what is required of local NHS and social care organisations”.

The report went on to say that they should set,

“a clear, ambitious and measurable goal linked to the individual’s experiences of integrated care that must be delivered by a defined date”.

In its January report on public expenditure, the all-party Health Select Committee, with a Conservative chair, said on page 32, at paragraph 13, that it,

“found precious little evidence of the urgency which it believes this issue”—

that is, integration—

“demands—on both quality and efficiency grounds”.

The committee called on,

“the Government and local authorities to set out how they intend to translate this aspiration for greater service integration into the reality of patient experience”.

In its further report on 6 February on social care, the Health Select Committee made clear that the key to joined-up services is joint commissioning. It recommended that the Government should place a duty on clinical commissioning groups and local councils to create a single commissioning process. Its main focus is on integrating services for older people, but much of what it says applies to a wider group of people. It also draws attention to the difficulty of defining the boundary between the NHS and local authority services.

This is the context in which I believe that we need to strengthen this Bill while it is still before us. It would be a missed opportunity not to do so. We must tackle this issue of the definition of integration, but make sure that it is not limited to particular groups of patients and service users, and that it is not simply restricted to those who straddle the NHS and social care boundary. Those depending solely on NHS services need improved integration, as I have discovered from some of my family episodes and circumstances. We also need not just integration of commissioning, important though that is and on which I fully support the Select Committee’s recommendation. Organisational integration is not sufficient, as history has shown us. The definition of integration has to make clear that the primary purpose of the organisational and process changes for integration is to bring benefit to patients and service users through the delivery of integrated care and treatment. As the Oxford English Dictionary makes clear, “integration” is:

“The making up or composition of the whole by adding together or combining the separate parts or elements”.

If we are to progress service integration for individuals, we need to put a clear definition of integration and its purpose in this Bill. That is what proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 38C does, in a way that supports the conclusions of the Health Select Committee. The three other subsections ensure that there is no escape for any of the actors in this drama from taking seriously the issue of service integration. Subsection (2) requires that annual reports provided by the Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups, under the terms of this Bill, should report progress on improving the delivery of integrated care and treatment in accordance with the definition in proposed new subsection (1). The NHS Commissioning Board is required by the Bill to produce an annual business plan. Proposed new subsection (3) requires that plan to explain how the board,

“proposes to improve integration of services in accordance with”,

the definition in proposed new subsection (1).

17:15

Proposed new subsection (4) requires the Commissioning Board and Monitor to have regard to integration of services in the setting of tariffs, which should encourage tariffs that move away from hospital episodes of care to ones that support integrated pathways of care over periods of time.

I turn briefly to Amendment 143, which completes the picture by requiring the Secretary of State’s annual report to cover not only the performance of the NHS but its integrated working with adult social care.

I do not claim that these amendments will, on their own, deliver the integrated care that we all want to see, and which the three reports that I have mentioned and the Future Forum are trying to drive. However, they strongly support that drive and put the Bill in a better shape to make greater integration of services more likely. I hope the Minister will see them as a constructive way forward that supports the Government’s policy and that he will be able to accept them. If he wants to go further and produce his own amendments to support the Select Committee’s recommendations on joint commissioning by placing duties on clinical commissioning groups and local councils, I for one would be glad to give him my full support. I suspect that many people across the Benches in this House would follow that. I beg to move.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 38C and 143 and support them very strongly. They cover the issues that we raised in Committee and which need to be addressed.

The Government’s intention in the Bill is clearly stated: they want to see better quality of care and outcomes, particularly for patients with long-term conditions. I spoke at length about this in Committee and will not repeat myself. However, in brief, a patient who suffers from a long-term condition will get better care and outcomes only if that care is individualised and integrated from primary care, through acute care to community care. If we are to do this, we need some guidance in the Bill itself as to who will be responsible, how it will be done, who will give the guidance and how it will be monitored. I do not mean by Monitor, but how whether it is happening will be monitored. It is for this reason, if no other, that I strongly support these amendments. I agree with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about hoping that the Minister will be able to accept these amendments or the principles behind them; and, if he cannot accept them, that the Government support them by tabling their own amendments at a later stage.

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

My Lords, I, too, will speak strongly in support of these amendments, to which I have added my name. In spite of my major misgivings about the content of the Bill when it was originally published, I remember being delighted by its title because it had “social care” up there with “health”. Did this mean, I thought to myself, that at long last health and social care were to be given equal status? At long last, was there to be a proper recognition that the patient experience of being ill, disabled or in need of care is an integrated one? The Bill was supposed to be about making the patient experience better—less confusing, and more effective and efficient from the point of view of the patient—so I was hopeful.

In more than 40 years of working at the margins of health and social care, I have seen two experiences constantly repeated. The first is of patients always being surprised, distressed and horrified by the lack of integration between health and social care. Since they cannot put their own needs into two separate boxes, they are surprised that the services seem to be provided in separate boxes. They are further distressed by having constantly to give their details and history to different people, having to undergo unnecessary repeat tests and yet still being left alone or reliant on their families to negotiate between the NHS, social care agencies and local authorities, not to mention voluntary and private sector providers.

The second experience which has been constant in my life is the seeming commitment of all those who work in the system to how important integration is to the delivery of proper patient-centred care. Indeed has anyone in your Lordships’ House or anywhere else ever heard any professional say that there are benefits to care which is not integrated? Yet that is what we continue to deliver and there seems little hope of the Bill in its current form rectifying and ensuring a joined-up approach. Indeed, I fear for the practice manager or the social worker who has to interpret the new diagrams of the system to an elderly and confused patient or client.

My noble friend quoted the Health Select Committee, which said:

“Although the Government has ‘signed up’ to the idea of integration, little action has taken place to date. The Committee does not believe the proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill will simplify the process”.

The committee further said that the reforms in the Bill were built on the hope that GPs, hospitals and local authorities will respond to payments for working together. These amendments are about more than hoping for the best. They make practical proposals, first, about defining integration which, as the Law Commission found, is not easy. It will surely not be difficult to agree, as the Law Commission did, around contributing to or promoting the well-being of the individual. That would cover not only health and social care but housing too. That separation, as your Lordships are well aware, has always been a problem.

The proposals about annual reporting and business planning to check progress are also very practical and taking into account the levels of integration in setting tariffs is also very important. It is of the utmost importance that we take the opportunity given by the Bill to move the reality of integration forward in a way which will make a radical difference. The benefits to the patient, the client and the carer are obvious but there are benefits to the community and society which are similarly significant, since integration clearly delivers more effective and efficient care. There is lots of research evidence about this. For example, Turning Point identified that for every £1 spent on integrating health, housing and social care, £2.65 was saved. This is not only better for patients but provides better value for money. What is not to like in these amendments? I hope the Government will accept them.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, it would be very courageous for anyone in your Lordships’ House to argue that there was no benefit to the patient in trying to have as integrated a service as possible. I am not that courageous. It is a good place to start. Having said that, I do not believe that these amendments are the answer or that they move forward the argument for integration. I searched through these proposed new clauses and I find no mention of any legal responsibility on the local authority, the social care agencies or anyone else. They are entirely directed to health bodies. That imbalance struck me as being a pretty poor starting point if you are genuinely interested in trying to produce integrated services.

Your Lordships will know that, even before the introduction of the Bill, there were various attempts to integrate services in various parts of the country. I happen to be a reasonably well-informed individual in respect of one of those attempts. It is one thing to say to the PCT, the cluster, or whatever is the latest development in that area that it has responsibilities to integrate with the local authority, just as it will be a different thing to say that a local commissioning group has to integrate with the local authority if some attempt is being made legally to define the role of the health component but there is no commensurate attempt to deal with the legal framework with regard to the providers of social care. I know of one example of attempted integration in this country that is foundering because the health component is seeking to shift its deficit on to the local authority. Sometimes the quality of those who serve in one is so different from the quality of those who serve in the other that no right-minded person who was dealing with his or her own money would invest in a partnership that was as skewed as those that exist up and down the country.

I started where I did because I do not wish to be interpreted as being against useful, appropriate and constructive forms of integrated provision. I have taken a view throughout the Bill that it ought to be for the benefit of the patient. It would be courageous to suggest that some appropriate form of integration would not be of benefit to the patient. However, these skewed and flawed amendments are not helpful and certainly do not beat a path to the future for the benefit of patients.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 38C and to disagree violently with the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. I think that the importance of integration applies not just between health and social care but also within health services. We have to start somewhere, and the Bill before us gives us the opportunity—now, today—to start with the important new bodies that will come into existence on the health service side of the partnership. It is fundamental and vital that they are properly tasked with responsibility for integration. Let me explain why.

I hope that many noble Lords listened last week to the interesting and powerful “File on 4” programme on the dreadful condition, in terms of lack of integration, of our diabetes services. Diabetes is a long-term condition and those who have it require each year that about 15 essential and different services are clustered around them in an integrated way; otherwise they run a high risk of suffering premature death or horrific and expensive complications. I emphasise the word expensive because those complications can include kidney failure, blindness and amputation, which are hugely expensive for the National Health Service to treat and could, at the current rate of increase in diabetes, financially wreck the NHS. I hope that at least some noble Lords heard that programme because it demonstrated that integration between health and social care and within healthcare is vital for long-term conditions—not just for diabetes but for other long-term conditions as well.

This is a disputed figure, but it is thought that long-term conditions now take up somewhere between 60 and 70 per cent of the NHS budget. If the Bill is about the future provision of healthcare in this country and how healthcare needs to be joined up internally and with social care, it will have to address that 60 or 70 per cent of NHS expenditure that relates to long-term conditions. Therefore, it is pretty important that the new institutions of the NHS Commissioning Board, the clinical commissioning groups and Monitor are clearly now tasked—while we have the opportunity to influence them—with incorporating integration into their annual plans and with reporting annually on how they have got on with fulfilling this obligation and important duty. I do not think it is too much to ask; I think it is pretty important. I hope the Minister will agree.

Monitor will also have a crucial role in the development of tariffs. At the moment we have tariffs which, unless properly constructed, get in the way of integration: they form a barrier to putting together sensible packages of services. In a competitive environment, that will be even more so. It is fundamental that tariffs are constructed in a way that supports the important integration—and I am not going to apologise for repeating this—which if not delivered results in premature deaths and horrific complications. I hope that the Minister will take this point and support the amendment.

17:30

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I want to focus particularly on integration in terms of what is provided by an acute hospital, compared with what is provided in the community. The noble Earl will know how many times I have spoken about how important and welcome it is that—as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said—the Bill includes social care and the patient pathway. However, the patient pathway does not and will not happen for the very reasons that this amendment identifies. It does not happen because of the integration described in the patient pathway, all parts of which patients are attached to, and all parts of which the providers of care try to work to. It will not happen unless the commissioners ensure two things. First, the tariff must make it happen. A tariff must be developed which says that this should be done somewhere else and we must say what the tariff measurement will be. Secondly, they must account for it. We know that while very often commissioners—certainly in the clusters that I am involved with in north-central London—try hard to prevent patients from going to hospital and to prevent repeat visits to hospital, in reality it does not work.

I am very supportive of this part of this Bill, and very keen on the integrated elements, not just with the local authorities—as has been said—but also within the health provision itself, because it is not happening now. These amendments address just that. Can we please hear from the Minister that he understands that the only way for people to be treated nearer to home is by addressing what the tariff is and how we measure it, as well as through accountability of both of the Commissioning Board and Monitor to ensure that this happens? Even in well intentioned trusts, it does not happen because there is nothing in place to make it happen.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, I support the amendment for three reasons. First, were it to be implemented, the effectiveness of the care provided would be magnified and significantly improved for every individual involved. Secondly, there would be better value for money. Whether we like it or not, the two professions fight with each other over budget: that is the reality. Unless they are pushed towards talking to each other seriously—which this amendment does—that will continue, and we will have the consequence of expensive hospital care militating against the provision of adequate home care. Thirdly, human beings are individuals. Over time especially, they have a number of ailments that need to be seen together, and they need to be treated as individuals. An individual does not break up into bits, going to one institution for part of his or her care and to a second institution for another part. There is a real difficulty here. Previous research shows very clearly that trying to put a dividing line between health and social care does not work.

We hear statements implying that it is going to be really quite difficult. This is not rocket science. It must be based on two professions coming together. This is being done in Scotland at the moment, and they have found ways to move ahead. I understand that there are pilots going on in England at the moment sponsored by the department, and I look forward with great interest to seeing what comes out of these. However, there is a lacuna in the Bill regarding how health and social care integrate. As long as this is so, the amendment would push things forward significantly.

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, we have heard that integrated care means different things to different people. As far these amendments are concerned—including the one to which my name is attached—the focus is on the integration of hospital care, NHS care and social care. Almost since its inception, the biggest problem for the NHS has been the division between health and social services; the division between funding—which of course drives everything—and management.

Acute services have always been the focus of most NHS funding. One might expect me to say, as a former acute care physician, that that is entirely appropriate. However, it has always been clear that this division, with different funding streams, has led to dreadful miscommunication between two sets of staff working under quite different systems, who fail to talk to each other in anything like a timely manner.

The end result is well rehearsed. Patients who would have been much better cared for at home—or in a nursing home if one were available and if someone could have made a proper assessment—finish up in an acute hospital which is poorly designed to provide the sort of care that they really need. On the other side, patients—usually elderly—are admitted to hospital for entirely appropriate reasons, but linger there well after their acute need has been sorted out. Clearly, if we had common funding of health and social services, we could see people employed across this divide. That is what we need: people with a foot in both camps. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, that it takes two to tango—it takes both the heath service and local authorities, and they do not tango terribly well. While we do not have common funding, however, at least we can work towards it. Here we have an opportunity to emphasise the duty that should be placed on the NHS, for one, to ensure integration at this level. This is of such importance for patients that we should emphasise it at the least in this relatively minor way here.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I support—with some trepidation—what my noble friend Lord Mawhinney has said, and I pick up the point about it taking two to tango. I yield to nobody in my support for integrated services. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Young—a person with whom I go back a long way—said about diabetes, and I do not disagree with it. I do not disagree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley—with whom I go back even further I think—said, presumably arising from her experience as part of Age Concern. The question is whether this amendment does it, or whether in fact it contains things which will make it more difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, it takes two to tango. As I read it, every responsibility here is laid on health service bodies, not local authority or social service bodies. If we are to go down this sort of path, we need to lay equal obligations on both.

However, the issue goes beyond that. It should be recognised that one of the most difficult or most needy areas in this field is mental health, which I know something about even though I no longer have a direct interest. With mental health there is a need for co-operation not just between the various statutory authorities—indeed, many mental health trusts are partnership trusts with the local social services department and have made significant progress, as was true of the one with which I was involved until January—but with voluntary organisations. Where are they covered in all this? I had a difficult case in a mental health trust that I chaired 10 or 15 years ago. Nobody in any statutory service, whether local authority or health, had known that the patient in question was undergoing anger management courses paid for privately, and that caused problems. Last weekend, I was talking to someone in Braintree who is interested in the Rethink Mental Illness charity and is trying to build up the local Rethink art therapy classes, for which he thinks he has acquired a building. That, too, ought to be integrated with the services provided by the mainstream.

I do not believe that this amendment, however valuable it is and however worthy its objective, will achieve that objective without a great deal more sophistication. Personally I would rather leave it to the Minister and his department to issue guidance and apply pressure in rather different ways to produce the integration that we all want. At any rate, I look forward to what the Minister has to say. He may draw more encouragement than usual from some of my remarks and I might even vote with him if it comes to that.

[Lord Warner]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him and his noble friend behind him whether they have seen Amendment 161A, which would introduce a new clause on standards of adult social care.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that we are at Report stage. According to my note, only the mover of an amendment or the Lord in charge of the Bill can interrupt with short questions.

[Lord Warner]

I am the mover of the amendment and I was interrupting with a short question to the noble Lords, who seem to be unaware of a part of the Bill which addresses their concern. Before I was interrupted, I was going to ask them whether they had seen Amendment 161A, which says that the duty would enable the Secretary of State to address the issue of reducing,

“barriers to the delivery of integrated health and adult social care”,

and give him powers to produce regulations to deal with that. Therefore, we will be coming to an amendment which, if agreed, will enable their concerns to be addressed.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord from a sedentary position. I was aware of that but, to be honest, I think that we need a coherent single approach.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords, this debate has been very interesting. I agree with the last comment of the noble Lord, Lord Newton: we need an integrated approach. I support the amendment but I do so with deep frustration. The truth is that the Bill is inadequate and contradictory, and it starts from the wrong place. What everybody wants from the Bill is an answer to the question, “How do we reform the National Health Service now to deal with the starkest view that is facing us in terms of increased numbers of people with long-term conditions?”. The past success of the health service is now keeping many more people alive and many of them will have long-term conditions for much longer. That is the single thing with which the National Health Service is going to have to deal with much more skill and integration than ever before, but the Bill makes it very difficult to do that. The noble Lords, Lord Mawhinney and Lord Newton, have made that point for us, so I shall not go on with it. We need a Bill which understands where the National Health Service needs to go and what we need to do to reform our services so that patients get the very best outcome in the most cost-effective way, given what is and will be going on in our economy for a long time to come. However, this chaotic Bill will not do that.

17:45

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I shall not repeat the many arguments that have been eloquently put this afternoon but it is just worth reflecting, as several noble Lords have already done, that integration is not new. Pooled budgets are not new. Torbay has tried to look at integration as a whole-system approach. My noble friend Lord Newton spoke about mental health integration, which occurs for some conditions in some areas. Therefore, integration is not new. The evidence that it is hugely beneficial is legion. That fact is evidence-based. Not only is integrated working better for people but it makes them better quicker and more effectively. However, integration is not universal. When I read through the Bill, I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, was delighted to see that there was a duty on both the board and clinical commissioning groups to promote integration. That is good news but in a sense we are trying to use legislation to change culture. That is what it is all about. We have spoken about cultural change, and we have to put together two organisations that are not well used to working together. They jolly well should be but they are not. Therefore, we welcome what is in the Bill, although clearly more needs to be done.

I am quite surprised that the areas highlighted in the amendment would not form part of a regular reporting system, which is what is being called for. We would expect the board to take a lead on the mandate and the business plan. I should have thought that the board, the clinical commissioning groups and the Secretary of State would be expected to report on the status and progress of integration across the whole system. I should be very interested to hear from the Minister how this is expected to happen. Will he indicate how the reporting would function on an annual basis and whether the mandate and annual plan would be used in the way suggested in the amendment?

[Lord Owen]

My Lords, I rise to speak because I am a little troubled. It looks as though the Minister will object to this amendment. Of course, we are speaking in advance of knowing what he is going to do but I should like to give two or three reasons why I very much hope that he accepts the amendment.

First, using the term “social care” in the Bill means that expectations will rise. Those expectations have not been fulfilled and, to be honest, they could not have been. Nevertheless, it was a good idea to try to point to the fact that this was about more than NHS care or healthcare. We all know—it has been said many times in our debates—that there is no way that we can look at the narrow definition of the health service; it has to be broader.

The other powerful argument which I thought the noble Baroness was going to make is that this is a cultural change, and that needs to be re-emphasised at every stage as part of an educative process. Let us take the national Commissioning Board. This is a new body and the person who has been appointed to chair it is an academic lawyer—a person of great distinction. I am not objecting to the fact that it may be somebody with not very long experience of the health service. Nevertheless, a lot of hopes are vested in that Commissioning Board and to draw attention to it in a more declaratory way in this Bill is very important. It needs to know and see in clear terms in the Bill that this is part of its remit. I take great notice of what has been said about the reluctance of local authorities to respond to this. Were we having a debate involving local authority services, I would raise that, too. For a very long time I have believed that in the 1948 Act a great mistake was made in not pooling together local authority health services and welfare and social services in a comprehensive package. As everybody knows, there was a very deep debate inside the then Labour Government between Herbert Morrison and Aneurin Bevan.

There is also another debate about decentralisation and centralisation. That has been with us all these years. In the very early 1960s I wrote a book about a unified health service. When I was a Minister, there was a great deal of animosity within the medical profession at the thought of working closely with local authorities. It is amazing how that has changed. There is now a readiness in the medical profession in particular—nurses have always done it—to work across these things. I shall make no more points, but I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. With all the reservations that have been put down, nobody should believe that this legislation will have a very big impact on social care anyhow, but pointing it in the right direction at this moment would be helpful.

[Baroness Hollins]

The amendments have particular relevance to mental health and learning disability services. In speaking in this debate, I declare an interest as a past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I shall focus my comments on commissioning integrated care.

I remember that in the early 1980s, when I was newly a consultant, we had jointly commissioned services. They worked effectively and provided a very accessible way of developing integrated services. I shall talk briefly about the work that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has already done to support integrated commissioning since the Bill was first mooted. The joint commissioning panel on mental health was launched in April 2011. It is led by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of General Practitioners. It is a collaboration of 15 other leading organisations, service users and carers with an interest in mental health, learning disabilities and well-being across health and social care. It draws on expertise from across the statutory, voluntary and private sectors.

It has already produced guides on primary mental health care and liaison mental health services, which is relevant to the comments of my noble friend Lady Young about integrated care for people with diabetes. My interest here is integrating mental health care into the diabetes pathway. The panel is working on both commissioning guidance: on what is needed; and on practical commissioning tools—how to do it. The practical how-to-do-it tools have been developed with strategic health authorities, thus providing important support to the emerging and new NHS structures. They will be ready in 2013.

The joint commissioning panel on mental health is an example of an existing strong and practical partnership, which brings together the whole mental health sector with government to develop and implement integrated high-quality care and interventions. Incidentally, it is hard to understand why professional organisations leading this work were excluded from the Prime Minister’s recent summit on implementation, given this real focus on that issue. Mental health can so easily be forgotten along with other complex services when physicians, surgeons and politicians are debating health rather than mental and physical health. I am interested to know the Minister’s views on whether this cultural change needs to be in legislation. Some of the experience gained in jointly commissioning mental health services provides very good learning for services traditionally seen as providing stand-alone health episodes—good learning that could be used to develop integrated services in other areas of healthcare.

[The Earl of Listowel]

In rising briefly in support of the amendments, I pay tribute to the Government for their contribution in this area already. This is a personal view, but in my experience the best professionals will find a way through against all odds and against the system to work together in partnership to improve outcomes. What the Government have been doing with the social work workforce in terms of raising the threshold of entry to social work, the additional support for newly qualified social workers and the review by Professor Eileen Munro on child and family social workers is a welcome part to this. I hear again and again from people on the front line that an obstacle to integration is continual structural change. When disciplines have stability and can grow together they can learn to work in partnership effectively. Finally, I welcome the building of capacity in the social work workforce, which will assist with the question of better integrated working.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly, not having spoken earlier. In answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Walton, earlier in the day, the Minister talked about his great belief in the integration of services. Indeed, he talked about health and social care services in relation to people with neurological diseases. I have no doubt that the Minister and, I am sure, the Government have a great belief in integration. The problem is that it is in the “too difficult” box. Whenever we hear discussions about how we will make a start on the problem, there are real questions about how, about when, about the costs, about which particular authority, and so on. We had a demonstration earlier of the way in which different parts of the organisation—the health service and the local authority—can be set against each other in terms of the working together that they need to do.

I declare an interest as I am involved in a number of charities that have a health focus—a large number of very good partnerships of health and social care working together. I shall describe one briefly simply because I think it is helpful to have an example. It is a brain injury unit in Suffolk where the health services and a voluntary organisation with social care work in a pioneering way to ensure that people can return to the community instead of being hospitalised or unable to communicate with their families in any way. That kind of work is going on and I know that there are other pilots up and down the country looking at how financial services can be brought together.

I come back to a point that I was making at the beginning, which is that the too-difficult box means that there is a need to find a place to start. I do not know whether the Minister believes that this amendment, with Amendment 161A—it is important to look at them together as they give a balance of health and social care—sees them as the way of making a start. If not, I ask him the very pointed question: when will the Government start? Why is this called the Health and Social Care Bill because, as was said previously, expectations were raised enormously in those who receive social care services? In what way will the Government take the whole plan forward? I know that they have promised a Green Paper, a White Paper and to take things forward, but if we do not have a clear picture, the amendment itself will not help. It alone cannot bring about what people have been discussing, which is the culture change.

Those of us who have been involved in these services for 50 years and more—many who have already spoken can, unfortunately, claim that—have lived with these differences. They have had a profound effect on people’s lives, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said. We have experienced them personally because we have had families going through the services, and we have seen them professionally with patient clients. The other thing I rather worry about is the medicalisation of everybody in this because people who want social care do not necessarily want medicalised social care; they want medical care when they need it.

I am really asking the Minister, so I can think about whether I support these amendments: what is the alternative to ensure absolutely that the Government move forward in a proper programme that brings integration in health and social care to the benefit of every individual patient who needs that sort of care?

18:00

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I would like to ask the movers of the amendment a question just for my own concern. Health is free at the point of delivery so there should be no problem with integration between primary and secondary care. However, this is not the case in social care as there is means testing. How does this affect integration?

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I am not going to attempt to answer the noble Baroness’s question. I shall leave that for my noble friend Lord Warner or the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friends Lord Warner, Lady Pitkeathley and Lord Turnberg made a very good job of introducing these amendments, stressing the importance of joint commissioning, the work of the Health Select Committee in the Commons and its recommendations, and indeed the vital nature of tariff reform. This is a modest but very important amendment that strengthens the Bill.

Every time we meet on Report on this Bill we are in a different world. The world we are in today is not the same one we were in 10 days ago. As we speak, the Royal College of Physicians has decided by a majority of 80 per cent to ballot its members about how they feel about the Health and Social Care Bill. By my counting that leaves only two royal colleges which have not consulted their membership so far. We all know what the results of the consultations have been, but still we plough on with this Bill.

The remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Mawhinney and Lord Newton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, together underline the defects of this Bill. Why are we having a debate about integration at this point in the passage of this Bill? It occurred to me that perhaps those debates should have been had before we had the Bill. However, because you cannot achieve everything does not mean that you should not try to achieve something. That is what these amendments do and that is why we on these Benches are very keen to support them. It seems to me that through all the many definitions of integration that we have discussed in this House, the one that is going to have the most effect on budget and finance is in these amendments here before us today. I hope the Minister will accept these amendments because they will improve this Bill.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, integration has been a consistent theme throughout our debates on the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Warner has made a number of highly informed speeches on this topic, as indeed have many in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, made a powerful case for taking action for further integration. There is no disagreement between us on this. It is why the Government have already taken a number of steps to do precisely what he is asking and I name a selection only. We have put duties on commissioners to promote integration. We are creating health and well-being boards, bringing together health and social care commissioners and their representatives—one of the main manifestations of joined-up thinking in this Bill. We are strengthening the duties in relation to pooled budgets. We are placing specific duties on Monitor to support integration and tabling an amendment prior to Report giving Monitor express power to do that. We are working with the Future Forum, the King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust in a whole range of non-legislative measures. This is not as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, put it, something the Government have put into the “too difficult” box. We are determined that we need to tackle this. I hope no one in your Lordships’ House is left in any doubt about our commitment in this area.

There are numerous examples of the non-legislative things we are already doing. We agreed with the Future Forum’s recommendations that the board should produce commissioning guidance for CCGs that focuses on how to meet the needs of different groups of people who may have multiple problems such as the frail elderly. By April 2012 the department will put in place new metrics that bring together existing data on patients’ experiences at the interface between services. We are working with the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement to identify and spread examples of good practice in local measurement and improvement of pathways of care. Through the NHS operating framework for 2012-13 we are asking all PCTs to work with their local authority partners to look at how integration can be better achieved. I have a whole string of other examples.

As I have said, the commitment of the Government in this area should not be doubted. I was very pleased to see the King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust in their report to the Future Forum recognising that,

“integrated care lies at the heart of”

this Bill,

“to put patients first, improve health outcomes and empower health professionals”.

That is exactly right. While there is clearly work to be done to make this a reality, the Bill will, for the first time, create duties for NHS bodies to promote and encourage the commissioning and provision of integrated services. It is a difficult concept to define. While the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is to be congratulated on the attempt he has made in his amendment, my fear is that the amendment will not actually take us very far. The precise term “integration” is used only in headings in the Bill and the concept of integration is applied in a number of different contexts so a fixed definition of this kind may not be appropriate in every case. It may be too narrow in some cases—some noble Lords have alluded to that point. It is also a somewhat circular definition, referring as it does to integration meaning the delivery of integrated care. That serves to illustrate the real difficulties with this approach.

I am not convinced that it is necessary to try to describe what integration means. Integration is a broad concept. It could encompass a range of measures. As the recent King’s Fund and Nuffield Trust report noted,

“integrated care means different things to different people. At its heart, it can be defined as an approach that seeks to improve the quality of care for individual patients, service users and carers by ensuring that services are well co-ordinated around their needs”.

Yes that is right and the duty on the board in new Section 13M is absolutely consistent with that approach.

We were very grateful to the Future Forum for its recent work on integrated care. We welcome its recommendation that the entire health and social care system should share a clear and common understanding of the value of integration as a means of putting patients at the centre of their care. However, it was also clear that rather than being an end in itself, integration is,

“a means to achieving better outcomes for people”.

That is surely right. There must be the scope for integration to be adaptable to the needs of local communities and individual patients. The noble Lord’s definition holds,

“improving the delivery of integrated care and treatment to individual patients”

as the objective in itself when improving outcomes and reducing inequalities should be the ultimate objectives.

Very recently, I was advised of a paper produced by the World Health Organization in 2008, Integrated Health Services - What and Why? It starts off by stating that integrated health services mean different things to different people. It lists a whole variety of interpretations of what integrated healthcare means and says that it is in essence very difficult to boil these things down to a definition that is going to please everybody. It also casts doubt—I do not want to make too much of it—on the empirical base for claiming that integration is the answer in every set of circumstances. In making that point, I do not want to imply that the Government are anything other than fully committed to integration, because we certainly are, but the paper’s conclusion is:

“‘Integration’ is used by different people to mean different things. Combined with the fact that this is an issue which arouses strong feelings, there is clearly much scope for misunderstanding and fruitless polarization”.

For the World Health Organization to come to that conclusion tells a story. In drafting the various duties and powers in relation to integration, we have consciously avoided a fixed definition to allow for a measure of flexibility and innovative thinking. We have focused on the purpose—the “why” rather than the “how”.

I recently met front-line staff when I visited the NHS on the Isle of Wight to look at how they were delivering an efficient, integrated, urgent care service. I made a point of asking them whether they thought that a definition of integration in the Bill would be helpful. I received a resounding no in response. They felt that something like that would stifle their ability to apply fresh thinking and to come up with inventive solutions of their own as to how best to provide integrated care. We are clear that we should not put clinicians, who know the needs of their patients best, in a straitjacket by defining integration in the Bill.

Clearly, it will be important that the board and CCGs are held to account for delivering against these duties. They are already required to set out in their annual reports how they have exercised their functions, including how they have met the various duties placed on them.

Amendment 38C also makes particular reference to the board and Monitor developing tariffs that will support integration. On that point, I reassure the noble Lord that the duties on the board and Monitor to promote integration would apply in relation to their functions in relation to the tariff. The clauses on the tariff allow a high degree of flexibility for the board to adopt different approaches to tariffs, including “bundles” of services or pathways, and we are committed to extending these. They also allow scope for local flexibility in how the rules are applied where necessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Wall, provided considerable insight into what is needed here. Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave an example of a pathway tariff.

In 2012-13, we are introducing a “year of care” tariff for funding cystic fibrosis services, developed with the support of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. This includes all the care for cystic fibrosis patients for a whole year. The price is broken down into different “bands”, depending on the complexity of the patient. The tariff will cover the care undertaken by specialist centres and local hospitals, but it will be paid only to the specialist centre thereby promoting better joint working between specialist centres and local hospitals. We are confident that the board, with support from Monitor, will continue to develop and increase the scope of bundled service tariffs where it is clear that tariff design of that kind is appropriate and will deliver benefits to the patient.

18:15

Under the proposed system, Monitor and the board will have to agree elements of the tariff with each other at all stages. The methodology would be subject to consultation and capable of independent review to ensure transparency and fairness. In addition, under Clause 119, the board and Monitor are specifically required, in developing standard specifications of services for the purposes of the national tariff, to have regard to whether this could have an adverse impact on the provision of services.

I hope that that provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that the emphasis on integration is there, but that he will accept that trying to pin down in words what it should look like may be counterproductive. This is not an argument about the Government’s commitment to integration or what we are doing on the ground to achieve it; it is an argument about a specific mechanism designed to achieve it. I think that it is a mechanism that is ill-advised. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Winston]

I have a short question for the Minister because I feel that it is an important issue. Perhaps I may very briefly tell him about something that I learnt of last week. A friend of mine went to a very famous ENT hospital after a month with a fractured nose—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, the Minister has sat down, so it is for the mover of the amendment to respond.

[Lord Winston]

I am sure that the Minister will want to answer my question because it is not aggressive or political; it is really to find out how this Bill will work. When somebody goes to casualty after a month with a broken nose and complains, “Look, my main problem is the pain in my sinuses which I have had for a long time”, and is told by the doctor when they had already waited six hours, “I’m afraid the sinuses are a different department. You’ll have to make another appointment”, that is a problem with integration. How does the Minister think we might accomplish better integration with this Bill?

[Earl Howe]

It is a very interesting question from the noble Lord. When I visited Oldham a few weeks ago, I saw for myself how they were getting around that problem in the context of musculoskeletal services. Instead of patients being shunted from pillar to post, they had a system whereby the patient could move seamlessly and immediately from one specialist to another. They did not have to be referred; they could ring up the centre and ask to see a particular person. That is the kind of integrated model that we need to see rolled out more generally in other services. I recognise the issue that the noble Lord raises, but it is one that we are seeing inventive solutions arising to address. I hope that the work being done will do that.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, there have been some extremely powerful speeches of support for this amendment for which I am extremely grateful. I am grateful in particular to my co-signatories and I noted the powerful speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Sutherland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. They have made the case for an amendment of this kind to the Bill.

I was disappointed by the Minister’s response. That was not just because I got only a B- for my definition—I expected to have my homework marked by officials in the Department of Health and was not expecting to get a high score—but because I think that the definition meets the needs that we have. I find it very difficult to see how the Minister can stand up and say, “Well, we’re going hold people to account; we’re going to monitor their performance”, if we do not have a definition against which we are going to monitor their performance.

The definition proposed by the amendment moves us away from a preoccupation with integration as organisation and process change to delivery of services to the individual. I do not see how the Minister can say, “We’re concerned about outcomes for individuals”, if we do not integrate delivery. You are highly unlikely, I would say as a jobbing ex-public sector manager, to get good outcomes if you have not orchestrated the delivery of the services to the individual that meets their needs.

[Earl Howe]

I would not want the noble Lord to believe that I was dismissive of the point that he has just made. I recognise that it is important that we somehow give the meaning of integration a clearer explanation, whether that is through the guidance issued by the board or, indeed, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. I am just wary of putting something in the Bill. That is all.

[Lord Warner]

I guess I am more of a risk taker than the noble Earl and I believe that we could put a definition of this kind in the Bill. It would cause no confusion—indeed, it would remove it—in the minds of many people working day in, day out in the NHS. As to those who have asked, “What is the purpose of some of the other changes?”, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, powerfully made the point that we need to give strong signals to these new players in the game. We want them to start off knowing that they will be held to account in their annual reports for monitoring their progress on integration. We want that: it is deliberate. We want them to know that Parliament put that in the Bill for a purpose. I am not satisfied with the Government’s response and I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

18:21

Division 2

Ayes: 206

---

Labour: 158
Crossbench: 36
Independent: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 227

---

Conservative: 137
Liberal Democrat: 68
Crossbench: 17
Bishops: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

18:33

Clause 20 : Functions of Special Health Authorities

Amendments 39 and 40

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

39: Clause 20, page 15, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) Subsection (1) does not apply to any function of the Secretary of State of making an order or regulations.”

40: Clause 20, page 15, line 22, at end insert—
“(6) In section 273 of that Act (further provision about orders and directions), in subsection (4)(b)—
(a) before paragraph (i) insert—“(zi) section 7 about a function of a person other than the Secretary of State,” and(b) in paragraph (i) after “a function” insert “of the Secretary of State”.”

Amendments 39 and 40 agreed.

Clause 22 : The NHS Commissioning Board: further provision

Amendment 41 not moved.

Amendment 42

Moved by

[Lord Warner]

42: Clause 22, page 16, line 22, after “appropriate” insert—
“( ) the priority and scope for commissioning service redesign and reconfiguration in the light of the best clinical advice available,( ) the priority and scope for transferring resources to adult social services to improve service integration and achieve best value for health services,”

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, so near, yet so far. Amendment 42 is very simple. It requires the Secretary of State to include in his mandate to the national Commissioning Board the requirement to set out two things. First,

“the priority and scope for … service redesign and reconfiguration”,

in the NHS,

“in the light of the best clinical advice available”,

and secondly,

“the priority and scope for transferring resources to adult social services to improve service integration and achieve best value for health services”.

These are two big issues for the NHS and how it meets the Nicholson challenge of £20 billion of savings by 2015 and how it improves service integration. The proposals in this amendment are very much in line with the recommendations of the Health Select Committee in its two recent reports on public expenditure and social care, which were mentioned on the last group of amendments. As the Public Expenditure report said on page 30:

“The Nicholson Challenge can only be achieved through a wide process of service redesign on both a small and large scale”.

It went on to say,

“we are concerned that savings are being made through ‘salami-slicing’ existing processes instead of rethinking and redesigning the way services are delivered”.

Since I put this amendment down, I am pleased to say that the Minister has responded in a most constructive way. On the first part of the amendment, regarding service reconfiguration, he has entered into most constructive discussions on this issue and the related Amendment 217 in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, regarding a pre-failure regime. The Minister has undertaken to have an alternative to that amendment prepared before Third Reading. I would be glad to hear more today on how that work is progressing.

On the second prong of the amendment, the Minister has had prepared an alternative approach for transferring money from the NHS to adult social care by amending Schedule 4. This gives the Secretary of State power to direct the board to make payments for community services, which, I understand, include adult social care. This is Amendment 148B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. It would have been in my name as well if I had not been dallying in India when the noble Earl wanted to discuss it with me. I am very supportive of that amendment on the assumption that, as drafted, it is wide enough to cover adult social care, because that term is not mentioned specifically, and on the assumption that there are no vires issues with the Treasury on the matter of using NHS money for social care. Perhaps the Minister could provide some assurances on this when he responds.

These issues are important for the NHS and for patients in the particular financial and demographic challenges that services face. I am pleased with the Government’s constructive response. In the mean time, in order that we may debate these issues, I beg to move Amendment 42.

[Baroness Murphy]

My Lords, I will interject here with regard to my amendment to Schedule 4, tabled as Amendment 148B in the supplementary hymn sheet. First of all, I thank the Minister very much for the discussions that I had with him and the Bill team last week. As a result, I tabled this amendment. Unfortunately, I omitted to let the Whips’ Office know that it was to be discussed with Amendment 42, otherwise they could have been tabled together.

As I understand it, the important thing about this amendment is that it addresses the issues that we have just spent another hour discussing of how in practice you get money flowing from health to social care, and how you promote integration of services through some practical mechanisms on the ground. Over the last 60 years, there has been too much money held in the NHS—I say this as a health service person—when it should have been better transferred in to social care services to support people with long-term conditions. It has been extremely difficult to get mechanisms that work well. The importance of this is that we do not have to have it repeated in the mandate, which was in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I was very supportive of that, but it is much more flexible to have it as the Secretary of State’s direction. It also covers wider organisations than adult social care, although we expect that to be the main route to which the Secretary of State would wish to ask for moneys to be transferred. My amendment is slightly superior in that respect to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. However, it does not address the most important issue that the noble Lord brought up in the first part of our amendment—that of the reconfiguration of services and how you can prepare and work towards dealing with issues around failing organisations and services. I know that, as the noble Lord said, the Minister has been looking at that issue and may be able to come back to us with some mechanisms for that—but on this one I wish to speak in support of my Amendment 148B, which addresses the Secretary of State’s direction in Schedule 4.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I have added my name under that of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and I would also have supported Amendment 148B under the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, if I had not been in India at the same time—not, I hasten to add, with the noble Lord, Lord Warner.

I merely wish to speak about reconfiguring hospital services. It is quite clear that in the long term demographic changes and the shifting burden of disease require a fundamental shift away from acute care in hospitals to supporting people with long-term conditions in the community. The recent financial pressures and shortages among some parts of the workforce and the need to improve quality and safety mean that changes to hospital services in some parts of the country are already a necessity. The Government have argued that service change should be locally led. In Committee, the Minister stated that,

“we should be cautious about any process that would significantly weaken both local commissioner autonomy and public engagement”.—[Official Report, 13/12/11; col. 1271.]

I agree that clinicians and local communities must be fully engaged in the process of service change. However, local involvement and strategic leadership are not mutually exclusive. For example, the reorganisation of the successful stroke services in London proceeded with strong support from clinicians and the public. It is not clear how strategic reconfigurations of specialist services will be led. Again in Committee, the Minister stressed that the NHS Commissioning Board,

“will be able to support clinical commissioning groups by providing support and advising on the possible effects of larger changes”.—[Official Report, 22/11/11; col. 1046.]

A recently released paper outlining the design of the NHS Commissioning Board confirmed that involvement in large-scale reconfigurations will be one of the functions of the four regional sectors that will be established as part of the board. But I am not too sure whether the NHS Commissioning Board has the necessary capacity or experience to do that. The lack of clear responsibility for driving forward strategic reconfigurations of services is the most significant omission from the Bill. We need a clearer explanation about how these reconfigurations will be taken forward under the new arrangements, otherwise the risk is that the NHS will not be equipped to meet one of the bigger challenges, as is necessary to reconfigure some of the acute services.

18:45

[Lord Rea]

Would the Minister look at the experiment mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, in Torbay, where there has been considerable merging of health budgets and social services? That was locally led, but would it not have helped to spread it further with an amendment such as this in place, so that it could be encouraged from the centre?

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I support these amendments, and I do so because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that there was a grave omission from the Bill that would allow strategic reconfigurations to take place that are not based on failing institutions. It was certainly not clear to us—and I rest on the authority of my noble friend Lord Warner on this—how, with the abolition of the SHAs from April 2013, strategic reconfiguration of specialist services would take place. Ministers have said, “Oh no—it’s all going to be okay”, but they have not explained how you would reconfigure the stroke services in London, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, after the abolition of the strategic health authority. We support the amendments and hope that the Minister will do so as well.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we have had several lively debates on the importance of redesigning services if the NHS is to become more personalised and productive, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, speaks with great insight and passion on this issue. He has tabled further amendments on this topic, which we will have an opportunity to debate in detail at a later stage.

The Government are clear that, as a basic principle, the reconfiguration of services is a matter for the local NHS and that decisions about service change should be driven by local assessment of need. The reconfiguration of services works best when there is a partnership approach between the NHS, local government and the public. What matters is that strategic decisions are taken at the right level. We believe that our reforms will enable commissioners to make the changes that will deliver real improvements in outcomes for patients and the public. The Bill places clear duties on the Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups, which will underpin a locally driven approach to service redesign, clinically based and framed around the needs of patients. That includes duties to promote the NHS constitution and the involvement of patients as well as duties to secure continuous improvement in the quality of services and to reduce inequalities. These duties set important guiding principles against which the commissioning system will develop and oversee service redesign and reconfiguration. In addition, the NHS will continue to assure reconfiguration proposals against the four clear tests set by the Secretary of State, which are that proposals should have support from clinical commissioners; should be based on robust patient and public engagement; should be underpinned by a clear evidence base; and should be consistent with current and prospective plans for patient choice. The Bill and the four tests will ensure that any proposals for service change are based on a thorough assessment of local need, underpinned by clinical insight and developed through dialogue between commissioners, providers, local authorities, patients and the public. Of course, the board will have an important role in providing support and assurance to local commissioners, but we will not be replicating layers of top-down management.

With the clear legal duties set out in the Bill, the four tests and the support and assurance that will be available, there should be no need for the Secretary of State to prescribe through the mandate how the commissioning system should prioritise and determine the design of services. To do so would cut right across the clinically led local commissioning, which is at the heart of the Bill. Nevertheless, I recognise the importance of getting these arrangements right, and between now and Third Reading I commit to working with the noble Lord with a view to finding a formula designed to address the concerns that he has articulated. We are looking at a range of options. I hope to be able to say more about this when we reach his later amendment on the subject. I hope that for now he will find this rather broad assurance sufficiently strong to enable him to withdraw that part of the amendment.

I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the rest of Amendment 42 as well, because it also raises another issue. It is vital, especially in the current economic climate, for the NHS to provide financial support for adult social services where possible in relation to those services at the interface between health and social care. Here, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who has been a tireless advocate of social care at numerous stages of our proceedings, to ensure that this element of the equation—and that part of the Bill’s title—is not overlooked.

The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, has tabled Amendment 148B with a similar aim in mind. We are all, I think, aware of the impact that such services can have in helping people to live independently in their own homes and in reducing unnecessary hospital admissions—which is, of course, better for the individuals involved and relieves pressures on the NHS. The last spending review included a commitment to provide £648 million in 2011-12, rising to £700 million by 2014-15, for these purposes. Early indications are that this funding has helped to promote integrated working between social care and health commissioners. We want this to continue. I can reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that by virtue of paragraph 130 of Schedule 4 to the Bill the NHS Commissioning Board and CCGs will inherit the powers that primary care trusts currently have under existing legislation to make payments to local authorities towards expenditure on community services.

Generally speaking, our approach in this Bill has been to give NHS commissioners maximum autonomy in how the NHS budget is used. However, I have sympathy for the argument that it is legitimate that the Secretary of State should be able to determine the proportion of NHS funding that is to be transferred to local authority community services in order to secure closer working between the NHS and social services. I am not sure that the mandate is the right vehicle for this. However, I can see very considerable merit in the approach that the noble Baroness has taken with Amendment 148B. This amendment would give the Secretary of State additional powers to direct the board on the minimum amount that it should transfer to local authorities in a given financial year. The Secretary of State would be able to specify in the directions the bodies to which those payments should be made, the amount that should be paid to each body and the functions in respect of which the payments must be made, and to amend these instructions if necessary. It would essentially enable the current arrangements to continue.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked whether the amendment was wide enough to cover adult social care; whether it was within vires; and whether the Treasury is content. The answer to all those questions is yes. Indeed, I am advised that the amendment would enable funding to be transferred to other community services, such as housing, if necessary.

The approach taken is in line with current practice, which is approved by and agreed with the Treasury. Importantly, this would represent only a minimum. The board would retain the power to make additional payments over and above those required by the Secretary of State if it chose. The CCGs would also retain their powers to make such payments. Although I think it makes sense for it to be the NHS Commissioning Board that makes these payments, it would also be vital that there is a dialogue between local authorities and clinical commissioning groups as to how the funding could be best used. Of course, both will be involved, as members of health and well-being boards, in setting the strategic framework for health and social care commissioning through the joint health and well-being strategy. In addition, the existing powers in Section 256 for the Secretary of State to give directions on the conditions that should apply to such payments would apply. This is helpful because it would provide a mechanism for ensuring that the agreement of the health and well-being board is obtained as to how funds are spent.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, has spoken with great conviction about the Bill’s importance, including the tangible duties to act to ensure that integration moves from being just an aim to being a reality—as, indeed, the Future Forum has emphasised that it must. I think that Amendment 148B meets all the criteria to ensure that that will be the case. I shall therefore be happy to support it if the noble Baroness should decide to move it. I hope that my noble friends will join me in supporting the amendment; I would urge them to do so. Given that commitment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will be prepared to withdraw Amendment 42.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations and reassurances. I certainly think that Amendment 148B is a better amendment than my provision on social care in Amendment 42. I am very happy also to accept his broad assurances that we will have a discussion and dialogue to see whether we can move forward on, in effect, a version of a pre-failure regime, while recognising the Government’s commitment to local decision-making on redesigning and reconfiguring services. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 42 withdrawn.

Amendment 43 not moved.

Amendment 43A

Moved by

[Lord Kakkar]

43A: Clause 22, page 16, line 25, at end insert—
“( ) The mandate shall also require performance monitoring in primary care by the Board.”

[Lord Kakkar]

The amendments in this group all deal with the question of monitoring performance in primary care. The first amendment deals with the question of the Secretary of State providing, as part of the mandate, clear guidance on performance standards for primary care. The second amendment deals with the NHS Commissioning Board paying due attention to these standards and ensuring that data are collected with regard to performance in primary care. The final amendment deals with the role of clinical commissioning groups, with particular reference to assisting the NHS Commissioning Board in discharging those particular responsibilities.

At the very heart of the Bill is an important and much welcomed understanding that, to deal with the demographic challenges and the change in the nature of clinical practice that our society will face in the coming years, there needs to be a move away from managing patients with chronic diseases in the hospital environment and ensuring that they are managed in the community and primary care environment. This, of course, is welcome and is an important recognition of the changing nature of disease that we will face in terms of delivering good clinical care in achieving the best clinical outcomes.

There is no formal mechanism in the Bill as it currently stands to ensure that data on the performance of primary care practitioners are collected on a regular basis; that there is an absolute obligation, as part of the Secretary of State’s mandate, to adopt a clear primary care outcome framework; that that framework sets clear standards which need to be achieved in primary care; and that data on the achievement of those objectives are collected regularly and transparently to enable patients to understand whether their general practitioners are performing to the highest standard.

This is very important because, in hospital practice, there has been an emphasis on the collection of outcome data for some years, such that audit is an absolute obligation, particularly on those who work in craft specialities and undertake procedures that may be attended by poor outcomes. We also know that in acute services—such as those for patients with acute myocardial infarction and stroke managed in the hospital environment—there is an obligation to collect data on those outcomes, which are increasingly available to other clinical colleagues, to patients and the public. This helps in a broader and fuller understanding of the performance of acute care trusts. However, when it comes to performance in general practice, these data are not routinely available.

19:00

As more practice moves to the primary care environment, it will be increasingly important to ensure that when patients are managed for a much broader range of diseases and conditions in that environment, the outcomes achieved by those individual practices are both properly understood and monitored or reported in such a way that if services are commissioned in a primary rather than secondary care environment, those commissioning decisions are taken on the basis of objective outcome data. It is therefore essential that the mandate deals with the question of performance in primary care.

I know that, more broadly, the mandate will deal with the question and the obligation always to strive to improve the quality of care and, implicit in that, to achieve the very best clinical outcomes whatever the care environment. However, as there is now such an emphasis on transferring care out of the hospital and into the primary care environment, we need to be sensitive to what that environment will mean both for a number of practitioners and for their patients.

Unlike the hospital environment, where large numbers of clinicians tend to work together and there is an opportunity for a patient to be reviewed by a number of clinical teams at different stages in the natural history of managing their condition, patients in primary care will often be managed in single-handed or small general practices where they will not have the opportunity to be reviewed by a number of different doctors, including those in training, and where shortcomings in care will often not be understood or recognised by the patients for whom the care is being provided. It is therefore vital that we set high standards in what is expected in primary care and that we ensure that the metrics applied can be measured objectively and that the data are not only collected as a matter of obligation but reported in such a way that other clinicians and patients can understand them.

If the Bill’s purpose is to be fully achieved—to ensure more movement from the secondary and tertiary care sectors into the primary care environment, particularly for the management of chronic diseases—it is essential that these types of data are made available; that the primary care outcomes framework sets specific standards; that there is an obligation to monitoring the achievement of those standards; and to have transparent reporting. It is important for the Government to try to ensure that those objectives are met. One of the safest and surest ways of doing so is to include in the Bill an obligation regarding these functions and obligations. I beg to move.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I spoke at length in Committee on a similar amendment and my noble friend Lord Kakkar has covered quite extensively why we need some kind of primary care outcomes framework which assesses the performance of primary care. Primary care will be involved in prevention, diagnosis, treatment and long-term care of patients. Hitherto what we have had is QOF, which has already been found to be lacking in identifying the quality outcomes that demonstrate improvement in care. For example, in cardiovascular disease, evidence was presented from 1,000 primary care practice interviews and their performances as assessed did not show that there was improvement through QOF. Of course in certain other areas, there might be. The management of hypertension again shows no improvement. In a study carried out of chronic hypertensive patients, there is still a high incidence of complications related to hypertension. So we need other measures and in the absence of a primary care outcomes framework, we do not know how primary care will be performance managed.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I have put my name to two of these amendments so ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Kakkar. I have been on the medical register now for 67 years. I am a registered medical practitioner and I actually have a licence to practise which allows me to prescribe—not that the opportunities of clinical practice in my present world are very widespread, except on the very rare occasions when I have been called upon to minister to one of your Lordships who may have been taken ill in the precincts of this House. The licence to practise will be subject later this year to a process of revalidation.

If I go back to the days—forgive me again—when I was president of the General Medical Council and served on a number of occasions on its conduct committee’s hearings, it became perfectly clear that some of the doctors referred to the GMC were not actually guilty of serious professional misconduct. However, some of them who came before the conduct committee were in fact practising at a standard which was not adequate in a clinical sense. In other words, there was a question in a number of cases of their clinical competence. In those days the GMC began a process to examine whether, alongside the conduct procedures, we should introduce procedures to be able to identify doctors who were practising at less than an adequate standard of care. In the end, under the noble Lord, Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig—my successor as president of the GMC—it eventually introduced performance procedures to assess clinical performance. Those performance procedures have continued and have been very effective in identifying and handling appropriately, often with retraining, doctors who were found to be practising at less than an adequate standard of performance.

The Minister may say that when, later this year, doctors will be able to retain their licence to practise subject to a process of full validation of their clinical competence, that may be enough. The fact is that I do not believe it will be, and it is therefore crucial that we have a mechanism in the Bill to deal with this potential issue. After all, over the past 40 or 50 years, there has been a massive improvement in the standard of general medical practice in the UK, following the introduction of compulsory vocational training. Every doctor wishing to be fully capable of being a general practitioner has to undergo, at a minimum, three years’ vocational training. The improvement has been immense, but everyone will recognise that not all practices are of such a uniformly high standard. Some doctors in practices may be less competent than others.

The same may be true—who knows?—of clinical commissioning groups. There is clear evidence that most clinical commissioning groups or consortia of GPs will be providing a high standard of care in the community, but there may be a few that are not up to that standard. It is therefore crucial that we have a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State can be in a position, through amendments such as those proposed by my noble friend Lord Kakkar, to identify those practices and clinical commissioning groups that are not producing clinical care of the adequate and appropriate standard which we all expect and which our communities deserve. For this reason, some kind of monitoring of this sort under the mandate is essential.

[Lord Rea]

My Lords, as a former general practitioner I very much welcome this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has just said, the standard of general practice has certainly gone up enormously since vocational training started. However, a number of my colleagues are not up to scratch. The Royal College of GPs and the BMA would be the first to admit that all in the garden is not lovely. I would ask the proposers of the amendment, and the noble Earl, if he is minded to accept it, how the monitoring system will be set up.

As has been mentioned, there are already two different systems in operation to monitor the standards of clinical practice—in fact three, if we take the GMC competence system. However, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, QOF is not a very effective measure. Its standards are set far too low. We have yet to see whether revalidation will effectively identify weak practice. If this monitoring is going to be set up, would it not be sensible to involve the General Medical Council, the Royal College of GPs and the BMA in consultation in designing the performance monitoring system that will be adopted? It could be a very good idea. It is high time that there was a more effective system. Most GPs would welcome it enormously and only a few would regret it.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I would like very briefly to speak in support of these amendments and ensure that we do not confound QOF, revalidation and the principle of these amendments. They are three different things. The principle behind the amendment is really important because it will identify the range of practices. There was an interesting paper in The Lancet Oncology this week showing the variation in the number of times patients have attended a GP before diagnosis of some cancers like lung, pancreas and so on, whereas those where there has been much greater publicity, such as breast and melanoma, have been referred much more quickly and there is less variation.

Revalidation is about making sure that people are, in the broadest sense, safe to practise and it is hoped that it will filter out those who are really unsafe across the board. However, that is not just what we are talking about with these amendments. We are talking about trying to improve the spectrum of care, including care by those who will get revalidation and who may well be collecting QOF points, but to whom other clinicians in the area would not necessarily want to sign up as patients. So it is about driving up those lower standards to meet the higher standards that we expect. Those data in the public domain will be really important to help patients decide who they register with. I hope, therefore, that the Government will look favourably on the amendments. The amendments are coming from those of us on these Benches who are medically qualified. I should declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

19:15

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I would like to echo my noble friend Lord Rea and noble Lords from the Cross Benches on the importance of this group of amendments. At its best, primary care can be brilliant, but at its worst it can be absolutely appalling. The variation in primary care is probably wider than in any other part of the National Health Service. As the changes take place we can see that this may cause many problems in the future.

We are all agreed about the need for an integrated approach and for a smooth patient pathway. Clearly, primary care potentially has a very important role to play. However, it needs to step up to the plate. If acute hospitals are to reduce the scale of their operations, more will be expected of primary care. Yet acute hospitals are open every hour of the day: primary care is not. Indeed, there are often very big issues about how primary care can be accessed out of working hours. The out of hours services are not always as effective as they might be, and there are some practices where patients know that it is very difficult to get attention unless they turn up at the convenience of the doctor, and so they then end up at the accident and emergency department. As I read where the NHS is going, this is no longer going to be acceptable. If money is being taken away from acute care and more money is being spent on primary care, which must be the logical outcome of clinical commissioning groups, unless those clinical commissioning groups can ensure that GPs do what is necessary to ensure that primary care takes up the responsibility, we are going to end in great difficulty, where acute care services will continue to be demanded by patients and money is being spent on primary care but it is not doing the necessary job. Therefore issues around the monitoring and performance management of primary care become very important indeed.

The Government have decided not to place the contracts of GPs within clinical commissioning groups. I understand that because clearly there is another potential conflict of interest. They are to be held at the local offices of the national Commissioning Board. However, there are real questions to be asked about how bureaucrats, as the Government seek to call them—I like to think of them as managers—are going to handle those contracts. What will happen within a particular clinical commissioning group if there is a group of GPs who simply will not do what is required of them to make a contract work with a local hospital? For instance, there may be a risk-share arrangement with a local hospital, where essentially agreement is made on the contract price, but part of it is very much about demand management, where there is a risk share between the clinical commissioning group and the acute trust. That will depend on all the GPs within a clinical commissioning group doing what is necessary, playing their part and contributing to demand management measures. Frankly, there are a lot of GPs who will not have anything to do with that. We know that at the moment. It is happening everywhere, up and down the country, with GPs who do not give a damn about anything to do with demand management. What will happen? Who will be able to intervene in those circumstances? Clinical commissioning groups do not have many levers when it comes to poor performance among general practitioners. I suspect that the national Commissioning Board will not have the expertise either. That is why this group of amendments is so important. We all know that primary care can make a huge contribution to a good NHS in the future, but we have to admit that, of all parts of the NHS, we can probably also find the poorest quality of service as well. That is why we are looking for reassurance from the noble Earl that this new system will be able to deal with those poor performers.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, for their contributions to this debate and, indeed, to other noble Lords who have spoken. We have heard some very powerful and persuasive arguments. I have listened very carefully to them.

Amendments 43A and 43B highlight the concerns that I expect all of us in this Chamber share in relation to the need to ensure high-quality primary care for all patients. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made some very telling points in that regard. Of course, there can be no doubt that good primary care contributes to good healthcare outcomes overall. I fully agree that the NHS Commissioning Board should be held to account properly for its performance in commissioning primary care. I do not think, however, that the right way to achieve that is to prescribe that this must be part of the mandate. Our aim is that the mandate should have at its heart the NHS outcomes framework, which covers the range of care that the NHS provides. I make the simple point that good primary care will be essential to improvement against the NHS outcomes framework.

More widely, the department will be keeping under review the performance of the board and the way that it carries out its functions, including its direct commissioning. What matters here are the accountability mechanisms and how those in the system are monitored and held to account. Just as the board will have a commissioning outcomes framework to hold CCGs to account for the quality of their commissioning, it will be important to have robust and transparent information to assess the quality of what the board commissions itself.

We come back to what the Bill already says: it places duties of quality on the Secretary of State, on the board and on CCGs, requiring each of them to exercise functions with a view to securing continuous improvement in the quality of services provided to patients. The Bill also sets out robust arrangements for holding those bodies to account for delivering quality improvement. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill already requires the board to submit a business plan setting out how it proposes to exercise its functions, and a report setting how it has exercised its functions, to the Secretary of State on an annual basis. In turn, CCGs must also submit their commissioning plans and annual reports to the board. Both the board, in reporting to the Secretary of State, and CCGs, in reporting to the board, will be expected to demonstrate how they have fulfilled their quality improvement duty, including in relation to primary care. Consequently we expect, for example, that both the board and CCGs will wish to monitor the standard of care and services provided by all primary medical services providers in fulfilling their duties.

It is possible that we will need a dedicated objective relating to primary care in the mandate—I am not ruling that out. It would be better, though, not to prescribe that in primary legislation. What matters is that there are clear and effective accountability arrangements, and the Bill as it stands provides flexibility to ensure just that.

The noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Rea, asked about the QOF. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the QOF is a separate issue, but I can say that the whole of the QOF is kept under review in consultation with the profession to ensure that it reflects the best available evidence and supports continuous improvement in the quality of care for patients. Over the coming months we will continue to discuss with the profession and its representatives how to focus the QOF on securing better healthcare outcomes and what that means for existing GP contractual arrangements.

I turn to the final amendment in this group, Amendment 95A. The Bill already ensures that the board has the information that it needs to demonstrate how it has fulfilled its duties. CCGs are required to provide information to the board in the form of the annual commissioning plan and annual report. In addition, the board and CCGs are under a duty to co-operate. In the normal course of business we expect this to involve the sharing of information as necessary but, in the event that a CCG might have failed, be failing or fail to discharge any of its functions, the board’s powers enable it to require any information or documents that it considers necessary from CCGs.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, posited the situation that there might be reluctant GPs who did not fulfil their part of the bargain, whatever that was, with the acute sector. There needs to be a way of investigating allegations that actions by GPs in their practices are adversely affecting a clinical commissioning group. Where a general practice is operating in such a way that it is a barrier to a clinical commissioning group meeting its functions, it will be for the commissioning group to work with the members of that general practice to support it to improve and contribute to the work of the commissioning group as a whole. Ultimately, if it is unable to do so, a clinical commissioning group may need to refer such cases to the NHS Commissioning Board, along with the evidence of the failure of the practice and details of any support that the commissioning group has provided to the practice to help it overcome any perceived difficulties.

Among other matters, the board may wish to consider if the practice’s actions are in breach of the practice’s primary medical services contract. Separately, the NHS Commissioning Board will have the power to investigate the suitability of individual GPs under the medical performers list provisions. As the noble Lord will know, this power is currently with primary care trusts.

In a nutshell, therefore, the Bill already imposes a duty on CCGs in respect of the mandate and allows the board to ensure that CCGs fulfil it. Further specific requirements in relation to providing information to the board are therefore unnecessary, so I hope that what I have said reassures the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, sufficiently to enable them to withdraw their amendment.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for, as always, his thoughtful response and consideration of the amendments. I remain somewhat anxious about whether there is going to be sufficient attention and opportunity to deal with the question of performance in primary care and the management of that performance to ensure that the very best clinical outcomes are achievable for all patients across the country.

I welcome much of what the Minister has said with regard to potential further consideration of how mechanisms other than a specification in the mandate on the question of primary care performance might work. I wonder whether it might be possible for him to enter into further dialogue on this matter so that there can be clarity. It would be unhelpful for the future if a great emphasis were placed—in fact, if there were a momentum—on moving practice from the secondary care environment, where there is a relentless evaluation of clinical outcomes and which has done so much to improve clinical outcomes for our patients because of the attention paid to those matters, into a primary care environment where an objective assessment of outcomes was not always possible and where, as a result, what we all hope will be achieved through the Bill—a health gain for patients and population—might therefore inadvertently be lost. With the opportunity to have a further conversation with the Minister prior to Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 43A withdrawn.

Amendments 43B and 44 not moved.

Amendment 45

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

45: Clause 22, page 17, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) Requirements included in the mandate have effect only if regulations so provide.”

Amendment 45 agreed.

Amendment 46 not moved.

Amendment 47

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

47: Clause 22, page 17, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) Revisions to the mandate which consist of adding, omitting or modifying requirements have effect only if regulations so provide.”

Amendment 47 agreed.

Amendments 48 and 49 not moved.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.29 pm.

Consumers: Low-Cost Flight Information

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:29

Asked by

[Lord Mitchell]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether British consumers buying low-cost flights on the internet have access to the information they require.

[Lord Mitchell]

My Lords, I had hoped that more noble Lords would be taking part in this debate, since I am sure that most of us in our time have remonstrated against the budget airlines. But it is quality not quantity that counts and I am sure that we can have a very interesting debate this evening.

The debate features internet bookings for budget airlines. This, in my opinion, is just a subset of what my right honourable friend Ed Miliband has referred to as surcharge Britain. We all know what that means: all those little extra costs that it seems everyone these days attempts to load on to an unsuspecting public. We see them on bank overdrafts and on credit card usage. We see them on mobile phone charges and on online shopping. In every direction you turn there seems to be somebody there trying to suck that extra tenner out of you.

The logic for the growth in surcharges is obvious. As used to be said when I was in business, it goes from the top line to the bottom line, from gross to net, without touching the sides. In basic business there is generally a cost associated with generating revenue. Staff, depreciation, rent, electricity and the like all make up the cost of goods sold. It is the usual model. But today the quest is to persuade the customer to part with his cash without there being any cost implication. As I say, what hits the gross revenue line also hits the net revenue line. It is nice work if you can get it. The budget airlines in this country are brilliant at extracting the maximum amount of revenue from the poor old traveller and my speech today addresses what I believe is another example of rip-off Britain, or should I more accurately say rip-off Ireland?

I must declare a regrettable interest. I use Ryanair quite frequently, not because I want to and not because it is the cheapest—it is not—but because it is the most convenient. We have a house in Umbria in Italy and Ryanair flies to Perugia just 40 minutes away from where we live. Indeed, it is the only airline to fly to Perugia from the UK, so I have no option but to drive to Stansted, disengage my brain and all my other senses, only to re-engage when I am drinking my welcome cappuccino at Perugia airport.

I am going to say less than complimentary things about the budget airlines and Ryanair in particular, but I must say one thing in their favour. Their punctuality is the best. You can almost set your watch by their arrivals and departures. This is much better than other airlines. I am sure that most of your Lordships have used the budget airlines. When you sit down at the computer to make your booking you need a quiet room, a wet towel wrapped around your head and indulgent family members who are not bothered by constant swearing.

I spend a good deal of my time in front of my computer—my career was in IT— and I like to think that I am pretty adept at ploughing my way through the most complicated of websites, but the budget airline websites have me beaten. Much that is within their sites is designed to trap you. Every time you make a mistake or click the wrong click it is going to cost you money. Of course, if you use their sites all day long you will get the hang of it, but for the occasional user it is a hazardous and expensive obstacle course.

Let me deal with Ryanair first. I booked a flight the other day from Stansted to Perugia for 30 July this year. The headline price was £86.41. The final price was £136.89. This is a 58.42 per cent uplift for practically no extra cost to them. Within the headline price is a series of costs that I cannot understand. Taxes at £33.17 are clear enough. I will come back to those later, but be prepared for a bit of a shock on this one. There are two levies that leave me bemused: the EU 261 levy and the ETS levy. The former is £2 and the latter 25p. I have no idea what these are, but I will show your Lordships why they are important.

We come to the add-ons beyond the headline price. There is something called online check-in. This costs £6 and I presume that it is for using the internet. This is typical Ryanair Catch-22. It charges you for using the internet, but you can only book using the internet. Insurance—how Ryanair loves travel insurance—in itself is a rip-off, but it gets worse. You might have thought that the default position for insurance would be negative. You go to a pop-up menu of countries of residence and nestling snugly between Latvia and Lithuania you will locate “don’t cover me”. It is easy to make a mistake. Ryanair could have given you a yes or no option, but after its incessant haranguing and playing to my insecurities about falling ill abroad I gave in and this time selected minimum travel insurance. That came to £6.99.

Then there is priority boarding. I always choose it, but I do not know why. It costs £5 and you are supposed to be boarded ahead of the milling masses, but lots of people now chose it and there is not much that is priority about it. If you have to take a bus to board the plane it makes no difference anyway. But £5 here and £5 there—it is all gross to net. I took priority boarding. I also chose to be notified by SMS text, this time for £1.50. There are no costs associated with SMS text. I then went totally berserk. I decided to check in a piece of luggage: 15 kilos for £25. If you exceed your weight by even one kilo it will cost you £20. It is little wonder that people approach the check-in scales in such a state of panic.

Finally there is payment. Using a debit card or credit card costs another £6. It is Ryanair Catch-22 all over again: you have to use a debit or credit card, you have no option, but it charges you. So that is it: £86.41 becomes £136.89, but it does not stop there. Two years ago some Mexican friends visited us. They arrived at Stansted and they committed Michael O’Leary’s mortal sin. They had not printed out their boarding cards. They did not know that they had to. They had to go to another queue to get their boarding cards and were fined £60 each. The cost to Ryanair is zero.

The most modern airlines now send boarding passes to your smart phone. You can bet your boots that Ryanair will do everything it can to resist this development, not when it has such a nice little earner. Once again, it is gross to net. There are a few other little gems about Ryanair’s terms and conditions. It charges £20 for an infant under two. All other airlines allow babies and toddlers on for free, especially since they do not take up a seat, but I guess a toddler weighs the same as a piece of baggage, so it makes sense to charge for it.

One thing has always puzzled me about Ryanair. How do you cancel a flight? I have looked all over its website and you cannot cancel a Ryanair flight. You can choose another date, for a fee of course. You can even change the name of the passenger, for a much bigger fee, but you cannot cancel. This prompts a question that I would like to pose to the Minister or even to Ryanair itself. What happens to the tax for those who are no-shows? I have talked about the airport tax and I have also mentioned the EU 261 levy and the ETS levy. This comes to £35.18. Where does it go? Ryanair says that you can write for a tax refund, which it will send you, minus its ubiquitous £6 administration charge. There is a slight problem, however, in that you have to write to Dublin.

You incur a UK tax charge that is levied by HMRC on a flight that originates in the UK, but if you do not take that flight you have to apply in writing for your tax refund to a company headquartered in a foreign country and on your refund entitlement it levies an administration fee. I would be interested if the Minister has any idea how many people ask for tax refunds from Ryanair on no-show flights. Could it be expressed as a percentage? My bet is that it is precious few.

This prompts another question. If I am a no-show and if I have not applied for my tax refund, where does the £35.18 tax go? If I have not taken the flight, it would seem to me that no tax should be due. It must go to somebody. Does it go to HMRC? It should not because the Revenue is not due to receive tax for flights not taken. Does it stay with Ryanair, perhaps in some suspense account? I do not know the answers, but I know that when I cancel a flight with British Airways the tax is refunded to my credit card immediately, and that when I attempt to cancel with Ryanair it is not. I simply want to know where the tax money goes, or maybe does not go.

To be fair, and for comparative purposes, I also booked a flight on easyJet, this time from Gatwick to Rome on the same day. Its headline price is £66.99 and it levies an administration charge of £9. Using a credit card, as you must, costs another £5. Insurance costs £9.53, taking one piece of luggage costs £15—this time for a 20 kilo bag—and priority boarding is £10.50. This comes to £112.02, an uplift from the headline price of 67.2 per cent—considerably more than Ryanair. However, in easyJet’s defence, the headline price is cheaper.

It seems as though I am doing something of a hatchet job on Ryanair as well as easyJet. In truth, this is the case. They deserve it; they force unfair charges on the public. Who else levies administrative charges, and what serious business charges credit and debit card fees when you have no option but to use those cards? Mr O’Leary, in his blunt way, makes his case very strongly: “If you don’t like it, don’t fly with us”. However, that is not good enough. When he said that he would charge £1 for usage of the lavatories, even though he meant it as a joke, most people believed him.

There are those who will argue caveat emptor: it is the buyer’s risk. However, I contend that the Government have a duty to ensure, first, that these airlines set all their costs to the default zero position on their websites; and, secondly, that their advertising highlights the average real fare, not the base fare, as well as the voluntary charges that we are all forced to pay.

19:41

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, I draw attention to the various media interests in my entry in the register. In particular, in view of my comments this evening, I highlight my directorship of the Advertising Standards Board of Finance. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, for securing this debate. As we escape from the clutches of winter and many people think about their annual holiday, this is a timely and important subject to discuss. Many hard-pressed travellers will have cause to be very grateful to him.

At the start of my remarks, it is important to highlight three general issues with regard to the information that people receive when booking flights online. First, unfair credit card charges are not solely the preserve of the airline operators. In recent months, I have cursed at my computer screen—which is not an unusual experience in view of my technical illiteracy, but is driven by a sense of injustice on these occasions—when I have had to pay credit or debit card surcharges when buying flowers, wine and chocolate. The latter two are certainly important components of life. This practice, if thankfully not widespread, occurs on too many websites and not just those of airlines.

Secondly, where airlines are concerned, this is not a practice that is restricted to the low-cost ones. Table B1 on page 58 of the OFT report of June 2011, which is very helpfully highlighted in the excellent briefing note produced by the Library for this debate, showed that debit card surcharges were also being levied by bmibaby, Air Berlin and Jet2 at that time, while Iberia, Virgin Atlantic and British Airways were also levying a range of credit card surcharges. Although I have not personally booked flights on all these lines—I obviously need to get out a little more—I suspect that they are all levied with different degrees of transparency. Some are admirable, and I particularly commend the British Airways site, which now identifies many key costs involved in your final fee, including the amount of tax that goes to the Chancellor. Transparency is key.

My third general point is that it is always regrettable when an issue such as this is taken as an opportunity simply to bash the low-cost airlines. I know that this is not a popular thing to do but I will briefly stand up for Michael O’Leary. In recent years, he and others have transformed the airline industry, opening up parts of Europe that once no one ever visited and making air travel affordable to many who could not afford it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, I declare an interest as a regular Ryanair passenger to Perugia. However, I think I am 20 minutes nearer the airport than he is, so I get to the cappuccino a little sooner. When levying justified criticisms about how websites operate, we should not forget the contribution that the low-cost airlines make to the consumer.

The reason why passengers feel some injustice when booking holidays on low-cost airlines is that, unlike some other transactions, the booking of a holiday is a major expenditure for consumers, for which they have often saved hard and sacrificed. The levying of a surcharge, particularly if you are not warned about it in advance and are unable to make a meaningful comparison with other airlines, is painful and unfair. However, it is not just the lack of transparency over credit and debit card charges that can be so annoying. In such a dynamic sector as the airline industry, marketing campaigns and websites often sail too close to the wind in terms of providing clear and accurate information, not just about fares and charges but about the provision of free and discounted tickets, availability, travel periods, journey time comparisons, environmental claims, airline comfort and airport names. Those of us who know people who have been stranded for an hour and a half outside Barcelona Airport, thinking that they were going to Barcelona, will know what I mean.

Since the remit of the Advertising Standards Authority was widened in the spring of last year to cover digital advertising, marketing communications on company websites, including the websites of all airlines, are now covered by the provisions and protections of the mandatory advertising codes from the Committee of Advertising Practice. Travel advertising and marketing communication is one of the ASA’s top 10 most complained about sectors. As a result, the ASA has over the years issued guidance to those involved in the travel industry to enable them to ensure that their communications keep within the codes and consumers are protected. In particular, I commend a recent guidance note for the travel industry, which was issued by the Committee of Advertising Practice. It was drawn to my attention by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, who does such an effective job as chairman of the ASA. It covers each of the key areas, setting out rules in a clear and straightforward fashion to ensure that consumers are protected. It is an excellent note.

The ASA is important in considering this issue because of the time that it will take for statutory regulation to deal with this area. I welcome the fact that the Government are consulting on draft legislation to bring forward the provisions of the consumer rights directive relating to above-cost surcharges. I understand that such a move will enable the Committee of Advertising Practice to tighten up its own rules even further. The CAP is currently bound by the unfair commercial practices directive, which is subject to maximum harmonisation.

I understand that the Government’s aim in this area—rightly so—is to ensure that consumers have the information that they need to compare prices readily and that pricing practices are fair. The ASA already requires all taxes and other compulsory charges paid at the point of purchase of the ticket to be clear and up front, and its systems are robust, responsive and flexible. The ASA should remain the first port of call, with the Office of Fair Trading as its statutory backstop for this thorny issue, the tackling of which is of such importance to tens of thousands of hard-pressed travellers. I would be grateful if the Minister could bear those possibilities in mind when considering this issue.

19:48

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I am sure that it is not only in your Lordships’ House but outside it that many will be gratified by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, securing this debate to draw attention to the problems of what are described in the Question as low-cost airlines but are probably more correctly described as no-frills flyers. They are no longer low-cost for many people, which is the issue that I want to focus on. As the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, indicated, the advent of these no-frills flyers introduced many people to the opportunity to go to places that they had not been to before, or had been to and wanted to return to much more frequently than they could previously afford. On the face of it, this is an excellent thing; it is the democratising of airspace in many ways. However, it has led to many unexpected, untoward and, in some cases, counterproductive effects for people.

First, it meant that many more people flew. For those who are concerned about the environment, this was not entirely a positive outcome. Indeed, one of the results was increased pressure on the Government to raise the taxation of all airlines to deal with the fact that more people were flying, and it would be a good idea to reduce the number though taxation for the environment’s sake.

However, the consequences went much further than this. The airlines were able to operate as low-cost in the first few years because they started off paying their staff much less than the established airlines did. They had smaller fleets and when they enlarged them they kept to the same models of aircraft, which were much cheaper for them to service and replace than the traditional airlines. However, when it became clear that, even with these benefits, it was not possible for them to keep their low prices, they tried to keep the reputation for low prices by the headline price being low and all the other additions being added in.

One could look at that as a simple, tactical sales device—outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, so elegantly and in such detail that there is no need for me to go into it in great detail—but the purpose of the whole exercise is effectively to continue to deceive the population into thinking that these are low-cost flights when in truth that is no longer what they are. All sorts of things that one would deem to be the proper costs of any operator and that have been described by the noble Lord—their insurance, their administration, the provision of boarding cards and so on—were separated out as though somehow these were other charges. The idea that was put about by Michael O’Leary and others was that, in order to enable more people to be able to afford to fly, people should not have to pay for things that were only in the interests of some of the fliers. For example, if you do not want to bring many suitcases with you, why should you pay a large amount for those who are? That seemed like a noble argument—that everyone should have the possibility of flying without paying for things they did not want and that only some people would want. In fact, as has been demonstrated in this debate, that is not where we are now. It became more and more an operation of deceit which reflected a culture which had developed with some, but by no means all, of the no-frills flyers.

I became aware of this culture when I took a Ryanair flight—something I did not make a habit of doing before and made a determined effort never to do again—to France with my wife. Unfortunately, during the short time we were there we had an accident and she was unable to walk to the plane when we got back. She needed to have a wheelchair to take her to the plane. We never suspected that it would not be possible to get a wheelchair without booking in advance and paying for it, but that was absolutely the position of Ryanair. When we subsequently checked we could find no other airline in the world that was charging people for the use of a wheelchair, but that was the Ryanair position. When it was challenged—not by us, but by others—at a European level, the company lost but they found another way of putting a charge on: 50p for everyone to pay for the disabled.

To me, the issue was not that precise problem, though it was of itself significant; it was what it represented about the culture that had developed in Ryanair. It was not a culture that was concerned to democratise airspace—that had a feeling that ordinary people ought to have the chance to travel more, enjoy more holidays and see more of the world. It was a dishonest and uncaring culture for people who were simply seen as milch cows to be treated very much as milch cows and herded through in as large numbers as possible.

People find themselves in increasing difficulty because they started by believing that they could fly to Perugia or wherever and could get themselves an inexpensive home. That would mean they would continue to have to fly there and it became increasingly problematic for many of these people to maintain themselves. Added to this is the fact that, in many places, this is the only way to get to that particular area. Most of the airports subsidise Mr O’Leary. He actually asks to be paid to fly to their airports while most UK operators find they have to pay the British Airports Authority and others in order to maintain a service. When a local authority that pays Mr O’Leary the subsidy says it is not in a position to pay any more he simply, at the drop of a hat, stops flights to that area and all the people who have become dependent on those flights find that it is impossible for them to continue. That is just part of the culture which has developed.

One might say that it is up to people to watch out for themselves and that this is just one airline or a small number of them. This is not so. When you introduce this kind of commercial practice it becomes increasingly difficult for other airlines to function without adopting similar practices. This was the problem in the banking world. I remember asking the chairman of one bank if it was really the case that most of the people on the board of the bank understood the complex instruments that were now being used in banking. He laughed and said that hardly a single one had the remotest idea. All they knew was that the other banks were doing this and making a profit so they had no alternative but to go down that road or lose custom. That is what has happened in the airline industry, not only in the way of charging but also in the way of treating the customers. It is not just a question that the buyer should beware. The whole airline industry has been adversely affected by this negative, disrespectful way of treating customers which cannot be sustained economically without all the complaints and difficulties which have already been referred to.

It is serious, because it is like a virus which pervades things and deteriorates them, and that is exactly what has been done. It becomes very difficult to reverse the process unless there are some regulations or pressures that require operators to behave in a different way. Here is where government comes in. I have some questions for the Minister. Which? submitted an OFT super-complaint on credit and debit card charges in March 2011, leading to a promise from HMG just before Christmas last year that the Treasury would ban excessive card surcharges by the end of 2012, with a consultation in the early part of this year. On 8 February, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mark Hoban MP, said:

“We have brought forward legislation to tackle excessive and opaque card charges with the aim of banning above-cost surcharges from mid-2014”.

I am glad it is moving ahead, but it seems to have slipped by 18 months over the period of the consultation. Why has this delay arisen?

It would be perfectly possible for the Government to press the airline operators—not just Ryanair—to differentiate out clearly those elements of their charges which are properly being paid to Governments as a tax from lots of other things that they describe as levies, surcharges and fees and which they bunch in as though they were being imposed on the airlines by the Government and other authorities. It is actually just a deceit because they are part of their own essential operating costs that would be absorbed by any other business. Is it possible for the Government to ensure a degree of transparency, clarity and honesty in these charges?

19:59

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Mitchell for giving us the opportunity to debate this interesting issue. I must admit to feeling a bit inhibited about contributing to the debate as I do not have a property near Perugia—which is a matter of deep regret, as it is somewhere I have visited—but I will, nevertheless, do my best. It is an important issue and so we are grateful not only to my noble friend Lord Mitchell but to Which? for bringing the super-complaint to the Office of Fair Trading.

The complaint isolates some of the key issues and I will quote from it. It states:

“Which? considers that the following features individually, or in combination, significantly harm the interests of consumers: The practice of advertising incomplete or partial prices, by, at least, omitting surcharges for payment method from advertised prices, which, due to behavioural biases, means consumers are unable to effectively and efficiently shop around and make like-for-like comparisons”.

Bearing in mind that we are talking about trying to book online, that is a very valid point. The complaint refers to:

“The lack of reasonably or practicably available alternatives to avoid or mitigate surcharges for payment method”.

Again, all speakers in this debate have demonstrated that that is the situation. The complaint also mentions:

“The conduct or practice of retailers that impose a surcharge for payment method, hidden or not, that exceeds a reasonable estimate of the costs for processing consumers’ payments”.

That has been amply demonstrated. The complaint states:

“These features lead to widespread detriment, including: Price comparisons being much harder so weaken the competitive process between retailers … Consumers making poor choices between competing passenger travel services and between other alternative goods and services from which they may choose … Consumers spending more time and money searching the market than should be the case … Consumers often being misled over actual prices and being frustrated at being asked to ‘pay for paying’ … Paying for goods or services is not, in Which?’s view, an additional or optional feature of a product but a necessary pre-requisite intrinsic to the conclusion of a contract. Even when the retailer offers a number of alternative payment methods, that retailer retains a monopoly on the setting of the prices that the customer will pay for different payment methods”.

That has also been demonstrated during this debate. It does not matter which way you turn, you will be surcharged whether you use a debit or credit card. We know that if you use a debit card, the transfer is almost instant. Which? in its super-complaint demonstrated beyond any doubt that such practices were detrimental to the interests of consumers and that there certainly was not a reasonable marketplace.

Which? went on to state:

“If any additional charges are to be introduced during the transaction, for payment method or other mandatory services, these should reflect only the reasonable additional costs incurred by the retailer as a result of the specific choice of payment method”.

Again, we have heard that the charges do not reflect the additional costs but seem to be an opportunity to bump up the total cost of the booking. If consumers were fully aware, they would be able to,

“switch away from retailers that did not follow this practice,”

of revealing the true costs. Which? continued:

“However, under real world market dynamics in a number of markets (including travel markets) this does not occur, and long term consumer detriment results”.

I refer to the comments of noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Mitchell talked about the iniquities of budget airlines although I have to say that it is not necessarily only budget airlines that use such practices. We have had further reports that airlines such as Lufthansa and Swissair have decided to charge for using credit and debit cards. It is not just the budget airlines, although I know that we have focused on airlines that are, in theory, low cost. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, brought that to our attention.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, gave an analysis of how the low costs were achieved. He might also have mentioned low pay and conditions of staff, although I did not hear him say that. It is another intrinsic factor in achieving these prices. Like the noble Lord, I was hopeful when the Government, in a letter to the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading, seemed to be optimistic. They referred to the consumer rights directive that is supposed to be a pan-European solution and stated:

“It requires that traders limit payment surcharges to the costs incurred by the trader in respect of a given means of payment. The Government will therefore consult, early in 2012, on draft legislation to bring forward the provision of the Consumer Rights Directive relating to above-cost surcharges in advance of the transposition deadline of June 2014”.

We seem to have slipped a bit from that seemingly admirable move on the part of the Government. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s response on why it does not look like consumers will see much benefit or progress before 2014.

I have dealt with what I consider to be the key issues, given that noble Lords have already set out the detail of the major problems in relation to online booking for low-cost airlines. I await the Minister’s response.

20:06

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, for introducing this Question for Short Debate and to all other noble Lords who have contributed.

In an open free-market economy such as ours, with its age-old emphasis on enterprise and initiative, there can be no objection to firms choosing business models that suit their aims, even if it causes them reputational issues. My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood described some of the benefits of low-cost airlines. They have been innovative and successful, and have grown into important players in the aviation industry, employing substantial numbers of people and utilising great amounts of capital. Schedule airlines, operating to different business models, are holding their own. I should therefore like to add to the premise of the noble Lord’s debate that people buying scheduled airline tickets on the internet also need access to the information they require.

The UK aviation market is diverse and supports consumer choice. What suits a solo flyer with no baggage might not suit a family of four with hold baggage who would like a meal on their flight. The UK’s aviation market has evolved to support these different needs. As a consequence of this diversity and choice, air fares can come with a range of extras, fees and charges. Airlines are required to publish on their websites the information about these fees and charges, but it can be hard for consumers to compare them when they are shopping around for the best price for an air ticket, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords.

The Government’s position is to support the aviation consumer in two principal ways. First, there must be transparency about what is and what is not included in the price. The consumer must know how much to pay in total before he clicks to accept the deal. Secondly, adequate information must be provided for the consumer to make an informed choice on which airline to fly with, regardless of the business model that that airline follows. I will give examples in support of that position.

EU Regulation No. 1008 sets out common rules for the operation of EU air services. Crucially, it sets out the transparency requirements for the display of air fares. Prices are required to be displayed inclusive of all unavoidable and foreseeable taxes, fees and charges at all times. Optional services such as checked baggage or priority boarding are required to be offered on an opt-in basis only. These services should be clearly and unambiguously displayed at the start of the booking process. These requirements are designed to ensure that consumers are able to compare the prices of flights across a number of airlines and that consumers select only the optional extras that they require. The requirements are strongly supported by the Government.

I now turn to another specific proposal that will significantly help consumers. We wish to help purchasers to compare services from different providers on the basis of accurate information. Aviation markets can deliver best value only where objective service information is freely available so that passengers and freight owners have genuine choice between suppliers. We have therefore included in the Civil Aviation Bill currently being considered in Committee in another place a new information duty on the CAA either to publish, or to arrange for the aviation sector to publish, consumer information and advice that it considers appropriate to help people to compare aviation services. This new publication duty would allow the CAA to move into areas where it cannot always obtain information from public sources, such as delays, complaints, baggage handling and environmental performance. The CAA would be able to penalise companies that withheld the data requested. The CAA must also ensure that the benefits of providing information outweigh the costs, so that it does not duplicate existing information or provide data that consumers do not want. The best protection for consumers in terms of choice and value lies in the operation of a competitive market. Consumers need clear information on price and service quality in order to make informed choices, and to ensure that markets deliver consumer benefits in practice. I look forward to discussing these, and other, aspects of the Bill further when it is introduced into your Lordships’ House.

We share consumers’ concern about the high level of payment surcharges applied by some companies, and that often people are not aware of the level of these charges until almost the end of the booking process. This makes it difficult to compare prices and shop around for a good deal. It is not right that a business tries to hide the true cost of its services by implying that its prices are made up of elements beyond its control when they are not.

What are the Government doing? First, consumers are already protected against misleading pricing under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. Secondly, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, last December the Government announced their intention to consult on early implementation of the payment surcharges provision of the new European consumer rights directive ahead of their transposition deadline in 2014. The provision will ban businesses, in scope, from charging customers fees which exceed the costs for using that means of payment. The Government plan public consultation on early implementation within the next few months, with the aim that new UK rules could take effect by the end of 2012. The Government will publish guidance prior to the change taking effect to help businesses adjust their pricing strategies to comply with the provision. I stress that this work is about ensuring transparency in headline prices, and not about price control. The aim is to ensure that only the true cost of using a particular means of payment can be charged separately where a business wishes to do so.

I have been asked several questions. I will my do best to answer them, but if I fail, I will of course write in the usual way. On the general point about ticket transparency and how consumers can effectively compare prices, including hidden charges, the Civil Aviation Authority has published a table showing the optional charges which apply when booking with major airlines operating in the UK. This is a valuable tool which will assist consumers in making informed decisions when booking flights.

The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, asked me when we will stop airlines charging huge fees for printing a boarding pass at check-in. The business model adopted by some well known carriers requires passengers to check-in online and print their own boarding pass. This is legitimate so long as people are clearly aware of it. There is no restriction on the level of charge that an airline may impose for this service. The sum of €40 has been widely quoted. This appears rather excessive, and is unlikely to reflect the true cost to the airline of printing a pass. This practice, along with the identity of the carriers which employ it, has been well published, including in your Lordships’ House tonight. Wherever possible, consumers should take steps to avoid liability to pay the charge. If this appears unfeasible, it is perhaps a factor which they should take into account before booking the flight.

The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, also talked about the EU 261 levy. EU Regulation 261/2004 gives air consumers rights to assistance and compensation in the event of their flight being cancelled or delayed for over three hours, or if they are denied boarding—that is, bumped off the flight for someone else. In April 2011, Michael O’Leary announced that Ryanair would impose a €2 EU 261 levy on its air tickets. This was marketed as a measure forced on the airline by the EU. In fact, it is a form of Ryanair self-insurance to pay for the obligations that Regulation 261 imposes on the airlines.

The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, also asked how often consumers compare prices effectively, including hidden charges. I have mentioned the Civil Aviation Authority table. He also asked about the refund of taxes when passengers do not fly. Government taxes, such as air passenger duty, should not be paid if the passenger does not fly. Many carriers will refund this element of the fare on application. However, they may charge an administration fee for doing so and in practice this may swallow up most or all of the amount due to be repaid to the consumer.

My noble friend Lord Alderdice told us, with some justification, about his distressing experience of no-frills airlines. EU Regulation 1107/2006 gives those who are disabled or who have reduced mobility rights to travel. Wheelchair access to aircraft is not chargeable.

My noble friend also talked about the Which? super-complaint. In 2011, the Which? consumer magazine submitted a super-complaint to the OFT, calling for it to investigate excessive surcharges for paying by credit or debit cards.

My noble friend Lord Alderdice also asked about the delay in the implementation of the consumer rights directive until 2014. Although the directive will take two years to come into effect throughout Europe, it is due to be transposed into national law by mid-2014. The OFT has said that companies should be up-front about charges straight away, and the Government propose to consult on early implementation in the UK.

My noble friend also asked what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of Article 23.

[Lord Alderdice]

I asked whether what the Minister in another place said was true—that implementation would be delayed until the end of 2014.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think it is probably better if I concentrate on answering as much as I can and, if necessary, write to my noble friend.

Aviation is fundamentally an international business. The Government do not intend to introduce tighter restrictions on airline pricing policies in isolation. The European Commission has undertaken a fitness check on the fare transparency requirements, during which it has taken evidence from airlines, the travel industry, enforcement bodies and consumer groups. Its findings have yet to emerge but we understand that the evidence suggests that the rules are not enforced consistently across Europe.

In conclusion, we take this matter seriously. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, for posing his Question this evening.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I do think that the noble Earl should clarify the situation because now I am confused. I thought that he had given us a more helpful answer when he said that the consultation on the payment surcharges provision would take place during 2012 and that the new rules would be introduced in 2012. However, the last comment that he made in response to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, left us somewhat confused. Will the Minister clarify whether the rules are likely to be introduced in advance of the European directive in 2014? What timetable are the Government working to?

[Earl Attlee]

The intention is that the Government will see the effect of these new regulations as early as possible. My speech was carefully crafted but if I have missed anything out I shall of course write to noble Lords to clarify any details as necessary.

20:19

Sitting suspended.

Health and Social Care Bill

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Report (3rd Day) (Continued)

20:29

Amendment 49A

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

49A: Clause 22, page 17, line 38, at end insert—
“Patients’ interests to be treated as paramount
The Board must, so far as resources allow, exercise its functions on the basis that the interests of patients are paramount.”

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, owing to the need to make progress I shall speak briefly, but my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames will be speaking in greater detail about the amendment.

It is short, perhaps deceptively short, but it has real significance and is related in this group specifically to Amendment 94A. The government amendments respond to aspects of these amendments, too. Amendments 49A and 94A set at the very centre of the Bill, which has the full support of all of us who want to see the NHS thrive, that the interests of patients should be paramount. The importance of that phrase is that in every single aspect of what we try to do, it shall always be the case that this is the way in which we think—whether it is how CCGs operate or how foundation trust hospitals operate. This has emerged in our debates increasingly as the central concept—the one to which we should always refer back. That will give us the guiding light that we need for the Bill.

It is significant because, in many cases, patients can be very vulnerable. They can be vulnerable through lack of information and in some cases by not being consulted. They can be vulnerable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has mentioned, through the lack of advocacy by people who understand the basis of the choices they have to make. This phrase about the significance and the importance of patients’ interests being paramount therefore also affects a recognition that where patients are vulnerable they need the help of counsellors, advisers and in some cases advocates, so the concept behind this covers those areas as well.

I want also to point out briefly that government Amendment 56 is helpful in spelling out the matters on which patients should be particularly consulted. I will not repeat them but the amendment is helpful in setting out very clearly issues of treatment and the way in which patients should be offered different forms of treatment and then to make choices among them.

I do not intend to keep the House. I shall conclude my remarks. Whatever side of the House we may be on, I hope very much that the concept of the paramountcy of patient interest will be something that all of us can support, understand and advocate with respect to the future of health services. I beg to move.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, the reasons for Amendments 49A and 94A have been briefly—as she explained—and eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. One of the fundamental principles which the Government have assured us runs right through this Bill is that the NHS, as reformed by this legislation, will be committed to putting patients first. That is a critical matter for most of us in this House and the public at large. Why do I believe that this principle needs stating in the Bill? It is because the Bill introduces an entirely new structure for commissioning services, with commissioning by clinical commissioning groups within a framework established by the board to requirements and objectives set by the Secretary of State. However well understood here, this proposed structure is widely mistrusted outside this place.

I believe that a legislative statement that the commissioning process will put patients first is very important, both because it will enshrine in law this fundamental principle and because it will give the public an assurance that this is indeed the aim and purpose of the new commissioning process. My noble friend the Minister was kind enough to write to me in relation to this amendment to say that while he completely agrees that we must always put patients first, the Bill already provides for that and that there are “technical reasons” why our amendments should not be accepted.

The Minister is entirely right to point to the commitment to the comprehensive health service in the Bill and to the duties of the board and the clinical commissioning groups, now enshrined in the Bill, to promote the NHS constitution. I agree that those are powerful provisions. The NHS constitution is an important and extremely valuable document. It does indeed contain a commitment to putting patients first. At the back of the document in the expression of NHS values it says:

“Working together for patients. We put patients first in everything we do, by reaching out to staff, patients, carers, families, communities, and professionals outside the NHS. We put the needs of patients and communities before organisational boundaries”.

No one could fail to regard that expression of values as admirable, but it covers the whole sweep of NHS functions and is very general. The provisions that we seek by way of these two amendments are specific to the commissioning process. They will impose a binding obligation on the board and the CCGs of which they will at all times be aware. Moreover, our amendments are directed particularly at responding to what is probably the principal concern that members of the public have about these reforms: that the new commissioning process may lead to the marketisation of the NHS and that patients’ interests may be lost in that process. I do not believe that, but I do believe that these amendments would help make it crystal clear that this concern is unfounded.

The other problem we face is this: all the evidence, even that emanating from within the NHS, suggests that there is widespread unawareness of the very existence of the NHS constitution, let alone of the detail of its provisions. At the very least, therefore, given the emphasis that we are putting on the NHS constitution, it is crucial for the Government to make it quite clear that a great deal is expected of the board and of CCGs in the exercise of their respective duties under the Bill to promote awareness of the NHS constitution. In addition, the department should commit itself to an even wider, more effective campaign to publicise both the existence and the content of that constitution.

As to my noble friend’s second point, I regret that I do not understand the technical reasons which are said to require the rejection of these amendments. It is perfectly true that the NHS will always have to face resource constraints which may necessarily determine many, even most, commissioning decisions, but our amendments accept entirely that the paramountcy of patients is always subject to resource constraints. The board or a CCG must, so far as resources allow, exercise its functions on the basis that the interests of patients are paramount. Nor do our amendments, either expressly or impliedly, reduce the ability of commissioning groups or the board to prioritise the treatment of particular groups of patients where they think appropriate. They simply make the interests of patients in general paramount or, to use my noble friend the Minister’s phrase, make sure that commissioners put patients first.

The use of that word “paramount” in these amendments was modelled on the Children Act 1989 and the principle which runs like a golden thread through that legislation that the interests of children are paramount. That legislation has been widely applauded for embodying that principle, which firmly governs its interpretation and its implementation. It is precisely because it is embodied in the legislation itself that that Act is so well respected.

I still hope that my noble friend the Minister might reconsider whether he is not prepared to accept in this Bill the expression of the principle which he has so often expressed: that, throughout the commissioning process, the interests of patients must be paramount.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, my Amendment 142 has been grouped with this amendment. I have brought it forward because I am anxious that when we talk about “patient and public involvement” we should be clear as to exactly what we mean by it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jolly, who has also put her name to the amendment.

I am also anxious that we embed what I will call PPI for shortness—patient and public involvement throughout healthcare in all its forms. I say so in the knowledge that few people understand what this means. However, no one understands it better than my noble friend Lord Howe. He was a doughty fighter for community health councils, those much beloved organisations that knew how to campaign and influence the delivery of services. The culprit sits before me on the opposition Benches.

When I was chair of the Brighton Health Authority I had a huge respect for my CHC. Indeed, we even commissioned it to carry out surveys within the NHS. The effect was electric: no punches were pulled and the pressure on us was irresistible. It really knew what was being delivered, where the glitches were and where services were inadequate and needed improving, and it was not shy in making our shortcomings very public indeed. The CHCs had power and could refer proposed changes in services directly to the Secretary of State. The subsequent inheritors of their responsibilities—patients’ forums and LINks—have been systematically neutralised to ensure that they do not have the power to be really effective; that they are not inconvenient bedfellows; and that, despite the undoubted commitment of individuals, they can be largely ignored.

At last we have an opportunity to put matters right and to show that we have genuine credentials in making patient and public involvement a force for good, ensuring that patients and the public are the heart of their NHS. I was encouraged when in one of our earlier debates my noble friend, in answering an amendment, mentioned that the Secretary of State required four tests for the reconfiguration of services, one of which was robust PPI.

I had an interesting letter from my noble friend dated 2 February which again showed his clear commitment to effective PPI. However, the Bill does not seem to match up to that commitment. Different wording is used for PPI in different parts of the Bill—a court of law would surely assume different intentions—and the wording is weak in places. There are three types of involvement. The first is shared decision-making with individual patients on their care, to which the remainder of these amendments relate. The second is the HealthWatch England and local healthwatch structures through which patients and the public feed in their views—the way in which people start a conversation with the NHS. The third is PPI by the service in its decision-making—the way in which the service starts a conversation with local people and the subject of this amendment.

No business would attempt to plan its products or its services without doing market research. If it did, it would fail. We expect the same for the NHS. However, PPI is more important than just market research: it imports the values that we as a society expect from the NHS, making sure that it thinks as we think. PPI must be in the DNA of the service so that those who plan and run it feel as if they are planning and running it for their own families and looking after their own mothers in that hospital bed.

The PPI requirement was introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 in response to the Bristol Royal Infirmary public inquiry. At Bristol, between 1991 and 1995,

“one-third of all the children who underwent open-heart surgery received less than adequate care”,

and up to 35 children under one died as a result. As Bristol concluded,

“vulnerable children were not a priority, either in Bristol or throughout the NHS”.

What an indictment. These are catastrophic failures and we must not forget them. Sadly, evidence shows that we have not yet succeeded in making the NHS as a whole think as we think. We need look no further than Mid Staffordshire.

20:45

Bristol recommended that:

“The involvement of the public in the NHS must be embedded in its structures: the perspectives of patients and of the public must be heard and taken into account wherever decisions affecting the provision of healthcare are made”.

The report goes on to say:

“The public's involvement in the NHS should particularly be focused on the development and planning of healthcare services and on the operation and delivery of healthcare services, including the regulation of safety and quality, the competence of healthcare professionals, and the protection of vulnerable groups”.

My amendment defines what makes effective PPI across the commissioner, provider and regulatory system, as Bristol recommended. Triggers for the duty will vary depending on the body, and it must always be proportionate. Monitor is covered in my Amendment 166, which we will be debating later.

My noble friend explained to me in his letter that statutory guidance would cover these matters, as it does now. Mid Staffordshire has demonstrated that this approach simply does not work. Furthermore, the duty of autonomy in Clause 4, even as amended, gives all bodies in the Bill discretion to challenge anything—such as statutory guidance—as being unduly burdensome. We must therefore have crystal-clear, comprehensive requirements for effective PPI as explicitly defined on the face of this Bill.

There are three ways in which the clauses in the Bill fall short of this. The first is: telling, not asking. The duty can be met merely by providing information without getting any response or taking any notice of it. Involvement means not assuming that you know whether an issue is something patients only need to be told about, but asking them. The second is: theory, not reality. Patients are not required to be involved in finding out whether plans, proposals or decisions actually advantage or disadvantage patients in practice. The third is: nothing about us without us. Patients must be involved in all functions affecting patients, such as quality improvement or health inequalities, not just in commissioning.

However, the problems are greater than these. My noble friend’s letter to me seems to suggest that, as commissioning and providing have been split in the Bill, PPI is to be similarly split. This would enable the PPI buck to be passed between commissioner and provider and leave no one responsible for guaranteeing that effective PPI happened if providers—private or NHS—failed to do it. Commissioners are likely to use the Department of Health model contracts that do require providers to involve patients; and NHS providers have their own statutory duty. So far, so good. However, once commissioners have granted such contracts, they can wash their hands of involvement by the private or NHS foundation trust provider because they no longer have ongoing responsibility.

Subsection (1) of my amendment defines the three involvement elements: giving information, seeking comment on it, and inviting participation in monitoring whether patient benefit emerges at the end of it all. For example, the duty now relates only to designing a commissioning specification for accident and emergency, not monitoring whether it actually works in practice. Subsection (2) involves patient representatives and carers as well as patients. Patients on mental health section may not be able to get involved in commissioning, but those who can represent their interests, as they have previously been on sections themselves, should be able to do so. The NHS outcomes framework, against which we expect commissioners to perform, includes:

“Enhancing quality of life for carers”,

so we must make sure that they are involved. Subsection (3) gives the commissioners a lead responsibility for PPI across the local health economy to avoid buck-passing between organisations. Subsection (4) applies involvement to all the relevant functions of the NHS Commissioning Board and CCGs, subject to the existing proportionality limitation. The CCG should, for example, not attempt to address health inequalities without involving those who suffer them.

I have thought a great deal about this issue over many years, as has my noble friend the Minister, and over the past weeks he has been hugely generous with his time in talking to us about it.

Your Lordships have spoken often of the strengths of the NHS and the warm place that it has in the hearts of the people. I strongly support its remarkable ethic that whether you are young or old, black or white, rich or poor, you can get treatment, largely free at the point of use. But none of us can deny that its underlying problem is how little influence we, users and taxpayers, have in a near-monopoly service that is organised and run by those who work in it. We need to reorder the balance, and my amendment seeks to do just that.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I have lost track, since I first became a community health council member in 1977, of how many reorganisations there have been of the National Health Service and how many have all said somewhere in the White Paper or in the preamble or in whatever else it might have been that the Government of the day were committed to putting patients first, or at the centre of the NHS. I recall White Papers with titles such as Putting Patients First, which were all about reorganisation of the health service and the administration. I recall successive Secretaries of State—many of whom are not in their place tonight, although they could be as Members of your Lordships' House—telling us proudly that their particular reorganisation was somehow going to ensure that patients would, for the first time ever, be at the centre of the NHS. So I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, thought that it might help to try to write that into the Bill. I can understand, too, how the Minister felt that it could be resisted—as, presumably, every previous ministerial occupant of the role that he currently fulfils has resisted writing it into the Bill in the past. But I suspect that simply having statements that say that the basis is that the interests of patients are paramount is not going to be sufficient. Indeed, I suspect that with some of the arrangements envisaged in the Bill, that may produce some genuine difficulties. If, for example, you are a private sector company providing services to the NHS your duty as directors is to the shareholders of that company. So I can see why it will produce a tension—and, no doubt, why the Government will resist the earnest endeavour of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to get this into the Bill.

The amendments in the group in the Minister’s name are rather helpful, however, because they are specific. They talk about the duty to promote the involvement in various stages of the process. They place a duty on the board and on CCGs to involve patients in the prevention and diagnosis of their illness and their care and treatment. The experience is that where there is that duality, when patients are involved in the assessment of the treatment and the sort of treatment that is to be followed for their illness, the way in which that treatment is then followed by the patient is far greater as a result of that involvement. What is more, patients are usually expert in their own conditions, particularly if they are long-term or chronic conditions. They will often know as much about it as their general practitioner or, indeed, many other people who are engaged in their care. So that principle of involvement is absolutely right. I rather suspect that the Minister’s amendments will do far more by making it clear what the expectation is than rather grand statements about the interests of patients being paramount, as we have seen so many times in the past.

In her very full introduction to Amendment 142, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has given a very clear and important explanation of why patient involvement is so important, and has drawn a careful distinction between the different types of involvement that need to be addressed. I hope that in responding to the noble Baroness’s amendment the Minister will clarify—before we get on to the important amendments about healthwatch which we will come to in due course—exactly how the various separate functions and requirements that the noble Baroness identified will be met by the structures proposed in the Bill, and in particular how they will be met in terms of the resources available and the resources guaranteed. That will be the test of whether these changes matter. The noble Baroness indicated the different sorts of patient involvement that are necessary. It is now down to the Minister to tell us how he will deliver in practice, rather than in fine words, the changes that he is proposing.

[Baroness Wheeler]

I am pleased to speak in support of the Government’s Amendments 56, 97 and 98, which take an important step along the route of making the Bill more explicit on the duties of the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups to promote patient involvement in decisions about an individual’s care and treatment. We particularly welcome the requirement for the board to publish guidance for CCGs on the patient involvement duty. We argued strongly for this in Committee. It will go some way to ensuring that CCGs are clear about what is required of them to meet the duty of involvement of each patient. We know that the evidence shows that many commissioners are currently unaware of the increasing evidence that involving individual patients in their care and treatment is proven to be more clinically effective, provides better patient experience and makes better use of healthcare resources. The guidance will enable strong signals to draw commissioners’ attention to the proven interventions that they require from their providers.

CCGs will need considerable help and support to bring about the changes we need, so clear and explicit guidance to them will be crucial. For individuals, participation must mean involvement in care planning and support for patients who manage their conditions. Sharing in the choice of treatment involves major cultural changes in the behaviour, approaches and attitudes of key professionals from across the specialisms. As we have stressed before, this means changing the way that patients and clinicians, in particular, relate to each other, and changing the way that the NHS relates to patients in terms of, for example, information provision, the organisation of clinics and the style of consultation that professionals have with patients.

Amendment 142 underlines the importance of the provision of information to patients and is supported by us. It includes the participation of the patient in monitoring systems that measure the impact of service delivery or the range of services available, and this is welcome. My noble friend Lord Harris has commented on Amendments 49A and 94A, and I endorse those comments.

In Committee, noble Lords strongly supported the call from patient organisations and other key stakeholders for a definition of patient and public involvement to be included in the Bill. The guidance to CCGs will need to address this issue. I hope that the Minister will also ensure that it focuses on ways in which patients will be genuinely engaged during the development of the commissioning plans rather than just consulted on plans after they have been drawn up. Guidance will help patients, carers and their representatives make informed decisions. This group of amendments form the basis for moving forward. We look forward to the Government also looking favourably on the subsequent amendments, which would also provide real impetus to the patient involvement agenda that we need.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, we have spent a good deal of time in debate on this Bill discussing the issue of patient involvement, and for good reason. Patients rightly expect to experience responsive health services where they are treated as individuals. It is central to the Government’s vision for the NHS for patients to become genuine partners in decisions about their health and treatment, with services designed around their needs. The Bill will lay the foundations to achieve that. So I understand completely the motivation behind my noble friend Lady Williams’s suggestions in Amendment 49A and 94A to place an additional duty on commissioning bodies when taking decisions to put the interests of patients above all other considerations, as far as resources allow. On the face of it, this sounds obvious, and I am deeply sympathetic to the principle. However, I think that I am going to have to seek to persuade my noble friend that it would be extremely hard to get this right.

21:00

In the first place, I think we would all agree that the primary duty in the Bill is the duty to promote a comprehensive health service, free to all at the point of use, as set out in Clause 1 and as agreed and debated at length by your Lordships’ House. We should certainly not, I suggest, wish to detract from or conflict with that. The second reason why I suggest that the amendment is not right is that the NHS has to plan and cater for the health needs of the population as a whole, not just those who are currently patients. That is why the duty on CCGs is to commission services to meet the reasonable requirements of all those for whom they are responsible. In addition, the board and CCGs will be under further duties in relation to improvements in quality, promotion of integration, the involvement of patients in decisions and as regards public involvement, duties which all serve in different ways the interests of patients.

Above all, in addition to the duty to have regard to the NHS constitution, they will be under new duties, as my noble friend Lord Marks rightly pointed out, in relation to promoting the NHS constitution. Surely that should be the place for drawing together the fundamental rights and principles that patients should expect from the NHS. As my noble friend knows, the Bill embeds the NHS constitution firmly in the NHS of the future and will ensure that all NHS bodies comply with and uphold it. I say to my noble friend Lord Marks that the new duty means that when exercising their functions, the board and the CCGs must act with a view to securing that services are provided consistently with the NHS constitution and to promoting awareness of the constitution among patients, staff and the wider public. In the past, a number of noble Lords have spoken about wanting to have some kind of touchstone in this area of the Bill. I think that the NHS constitution fulfils that precise role.

In Amendment 142, my noble friend seeks to establish additional requirements that would apply to the exercise of the duties to the public. Although I also agree with the sentiment behind those proposals, I hope to convince my noble friend that they are already appropriately covered by the duties as they stand. The duties as currently drafted allow scope to determine the best method of involvement in each instance. The board, or a CCG, would need to be able to demonstrate that it had acted reasonably when exercising this duty. They are not restricted to the involvement of individuals only by way of consultation or by the provision of information, as my noble friend seemed to imply. They would apply throughout the planning stage and the development and consideration of proposals. They would also apply to anyone,

“to whom … services are being or may be provided”,

and would therefore encompass carers or other representatives.

To provide further reassurance on these points, we have already amended the Bill to require CCGs to set out in their constitutions what arrangements they will make for exercising this duty and the principles that will underpin their approach. This will therefore be assessed as part of the establishment process. The board will also have powers to produce guidance for CCGs on the exercise of the duty, which CCGs would have to have regard to and which could set out what might be reasonable in different situations. Of course, the views of patients should also be integral to the evaluation of the performance of health services. The duty on the board and CCGs as to improvement in the quality of services already requires that specific consideration must be given to the experience of patients. The views of patients and the public on the effectiveness of any change in services would therefore be captured in the normal way as part of this ongoing assessment.

One area where there is a deliberate difference is that the wording of the duty on the board and CCGs is intended to reflect the distinction in the Bill between bodies that commission services and those that provide them. Both the wording of the new duty and the current provision in Section 242 of the 2006 Act apply to arrangements to commission health services which are to be provided by others. This would therefore capture any changes that are a result of the commissioning decision.

At present, however, PCTs also provide some services directly, whereas the board and CCGs will not. Neither will they have managerial oversight of NHS providers in the way that PCTs and SHAs do now. The difference in wording is therefore intended to reflect this. NHS trusts and foundation trusts will be directly accountable for ensuring that they involve and consult the public under Section 242. In relation to foundation trusts in particular, there will be a stronger role for governors and members in holding them to account.

I am also unable to agree that it would be appropriate to extend the application of this duty to the exercise of all the functions of the board or a CCG that might relate to the provision of services. The matters to which the duty applies are the same as those in Section 242 of the 2006 Act. Certainly the board and CCGs could choose to involve people in other aspects of their work, and no doubt they will do so where this would add value, but creating a duty to involve people in every detail of the board’s work would not be practical.

I hope that I have been able to offer sufficient reassurance to my noble friends for them not to press their amendments.

Finally, I should like briefly to explain Amendments 56, 97 and 98 in my name on the Marshalled List. I was struck by a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made in Committee about the importance of differentiating between public engagement and the involvement of each individual patient in the management of their care and treatment—and that is surely right. It is for precisely this reason that we have included in the Bill new duties for the NHS Commissioning Board and CCGs in relation to promoting opportunities for patients to be fully involved in decisions about the services they receive as individuals.

Nevertheless, it was apparent to me from our debates that the purpose of these new duties was not quite clear enough. This point was raised in the meetings that I have held with many noble Lords in recent weeks, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I am therefore proposing these amendments to new Section 13H, inserted into the 2006 Act by Clause 22, and new Section 14T, inserted by Clause 25. They put it beyond doubt that the duties on the board and CCGs in relation to promoting the involvement of each patient apply to decisions related to the prevention and diagnosis of illness in the patient and any care or treatment that they receive. This drafting follows the language that is used in defining the health service so as to encompass the full range of activity that could be provided as part of the health service. I was grateful for the supportive remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on these amendments.

The amendments also impose an obligation on the NHS Commissioning Board to issue guidance to CCGs on the discharge of their duty under new Section 14T, to which CCGs must have regard. This will ensure that support will be made available to CCGs on best practice in securing effective patient involvement. I hope that it indicates the Government’s clear commitment to this objective.

I am pleased that the Health Foundation and National Voices have strongly welcomed these changes as representing,

“a clear signal that commissioners should be making sure patients are more engaged in their own care and treatment”.

I am extremely grateful to them for their support in ensuring that the Bill is as strong as possible on this point.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for the amendment, and I am grateful to him for what he had to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this point but hope very much that he will come back to it at Third Reading.

Amendment 49A withdrawn.

Amendment 50 not moved.

Amendment 50A

Moved by

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

50A: Clause 22, page 18, line 15, at end insert—
“( ) In discharging its duty under subsection (1), in relation to specialised services, the Board must exercise its functions in accordance with current NICE guidance.”

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, we come to another group of amendments that relate to the Commissioning Board. These are three separate amendments but they are grouped together because they all relate to the functioning of the board.

The first, Amendment 50A, aims to embed quality and good practice in services while eliminating unacceptable variations in standards of specialist services by ensuring that the NHS Commissioning Board conducts its functions in accordance with NICE guidance. Unfortunately, we know that NICE guidance is not being observed as widely as one would hope. The amendment has been particularly strongly supported by the Neurological Alliance and a lot of other groups representing patients with less common conditions, which feel that their services are not necessarily as good as they should be.

I shall give some examples from neurology. If epilepsy is suspected, the NICE guidance currently says that these patients should be assessed by a specialist, but 49 per cent of acute trusts have none. The guidance says that they should be seen urgently within two weeks but 90 per cent of patients are not seen within that timeframe. It says that they should have access to an epilepsy nurse but 60 per cent of acute trusts do not have one. With regard to multiple sclerosis, a relatively common condition across the country, 56 per cent of the 89 MS centres are multidisciplinary; the remainder are not. One-third of Parkinson’s patients are waiting longer for diagnosis than the NICE guidance suggests that they should.

Unfortunately, some pathfinder commissioning groups have vocalised that they do not see a need for specialist services and indeed that they are not following NICE guidance. That is why the amendment is worded as it is, with the phrase,

“in relation to specialised services”.

It may seem as if that is superfluous to the wording already in the Bill, but I have worded it in that way to bring a focus on to specialised services.

NICE is an independent way of establishing the evidence for best practice, and its appraisals are widely recognised around the world as being of a high standard and setting high standards. It also provides a basis on which services can be accredited. There are clinical guidelines and services can be audited so that they can be assessed on the standard that they are providing. That allows quality outcomes and patient outcomes to be measured.

Amendment 63A relates to commissioning for conditions that are less common. This amendment in particular has very wide support. Quite apart from neurological disease, there are patients with haematological diseases such as sickle cell or haemophilia, conditions that are affecting children and young people into early adulthood. These patients need to be able to access services rapidly, wherever they are living. These services become part of the general haematological services available where they are, but they have to be provided to a high standard. In the past we had a tragedy with patients with haemophilia, and we see the problem of patients with sickle cell who are not appropriately treated and as a result have much more damage than they might otherwise have. There is also a risk of the inappropriate prescription of analgesics at the wrong time and at the wrong dose, which can result in long-term dependency without establishing good pain control, whereas during the acute crisis patients have terrible pain and need adequate treatment. Sadly, some of these young people have been labelled as being addicted because the severity of their pain has not been recognised.

21:15

Other areas that such commissioning needs to focus on include trauma centres and severe burn units and conditions such as immunodeficiency, where again there is a critical mass for the service to be provided. Some services have improved enormously, as has happened particularly in London, but the NHS Atlas of Variation shows a 25-fold variation in anti-dementia drug prescribing across England. I give that as an example of the wide variation in care provided. Many years ago my tutor and mentor Julian Tudor Hart described in a paper for the Lancet the perverse relationship between the need for healthcare and its actual utilisation. The principle behind Amendment 63A is to try to make sure that we do not inadvertently leave the inverse care law being perpetuated once this Bill is enacted.

Amendment 64ZA is the last amendment in this group. This relates specifically to emergency services and unscheduled care. This amendment has three parts which I would like to explain briefly. First, the amendment seeks to ensure that emergency health services are adequate for the population served. Until recently, emergency departments have tended to be placed in a rather ad hoc way, but work done in London, which has designated emergency services and major trauma centres, has been shown to improve clinical outcomes for patients. These have been calculated on a population needs basis.

The second part of the amendment recognises the importance of integration between emergency care and specialised networks and associated specialties. This is particularly important because the emergency department sits on a spectrum of provision. Patients may be seen in primary care and may be sent in to the emergency department either in or out of hours, but there is good work to show that it is only 10 to 30 per cent of cases that could be classified as ones that could have been dealt with in primary care. However, primary care is increasingly taking a gatekeeper role. With a shortage of beds and a decrease in resources, there is also a rationing role in the other parts of secondary care.

The third part of the amendment relates to emergency departments. The one place that remains with its doors constantly open with no gatekeeper role and with open access is the emergency department. Patients increasingly turn up in the emergency department with acute conditions that need management and treating. These conditions are completely undifferentiated, unscheduled and range from the most severely life-threatening to others which certainly need to be treated fast. These can be less immediately serious, although if they are left inadequately treated they can become life-threatening in a remarkably short time. The nature of unscheduled care means that these patients have to be planned for in consideration for the way that primary care is working, in and out of hours. Where out-of -hours care is inadequate more and more people will go to the emergency department or may indeed be advised to by telephone triage services, but they may be inappropriately advised. This accounts for the range of 10 to 30 per cent of those who could have been treated in primary care.

I understand that the Commissioning Board is developing a clinical outcomes framework. That should make a link between the national framework for the Commissioning Board and the clinical commissioning groups, with consultation on NICE indicators, some of which have already been developed for primary care. This clinical outcomes framework should also provide guidance for clinical commissioning groups on how to commission emergency care locally. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that this guidance will continue so that work with the colleges, particularly the College of Emergency Medicine, will contribute to the whole commissioning framework.

Emergency medicine is different from other parts of the service because competition is not appropriate and choice, as we talk about it in other parts of the Bill, does not apply. People who need emergency treatment need to be taken to an emergency department that can deliver a service to meet their clinical needs. These patients may be unconscious; they certainly cannot choose where they will go. They also need to be assured that every emergency department to which they are taken will meet a standard that will provide them with the care that they need. Competition has also been shown to be inappropriate. Breaking the Mould without Breaking the System, a document that was published last year by the Primary Care Foundation and the NHS Alliance, pointed out that tendering in emergency medicine results in a decrease in the quality of services because it is expensive, costing around £100,000 for the commissioner and each provider involved. The document also pointed out that the quality of care is driven up by working with providers to look for incremental improvements, rather than by going out for a competitive tendering process. This document is very helpful to commissioners because it also points out how triage is less safe than rapid see-and-treat processes and is used to compensate for delays caused by poor capacity planning.

When accident and emergency departments are overwhelmed the admission rate goes up, but a well functioning department will be able to decrease the number of admissions. The number of patients retained overnight needs to be looked at in relation to the severity of their conditions and not as an absolute number. Without good services for the frail elderly and without somewhere else for patients to go to be observed, they need to be admitted into observation wards overnight because they often deteriorate rapidly, particularly those whose symptoms and history suggest that they are on the cusp between potentially improving and potentially deteriorating. If they are sent home, they may be at great risk.

There is a need for collaboration from primary care right through to secondary care. The problem is that without incentives for primary care to improve home-care services for the frail elderly and out-of-hours services, an increasing number of these patients will end up at the doors of the emergency departments, as happens at the moment. With the decrease in the number of beds, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to be placed anywhere, yet they are often too frail to be sent home at midnight or in the early hours of the morning and need to be kept in overnight.

Emergency medicine acts as a portal. The vulnerable come in with their life stories. There is no pressure group to argue for patients who access emergency medicine because they are a completely heterogeneous group. Disease groups, such as those for neurological diseases, cancer, diabetes and so on, can argue for their patients but emergency medicine covers just about everybody. It has been estimated that, on average, a member of the population accesses an emergency department once every three years, compared to once every six years for out-of-hours primary care services. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that emergency medicine will be looked at in its totality and across the spectrum from primary to secondary care; and that commissioning will take into account that it is in a different position, with its constantly open access portal, from the other services in the NHS. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene in the debate on this extremely important amendment. In countries like the United States, where there is no effective health system for those who cannot afford very substantial sums of money, emergency admission has become the last resort for such people. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is right but we should take it one stage further. We know, from very recent reports on the difference between the likelihood of survival in an emergency situation between weekdays and the weekend, that out-of-hours provision is of substantially lower quality than that provided by regular doctors in a good hospital. This is very serious. One of the great mistakes made in the last contract for general practitioners was the almost complete transfer of out-of-hours work to private agencies which did not demand the same standards in respect of doctors, ranging from their ability to speak different languages through to experience of medical treatment. In consequence, we now have a troubling kind of medical roulette where a great deal depends on whether you get ill on Thursday or on Friday. The statistics are quite frightening, showing not a narrow but a very substantial difference.

Before the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, comes in—if he does—and before the Minister responds, I would like to raise two points. The first is about the degree to which the noble Lord believes we can begin to re-establish out of hours work to a higher level of quality broadly equivalent to that offered by general practitioners and other medical staff to patients who conveniently fall ill on Monday through Friday but not later or after that. Secondly, what does the Minister feel about the dependence of some groups in our community on emergency services, not because they want to use them but because they are not familiar with ways to establish their proper relationship with people who could look after them in difficult conditions? This goes back to one of the particular concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which is the impact of alcoholism on emergency entry. This is not just another amendment; it is a crucial one which points to a very troubling discrepancy which could grow worse if we do not succeed in addressing it.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, it would be difficult to overstress the crucial importance of this issue, which has been a matter of grave concern to the specialist medical community. People with less common conditions often require specialist services for treatment unavailable through generic NHS support. At Question Time today, I posed a Question to the Minister about the report of the National Audit Committee which had demonstrated the serious inequalities of neurological services throughout the United Kingdom. People with neurological conditions rely not only on skilled neurologists but on a specialist multi-disciplinary team of nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and others to maximise their independence and quality of life. The Bill proposes that these services be commissioned at a local level by clinical commissioning groups which will be able to determine the size of the population for which they have responsibility and which, as matters stand, will have no duty to collaborate with other clinical commissioning groups in the commissioning of services. Grave anxieties have been expressed by the Rare Disease Consortium and by the Neurological Alliance, which is the only collective voice for more than 70 national and regional brain, spine and neuromuscular organisations working together to make life better for 8 million children, young people and adults in England with a neurological condition.

00:00

My personal wish would be to ensure that the commissioning of highly specialised services and services for less common conditions was conducted by the national Commissioning Board and not delegated to local clinical groups. After all, many of those clinical commissioning groups will cover a relatively small population area, and a lack of specific monitoring of this issue by the NHS Commissioning Board could allow geographical disparities in service provision and outcome—disparities that already exist and are serious—to widen.

At an earlier stage in the debates on the Bill, I mentioned my interest in research into muscular dystrophy and pointed out that when I started work in that field a boy with the most severe form of muscular dystrophy, Duchenne-type dystrophy, would have difficulty in walking in childhood, would be confined to a wheelchair, and would usually die at about 16 years of age from respiratory insufficiency. A recent major investigation by an All-Party Group studying facilities for the management of such patients throughout the UK demonstrated that in centres of excellence such as parts of London, Oxford, Newcastle and Oswestry boys with this disease are now living with supportive care and respiratory support into their 30s and even their 40s, and living much more productive lives. In some parts of the United Kingdom, such as the east of England and the south-west, we found that such boys were still dying in their teens. That is just one example. There are many other rare diseases where new developments in genomic medicine are resulting in the discovery of new forms of treatment.

I well remember—I am talking about the role of general practitioners—two GPs telling me that they thought it was quite disgraceful that I was spending time and effort in raising money for research into and treatment of a rare disease such as muscular dystrophy, which after all, they said, was a fatal condition and the money could be much better spent on the management of common conditions. I am very concerned that some of the clinical commissioning groups would not take full account of the crucial needs of people with rare, crippling and progressive diseases. After all, I have often said that you cannot measure human suffering in purely numerical terms. It is a matter of great importance, and for that reason these amendments are crucial in order to make certain that rare diseases and uncommon conditions are fully accepted as being of great importance, and that the commissioning of services for them will be a vital part of the provisions in the Bill.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I rise briefly to lend my support to Amendment 64ZA in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and my noble friend Lord Hunt. I do so on the basis of my experience as chairman of the provider agency in London after my time as a Minister. We have seen in London how strategic leadership at the level of, in this case, the strategic health authority has transformed stroke services and A&E and trauma services. There is no doubt, based on the London experience, that these kinds of changes will not be engineered at the local level. They require populations of considerable size, particularly when we are living in the era of the European working time directive and its effect on the rostering of specialist services and clinicians, to produce the kind of quality of service that people need.

There is often a kind of conflict between that strategic leadership and the wishes of people at the local level putting pressure, if I may put it that way, on their local doctors to keep services very local. I accept that the Government wish to have a lot of this decision-making down at the local level, but we have to recognise that there is sometimes a conflict between that localism and planning in the area of emergency services as regards the most effective way of providing high-quality services to patients.

The Minister therefore needs to listen to concerns such as those that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was expressing, because we know from the evidence in London that these kinds of services need to be planned at a major-population level.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 50A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and Amendment 63A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We need to be clear that the role of NICE in our health system is extremely important. It plays a pivotal role in helping the system to understand innovation, and it is extremely important in promoting fairness. At a time of very tight resources, it would be good to have the role of NICE clearly set out in the Bill. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about the reputation of NICE and the role that it plays in facilitating audit and many other things. For me, however, it is about making sure that we have fairness across the NHS in England, and NICE is key in ensuring that that happens for patients.

I want to comment briefly on Amendment 63A. Others have talked about the concerns of the Neurological Alliance. I speak as the honorary president of Cancer52, which represents people affected by rare cancers. The majority of cancer deaths in this country occur because of rare cancers. We know that if a person is diagnosed with a rare cancer, they have often had to really fight through the system, visiting GPs many more times than those with the more common cancers which people call the “big four”. Oesophageal, pancreatic and ovarian cancer, for example, are conditions of which GPs have very little experience. There is a great deal to be done in the NHS to improve outcomes for people diagnosed with what are often called less common or rarer cancers, but which are a group of conditions which account for more than 50 per cent of all cancer deaths. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is right to say that we should be encouraging commissioners to ensure that, where rare conditions are concerned, there is collaboration and knowledge and experience sharing so that they do the right things for patients, regardless of how common their condition may be.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak because everything had been said. However, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made a point that I think is worth picking up on. I declare an interest as chairman of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, which works with people with rare and complex conditions. These conditions are commissioned by the NHS Commissioning Board, while the conditions referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in Amendment 63A are intended to be commissioned by CCGs. Clearly, people are really anxious about these commissioning arrangements. They are based on geography; they are relatively small in number, but not tiny; they are geographically sparse; and very often GPs will not actually see these conditions very frequently.

The noble Lord, Lord Walton, asked whether any thought had been given to sweeping these conditions in with the rare and complex conditions, and to have them commissioned by the NHS board. I am not suggesting whether this is a good or a bad thing, but I think that those with these conditions and the organisations that represent them might be glad to engage in a dialogue on this to see whether it is the appropriate way forward. There is certainly a lot of anxiety about what is currently happening. If my noble friend would give us some indication of whether that could be looked at, that might alleviate some concern.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, I hope that in summing up the Minister will address the general issue of genetic disease. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to one specific single gene defect but there are some 6,000 single gene defects and they are often very complex. Most of them are fatal diseases and many of them affect children. A few sufferers of single gene defects live to a young age and some occasionally live into middle age. However, one problem that we already find in the health service is that provision for the care, treatment and diagnosis of these patients and for the counselling of their families is often very deficient, depending very much on whether funding is available.

An example is the work that has been going on in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, which can prevent a child who might die from one of these diseases being born through the selection of a suitable embryo. Of course, this is not a cheap procedure but in terms of financial efficiency for the health service it is very much less expensive than the complex care that might be involved for a child with, for example, advanced male-type muscular dystrophy. Hitherto there has been a huge difficulty in getting these services through individual PCTs because they think in the short term and are on a budget from year to year. Therefore, collaboration seems extremely important not only in relation to these rare cancers, which of course are immensely important, but for a great number of diseases which are extremely distressing. I am sure that the Minister will fully understand and be greatly sympathetic to the fact that the families involved are immensely distressed by these diseases. They are often very puzzled that they may be carrying one of these gene defects and they find it very difficult to get answers to what are quite complex problems. There really does need to be proper provision for them through collaboration with other authorities.

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, I should like to comment on Amendment 64ZA. I am sorry to inflict yet another medical opinion on the House but there is one factor which has not been mentioned in the planning of emergency services—that is, the fact that the vast majority of patients in medical wards are admitted through the emergency department, coming in as acute emergencies. This is quite unlike the situation in surgical wards. They, too, have their ration of emergencies but the majority of patients are admitted from waiting lists, and this is where the waiting list initiative and so on come in. However, when planning for medical beds, one has to think in terms of the accident and emergency department being the major route by which these patients enter the hospital and, in planning for emergency services, one has to think of the bed needs associated with that.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments, being associated with the rarer cancers group and various other groups. I had a cousin who had neuroblastoma two years ago and had to go to America for treatment. Some of these problems are really complex and GPs have never seen them. However, in the longer term, it is a question of ongoing treatment and the complexity of getting the right drugs for the right condition. Sometimes these drugs do not even come before NICE because the conditions are so rare. This matter really does need serious consideration and I hope that the Minister will do his best.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, my name is added to Amendment 50A and I rise only to say that my silence thus far does not mean that I do not approve of the amendment. I strongly support it. There is a saying that if you get six doctors in a room, you will get six opinions, but I do not think that that will be the case today. The key point of the whole debate is that in the management of patients with rare conditions NICE guidelines are followed. If that is done in the commissioning of the care of patients with rare diseases they will get quality care.

21:45

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this is a useful debate and I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will be able to describe how he thinks specialist services and services for less common conditions will be protected in the new arrangements.

We know that there have been problems with the current commissioning arrangements by primary care trusts, the issue being that if they are dealing with services that cover only a small group of patients they do not have the experience or expertise to commission services effectively. The possibility exists that clinical commissioning groups that cover even smaller areas than PCTs will have the same challenges to face. We know that the NHS Commissioning Board will be commissioning some services at a national level. It would be helpful if the noble Earl, Lord Howe, could explain the distinction between those services that will be deemed to be of national importance but there is clearly concern that CCGs will not be able to have the critical mass to commission locally, and so they fall to be commissioned nationally. Where will the line be drawn? There is a powerful case for highly specialist services and those that are known as services for less common conditions to be given some protection in the system.

Amendment 64ZA is rather different but it comes back to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Walton in our debates in Committee on the need for strategic direction on reconfiguration issues. I am sure that he is right, as indeed was the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to point out that decisions on emergency care and specialist networks are very difficult to make. We know that we probably have too many hospitals providing emergency care at the moment, but we also know that it has often been very difficult to reach local consensus. I know that the thrust of the Government’s legislation is for local determination but that is asking a lot. If you take a region you are asking for a huge number of clinical commissioning groups to come together and sign up to some kind of reconfiguration process which would lead to a more integrated approach in relation to emergency care. Without strategic health authorities and unless the local outposts of the national Commissioning Board are actually going to take an assertive role, there is a risk that we will not have the mechanism for making the kind of hard decisions that need to be made.

I am convinced that some strong, national leadership is required if you are to get movement on better emergency care and an acceptance that the current arrangements in some parts of the country simply will not do. It is interesting to see the debate in Mid Staffordshire following the problems in that trust and the recent publication of letters sent by the local clinical commissioning groups about the future of that hospital, causing a furore in the area. It shows some of the problems of an individual clinical commissioning group seeking to come to a view about the kind of reconfiguration of acute services. Of course, CCGs will need an input, but some external view and leadership would be very helpful to enable us to get better provision of services. As my noble friend Lord Walton says, one of the best examples of this is in relation to stroke services. The experience in London has shown, without any doubt, that pooling stroke services together in a limited number of acute centres has led to hugely enhanced outcomes. As a result of the London experience the strategic health authorities are requiring the same to be done throughout the rest of the country. The question I put to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is: under the arrangements in the Bill, how can we ensure that that kind of national leadership will continue?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this has been another excellent debate. It is worth saying at the outset that I fully appreciate the importance of the board and CCGs paying due attention to the way they commission specialised services and services for less common conditions and indeed emergency services. I fully endorse the importance of services being delivered in an integrated way when that is in the best interests of patients. I listened very carefully to the case put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on Amendment 50A. She made a very persuasive case about the importance of only ever commissioning specialised services with a close acquaintance with the relevant guidance and evidence base. I could not agree more with her on that. Commissioning of specialised services requires specialist skills and this is precisely why we feel that the Commissioning Board is the right body to commission such services. The board will be able to draw on a great deal of expertise in doing so. I hope the noble Baroness recognises our shared commitment in this area. Very shortly we will be publishing a consultation document as a UK response to the EC recommendation on rare diseases. We hope to be able to do that within a few days. The consultation document and responses will form the basis of the UK’s plan. She will see in it that a great deal of thinking is going into how these services should be commissioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Walton, spoke with his customary authority about Duchenne muscular dystrophy. He may like to know that all regional specialised commissioning groups have undertaken reviews of neuromuscular services in their localities. Improvements to services are already being put in place. For example the NHS has invested in care co-ordinator posts which can reduce emergency admissions and readmissions. The national specialised commissioning group has also included neuromuscular disease as a priority in its 2012 work plans and it has been looking at emergency admissions as part of that work.

The noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to rarer conditions, including those of genetic origins, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in relation to neuroblastoma. I identified closely with all that they said. Many of these conditions are extremely rare, fortunately. It is not possible for all health professionals and carers to have detailed knowledge of conditions which they will see only very rarely in their working life. However, already we are addressing this through such initiatives as NHS Choices. It is one of a number of initiatives that we have developed to provide comprehensive, clinically accredited information about health and health services. Comprehensive information to support clinical decision-making is also included on NHS Evidence, the new web-based portal hosted by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. It provides access to a range of information, including primary research literature, practical implementation tools and guidelines. I am not suggesting that it is the total answer to this conundrum but it is certainly a demonstration of the direction of travel. We want to see much more information available to commissioners at a local level.

I think there has been consensus in this debate as to the need to think long and hard about how and at what level particular services should be commissioned. I completely agree with that. It is not always clear cut and it does require careful thought. The Bill says that certain services will be for the board alone to commission. We expect these to include certain highly specialised services—I direct that assurance particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Walton. Other services will be by and large for CCGs to commission, but in collaboration if need be with other CCGs and supported by the board.

I appreciate the keenness of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to ensure that the board’s commissioning of highly specialised services pays due regard to NICE guidance. However, we would prefer not to impose a blanket requirement on the board to exercise its functions in respect of specialised services, or any of its commissioning functions, in accordance with NICE guidance. NICE guidance will undoubtedly be relevant to specialised commissioning—that is obvious—but the amendment could well have the effect of requiring the board to have regard to it at the expense of other authoritative sources of advice. I have already referred to a couple. In exercising its duty to obtain expert advice, we would expect the board to draw on as wide a range of professional expertise as possible and not be constrained into prioritising that of NICE, valuable though that would be.

It is important for us to remember that CCGs must be competent to commission all services to meet the reasonable needs of all those for whom they are responsible. This includes services to meet the needs of patients with “less common” conditions, as Amendment 63A points out. CCGs will need to be well supported in developing as commissioners and the Bill provides a framework for just that. It provides for collaborative working, in Section 14Z1, between CCGs. The NHS Commissioning Board must publish guidance on commissioning, to which the CCG must have regard, which could also cover issues relating to commissioning for less common conditions.

The clinical senates and networks will be overseen by the board to ensure that CCGs can access specialist advice. Clinical commissioning, by giving responsibility for ensuring services meet the reasonable needs of patients to the very clinicians who deal with those patients daily and understand their needs, provides a far stronger basis for ensuring that commissioning caters to the needs of those with less common conditions than the current commissioning arrangements. GPs will be able through their membership of the CCG to seek to ensure that commissioning takes account of the less common conditions, which might not be of great significance across an entire geography but which are of great concern at the level of the individual GP practice.

I can assure the noble Baroness that the NHS Commissioning Board will be required to have a robust authorisation process to ensure that CCGs have made appropriate arrangements to discharge their functions competently, including consideration of the extent to which CCGs have collaborative arrangements for commissioning with other CCGs or local authorities as well as any appropriate commissioning support.

However, while I completely recognise the importance of commissioning services for this particular group of patients, I am afraid that I would prefer not to single out a requirement for authorisation to look at specific groups of conditions in the Bill. It would not make the NHS Commissioning Board’s process any more effective, but it might lead emerging CCGs to add undue weight to this if it was the only part of the services that CCGs will be responsible for commissioning that was specified in relation to the authorisation process.

I hope that it is recognised by your Lordships that in opposing Amendment 64ZA I do not wish to suggest that the concerns of that amendment, to ensure the quality of urgent and emergency care and the integration of its different elements to the benefit of patients, are unimportant—indeed, quite the opposite. The framework in the Bill for ensuring the competence of commissioners, securing continuous improvement in the quality of care and ensuring the promotion of integration applies to emergency and urgent care services every bit as much to as other areas of care. Commissioners will use the expert advice from senates and networks, and from other sources, to determine the best approach to commissioning integrated approaches to the delivery of urgent and emergency care, and within the context of a far-reaching national programme. As the House will know, we already recognise the importance of integration across the health service, particularly in urgent and emergency care. The introduction of NHS 111 will act as a driver for the redesign of local urgent and emergency care systems to create a more integrated system that is easier for patients to access and understand.

22:00

I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about competition in the context of emergency care and I should like to reassure her on that issue. We have been clear that competition should be used only where it is in the best interests of patients. For some services or parts of a pathway this may not be the case and commissioners will need to use their judgment as to what is in the interests of their patients and whether competitive tendering is appropriate. With some services, such as emergency care, it is surely highly unlikely that this test would be met. Indeed, we have always cited A&E as a prime example of where choice is usually irrelevant and competition will almost certainly be inappropriate.

I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about what will happen in the future to cater for the kind of reconfiguration of services that we have seen in London and how the new system will support a regional style of planning. Section 14Z1 enables CCGs to collaborate, as I have already said, in respect of the exercise of their commissioning functions. That is of particular relevance in the context of emergency care. In the same way as current PCTs operate, CCGs may choose to act collectively to co-ordinate care over larger geographical areas; for instance, by adopting a lead commissioner model to negotiate and monitor contracts with urgent care providers. In instances such as that, I am sure that the strategic advice of clinical senates and the range of expertise of clinical networks will prove invaluable in continuously improving the quality of services and care for patients.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke of the need for external expertise in this kind of decision-making. I agree with him. That will be essential in some cases. The clinical senates will be available as a source of specialist and strategic advice to health and well-being boards, in particular, providing a link between professionals and national leadership, although it is anticipated that senates are only likely to become involved in service changes or other issues occurring on a significant scale. However, very often emergency services will be on a significant scale.

My noble friend Lady Williams asked about improving out-of-hours services. We are taking work forward already on that front. Improvement of out-of-hours care will be taken forward as part of the development of a coherent 24/7 urgent care service. Two of the aims of this provision are, first, consistent high-quality integrated care led by clinical commissioning groups, delivering the best outcomes and experience 24/7, with no noticeable differences during or out of normal office hours; and, secondly, greater integration, with services working together to provide a seamless service irrespective of the provider organisations which operate them.

Our vision for urgent care is to replace the ad hoc unco-ordinated system that has developed over the past 13 years—which has been characterised, I am afraid, by poor quality and too much variation—with a system that patients better understand and can get them to the right place first time. Amendment 64ZA would not stimulate that. In fact, it could well distort the local freedoms which commissioners need to develop the best and most effective integration of care.

I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I am most grateful to the Minister and to everyone who has spoken in this debate. There has been widespread support around the House for this group of amendments. The Minister’s comments on NICE were reassuring and very helpful. We will be returning to less common conditions in relation to clinical commissioning groups, but I feel that we have teased out the very difficult dilemma of the duties that sit with the Commissioning Board versus those that sit with the local clinical commissioning group and how that division and integration work.

Again, in terms of emergency care, the Minister has made very many helpful comments. However, I do have some concerns that I would like to consult on. It would be really helpful if he would meet me and some people from emergency medicine. The College of Emergency Medicine has been trying very hard to work with the Government to make sure that this Bill actually does enhance and does not damage inadvertently the improvements in emergency care that it has been driving across the country very fast over recent years. A meeting would be most helpful. Pending such a meeting, I will withdraw the amendment for the moment, but we may need to come back to some of this at Third Reading, so I would like to reserve that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 50A withdrawn.

Amendment 51 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 52 not moved.

Amendments 53 and 54

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

53: Clause 22, page 18, line 17, leave out from “must” to end of line 18 and insert “have regard to the desirability of securing, so far as consistent with the interests of the health service—”

54: Clause 22, page 18, line 23, at end insert—
“( ) If, in the case of any exercise of functions, the Board considers that there is a conflict between the matters mentioned in subsection (1) and the discharge by the Board of its duties under sections 1(1) and 1G(3)(b), the Board must give priority to those duties.”

Amendments 53 and 54 agreed.

Amendment 55 not moved.

Amendment 56

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

56: Clause 22, page 18, line 34, leave out from “decisions” to end of line and insert “which relate to—
(a) the prevention or diagnosis of illness in the patients, or(b) their care or treatment.”

Amendment 56 agreed.

Amendment 57

Moved by

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

57: Clause 22, page 18, line 39, at end insert—
“( ) The National Commissioning Board must have regard to advice from a range of healthcare practitioners from across the patient pathway, including local clinical specialists and allied health professionals.”

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, this is another group of amendments that relate to the process of commissioning. Their aim is to ensure that commissioners have regard to all the expert advice needed to make informed decisions about commissioning services for patients, particularly complex services that operate across the care pathway. Amendment 65, which is primarily in the name of my noble friend Lord Patel, further aims to ensure that safety information is shared with everybody who needs to know about it.

The groups of particular concern to be consulted go beyond medicine and nursing; the wording in the amendment is “local clinical specialists”. They will be linked to their own specialist group and specialist society and will be expected to be completely up to date with advances in their field, enabling the most modern, up-to-date and cost-effective care to be brought down to a local level. They also address allied health professionals.

We have spoken remarkably little about the contribution of allied health professionals in our debates so far, and they have not featured on the face of the Bill. Physiotherapists form the largest group of allied health professionals. I declare an interest as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. As a group, they are very used to representing other allied health professionals; and, as a group , allied health professionals are very used to understanding the role and contribution of each other, such as occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and so on, groups that are small in number but have a very important contribution to make. One of the reasons that they become so important in these new processes of a care pathway is that, if we are expecting more patients to be looked after in the community, we have to do a great deal to increase the independence of individuals.

The physiotherapists and occupational therapists are par excellence the people who will maintain or re-establish mobility and be able to discharge patients from hospital. I know from my own clinical practice that all too often we are waiting for the physio or the OT to provide the essential input that makes the difference between a patient remaining an in-patient or being able to get home, particularly where they have mobility problems. Physiotherapists also have a role in mental health and can be very important in establishing mental health improvements as well as just physical health. It is with that background that they have been featured in these amendments as a group of allied health professionals, because, sadly, many doctors and nurses do not really understand the major and very cost-effective contribution that these healthcare professionals can make. I beg to move.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I shall speak to two amendments in my name, Amendments 65 and 66. They are very simple. They regard the information on the safety of services provided by the health service. I particularly want to address the issue about patient safety.

Amendment 65 refers to the information provided. The Bill says that the Commissioning Board will provide information to those whom it “considers appropriate”. I do not know why the Commissioning Board must decide who it considers appropriate; my amendment merely lists all the organisations providing healthcare to whom the information must be provided. Patient safety incidents occur mainly because of systems failure. I can give many examples, from wrong-side surgery to wrong infusions, wrong medicines reconciliation and wrong injections in the wrong side—such as a spinal injection when a particular material must not be injected spinally. Because it is a system failure, if such a patient safety incident occurs in one hospital, it is likely to occur in another. So the information must be provided to all healthcare providers and those who train doctors and nurses. I do not understand why it must be that the board must make information collected on patient safety incidents available only to those whom it “considers appropriate”.

My next amendment has to do with subsection (3), which says:

“The Board may impose charges, calculated on such basis as it considers appropriate, in respect of information made available by it under subsection (2)”.

Why must it charge? If it charges, we do not get the gains from the lessons learnt from patient safety incidents.

The two amendments are quite simple. I do not understand why it is not clearer.

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, my name is attached to two amendments in the group, Amendments 57 and 99. I shall speak very briefly. They are both about ensuring that, first, the commissioning board can put itself in the best possible position to develop its plans by having available to it all the advice that it can get. When the board makes its decisions it has to be able to show and demonstrate that it has reached those decisions on the best evidence possible. That is what the amendment tries to do. The same argument, only even more so, can be applied to CCGs. That is Amendment 99. They will certainly need all the help that they can get, and Amendment 99 gives them the opportunity to get the support that they need. I hope that those two amendments can be supported, at least.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 66 from the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Given all the hard work that has gone into trying to improve knowledge about medical and other areas, to improve patient safety, it seems extraordinary that in this Bill there is a provision to enable the national Commissioning Board to be able to charge for information about patient safety defects that have come to its attention. That seems pretty bizarre, but no doubt there is some explanation in Richmond House that would convince me. I look forward eagerly to knowing what it is.

22:15

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

I follow on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and will speak to Amendments 99 and 100. There has been a great deal of debate in Committee and now at Report about the duties of the new clinical commissioning groups and how the commissioning of health services should be improved. I will briefly expand on some of the points that have been made in previous debates on this subject.

We know that the commissioning of cancer services could often be better. I remind the House again of my interests in this matter. It is crucial that a range of experts are involved in commissioning. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has just said, they will need all the help they can get. It is crucial that expertise is used and sought, for example from people operating within the many cancer networks that currently do such an excellent job in supporting cancer commissioning.

I welcome new duty on clinical commissioning groups provided by new Section 14V, which commands that they will need to obtain appropriate advice from professionals with a broad range of expertise in the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has tabled an amendment which slightly expands on that duty and mentions the need for expertise in the whole of the patient pathway. That amendment is interesting as well.

I also believe that clinical commissioning groups, during their authorisation process and annual review, should be required to demonstrate how and where they obtain advice to commission cancer services. This would be a very important point of transparency. Ideally this should include, for example, a cancer lead in each clinical commissioning group who is responsible for liaising with the clinical networks and local authorities to ensure a co-ordinated approach to commissioning cancer services across the pathway.

I should like to ask the Minister two brief questions concerning clinical commissioning groups’ new duty to obtain appropriate advice. First, could he update the House on how the Government will monitor the implementation of this crucial new duty? How will clinical commissioning groups be required to report on it, and at what level of detail? Will it, as I mentioned, include named leads, and how will these reports be monitored? Secondly, what steps will be taken if a clinical commissioning group fails to fulfill this crucial duty, and by whom will these steps be taken? The role of cancer networks and the expertise that they bring to bear is key. That should not be lost through this process.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 99. Will the Minister tell the House a bit more about the clinical senates? He has spoken about them previously but it would be interesting to hear a bit more about who will actually be on them, who will pay for them and how will they give their information. There are many people, especially in the cancer field, who would like to know more.

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, we strongly support the amendments in this group, which underline the importance of the NHS Commissioning Board and CCGs seeking advice from healthcare practitioners from across the patient care pathway, including local clinical specialists and allied health professionals, and going beyond professional input to seek advice from organisations with expertise in the experience of patients.

We hope that the Government will recognise the strong case put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and other speakers to these amendments for also recognising the expertise of patients’ organisations in the Bill and ensure that commissioners seek their advice as well as that of health professionals. By this we mean patients’ organisations not just being consulted but being genuinely involved in helping to co-design or co-produce services. Many patients’ organisations, such as the Stroke Association for example, are key providers of local services such as reablement or information, advice and support services to stroke survivors, carers and family members across the country. They have first-hand, direct experience of the issues that matter most to patients across the whole care pathway, hospital and community. Involvement of patient groups would also help the patient voice in the clinical senates and networks, which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also mentioned. To remind the Government, this approach was supported by the clinical workstream of the Future Forum, round one, but was overlooked in the Government's response. Now is a good opportunity to address this issue.

Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, deals with information collected by the board on the safety of services provided by the health service being made available to healthcare providers, the Care Quality Commission and HealthWatch England, local authorities and professional organisations in healthcare. We fully support this, along with the caveat provided by Amendment 66 that the information should be freely available without charge. I hope that the Minister will accept the need to make progress on this important issue and reassure the House about the involvement of healthcare professionals and patient organisations in developing the commissioning plans.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and worthwhile debate and I appreciate the concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and other noble Lords have demonstrated throughout the Bill’s proceedings to ensure that the board and CCGs benefit from as wide a range of advice as possible. The Government have been clear that everyone with a role to play in securing the best possible services for local people should be able to do so. The NHS Future Forum recommended that we strengthen the legislative duties to help achieve this, which is why the duties on the board and CCGs to obtain appropriate advice were strengthened in another place to incorporate the wording used to define the comprehensive health service and to ensure that it was clear that such advice should come from persons who, taken together, have a broad range of professional expertise.

I mentioned clinical senates on the last group of amendments. Of course we envisage a role for clinical senates in the arrangements for how these duties are fulfilled, providing not just clinical but multidisciplinary advice from professionals from public health and social care alongside patient and public representation and other groups as appropriate. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me specifically about clinical senates. They will be established as strategic advisory bodies, with a clear focus on quality improvement and improving outcomes. They will bring together clinicians with strong clinical credibility, drawn from across the disciplines, as I have mentioned. They will include patients and members of the public as well. They will have a role, too, in advancing public understanding of health and healthcare.

Why do we need clinical senates? Commissioning is at its best when it is a collaboration of professionals, based on a shared drive for continuous quality improvement. Maximum participation will be key here. The Future Forum report showed:

“There was universal agreement that people would be”,

better served if their,

“care were designed around their needs and based on the input of the public, patients and carers, health and social care professionals”,

the voluntary sector, “and specialist societies”. The exact detail of who will be part of the clinical senates, the number that will exist and the roles that they may have are all to be determined through a process of discussion and engagement, but I hope that I have outlined, at least in broad terms, what they will be there to do.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

Who will pay for them?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, they will come under the aegis of the NHS Commissioning Board. They will be part of the board.

Having said all that, I remain unconvinced that imposing specific duties as to where advice should come from, including specifying particular sources of advice such as in Amendments 57 and 99, is the right way forward. I am afraid that if we were to do that, there would be then justifiable demands to include in the Bill other clinicians and groups of people who commissioners should seek advice from when exercising this duty. My view is that this is horses for courses, and that it is appropriate that the board and CCGs should have the freedom to determine what advice it is appropriate to seek in each instance. That is why the emphasis in the duties as they stand is rightly placed on ensuring that the commissioner obtains “appropriate advice” from people with a broad range of professional expertise. It is that breadth of expertise which is important, not the particular professionals involved.

Amendments 58 and 100 are admirable, if I may say so, in that they seek to require that the advice should come from across the care pathway. I have every sympathy with the noble Baroness’s intentions there. Again, however, I think that this is already provided for in the duty which—in its reference to expertise in the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of illness, and the need to obtain advice from persons who, taken together, have a broad range of professional expertise—is designed to be of maximum scope, and I am confident that it will be interpreted as such.

We have also just discussed the important role that both patients, and the organisations that represent their interests, can bring to the commissioning process. However, I think that Amendments 59 and 101 are unnecessary. Let us be clear that while these duties refer to obtaining advice from people with expertise in relation to the health service, this is not confined to clinical expertise. There is nothing to prevent the board or CCGs securing advice from patients’ organisations, or those with expertise in the patient experience. The board can also draw on the advice of national and local healthwatch as a conduit for such advice. CCGs, similarly, are able to draw on the advice of local healthwatch.

However, to reiterate the point that I made in Committee, there is a risk in becoming too prescriptive. In reality, we have to trust them to build these relationships themselves and judge them on the outcomes that they achieve. If we commission for good outcomes, we will, as night follows day, secure the appropriate knowledge and advice to enable us to do that.

It will also be an important part of the board’s remit to produce advice and guidance to prevent the recurrence of incidents that jeopardise patient safety, just as the National Patient Safety Agency does now. It is important that the board is able to share relevant information relating to patient safety. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is absolutely right that information that can inform and enhance patient safety in the NHS should be made available to all those who would benefit from it. The NPSA, as he will know, currently shares this information with a number of bodies with a particular role in relation to patient safety—for example, the MHRA and the CQC—and this will continue to be the case. Indeed, if it did not make important information available to those who it thought could reasonably benefit from it, the board would be in breach of its duty.

In addition to NHS bodies, this information is currently also used to develop products for use by non-NHS organisations, by the devolved Administrations and international organisations, for which the board may determine it appropriate to charge a fee. It is for those reasons that we have framed the duty to share information in broad terms, and we would not want to be more prescriptive in the way that Amendment 65 proposes. Neither would we want to prevent the board charging a fee when appropriate, as would be the effect of Amendment 66. I think that it is reasonable for the board to determine how and in what circumstances it may impose charges for the information it provides. The power is intended to allow the board to seek adequate compensation for the services that it provides to other bodies where there would otherwise be no benefit to the health service. However, there is no scope for the board to charge for the advice and guidance that it would be required to provide for the purpose of maintaining and improving patient safety, and although there is provision for the board to impose charges, Clause 22, which inserts new Section 13Q(4), makes it clear that the board must give, not sell, advice and guidance to appropriate bodies to maintain and improve the safety of the health service. I hope that that is reassuring to noble Lords.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked me about the monitoring of advice and what happens if they fail on that duty. CCGs will have an annual performance assessment by the board, which would assess how well they discharge their functions, including this duty to obtain advice. If a CCG fails to perform any of its functions, effectively the board can intervene and can take action. I hope that the clarification I have given is helpful and that I have sufficiently reassured noble Lords to enable them to withdraw their Amendments 57, 58, 59, 65 and 66.

22:30

Amendments 72 and 115 in my name clarify the circumstances in which the board of CCGs must consider common-law confidentiality requirements when considering whether or not to disclose information. We have listened to the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Marks, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and the BMA; they drew attention to circumstances where, if common law did not apply, there was the potential for disclosure to threaten patient confidentiality. We are therefore bringing forward these amendments to achieve what we believe is an appropriate balance between ensuring that information is disclosed when appropriate and protecting personal confidential information. The amendments are tabled in my name to achieve this, and I hope that they will receive the support of the House.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully to the amendments and for having addressed and recognised the real concerns that are behind the way that they were written and drafted. I rather hoped that he was going to say that the spirit of the amendments would be taken forward in guidance for commissioning as it is written, and I pose that as a very brief question to him before completing my comments.

[Earl Howe]

Certainly, my Lords. The spirit of the amendments will be incorporated in guidance.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I thank the Minister very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

Amendments 58 and 59 not moved.

Amendment 60

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

60: Clause 22, page 19, line 13, leave out “have regard to the need to”

Amendment 60 agreed.

Amendment 60A

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

60A: Clause 22, page 19, line 16, at end insert “, and
“(c) research supported by the health service for the purpose of protecting the public in England from disease or other dangers to health”

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 66AA and 67AA in my name. The amendments are all designed to ensure that we have a strong commitment to the research duty throughout the NHS that matches the aspiration and vision set out so clearly during the debates on this issue on Report. There have not been many elements of the Bill so far that have been welcomed and united the House quite so strongly as the Government’s acceptance of the strengthening of the research duty placed on the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board and the clinical commissioning groups. As we know, that was met with universal support around the House. Once again for the record, I declare an interest as chief executive of a medical research charity, Breast Cancer Campaign, which is a proud member of the Association of Medical Research Charities. We have been one organisation among many calling for the research duty to be strengthened.

While amendments to strengthen the research duty were widely supported, the debate on the first day of Report when these amendments were discussed reiterated a critical issue that was also raised in Committee: the duties must be meaningful and must therefore be monitored. There must be monitoring mechanisms in place throughout the system to ensure that the research duty is not there in theory alone. For that reason, I was reassured to hear from the Minister that the Secretary of State would be expected to report on how he fulfils his statutory duty annually, that CCGs will need to demonstrate how they will exercise important functions, including the duty of research during the authorisation process, and that a CCG’s commissioning plan and annual report will cover the exercise of the duty of all the CCG’s functions. However, no mention was made during the debate of the NHS Commissioning Board being required to report back on its duties when reporting its annual plan and business plan. The purpose of Amendments 66AA and 67AA is to make sure that we really address this key matter. I admit to being a bit confused about the Government’s position on reporting on duties. On the one hand, the research duties have quite rightly been strengthened but, on the other hand, there is a notable reluctance to ensure that it is a priority and a requirement for the Commissioning Board to report back on the activity relating to this duty. We need to have that transparency, so that we can see the benefits of the duty percolating through the system.

The duty relating to research is now stronger in wording than the duty relating to inequalities, but the Government have decided to include their own amendment, adding inequalities to the list of duties on which the board will be required to report. They have chosen not to do likewise for research. While I welcome and support the requirement to report on inequalities, this new step by the Government has reinforced my concern over whether there are sufficient reporting mechanisms embedded in the new structures of the NHS to promote adequately the vision of a research-led NHS that has found such widespread support in this House.

If, as the Minister may respond, all duties should be reported back on, why have this subsection, which identifies and highlights specific duties, within the clause at all? We are looking at a case of first among equals when it comes to some of the duties that the board is required to fulfil. How are we to understand what differences this will bring in reporting requirements? I hope that the Minister can use the opportunity now, late as it is, to reassure me that research will be a priority for the Commissioning Board and that there will be explicit reference to research and to the board’s plans in relation to it in the business plan and in the report.

Amendment 60A is to seek further clarity on what is to be understood by the term,

“research on matters relevant to the Health Service”.

My concern on this point is to ensure that the terminology used in the duty should be sufficiently comprehensive. For example, will the current wording require the NHS to enable research to occur, and to support it, as well as utilising the evidence from research that is available? Having discussed this with the noble Earl, I am confident that he will be able to reassure me on this point. I beg to move.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

My Lords, I am eager to speak at this late hour. It seems that every time we talk about research it is always around 11 o’clock at night. The Minister and his minions must be planning something which we do not quite know about, but here we are. I support Amendments 66AA and 67AA standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin. Will my noble friend the Minister clarify the issue over the head of research at NIMR? At an early stage on Report, he clarified the duties of the Secretary of State and the commissioning groups, and how they will be reported. I think that is quite clear to the House. Speaking on behalf of the medical research charities, one of which I chair, there is general agreement on and support for the Minister’s general direction of travel. However, the Commissioning Board is a different issue altogether. The Minister was silent on that when he reported back but he indicated that it would be the role of the chief executive of NIMR, Dame Sally Davies, to prepare plans and report back on research. However, my understanding is that Dame Sally Davies has two specific jobs. On the one hand, she is the chief executive of NIMR and is therefore responsible for funding research proposals that come to the Department of Health. That is a very distinct role of looking after more than £1 billion of spend in this particular direction.

Her other role is that of Chief Medical Officer. In that role, I understand that she is responsible for organising, on behalf of the Department of Health, research programmes that deal with both public health and those areas of the health programme that require specialist research input. The Minister appeared to say earlier on Report that Dame Sally Davies would, in her role as the head of NIMR, report to the board on research. However, perhaps she will not report to the board on research; perhaps she has a separate reporting line to the Secretary of State or Parliament. In that case, I should very much like the Minister to clarify that role.

In conclusion, I strongly support the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, in making her point about cherry picking duties. Earlier today, in response to Amendment 38A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the Minister rightly said that we should not cherry pick particular conditions in order to report on them. However, that is exactly what is happening over the duties. A specific set of duties, of which the whole House is incredibly supportive, are laid down in the Bill. However, only certain ones must be included in an annual plan and reported on. There can be no duty more important than that of research. It is the one area in which we will get the very latest treatments to patients quicker and with better health outcomes, yet it is one of the areas that is regarded as less important than others. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy both the medical research charities and this House on those two issues.

[Lord Turnberg]

I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the words of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. It is almost churlish to return to the matter of research when we have heard such welcome words and support from the noble Earl on research in the Bill. However, as an ex-chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service, it would be wrong for me not to comment on Amendment 60A, which seeks to have research supported in the health service for the purpose of protecting the public in England. It is in that area that we may have a specific problem because public health will be dealt with largely by the local authorities. It is unclear how local authority support for research will be kept within the context of the needs of the country, and how that will work with the marvellous amendments that the noble Earl has tabled. Perhaps he will clarify how local authorities will be engaged in promoting research and how we will encourage them to do so.

22:45

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, which call on the NHS Commissioning Board to promote research supported by the health service for the purpose of protecting the public from disease and other dangers to health. These amendments also include the need for the board’s business plan to explain how it proposes to discharge its duty in respect of these issues to promote the NHS constitution and for the annual report, in particular, to contain an assessment of how effectively it has discharged this duty. We support these too.

The amendments underline the importance of embedding research in the NHS and we welcome the introduction of a research duty on the Commissioning Board and the intention to ensure that research is genuinely an integral part of the health service, as my noble friend, Lord Turnberg, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said. This is one part of the Bill which has genuinely been recognised and improved on by the Government. However, ensuring that the intention of their duty is clearly understood and sufficiently comprehensive is crucial. These amendments are designed to ensure this. Amendment 66A would ensure that there are clear commitments to research for which the board is accountable and Amendment 67AA requires the board to explain activity relating to the research duty. Both these provisions ensure that there are important monitoring mechanisms in place in the board’s business plan and annual report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has stressed, they address an apparent anomaly which requires the board to report on improvement in the quality of services and on public and patient involvement but not on research, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said. We hope that the Government will accept these amendments in that spirit.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we had a very positive debate on the importance of research at an earlier stage of Report. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for the support she expressed for the changes the Government have made to the Bill. I am more than happy to respond to these amendments this evening. I sympathise and agree with the noble Baroness’s championing of research in this Bill. She and my noble friend Lord Willis have been particularly vocal and well informed on this subject. Nevertheless, I am afraid I am reluctant to agree that the Bill needs yet more amendment. Having said that, I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness going forward.

On Amendment 60A, the duties on the Secretary of State, the board and CCGs to promote research and the powers to conduct research all apply to the health service in its widest sense. This encompasses both NHS and public health services under the 2006 Act. In relation to the board’s duty in new Section 13L, the duty to promote research on matters relevant to the health service already covers public health protection. Public health protection is a function of the Secretary of State under Section 2A of the 2006 Act and therefore part of the health service.

There are also other clauses in the Bill that focus specifically on research into health protection. Clause 10 lists research and other steps for advancing knowledge and understanding as examples of action that the Secretary of State may take under his wider duty in relation to protecting public health. Public health and health protection in particular will, of course, be predominantly the responsibility of Public Health England rather than the board. It is not therefore necessary for the board’s functions to cover such matters but there will, of course, be close working between them and there are powers under Clause 21 for the Secretary of State to arrange for other bodies, including the board, to undertake any of his public health functions if necessary.

Turning to Amendments 66AA and 67AA, we have had a number of debates about exactly what the board should give particular attention to in its annual business plan and its annual report. I would like to remind your Lordships that the board is already required to set out in these documents how it intends to exercise its functions including how it will meet the various duties placed on it under the Bill.

The Bill emphasises a very few key duties that the board must look at in particular in its business plan, annual report and performance assessments, and that CCGs must look at in their commissioning plans and annual reports. We feel that we have chosen the right duties in each instance. As to the board’s and CCGs’ annual reports, it is more important that they focus on the outcomes that have ultimately been achieved through the provision of services, rather than on the way in which those services are being delivered. On the whole, that is the distinction we have tried to draw.

My noble friend Lord Willis asked about Dame Sally Davies and her reporting lines. I am sure my noble friend will remember that I wrote to him on 17 November and briefly covered this point. In short, as he knows, the National Institute for Health Research is and will remain part of the Department of Health. Its budget is held centrally by the department. The Chief Medical Officer is and will remain responsible for the NIHR and its budget. In her capacity as Chief Scientific Adviser and head of the NIHR, she will report to Ministers and the Secretary of State, but she will be there to give advice to the NHS Commissioning Board if asked to do so on matters relating to research. Similarly, in her capacity as CMO, she reports directly to the Secretary of State, but will be there to provide advice to Public Health England. I hope that that is of help to my noble friend.

The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, asked me how the local authority role in promoting research would be assisted and how that would manifest itself in practice. I should like to write a letter to him on that point because the planning on that is, if I can put it this way, work in progress and I hope that I will be able to tell the noble Lord a little more in writing in a few days’ time.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

Before he sits down, will my noble friend tell the House whether he has made it clear in his remarks that the chief executive of the Commissioning Board will not have a direct relationship in terms of research, and will not have responsibility that will, in fact, be with the Chief Scientific Officer—the head of the NIMR? If that is the case, how on earth will the Commissioning Board have a relationship with the commissioning groups in terms of their duty to promote research?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is not correct. The board will have a duty to promote research, and we have debated that point. What it will not have is the budget for the National Institute for Health Research, which is held centrally. I think that noble Lords have welcomed that because it will mean that that budget is held separately from the board’s own budget. However, that does not absolve the NHS Commissioning Board from responsibility for promoting research. Indeed, it will do that and have responsibility in particular for ensuring that the health costs of research carried out in NHS establishments are covered under the various tariffs. That will be a major part of the board’s work.

I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness sufficiently to enable her to withdraw her amendments, but I should of course be happy to talk to her outside the Chamber if there remain points that she would like to raise with me.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

There is one matter on which I should be really grateful for the noble Earl’s help. In his helpful response to this debate, he said that there will be some key duties on which the Commissioning Board will need to report in particular. Will he also remind us that the Commissioning Board should report on all its duties, because I am not feeling that reassured at the moment?

[Earl Howe]

I apologise to the noble Baroness. I thought I had made it clear that of course there will be a duty on the clinical commissioning groups to assure the board that they have fulfilled all their functions. We fully expect that research will be covered in that. These particular duties have been mentioned in the Bill only either because they are absolutely integral to the delivery of outcomes, or because they relate to a fundamental strand of accountability—namely, the duties to reduce inequalities, to improve the quality of services, and to promote public involvement and consultation. These really are central to everything that the board and CCGs will do. It is not because there is any greater obligation on the board to comply with them than there is in respect of any of their other duties. The same applies to CCGs.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

I thank the Minister, not only for giving me double reassurance in this debate, but also for the work that I know he has done personally to ensure strengthening of the research duty in the Bill in the first place. I also thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 60A withdrawn.

Amendment 61

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

61: Clause 22, page 19, line 16, at end insert—
“13LA Duty as to promoting education and training
The Board must, in exercising its functions, have regard to the need to promote education and training for the persons mentioned in section 1E(1) so as to assist the Secretary of State in the discharge of the duty under that section.”

Amendment 61 agreed.

Amendments 62 to 63A not moved.

Amendment 64 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 64ZA not moved.

Amendment 64A

Moved by

[Lord Mawson]

64A: Clause 22, page 20, line 24, at end insert—
“13OA Duty to have regard to the voluntary and social enterprise sector
(1) In exercising its functions, the Board must, so far as it is consistent with the interests of the health service, act with a view to ensuring that competition does not disadvantage the voluntary and social enterprise sectors.
(2) The Board may take specific action to support the development, including capacity building, of the voluntary sector, social enterprises, co-operatives and mutuals as it considers appropriate.
(3) Any action the Board takes in subsection (2) shall only be such that a level playing field between providers is achieved and maintained, meaning that one sector of provision is not more disadvantaged than another and the relative benefits of each form of organisation can be taken into account.”

[Lord Mawson]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 64B. Many fine words have been spoken by this and the previous Government about the important role that social enterprise and the voluntary sectors now need to play in our changing economy, particularly in the NHS. Indeed, on 25 January, the Prime Minister spoke to exactly this subject in the other place, and in 2010 Secretary of State Andrew Lansley said during a speech to the voluntary sector leaders that he was assisting in the creation of the,

“largest social enterprise sector in the world”.

Indeed, he said that it would mean opportunities for this sector,

“at every stage in the process”.

These are very fine words, with which I agree. These two amendments are intended to turn these aspirations into practice on the ground up and down this country, because it is simply not happening when one looks under the carpet and at the fine detail. Whatever we think the numbers produced by civil servants tell us, something quite different is happening on the ground in practice.

When this matter raised its head in Committee, I reminded your Lordships’ House of our practical experience in Tower Hamlets, where the social enterprise the Bromley by Bow Centre—I declare an interest as its founder and president—had competed with a large multinational company to run a local health centre. Having invested many tens of thousands of pounds in the process, the centre lost the bid on cost.

Fair enough, one might say: that is life. Because I was conflicted at the time, I kept out of the process but, as soon as it had finished, I realised that a very large company had undercut the centre and come in at a price that was simply not sustainable for either it or the patients, and that the inexperienced procurement officers in the PCT had no idea about what they were dealing with in practice—they had never run a health centre. Lo and behold, very quickly the company was adding new variation orders to the contract to up its value, and by year 3 asking to be relieved of its responsibilities under the contract.

The centre now runs the service, having wasted a great deal of money as a charity in the application process. The company was good to deal with, but the process was hopeless. One can imagine the messiness this contractual process created in a local housing estate which had had poor health provision for years, because in practice the local GPs were not held accountable. This was not good for patients and it was certainly not good for business.

23:00

I recognise that this first amendment has limitations as to what it can achieve in practice but, because I am not allowed under competition law to put down an amendment that guarantees the social enterprise sector a fighting chance of winning a percentage of contracts, it is an attempt to push the boat along. It is a piece of a bigger jigsaw.

What I have to say through these two amendments builds on the practical points that I attempted to make in my Second Reading speech on 27 January on the Public Services (Social Value) Bill. It is good to see in his place the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who led on this Bill in your Lordships’ House. These matters are all connected with the question of how in practice we add real social value to the processes of public sector procurement, and today we are particularly focusing on the health service.

I noticed in a recent newspaper article that Stephen Allott, who was appointed by Francis Maude in February to give smaller suppliers,

“a strong voice at the top table”,

told a journalist recently that work is well under way to create a fairer playing field for smaller businesses. Of course, many of these smaller businesses are social enterprises, because social enterprises are businesses. I welcome this but Mr Allott conceded that the slow pace of change meant that many companies were still unable to take advantage of the opportunities which Francis Maude promised them and continued to grapple with major hurdles, such as lengthy and burdensome pre-qualification questionnaires or PQQs, high financial thresholds and high levels of liability insurance. Mr Allott said that he continued to hear about problems faced all over the country in both central government and the wider public sector. Mr Allott also rightly said that a cultural change among the 6,000 procurement professionals in central government was likely to be the biggest barrier to SME involvement. I agree.

On 20 November, Francis Maude also announced a plan for a commissioning academy. On 7 February it was announced that a £7 million leadership academy, run by Oxford University’s Saïd Business School, would be set up with a focus on large-scale infrastructure procurement—for example, a new rail route to Birmingham and so on. We are told that the top 50 civil servants will attend. Oh dear! If the process for the procurement academy gets it so wrong, it shows the depth of the problem. The chosen focus is solely on high-profile mega-contracts and a handful of senior staff. While we clearly need to get these right as well, where is the focus on the 6,000 central government staff and, I believe, the 60,000 local authority and health authority procurement staff? This is where the focus is needed on this detail, because these are the people who spend large amounts of taxpayers’ money, which has a profound implication for local communities across the country. Billions of pounds-worth of contracts are procured through them, and these are the people who in my experience keep getting it wrong at the front edge and often have a very limited understanding of what social enterprise is about.

More seriously, my colleagues and I are trying to do what we can to help the Government with these changes. Indeed, I am talking to the HR department of one central government department in Whitehall at the moment to try to second staff to take a view up the telescope and discover for themselves, for example, the unintended consequences of unreasonably high levels of liability insurance, and here I suspect that I must declare an interest. These two amendments are trying to encourage government to take a few further practical steps down this road. The Minister knows, as we all do, that there is still a long way to go.

The present procurement processes are broken and affect not just social enterprises. A pharmacist whom I know in an inner-city area has a highly innovative approach. He has been mentoring young people from a local school in the middle of a housing estate, some of whom have gone on to read pharmacy at university. However, he is finding that his approach and skills are not recognised by the local health service. The PCT recently ran a procurement exercise for a new pharmacy nearby. Clearly, it would have been to the benefit of the local community and local health services if this pharmacist had been able to extend his work, take over this new outlet and grow further linkages with social enterprises locally. Clearly the PCT cannot just give him the contract but you would have thought that it might make sure that he knew about it by perhaps putting him in touch with someone who knew about PQQs, or ensuring appropriate weightings for added-value services and an in-depth knowledge of the local community. Not a bit of it. The PCT did not even tell the pharmacist about the PQQ process until 24 hours before the deadline. He thus did not even get shortlisted after the PQQ stage.

That says everything that is wrong with public sector procurement and it is why I have little confidence that any of the legislation, from the Localism Act to NHS reform, will achieve very much in practice if there is not a profound culture change in the way in which procurement teams think and operate. By the way, I could also if there was time, which there is not, illustrate the same problem from the major corporate’s point of view. That very good company has taken the time and trouble to grow a partnership with the local social enterprise over many years. The company has understood the arguments as to why it makes good social and business sense to give greater weightings to the development of skills in local communities, only to find itself losing contracts because the procurement team in one major contract, despite all the talk in government, was simply ticking boxes and had no idea what the words meant in the real world on the ground or how meaningless the weightings were in practice.

I am sure that the civil servants who then gathered the numbers together in this contract felt that the procedures had been followed to the letter and every box was in fact ticked. In reality, something quite different happened. Perhaps some of us could offer some support to the NHS in running another procurement exercise, with the goal this time that when the PCT or its successor body commissions another pharmacy the staff get out of the office and discover the local context in which they operate and respond to it, and incidentally improve the quality of their working lives in the process by getting to know better some of the patients and professionals in the area.

I know from experience how well-meaning speeches can appear to press a green button in No. 10 or the Department of Health only to find that what happens in practice down in the machinery of government is something quite different. Unintended consequences are very real in this area of the machinery of government. We all know that healthcare markets are in their infancy. Philip Collins rightly said in the Times recently that they need to grow. It is time for many of the people writing to me to do what Mr Collins suggests and put aside sentimentality about the NHS and embrace patient choice, otherwise those who profess to be angels protecting the NHS will kill it. Social enterprise is up for this journey and wants to help and work with this and any successor Governments. Healthcare markets in England are in their infancy with regard to both supply and demand sides of the equation but both are underdeveloped. We need competition but it needs to be a level playing field based not on theories or half-baked notions of fairness and equality but on real practice.

To tackle this we need more than grants to build capability in the social enterprise sector; we need fundamental change in the procurement culture of the NHS. It is about more than just creating guidelines. It is much more fundamental than that. These two amendments offer the Government a few further pieces of the jigsaw and seek to help Ministers create more social value from public service procurement. I beg to move.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, the hour is late but I wish briefly to explain why I have added my name to this amendment moved so compellingly by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, whose credentials in this field are second to none.

In Committee it was argued that the Bill, as currently framed, could have serious unintended consequences both for social enterprises and for the wider voluntary and community sector. In my remarks, I want to focus on the wider voluntary and community sector. The basic concern expressed was that staff working on the NHS Commissioning Board, and indeed more widely, would interpret the Bill to mean that capacity building and other measures to support the development both of social enterprises and of voluntary and community organisations would be outlawed. A consequence of this would be to make it harder for charities and community groups, which are often very small with tiny management capacity, to provide the services and support that many people, particularly the most vulnerable and the hard-to-reach, rely on.

I know that many charities and community groups are particularly effective in reaching out to the people whom the statutory sector finds hard to reach and they then can advocate on their behalf and indeed can help provide an authentic user voice in the system. In Committee the Minister gave assurances that essentially these concerns were unfounded and that the Government will,

“ensure that procurement practices do not unfairly restrict the opportunities for charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises to offer health and care services”.—[Official Report, 28/11/11; col. 108.]

When I followed this up afterwards with very helpful officials at the Department of Health, they said that the NHS Commissioning Board would be publishing guidance on this issue for commissioners. That guidance I am sure will be helpful but is it enough? There is always a danger that guidance will not be adhered to, will be misinterpreted or indeed will not be seen.

I want to refer very briefly to my own experience in this field. Until a month ago I was chief executive of the charity Relate. Our local centres which are very small with very limited management capacity found themselves in a commissioning exercise in relation to the talking therapies part of the NHS services. It was not an encouraging experience, to be frank. These local centres often found that potential NHS commissioners would wrongly assume or argue that the local Relate centres would be quite unable to mesh with the NHS’s systems, data, outcomes measurement or requirements. Often this simply was not the case but it reflected a lack of understanding on the part of the commissioners. I know that this has been the experience of a number of other charities both big and small.

In conclusion, this modest amendment would be more effective than simply guidance in preventing these unintended consequences. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s concluding remarks.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, it is with very considerable diffidence that I rise to speak at this hour and for the first time on this Bill. Tomorrow we have, I hope, the Third Reading of the Public Services (Social Value) Bill which I introduced at Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. That Bill will require all public bodies, including health service bodies, to consider the broader social value of tenders when deciding whom to place the tenders with. At one level, therefore, it could be argued that these amendments might not be necessary. What concerns me is what happens after, as I hope will be the case, this Bill passes tomorrow. What change will take place in the health service and elsewhere? One of the absolutely key changes that has to take place is the one set out in Amendment 64B; namely, that weightings must be attached to social value at the point at which companies, social enterprises, charities and so on are submitting their tenders. Unless the procurement regulations are changed to provide for such weightings it will be very difficult to have the kind of change in culture and practice which the Public Services (Social Value) Bill seeks to achieve.

I wonder whether the noble Earl, who has already very helpfully in a debate on a previous amendment committed the Government to giving guidance in respect of one matter, will be prepared to commit the Government now to the extent that the Department of Health would require NHS bodies commissioning services covered by the Public Services (Social Value) Bill to include within the tender document a weighting in respect of social value.

23:15

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, having worked in the voluntary sector for many years, I could not resist saying one word in support of my noble friend. The only word that I missed from his speech and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, was “innovative”. The voluntary sector is ahead of the National Health Service in so many ways, as are other sectors.

We are coming to an amendment, if not tonight then probably on Wednesday, regarding addiction to prescribed drugs. This is a field where we have practitioners who are the people who do it; they are not the bureaucrats behind. It is an area where the Bill needs strengthening. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I tabled a very important amendment on this matter last time around. I can hear him saying, “Let us take every opportunity to strengthen the Bill when it comes to the voluntary sector and bureaucracy”.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, not only on the substance of his amendments but on his sense of timing, because we are now very familiar with complaints from the voluntary and community sector in relation to the welfare-to-work programme. It was anticipated that the sector would be heavily involved in helping to place people into work, but, in practice, we have seen most of that endeavour carried out by much larger companies, with the sector playing a very limited role. It is precisely to avoid that outcome that the noble Lord has tabled his amendments. In particular, I am attracted to and wholly support subsection (2) of the new section proposed by Amendment 64A, which would confer on the board the capacity to,

“take specific action to support the development, including capacity building, of the voluntary sector, social enterprises, co-operatives and mutuals”.

That seems to me the kernel of the two amendments, which we very much endorse. In a mixed economy of provision, that sector needs to be developed and supported.

A further potential opportunity is raised by new Section 13W, on page 23 of the Bill, which confers on the board a power to,

“make payments by way of grant or loan to a voluntary organisation which provides or arranges for the provision of services which are similar to the services in respect of which the Board has functions”.

That may be implicit in subsection (2) of the amendment, although new Section 13W appears to limit that power to grant or loan to a voluntary organisation, which would not necessarily include the social enterprises, co-operatives and mutuals referred to in the noble Lord’s amendment. Perhaps the Minister, if he is sympathetic to the amendment, will look at whether the provision about grants and loans in new Section 13W might be expanded.

It is never too late for a little pedantry. I want to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, a couple of questions about the wording of parts of his amendments. Proposed subsection (1) of the new section proposed by Amendment 64A refers to the board exercising its functions,

“so far as it is consistent with the interests of the health service”.

I think that he means the interests of patients, rather than the service as such, which I would have thought more consistent with the general approach.

There is also a potential problem with subsection (3), which seeks, understandably, to provide that the board should take such steps as might produce,

“a level playing field between providers … meaning that one sector of provision is not more disadvantaged than another and relative benefits can be taken into account”.

That seems potentially to conflict with Clause 146 of the Bill, which would appear to rule out such a deliberate adjustment in favour of the sector. That is one good reason why my noble friend Lady Thornton will move an amendment to delete that clause and I hope that the noble Lord will support it.

A further question concerns a matter touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and relates to the second amendment, which, I confess, I do not quite understand. The amendment provides that the board may promote the inclusion of weightings in the procurement process,

“which reflect wider social, economic and health outcomes for each local health area”.

Does that relate to the conditions that exist at the time of the procurement rather than outcomes? I do not see how outcomes would fit and I am not clear what the weightings are. They cannot be only financial weightings. Is it to be a consideration to encourage the letting of contracts to the voluntary and social enterprise sector because of the particular nature of the locality? It is not clear and perhaps when the noble Lord replies he will—at least for my benefit— touch on that.

Interestingly, the two amendments relate to the part of the Bill dealing with the functions of the National Commissioning Board but purely to the health service provision, whereas proposed new Section 13M on page 19 refers to both health and social care provisions. I can understand why the amendment is limited in the way that it is, but I assume—again perhaps the noble Lord will confirm this—that he would envisage ultimately the same principle being applied to the provision of social care services. Is it not an illustration of the failure to develop the social care part of the Bill, which we touched on earlier?

Having said that, I strongly support the thrust of the noble Lord’s amendment and repeat my congratulations to him.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Tyler was quite right because the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has spoken compellingly, as he always does, and I, for one, am grateful to him for the insights that he gave us.

I begin with an observation which I hope is incontrovertible: voluntary organisations, staff mutuals, co-operatives and social enterprises all play vital roles in delivering innovative, high-quality, user-focused services within their local communities. The Government firmly believe that such organisations have a strong role to play in the health and social care system. This is due to the experience, expertise and insights that they can offer to commissioners and the system more widely.

As I hope your Lordships will recognise, the Bill shows the Government’s commitment to fair competition that delivers better outcomes and greater choice for patients and better value for the taxpayer. We want to see providers from all sectors delivering high-quality, person-centred health and care services: we do not want to favour one type of provider over another.

The Government are also supportive of everything that the noble Lord said about the importance of social value and the key role that social enterprises and other organisations can have in building and promoting it. On my visit a few months ago to the Bromley by Bow Centre with the noble Lord I was able to see first hand the excellent work that Andrew Mawson Partnerships has done in reviving and stimulating the local community. One cannot fail to be impressed by this model and vision, which we know works and want to see more of.

Having said that, we need to pause and reflect because these amendments are unnecessary. Amendment 64A is not appropriate because it cuts directly across the role of the NHS Commissioning Board. Simply put, the role of the board is to be a commissioner, not to build providers. We are clear that no provider, whether due to its size or organisational form, should be given preferential treatment in the new system. The provisions introduced by Clause 22 prevent the board, and the Secretary of State and Monitor likewise, giving preferential treatment to any particular type of provider, be they public, for profit or not for profit.

I know that this has generated some concern among voluntary and community organisations. I would like to assure noble Lords and the sector that the board will still be able to make grants and loans to voluntary sector organisations. It will not be able to do that for the sole purpose of increasing the proportion of services provided by the voluntary sector. The board could, however, invest in voluntary organisations where they bring the credible voice of patients, service users and carers to inform commissioning and the development of care pathways, or where the sector’s expertise could contribute to the commissioning support required by CCGs and the board. Those are just some examples. The power—which we included in the Bill through an amendment in Committee in another place—mirrors the power that the Secretary of State has now under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, which is exercised by strategic health authorities and PCTs. Equivalent provision is also provided in the Bill for CCGs in Clause 25, inserted as new Section 14Z4 of the National Health Act 2006. Voluntary organisations should therefore have no reason to fear that they will be unduly affected by the new system. However, as drafted, Amendment 64A would disadvantage NHS trusts and foundation trusts for profit providers. As a result, I cannot accept it.

[Lord Beecham]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Could he clarify the situation? Does the voluntary sector, as he has described it, relate also to social enterprises, co-operatives and mutuals, or are they regarded as being in a different category and therefore not eligible to receive grants and loans under the provisions of the Bill as it now stands?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as regards grants and loans, we are clear that voluntary sector organisations and social enterprises—and I include bodies of that kind in the same grouping—are and will still be eligible for grants. The key is that those grants must not be given solely because they are voluntary sector organisations or social enterprises. It is a nice distinction, but really it means that voluntary sector organisations and social enterprises will still have to compete fairly for a contract on a fair playing field with other providers. As I have indicated, that means that NHS providers and others are not disadvantaged in the market for NHS-funded services. Nevertheless, the scope will still be there, and they are indeed classed as voluntary sector.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord for raising the important issue of social value. I can assure him that the Government are sympathetic to these principles. That is why the NHS procurement guide already enables NHS commissioners to take account of social and environmental outcomes in their procurement. The Department of Health has also, through its social enterprise fund, invested more than £80 million in the health and social care sector. To answer my noble friend Lord Newby, I am also fully aware of the support for these principles in the Public Services (Social Value) Bill currently being considered by noble Lords. Put simply, if that Bill receives Royal Assent, Amendment 64B will not be necessary. The Public Services (Social Value) Bill will make NHS organisations have regard to economic, social and environmental well-being in procurement, and the Government welcome that. The NHS procurement guide, as I said, already enables NHS commissioners to take into account other outcomes in procurement, and we will continue to encourage them to do that, so I think, in the NHS at least, commissioners will notice little change in the guidance that is given to them. Make no mistake, we see a valuable role in the future healthcare system for voluntary sector organisations, social enterprises, staff mutuals and co-operatives. However, that cannot be at the expense of other types of provider, including particularly NHS providers. I hope very much that your Lordships will agree that these two amendments are therefore unnecessary.

[Lord Mawson]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for what he has had to say. I am trying not to be difficult but to be practical. The future of the health service depends on practical details being got right in the machinery of the NHS, which is where I seek to draw the Minister’s attention. For me it is not about words about whether it is the health service, or patients, or words in an amendment; it is about what is actually going on in the machinery. I fear that the practice is still too little understood and that there is more work to be done here. I know that this is the beginning of a journey and that we have further to go with the various elements of the jigsaw.

The purpose of the amendments was really to draw the attention of the Minister and the Government to this and to encourage them to focus on the detail, and to encourage colleagues within the NHS to spend a bit of time with practical entrepreneurs who have to try to make this work. We want them to examine in a few details some real pieces of work where people have attempted through weightings and other mechanisms a level playing field—because people like me do not want special favours, but we do want a level playing field. All that I can say is that in practice it is not level. The Government aspire to a broader involvement in the health service with social enterprise and others in the voluntary sector but, unless those practical details are better understood and addressed, I fear something quite different will happen.

Having said that, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate and who helped me with the amendments—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is not in his place, but who has been very helpful. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has also been very helpful. This is not a party-political debate; it is a practical matter that seeks to help to move the NHS on into new, more patient-focused reality. The amendments are simply an attempt to flag up yet again the issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 64A withdrawn.

Amendments 64B to 66 not moved.

Amendment 66AA, in substitution for Amendment 66A, not moved.

Amendment 67 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 67A not moved.

Amendment 67AA, in substitution for Amendment 67A, not moved.

Amendment 68

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

68: Clause 22, page 22, line 16, after “13E” insert “, 13G”

Amendment 68 agreed.

Amendment 69 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 70 not moved.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

House adjourned at 11.34 pm.