House of Commons
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
11. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
As I stated last week in my first biannual statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland, the threat remains severe. 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 Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to counter this threat.
Pauline Latham
I welcome the steps being taken to reduce the number of terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland, but as my right hon. Friend said in his recent written ministerial statement, violent activity is still being undertaken by loyalist organisations. What measures are being taken to address this issue?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and would immediately like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has done a huge amount of work, talking to a number of loyalist groups. There is absolutely no place for organised crime or violence in Northern Ireland. I would appeal to everybody to work closely with the PSNI and to pursue whatever political aims they have through peaceful, democratic means.
Robert Halfon
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, in what will be a high-profile year for the United Kingdom—and for Harlow, given the number of Olympic events happening in and around my constituency—the security threat in Northern Ireland remains at “severe”?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Olympics, which present us with a wonderful opportunity to sell this country. Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain is graded as “substantial”. I work closely with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I saw the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland on Monday. Together we are determined to ensure that there should be no threat to a peaceful and successful Olympics.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of a murder in Londonderry in recent weeks and the continuing targeting by dissident republicans of a number of people, and not just in the border area, but across Northern Ireland. Is he content in his discussions with the Chief Constable and the Minister for Justice that the necessary resources are in place to deal with the escalating problem?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that disgusting and deplorable murder. I spoke to the Chief Constable this morning, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we agreed a special package of £200 million at the request of the Chief Constable, who said in April last year:
“We have the resources, we have the resilience and we have the commitment.”
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
When he recently acquitted those charged with the murder of Tommy English, Mr Justice Gillen reminded us that the use of accomplice evidence is long established and, in the words of his judgment, is
“a price worth paying in the interest of protecting the public from major criminals”.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the relevant provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 will remain available to the PSNI?
Mr Paterson
I will check the exact details of those provisions and get back to the right hon. Gentleman.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to engage in dialogue with dissident organisations that show no signs at all of renouncing their violent or criminal ways?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is quite right. As I said a few moments ago, there is absolutely no excuse for pursuing political aims by anything other than peaceful democratic means, through the Assembly and representation in this Parliament. There are small numbers of groups that do not accept the current settlement, and we are determined to bear down on them.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
May I say again to the Secretary of State that we will stand with him in tackling any threat to security in Northern Ireland? In tackling terrorism, resources for the police and security services are obviously paramount. Does he also agree, however, that the many community and voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland contribute hugely to a peaceful and stable society? Can he therefore update the House on progress with the Peace IV funding bid to the European Union, which is so helpful to maintaining security?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his continued support on these serious security issues, which must remain a bilateral matter. I entirely agree with him about the community projects and funds. What we are putting into security can only contain the problem; the long-term solution is to get deep into those communities. I called a meeting with Eamon Gilmore and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to look at the Peace IV funds, which we think would come from our existing budgets.
Vernon Coaker
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. The financial support for communities, currently almost £300 million, is crucial to combating paramilitarism, maintaining security and ensuring that we continue to build the peaceful future in Northern Ireland that we all want. Will he ensure that he gives this matter the urgent attention that it deserves?
Mr Paterson
I would genuinely like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we talk about this matter frequently, not only with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister but with the Justice Minister, whom I saw on Monday. A lot of these projects are now in devolved hands—many of them in the hands of the Department of Justice—and we entirely agree that they need to carry on.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits to Northern Ireland of remaining part of the UK.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
This Government firmly believe in the United Kingdom. We believe that what we can achieve together will always be much more than we can ever do apart. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we will always back the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
Nigel Adams
I am extremely grateful for that reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Union ensures that all parts of the UK can be part of a larger and stronger economy?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having only 2.8% of the UK population, Northern Ireland benefits enormously from being part of the United Kingdom. I was interested to see a poll yesterday that had been conducted by Queen’s university, which showed that 82.6% wanted to remain in the UK, and only 17.4% wanted a united Ireland.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, in addition to there being enormous advantages and benefits for Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom itself has been strengthened and enriched by the contribution of the people of Northern Ireland—and, indeed, of the other constituent nations of the United Kingdom—not least through the willing and voluntary service of many generations of Ulstermen and women in Her Majesty’s forces?
Mr Paterson
I entirely endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. Right across every sphere of national life, there are glorious examples—spectacularly so in golf this week—of individuals from Northern Ireland who have shone.
Mr Dodds
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s endorsement of the Union of Northern Ireland and the rest of Great Britain. He rightly refers to the great sporting success of our golfers, and let us not forget our snooker player who won the world championship. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the opinion poll conducted in the highly respected Queen’s university survey, which showed that more than 80% of people wanted to stay within the United Kingdom. Will he now confirm to the House that he has no intention whatever of organising any kind of border poll in Northern Ireland, given the settled position of the people there and the levels of satisfaction with the present constitutional settlement?
Mr Paterson
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman on that. As Secretary of State, I have the right to call a poll when I feel like it; I have an obligation to call a poll when there is a clear indication that there would be a vote for a united Ireland. Given that only 17.4% were in favour of that option, and the fact that I have received hardly any phone calls, e-mails or letters on the issue, I have no intention of calling a poll at the moment. We should concentrate on the economy and on building a shared future; that is the real priority for the people in Northern Ireland.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
In addition to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said about the economy and the many great advantages to all parts of the United Kingdom of being part of the Union, will he confirm that the present level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland could not be sustained under any other constitutional arrangements, regardless of the destination of the Province?
Mr Paterson
The Chairman of the Select Committee makes a telling point. Public spending per head in Northern Ireland is currently £10,706, which is about 25% higher than it is in England. That is a huge advantage for Northern Ireland. It gives us time to rebalance the economy as well as showing the key role that membership of the UK plays for the people in Northern Ireland.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Further to the words of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), one of the advantages and benefits of the United Kingdom is a common defence policy, to which men and women of Northern Ireland have contributed greatly. How does the Secretary of State feel, on today of all days, about men and women who are military personnel being made compulsorily redundant?
Mr Paterson
I am a strong supporter of the military in Northern Ireland. I wear the Royal Irish wristband, because that regiment is stationed at Tern Hill in my constituency. [Interruption.] What I feel is that we inherited a complete mess from the last Labour Government. We are currently borrowing £232,000 a minute, so, sadly, the Government have had to take very difficult decisions.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
3. What meetings he has had with political parties in Northern Ireland on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
In September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to party leaders suggesting the possibility of the Assembly taking forward work in this area; we have yet to receive a response. Ministers and officials have continued to discuss this issue with human rights organisations since.
Paul Murphy
The Minister will know, of course, that the establishment of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland was part of the Good Friday agreement, and that it is a matter for all people in Northern Ireland. Will he not accept, however, that both he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have a duty to bring about consensus rather than simply to listen to what people are saying without doing what is right and proper to ensure that we get consensus among all the political parties in Northern Ireland?
Mr Swire
The House will want to acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s part in the Good Friday agreement in trying to pursue the Bill of Rights. Frankly, however, that was when he should have pursued it, instead of squandering the good will that he and his Government had generated at that time. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a couple of quick examples of our problem. First, the Secretary of State wrote to the First and Deputy First Ministers and all the party leaders back in September, but he has had no reply to his letters. Secondly, the Secretary of State for Justice wrote to the Office of the First Minister, asking it to nominate someone for the commission. It is now March, but no reply has been received. We thus face a problem, as we see no way forward without consensus.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this important work towards a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, human rights more generally there—might have a useful role to play in the Government’s determination to do something about significant reform of the European Court of Human Rights?
Mr Swire
As my hon. Friend knows, a UK commission is being set up to look into the matter. We want Northern Ireland to be represented on it. Equally, we believe that this commission could provide the necessary vehicle for the inclusion of rights particular to Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Has the Secretary of State had any meetings or correspondence with other stakeholder groups that might be interested in or concerned about a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland—Churches, advice bureaux or Women’s Aid, for example?
Mr Swire
We meet Church leaders frequently, and this is one of the matters we discuss with them. It is fair to say that the Secretary of State and I recently met the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights—and we discussed this matter with her. We cannot get much higher than that.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
As well as corresponding with the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland, will the Minister kindly tell us whether his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General actually believes that Northern Ireland needs a separate Bill of Rights?
Mr Swire
My right hon. and learned Friend came to Northern Ireland several times when we were in opposition. He was always of the belief, as we are, that any rights particular to Northern Ireland should be tagged on to any UK Bill of Rights. I alluded earlier to a lack of consensus. The hon. Lady will be aware that in a debate in the Assembly last year, Members voted by 46 to 42 against a motion calling for a robust, enforceable Bill of Rights. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) earlier, that is a perfect example of the problem we face. We cannot impose; this has to come from within Northern Ireland. When it does, we will respond accordingly.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
4. What representations he has received from the Finucane family since his announcement of the Pat Finucane review.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
I have not received any representations from the Finucane family since the establishment of the Pat Finucane review last October.
Valerie Vaz
The Secretary of State will know that the Finucane family, Madden and Finucane Solicitors, Judge Cory, the Irish Government, the United Nations special rapporteur and the Weston Park agreement have all called for a public inquiry. May I urge him to meet the Finucane family and Madden and Finucane Solicitors, so that the truth of the murder of Pat Finucane can be established and the reconciliation can be completed?
Mr Paterson
We have gone into the issue in some detail in written statements and in an oral statement made a couple of months ago. I wrote to Mrs Finucane soon after we came to power, and when I met her in November 2010—I was the first Secretary of State to do so for some years—I established with her that we wanted to get to the truth. I think that the method we have chosen, a review of a huge archive that is more extensive than that available to Saville, is a quicker way of getting to the truth, and will deliver satisfaction to the family. I am more than happy to meet them, and I hope that they will work closely with the de Silva review.
Mr Speaker
Order. These are extremely serious matters, but we need to speed up the exchanges somewhat.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
When does my right hon. Friend expect to receive Sir Desmond de Silva’s final report?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
When was the Secretary of State made aware that the legal representatives of the Finucane family were indicating that they would accept a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, based on the Baha Mousa standards and principles? Did he inform the Prime Minister, and who decided to head off that credible option at the pass at the Downing street meeting?
Mr Paterson
We discussed all sorts of options for arriving at the truth as fast as possible. My public statement is on the record, and a judicial review is in progress. I think that the full details will be revealed in that.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
In the context of victim issues such as the Finucane murder, is the Secretary of State alarmed by what has happened in relation to other cases, such as the murder of Tommy English? In that case, the police appointed an independent oversight team consisting of a political appointee and an English barrister. It was the first time that such a team had ever been appointed in connection with a British case involving a police investigation. Does the Secretary of State agree that that was a reckless act which must never be repeated in an independent police investigation?
Mr Paterson
I think that in all these areas we must be very careful to respect the independence of the police in operational matters, the independence of the prosecuting authorities and the independence of the judiciary, and I would apply those principles to the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The case of Pat Finucane is one of many cases in Northern Ireland that reflect the tragic legacy of our past, and we believe that a comprehensive process is needed to address that. Can the Secretary of State update us on his recent discussions with local parties about how to proceed with that approach?
Mr Paterson
As the hon. Lady knows, I established that there was no consensus at my meeting with her and other members of her party on Monday. Some parties want to draw a line in the sand and cease all activity, while others favour the establishment of an extensive international legacy commission. We will continue to work, and talk to individuals and local parties, but at the moment I see no consensus.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
5. What discussions he has had on promoting inward investment in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the First and Deputy First Ministers and their colleagues in support of the Executive’s efforts to attract foreign direct investment, and I have just returned from accompanying the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on a trade mission to the Gulf states in support of two Northern Ireland businesses.
Andrea Leadsom
On the eve of the Budget, and in the light of the clear need to improve our economy and opportunities for inward investment, what assessment has my hon. Friend made of the co-operation between Invest NI and UK Trade and Investment?
Mr Swire
I have made a very good assessment. I am a member of the Economic Affairs (Trade and Investment) Cabinet Sub-Committee, and I am glad to say that it is to discuss ways in which UKTI and the devolved Administrations can co-operate better. There will be a meeting later in the year, which I think will benefit both organisations.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Despite the best efforts of the Northern Ireland Executive, rates of business formation in Northern Ireland are lower than in the rest of the UK. What plans do the Government have to make good their fault as identified by the Business Secretary that they lack a compelling vision on the economy?
Mr Swire
As this is Northern Ireland questions, I think I should limit myself to Northern Ireland. We have a very clear idea of the economy in Northern Ireland. We want to support it, and we believe it needs to be rebalanced. [Interruption.] This afternoon the joint ministerial working group on rebalancing the economy will meet to examine the possible devolvement of corporation tax to Northern Ireland, which we believe would be a significant move. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. As a matter of courtesy to the people of Northern Ireland, it would be good to have a bit of hush.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I am sure the Minister will agree that inward investment into Northern Ireland is always welcome, but we must not forget small indigenous businesses that have been there for many years. [Interruption.] Will he join me in welcoming the £30-million investment by the Asda group in one site in my constituency, which is in an area that has not had investment for 35 years? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It would be good if we could hear the reply. The House must come to order.
Mr Swire
Of course I welcome that investment. The hon. Gentleman is a doughty champion of business in his constituency, and I look forward to spending a day with him shortly. He will be aware of the growth fund, which will help small and medium-sized enterprises with strong potential for growth, particularly in the international markets. We believe these moves by the devolved Administration are the right ones.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Has any progress been made on the devolution of corporation tax responsibility? When can we expect something to happen on that front?
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
6. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
7. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the First and Deputy First Ministers and their colleagues in support of the Executive’s efforts to develop the economy. We also work closely together on the joint ministerial working group on rebalancing the economy, which—I now say for the third time—will meet this afternoon.
Elizabeth Truss
Manufacturing exports from Northern Ireland rose in the last quarter, which is great news in respect of the effort to rebalance the economy. What further steps is the Minister taking to ensure our exports increase?
Mr Swire
It is good news that Northern Ireland sells £12.4 billion-worth of manufactured goods abroad, and has almost recovered to the pre-recession level in sales to Great Britain—indeed, sales to GB achieved a new record. Those are very positive trends, on which we seek to build.
David Rutley
Investment in research and development is crucial for economic development in Northern Ireland, just as it is in Macclesfield. Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in congratulating the Northern Ireland Executive on the 6% increase in research and development investment over the past year?
Mr Swire
Yes, I will. Research and development is crucial to the development of the economy, and investment in it increased by 6% in Northern Ireland last year, to £334 million. The Northern Ireland Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is keen to continue with research and development, not least for small and medium-sized enterprises, which both she and I believe are vital.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Given the need to pump-prime the economy in Northern Ireland and given the fact that the Finance Ministers met on Monday, are the disputes about the £18 billion allocation to Northern Ireland as part of the devolution dividend near resolution, and if not, what are the areas of disagreement?
Mr Swire
That was not raised officially at the meeting, but later on I had my own bilateral over a cup of coffee with the Northern Ireland Finance Minister, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is in his place. We discussed progress on this matter, and he informed me that it continues, but it is slow. The Chancellor is now in his place, too, and he may be interested to learn of what the hon. Lady has just said. This is still being discussed, and it will take some time.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Economic development in Northern Ireland is being held up by the reluctance of banks to lend to viable businesses and their withdrawing of capital from existing businesses. What discussions has the Minister had about whether banks in Northern Ireland are meeting their Merlin targets? Also, why is it that the Merlin target figures can be published for Scotland, but not for Northern Ireland?
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, which he also made in the Finance Ministers quadrilateral last week. We need to get more lending to companies in Northern Ireland, where we are fishing in a smaller pool because we do not have so many banks to lend. We want to see those figures and to work together to see how we can get more lending to smaller companies.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
8. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the contribution of soldiers from Northern Ireland to UK defence capability; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
I would like to pay tribute to all those from Northern Ireland and, indeed, from all regions of the United Kingdom who serve in our armed forces. I speak regularly with ministerial colleagues across Whitehall on matters relating to Northern Ireland, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Simon Kirby
Does my right hon. Friend agree that much can be learned from the Royal Irish Regiment, which recruits from all sections of the community?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I am very proud to have the Royal Irish stationed in my constituency. I went to the Barossa dinner on Monday, celebrating the capture of the first French eagle with the cry:
“By Jaysus, boys, I have the cuckoo.”
The regiment is a glorious example of an organisation that brings people together from all parts of the community, including from south of the border.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
In recognising the tremendous sacrifice of our brave soldiers from Northern Ireland in contributing to the defence of the United Kingdom, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is a time bomb of mental health problems facing those who return from the field of conflict? What steps are being taken to assist those people?
Mr Paterson
I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments and I pay tribute to the three rangers of the Royal Irish who sadly lost their lives in the Helmand campaign last year. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the mental health problems that can occur and I discuss this with my right hon. Friends in Cabinet. He should also discuss it with the local Ministers who are responsible for delivering those services in Northern Ireland.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 March.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I hope you will permit me, Mr Speaker, before I answer any questions, to make the following announcement. Yesterday, a Warrior armoured fighting vehicle on patrol near the eastern border of Helmand province was struck by an explosion. It is with very great sadness that I must tell the House that six soldiers are missing, believed killed. Five of them are from the 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment and one is from the 1st Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of those brave servicemen. This will be the largest loss of life in a single incident in Afghanistan since 2006. It takes the overall number of casualties that we have suffered in Afghanistan to more than 400. Every death and every injury reminds us of the human cost paid by our armed forces to keep our country safe. I have spoken this morning to the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Chief of the General Staff and the commanding officer of 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment. They each stressed the commitment of our troops to the mission and to getting the job done. I know that everyone will want a message of support and backing for our troops and their families to go out from this House today.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Nick Boles
I echo the Prime Minister’s tribute to the fallen. Their service and their sacrifice humbles us all. With this terrible news in mind, will my right hon. Friend use his meetings next week with President Obama to co-ordinate a prudent draw-down of allied forces in Afghanistan and to ensure that Afghan forces get the training and equipment they need to take over?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Next week is an opportunity to make sure that Britain and America, as the two largest contributors to the international security assistance force mission in Afghanistan, are absolutely in lock-step about the importance of training up the Afghan army, training up the Afghan police and making sure that all NATO partners have a properly co-ordinated process for transition in that country, so that the Afghans can take responsibility for the security of their own country, and we can bring our forces home.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in expressing profound sadness at the terrible news of our six soldiers who are missing, feared dead. Today, we are reminded of the ongoing commitment and sacrifice that our service personnel make on our behalf. By putting themselves in harm’s way for our benefit, they demonstrate the utmost service and courage. We owe them and all those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan an immense debt of gratitude, and our thoughts are with their family, friends and colleagues at this terrible time.
At moments like these, does the Prime Minister agree that we must restate clearly the reasons for our mission in Afghanistan? A more stable, self-governing Afghanistan will produce more stable outcomes in that region and ensure greater safety for our citizens here at home.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words. He is absolutely right. Our mission in Afghanistan remains vital to our national security. We are there to prevent that country from being a safe haven for al-Qaeda, from where they might plan attacks on the UK or our allies. Our task is simple: to equip the Afghan Government and the forces of Afghanistan with the capability and capacity to take care of their own national security without the need for foreign troops on their soil. That is our aim. We are making progress. The Afghan national army stands at 184,000, on target for 195,000 by the end of this year. The Afghan national police, standing at 145,000, are on target for 157,000 at the end of this year. We are making progress. It is absolutely essential for bringing our troops home, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: we need to restate clearly why we are there and why it is in our national interest. The commander of the battalion told me today that his men have high morale, they know they are doing an important mission for the future of this country and the future of the world, and they want our support as they go about it.
Edward Miliband
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. He and I also agree that it is essential that we build now for a political settlement in Afghanistan for when our troops are gone. Can he take this moment to update the House on what diplomatic progress is being made on securing the broader and more inclusive political settlement needed for a stable Afghanistan? Does he further agree that the whole international community must up the pace of progress towards that political settlement, to ensure that we do all we can to make concrete progress between now and the departure of our combat troops at the end of 2014?
The Prime Minister
We are clearly planning the increase in the army and the police—the physical forces that will take over—but the greatest difference we could make is a stronger political settlement that will ensure that Afghanistan has the chance for real peace, stability, prosperity and security in the future. There are some good signs, in that there are now proper discussions between the Afghan and Pakistan Governments. A clear message is coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to all those who are engaged in violence to give up that violence and join a political process. There is strong support for that across the Arab world, particularly in the middle east. We need to give that process every possible support and send a clear message to the Taliban: whether it is our troops or Afghan troops who are there, the Taliban will not win on the battlefield. They never win on the battlefield, and now it is time for a political settlement to give the country a chance for peaceful progress.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I, too, echo the Prime Minister’s tribute—as do other Members across the House—to our brave men and women who are asked to make sacrifices on a daily basis to keep our country safe and ensure a peaceful Afghanistan. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, despite those tragic events, ISAF will remain in Afghanistan in one form or another for as long as it takes to complete the mission for a safe, secure and stable Afghanistan, with the Afghan people taking responsibility for their own security?
The Prime Minister
We have a clear timetable, which is all about transitioning parts of Afghanistan to Afghan security control, to allow our troops to move into the background and eventually out of the country. In Helmand itself, where we have been for all these years—one of the toughest parts of Afghanistan—Lashkar Gah, the effective capital, is now controlled by Afghan forces. The process is ongoing. I believe it can be properly completed by the end of 2014, so that we leave in a proper and orderly fashion, handing over to Afghan troops. Let us be clear: the relationship between Britain and other countries and Afghanistan will go on. It will be a relationship of military training, of diplomacy, of support, of aid and help for that country. We must learn the lesson of the past, which is what a mistake it was to turn away from Afghanistan.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Q2. The Prime Minister’s Business Secretary says of the Government’s action on economic growth:“Our actions are, frankly, rather piecemeal.”Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, I do not agree with that. What this Government are doing is cutting corporation tax, investing in apprenticeships, building enterprise zones, making sure that right across our economy the rebalancing is taking place that is necessary for sustained economic growth.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Q3. My constituents have to wait longer to get a hospital appointment than they would in England, they are five times less likely to get certain cancer drugs than they are in England, and if they get to hospital, they are twice as likely to get an infection as they are in England. Does this prove to the Prime Minister that we cannot trust Labour with the NHS?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that, if you look at the NHS in Wales, it shows what happens if we do not put in the resources—the money—because the resources are being cut in Wales, and also if we do not reform the NHS to make sure that there is a proper chance for people to get the treatments they need. There is not the cancer drugs fund in Wales, there are much longer waiting times, and there are much longer waiting lists, and that is an example of what happens without the money and without the reform.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Q4. The Prime Minister is proud of his welfare reforms. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Can he look me in the eye and tell me he is proud of the decision to remove all disability benefits from a 10-year-old child who can hardly walk and who cannot toilet herself because she has cerebral palsy? Is he truly proud?
The Prime Minister
This Government are not cutting the money that is going into disability benefits. We are replacing disability living allowance with the personal independence payment. As someone who has actually filled out the form for disability allowance and had a child with cerebral palsy, I know how long it takes to fill in that form. We are going to have a proper medical test so that people who are disabled and need that help get it more quickly.
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) that he will stay silent. That sort of noise is not acceptable in this forum.
Nadhim Zahawi
On Friday, PC Trevor Hall and PCSO Claire Miller, two of the best from Warwickshire police, came to see me about the life-threatening effects of a new legal high called black mamba on the life of a 13-year-old in my constituency. I am informed that black mamba is the latest legal high being sold on our streets in the UK. Now that we have regulations that allow us to act swiftly to ban potentially dangerous legal highs, will my right hon. Friend act on this substance immediately and—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who should resume his seat. The question is too long.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We are determined to stamp out these so-called legal highs. The Home Office is aware of this particular drug. We now have the drugs early warning system which brings these things to our attention, but as he says, a decision needs swiftly to be made and I will make sure that happens.
Edward Miliband
Tim Howes is a delivery driver from Dartford. He is a married father of three and the sole earner in his family. He currently works 20 hours a week. From next month, under the Prime Minister’s proposals, unless he works 24 hours a week he will lose all his working tax credit, some £60 a week. He says:
“I have approached my employer to possibly increase my hours but I have been told there simply aren’t the hours there. I would love to work full-time.”
What is the Prime Minister’s advice to Tim Howes?
The Prime Minister
First, let me set the context for this—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] I will answer the question very directly, but we need to reform the tax credits system because we have a massive budget deficit. When we came to office, tax credits were going to nine out of 10 families, including people right up the income scale, including Members of Parliament. What our changes do, in terms of this specific case, is deal with the basic unfairness that we ask a single parent to work 16 hours before getting access to the tax credit system, so it is only right to say to couples that between them they should work 24 hours—that is, 12 hours each. If that is the case, and they do that, they will be better off.
Edward Miliband
I have to say to the Prime Minister that that answer is no use to Mr Howes and his family. He cannot find the extra hours and so will lose his—[Interruption.] The Defence Secretary shouts from a sedentary position, “What about his wife?” Let me tell him that his wife is looking after their three school-age children and cannot find hours that are consistent with that. Tim Howes and 200,000 couples will lose as a result of this. Before the election, the Prime Minister said in the TV debates that for Labour
“to say that actually the changes we’re making would hit low income families is simply not true.”
Why has he broken that promise?
The Prime Minister
We have increased the child tax credit that goes to the poorest families in our country. To answer the right hon. Gentleman very directly, when we say to a single parent that they have to work 16 hours to get access to the tax credits system, I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask a couple to work an average of 12 hours each. That is what we are asking. In a way, this relates to a bigger picture. We have a massive budget deficit. If he is not going to support the welfare cap, the housing benefit cap, cuts to legal aid or cuts to tax credits, how on earth would he deal with the deficit?
Edward Miliband
In case the Prime Minister did not realise this, in Dartford, where the Howes family live, five people are chasing every vacancy. It is just not good enough for him to say, “Well, they should go out to work.” If they cannot find the work, they will find that they are better off on benefits than in work because of the Prime Minister’s changes, which is something he said he wanted to avoid. It is also about this matter of trust. He made a clear promise, just like he made a clear promise on child benefit. Before the election, he said:
“I’m not going to flannel you. I’m going to give it to you straight. I like the child benefit. I wouldn’t change child benefit. I wouldn’t means-test it. I don’t think that is a good idea.”
We have already established that he has broken his promise to low-income families. Why has he broken his promise to middle-income families, too?
The Prime Minister
Here we go: another change the right hon. Gentleman does not support. He seems to think that people on—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The question has been asked. The Prime Minister’s answer must be heard.
The Prime Minister
Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that people earning £25,000 should pay for his child benefit? I do not agree with that. We have to make savings, so not giving child benefit to the wealthiest 15% of families in our country—of course it is a difficult decision. Life is about difficult decisions. Government is about difficult decisions. It is a pity that he is just not capable of taking one.
Edward Miliband
First of all, we are talking about families on £43,000 a year. Secondly, it is no good the Prime Minister saying that he now supports the principle that people on high incomes should not get child benefit, because before the election he supported the opposite principle and said quite clearly to families up and down this country, “I’m not going to take away your child benefit.” In my book there is a very simple word for that: a broken promise—it is a broken promise by this Prime Minister. [Hon. Members: “That’s two.”] They are right: there are two broken promises. The reality is that lower-income families are losing their tax credits and middle-income families are losing their child benefit. Does the Prime Minister understand why people just do not believe him when he says, “We’re all in this together”?
The Prime Minister
I think that it is time the right hon. Gentleman listened to his own shadow Chief Secretary, who said that
“we must ensure we pass the test of fiscal credibility. If we don’t get this right, it doesn’t matter what we say about anything else.”
She is absolutely right. Reducing our deficit takes tough decisions. He has opposed every single cut. He has opposed the welfare cap, the housing benefit cap and legal aid cuts. It is no wonder that when people dial up a radio phone-in and eventually work out who he is, they all say the same thing: he is not remotely up to the job.
Mark Pritchard
Following last week’s statement on the use of wild animals in circuses, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether a ban will be introduced in this Parliament and before the next general election?
The Prime Minister
I do want to see a ban introduced. It is the overwhelming opinion of Members in this House. We are putting in place a regulatory scheme in the short term, but my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary made it absolutely clear that it is our intention to introduce a ban in full as well.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q6. Today, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee published a major report on consumer debt. Last November R3 reported that 60% of people were worried about debt and 3.5 million were considering payday loans. In the year since the Government concluded their consultation, no action has been announced. Will the Prime Minister commit to act now to protect vulnerable families, or will he accept that he is simply out of touch with the financial reality facing them as a result of his policies?
The Prime Minister
I think, as the last exchange just proved, we are worried about debt. The whole country needs to be worried about debt, and the problem is that the Labour party does not seem to understand that there is a debt problem. There has been a debt problem in our economy, there is also a debt problem for many households, and we do need to make sure that they get help. That is why we are making sure that citizens advice bureaux continue to get help, as they are one of the most important services for helping families in that way.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
Q7. The coalition agreement contains many bold and brilliant proposals to give Britain the change that we need: open primaries, a bonfire of the quangos, and radical localism. Sometimes, however, progress has been a little slower than some of us on the Government Benches would have hoped: sometimes the radicalism has been ever so slightly blunted. Is that because of the constraints of coalition, or because of the Whitehall machine?
The Prime Minister
It was good to have such a helpful start from my hon. Friend. I think that this Government have done a number of radical things, right across the board, whether it is welfare reform to make sure that it always pays to work, education reform to give greater independence to our schools, or tax reform to give us competitive tax rates. Of course I always want us to go further and faster. I do not blame the Whitehall machine; in the end the politicians must always take responsibility.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
My constituent James Toner was arrested in Goa almost three years ago on drugs charges. He was subsequently released when it turned out that the police officers who arrested him were themselves under investigation for corruption. He has spent the past 22 months in legal limbo, his passport has been confiscated, he cannot travel, he cannot work and he does not even know when his case is going to go to court. Does the Prime Minister agree that justice delayed is justice denied, and will he make sure that a Foreign Office Minister meets me urgently to discuss the case of my constituent?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly do that. It is very important that the hon. Gentleman and others feel that they can stand up for their constituents on the other side of the world who are being treated in this way, and that we can take up these cases. The work of Fair Trials International and other organisations is very important in that respect, and I shall make sure that the Foreign Office meets him soon.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
Q8. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the project that is starting a pilot in my constituency in September, funded by the private sector, the London borough of Redbridge, and various charities, and in congratulating also the co-chairs, Richard and Philippa Mintz, and the inter-faith group on their work to get young people with special needs into employment?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in supporting that project. It is important that we help children with special needs through not only their schooling time but that transition after school and into college, and then try to help them to find work. It sounds like this is an excellent project that deserves his support.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Is it true:
“The problem is that policy is being run by two public school boys who don’t know what it’s like to go to the supermarket and have to put things back on the shelves because they can’t afford it for their children’s lunchboxes. What’s worse, they don’t care either”?
Those are not my words, but the words of a Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries).
The Prime Minister
I would have thought that, coming from the north-east, the hon. Lady should be celebrating the fact that Nissan is going to build its new car in Britain—instead of whatever nonsense it was that she read out.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Q9. May I add my personal tributes to our fallen? On Monday, Clare’s law came into being. Would my right hon. Friend be willing to meet me and Sergeant Carney-Haworth to learn at first hand how his team’s groundbreaking initiative in Devonport, Operation Encompass, is helping to make sure that children in my Sutton and Devonport constituency grow up in an area where there is no longer any domestic violence?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this constituency issue and to do so this week, when tomorrow we have international women’s day. The move that has been made on Clare’s law is important; it is a breakthrough to give women this information if they seek it. I want us to follow that by looking into a specific offence of stalking. I want us to continue to support the rape crisis centres, as we are under this Government, and to make sure that we act on domestic violence right across the board.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Q10. When he next expects to visit Central Ayrshire.
Mr Donohoe
I know that the Prime Minister is coming to my constituency very soon indeed—in fact, later this month to attend his Tory party conference in Troon. However, I want to know whether he agrees that the uncertainty that is being created by the Nats around the separatist idea of a referendum that is being delayed for longer than it should be is leading to uncertainty about inward investment in my constituency and elsewhere. While he is in Troon, will he come with me to see some of the potential for inward investment? That is a promise that he made to me at a meeting a year ago.
The Prime Minister
When the hon. Gentleman asked me that question a year ago, I did in fact meet a delegation from his constituency. I agree with every word that he said, and I make him this offer: as I am going to be in Troon, he can make the short trip from his constituency and we can share a platform together to point out the dangers of separatism and the nationalist agenda. Are you up for it?
Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)
Q11. Labour-controlled Corby borough council—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want the hon. Lady’s question to be heard in full with a bit of quiet and perhaps a bit of respect.
Louise Mensch
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Labour-controlled Corby borough council is trying to suppress a report into the scandal at the Corby Cube. Twenty-six million pounds of Corby people’s money has been wasted, and now councillors are being threatened with disciplinary action if they blow the whistle. Does the Prime Minister agree that the council should come clean with Corby people?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. There are now proposals for total transparency in local government so that expenditure over £500 should be separately documented and so that all the salaries, names, budgets and responsibilities of staff paid over £58,000 should be published, including councillors’ allowances and expenses and all the organisational charts. We want the wind of transparency to go right through local government, Corby included.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Article 16 of the European fiscal compact says very clearly that it will be incorporated into the European treaty in five years’ time. Will the Prime Minister promise to veto that, or does he not expect to be here in five years’ time?
The Prime Minister
The treaty says very clearly that it can be incorporated only with the permission of all 27 member states of the European Union, and our position on that has not changed.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Q12. Will the Prime Minister join me, along with the thousands of families with missing loved ones, including the family of missing York woman Claudia Lawrence, in supporting the sensible recommendations in the Justice Committee’s report into missing people’s rights and the presumption of death?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I pay tribute to Peter Lawrence and his support for the Missing People campaign. The Justice Committee has produced an important report on this issue. We acknowledge that the current law is complicated. I recognise all the emotional and practical difficulties faced by those whose loved ones are missing. We are going to consider the recommendations very carefully, and perhaps I will write to my hon. Friend when we come up with the answer.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Q13. If the Prime Minister manages to persuade his Chancellor to remove some of the anomalies in his child benefit policy to help people earning over £43,000 a year, will he then take action to help the couples on the minimum wage who are set to lose £3,000 from April?
The Prime Minister
I think that we dealt with that earlier. Quite apart from the point about the unfairness of a single person having to work 16 hours, we are making a long-term reform with universal credit, which will mean that everyone is always better off in work, no matter how many hours they work. Labour had 13 years to put that in place; we will have it done in 18 months.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
On Saturday, 2,000 of us marched through Kendal to present a petition of 11,000 people calling for radiotherapy services at Westmorland general hospital in Kendal. Will my right hon. Friend meet me, the commissioners and cancer campaigners to ensure that we bring cancer treatment to Kendal, so that local lives can be made longer and people’s journeys shorter?
The Prime Minister
I know from having visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency how important the issue of the hospital is. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is fully engaged in this issue. Perhaps I can fix a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend to ensure that the issue is dealt with.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
Q14. The Royal Bank of Scotland recently axed another 300 jobs, mostly in Edinburgh and London. However, the jobs have not gone completely, but have been outsourced to India. The Prime Minister and the Government act on behalf of the biggest shareholder, so when will they stand up to RBS and prevent the needless job losses in the UK?
The Prime Minister
We must recognise that the Government put £45 billion into the Royal Bank of Scotland on behalf of the country. That is £2,500 for every working family in the country. The most important thing is that we get that money back. We need RBS to return to health. It has to deal with its bad loans and the trouble that it got into, and it has to grow the rest of its business. We will then be in a position to return to people the money that they put into the bank. That is what matters most.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
May I offer my sympathies to the families and friends of the six soldiers who have been killed, five of whom served in 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment, the Duke of Wellington’s, with which I had the privilege to serve? I recognise and support the vital role that our troops are endeavouring to undertake, but we need to bring them back in 2015. I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that we do everything that we can to support the families of those who have been lost.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience, because of his service in our armed forces. It is important that we have the date for our troops coming home from Afghanistan, which I set. We will not be there in a combat role and will not be there in anything like the current numbers by the end of 2014. It is also important to ensure that, between now and then, our troops have all the equipment that they need to make them as safe as possible. I pay tribute to the previous Government, who started putting extra money into vehicles in 2006. Since then, we have spent about £2 billion on better-protected vehicles and an additional £160 million on counter-IED equipment. He is right that we need to do more for the families of our armed forces at home. That is what the military covenant process and the Cabinet Committee, which I chaired for the first meeting, are all about.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Using Applied Language Solutions was supposed to save West Midlands police £750,000 a year, and yet last week we heard that the shortage of translators leaves the police unable to quiz suspects for weeks. Is that the kind of service we can expect when our police forces tender out services to private security companies?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that there is anything wrong with the police getting back-office functions carried out by private sector organisations. Indeed, when the shadow policing Minister was asked about that at the Select Committee on Home Affairs, he said that he was quite relaxed about it. I think that that is right. I am delighted that the hon. Lady is considering whether to become a police and crime commissioner. That will be an excellent way of calling the police to account, and I hope that many other hon. Members will consider it as a career change.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to support Mayor Boris Johnson in London, who is pleading with the Pru, our biggest insurer, not to leave the City of London because of the attack by the European Union on the competitiveness of the City? I invite my right hon. Friend to block the fiscal union treaty by making an application to the European Court of Justice that it is illegal, until we get the City safeguards that he was demanding in December.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise the case of the Prudential, because it is an example of ill-thought-out EU legislation endangering a great British business, which should have its headquarters here in the UK. I recognise the importance of this matter. We are working extremely hard at the European level and with the Prudential to deal with it. I know that we have the full support of Boris Johnson in doing that.
Post Office Services (Torphichen, West Lothian)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The village of Torphichen has one shop, and in that shop there was a sub-post office. Sadly, because of family circumstances, the previous owner closed the shop and returned the licence for the sub-post office to the Post Office. The Post Office has stuck a notice on the window of the shop but consulted absolutely no one. The shop has been bought—thank goodness—but unfortunately it appears that the Post Office is not prepared to put back the sub-post office that was previously part of the network.
The petition, signed by 340 residents, states:
The Petition of residents of Torphichen, West Lothian,
Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about the provision of Post Office services in Torphichen, following the closure of the Post Office when the previous sub-postmaster gave up the lease on the premises; declares that the Post Office had said that the closure would be temporary; that no consultation has been carried out on any proposal to close the Post Office permanently; and declares that the Petitioners believe that a reduced service is not justifiable or acceptable.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the Torphichen Post Office is reopened.
And your Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001011]
Diamond Jubilee
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the occasion of the Sixtieth Anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne.
That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House.
On her first address to the nation as Queen, Her Majesty pledged that throughout all her life, and with all her heart, she would strive to be worthy of the people’s trust: this she has achieved beyond question. The nation holds her in its heart, not just as the figurehead of an institution but as an individual who has served this country with unerring grace, dignity and decency.
The reign of Queen Elizabeth has been one of unparalleled change, from rationing through to the jet age, to the space age, to the digital age. At her first investiture as Queen, the very first decoration she presented was a Victoria Cross for heroism in the Korean war. Since then, members of the armed forces—her armed forces—have been in action all over the world, from Aden to the Falklands, the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. Around the world, dictatorships have died and democracies have been born, and across the old British empire a vibrant Commonwealth of nations has expanded and flourished.
Throughout this extraordinary change, the longest-lived monarch in our history has remained resolutely unchanged in her commitment and studious in her duties. It does not matter whether it is something we suspect she enjoys, such as the highland games at Braemar, or things we suspect she might be less keen on, such as spending new year’s eve in the millennium dome, she never, ever falters. She has always done her duty, and that stability is essential for our national life.
While the sands of culture shift and the tides of politics ebb and flow, Her Majesty has been a permanent anchor, bracing Britain against the storms, grounding us in certainty. Crucially, simultaneously, she has moved the monarchy forward. It has been said that the art of progress is to preserve order amid change and change amid order, and in this the Queen is unparalleled. She has never shut the door on the future; instead, she has led the way through it, ushering in the television cameras, opening up the royal collection and the palaces and hosting receptions and award ceremonies for every area of public life. It is easy now to take these things for granted, but we should remember that they were her initiatives. She was broadcasting to the nation every Christmas day 30 years before we let cameras into this House.
In doing those things, the Queen ended a 1,000 year distance that existed between British monarchs and their people. Indeed, while much of her life has been governed by tradition and protocol, the Queen has always taken a thoroughly pragmatic view of such matters. On arriving at one engagement in Scotland, she noticed that the local lord lieutenant was having considerable trouble extracting both himself and his sword from the official car in order to perform the introductions. While embarrassed civic dignitaries cleared their throats, the Queen cut straight through the seemingly insoluble ceremonial problem by walking up to the greeting line, hand outstretched, with the words, “My lord lieutenant appears to be having difficulty in getting out of the car, so I’d better introduce myself. I’m the Queen.”
That human connection is a hallmark of the Queen’s reign. Over 60 years, according to one royal biographer, she has met 4 million people in person, which is equivalent to the entire population of New Zealand. At garden parties alone, she has invited some 2 million people to tea. She is, of course, Queen of 16 countries, and has surely travelled more widely than any other Head of State in history. As she herself has been heard to say—it is a lesson, perhaps for all of us in this House—“I have to be seen to be believed.” All this has given her remarkable insight. Like her previous 11 Prime Ministers, I have been struck by Her Majesty’s perspective on world events, and like my predecessors I am truly grateful for the way she handles our national interests.
Last year’s visit to Ireland was a lesson in statecraft. It showed once again that the Queen can extend the hand of friendship like no other. She was the first monarch to visit China, the first to visit Russia and the first to pay a state visit to the Vatican, and her trip to post-apartheid South Africa was a statement that resounded across continents.
And, of course, there is the Commonwealth. It is doubtful whether that great alliance would ever have thrived without the dedication of Her Majesty. When the Queen became head of the Commonwealth in 1952, it had eight members; today it has 54. No one has done more to promote this unique family of nations spanning every continent, all the main religions and nearly a third of the world’s population. In all her realms, from Tuvalu to Barbados, from Papua New Guinea to St Vincent and the Grenadines, from Britain to Jamaica, she is loved because she is a Queen of everyone—for each of us and for all of us.
The diamond jubilee gives us the chance to show our gratitude. By the time she opens the Olympics, the Queen’s jubilee tour will have taken her and Prince Philip to every part of the United Kingdom. In June, London will see a huge pop concert, a great procession and the largest gathering on the Thames for more than three centuries: barges and cutters, narrow boats and motor boats, square riggers, naval vessels, the little ships of Dunkirk—all will be there to pay tribute to our magnificent Queen.
“Diamond” is the appropriate epithet for this jubilee. For 60 years, Her Majesty has been a point of light in our national life—brilliant, enduring and resilient. For that, she has the respect of the House and the enduring affection of all her people.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
May I second the motion and associate myself and my party entirely with the sentiments that the Prime Minister has just expressed?
As the Prime Minister has so accurately described, Her Majesty the Queen has dedicated herself tirelessly and constantly to the people of our country and the Commonwealth for 60 years. Her Majesty has led an extraordinary life of service, which sets an example to us all.
Truly remarkable though her reign has been, it is striking that it is in keeping with the reputation and spirit of the young Princess Elizabeth before she ascended the throne. During the second world war, her work with the Auxiliary Territorial Service gave inspiration and hope to millions, especially young women desperate to play their part while their loved ones were fighting at the front.
Almost 65 years ago, as the House marked Her Majesty’s wedding to the Duke of Edinburgh, Clement Attlee observed that Princess Elizabeth was already celebrated across the globe for her “unerring graciousness and understanding”. His words echo down the years.
We have learnt so much more about Her Majesty: selfless, tireless in duty, unflinching in service, unerring in her commitment to the people of Britain, stoical in the face of personal loss, and proud, as the Prime Minister said, of the extraordinary reach of the monarchy and its values to the Commonwealth.
With Prince Philip at her side, she has shown the most extraordinary dedication to duty. When we tell each other her remarkable story, we speak, too, of the timeless characteristics of our country and all the people who have served us.
Her Majesty’s life reminds us of the true value of service. Her reign is a golden thread that links people within and across the generations. For the generation that emerged from the war, the coronation provided the opportunity to come together in celebration. There was often only one house with a television set on a street, and people crowded round to watch, sharing in community with one another.
For our generation growing up, the event was the silver jubilee in 1977. I remember being in Hyde park as a seven-year-old as part of those celebrations. Then came the golden jubilee on those glorious summer days in 2002. This year in June, it will be the next generation’s turn to share in the excitement.
In these moments, we are reminded that we are far more than just disparate individuals and communities: we are a nation with a shared sense of purpose and integrity. When we celebrated the golden jubilee, it fittingly became not only a celebration of the Queen’s reign, but of the very best features of our country.
As the Prime Minister said, in her 60 years the Queen has witnessed an astonishing array of changes throughout our society. Some have brought huge improvements to our lives; others have been more challenging.
On one occasion, I attended a meeting of the Privy Council shortly after Buckingham palace had shown its commitment to fighting climate change by adopting energy-saving light bulbs. I believe that I was the Minister responsible. Unfortunately, the transition had not been entirely smooth because the light was pretty dim—in fact, it was almost dark.
As Her Majesty valiantly struggled through the gloom to read the names of the Bills being passed, she caught my eye fixedly and remarked on the impact of “these new bulbs”. As Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, I confessed my responsibility, but I am pleased to say that she broke into a smile. Her reaction showed once again her great capacity to put people at ease, no matter what the circumstances.
Whatever she has been confronted with, Her Majesty the Queen has responded with genuine spirit. That spirit means that the Queen is received with reverence, respect and genuine affection wherever she travels in the world. In respect for that spirit, we all come together to celebrate in this, the year of her diamond jubilee.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
At the time of the last diamond jubilee, the Father of the House was Charles Villiers. He had started his distinguished political career in the Parliament of King William IV, had sat in this House continuously for 63 years, and was aged 95. By comparison with him, I am a mere parliamentary debutante.
However, I vividly remember the fireworks that celebrated the silver jubilee of Her Majesty’s grandfather, King George V, in 1935. The hit tune of the time was “The Daring Young Man on the Flying Trapeze”, a prophetically accurate description of Prince William today.
Shortly before the debate on the Loyal Address in 1897, Villiers sent Queen Victoria his personal gift as Father of the House of a parasol. I have presumed to follow his example. His parasol was dressed in Chantilly lace. Mine has not been dressed in French lace; it has been dressed in Nottingham lace, from the city that first sent me to this place 53 years ago.
For my generation, the abiding memory of our Queen is her stunning beauty when she came to the throne. There is nothing more inspiriting in the whole world than a beautiful woman.
The bedrock of her success has been the constitution—not our constitution but hers, because she has always had the most astonishing stamina. In 1953, accompanied as always by the indomitable Duke of Edinburgh, she travelled 53,000 miles. In 1977, the year of her silver jubilee, she travelled 56,000 miles. I once asked a courtier how she did it, to which I received the characteristic reply: “By not eating salads, shellfish and water melon while travelling.”
The Queen’s great-great-grandmother was Empress of India at a time when one quarter of the globe was painted red. She has lived through years of worldwide and often revolutionary change. In the single year of 1960, 16 African countries achieved independence and became sovereign member states of the United Nations. What was to be the role of the Crown in this new world? Her Majesty saw the challenge and seized the opportunity. She made the monarchy mobile. In the second year of her reign, she delivered her Christmas message to Britain and the Commonwealth from New Zealand.
Although always impeccably attentive to her duties in the United Kingdom, she threw herself, with wholehearted energy and commitment, into a new world role as the Head of the Commonwealth. She has visited nearly every member of it, many of them tens of times, from the north Atlantic to the south Pacific. Since her visit to Tuvalu in the south Pacific, sea levels around that threatened island have actually fallen. How jealous King Canute must be!
Her Majesty has presided over 18 Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. These have not always been plain sailing. In 1979, the choice of Lusaka as a venue was a matter of controversy. Zambia was surrounded at the time by warring countries—Mozambique, Southern Rhodesia and Angola—and some thought it dangerous or politically unwise for her to go. Her Majesty made it publicly clear that whoever did or did not go, she was determined to be there. The Lusaka conference was a great success. It was even widely reported that Her Majesty’s only female Prime Minister in Britain had much enjoyed her foxtrot with Kenneth Kaunda.
Of a reign spanning nine Prime Ministers and 12 Presidents of the United States, and notwithstanding her triumph among us here at home, I believe that future historians will record that the impetus and character that she has uniquely given to the Commonwealth will be remembered as her greatest achievement. How fortunate we have been to be reigned over for 60 years by a lady of such poise, grace and beauty—the exemplary daughter of an enchanting mother.
I conclude by repeating the exquisite words of a poet and parliamentarian composed in honour of a queen of hearts of an earlier era—words that are absolutely true of our own beloved Queen:
“Tell me, if she were not designed
The eclipse and glory of her kind”.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
It is a great honour to speak in this debate and particularly to follow the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), the Father of the House. I hope, Mr Speaker, that you, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, having listened with care to the address by the Father of the House, will have it in mind that the next diamond jubilee to be organised should be the one to celebrate his 60th year in the House—such has he become a national treasure and an entertainment to us all.
Of the many privileges that go with the best job in the British Cabinet—that of Foreign Secretary—the greatest is that the whole office is expected to accompany Her Majesty the Queen on state visits abroad. During my five years as Foreign Secretary, I went with Her Majesty to, among other places, Germany, France, Malta and Nigeria. Those visits gave me the opportunity to witness at close hand the extraordinary preparation, dedication, commitment and time that Her Majesty and Prince Philip devoted to these sometimes very difficult public engagements. The pace that the Queen and the Prince set for these visits would have tired somebody half their age.
In Nigeria, the arrangements for the day-to-day engagements showed a little flexibility—to be delicate about the matter—and Her Majesty and Prince Philip had to accommodate that flexibility. She had taken part in one engagement at which I thought she did stunningly well. I said to her afterwards, “Ma’am, if I may say so, that showed extraordinary professionalism.” There was a pause. She looked at me and said, with a benign motherly smile, “Foreign Secretary, it should have been professional. I’ve been doing this for long enough.”
As Home Secretary and then Lord Chancellor, I had a rather less public duty—that of administering the oath of homage, which all new bishops of the Church of England have to make to the sovereign, and have done since the age of Henry VIII. Through that prism, I was able to observe the profound seriousness with which the Queen treats her duties as Head of our established Church, as well as her encyclopaedic knowledge of the parishes and personalities of the Anglican communion.
As Member of Parliament for Blackburn for the past 33 years, I have seen the excitement and, more importantly, the sense of recognition that visits by Her Majesty and other members of the royal family have brought to the people of my area, as they have to every constituency and to people of every ethnic background and religion. These are but a handful of examples of the extraordinary, exemplary way in which Her Majesty has led our nation over the past 60 years.
Of the three most recent of the Queen’s dozen Prime Ministers, one was in nappies and two were not born when she acceded to the throne in February 1952. I guess that I am one of a diminishing band of Members who can recall that day and period. Food and clothes rationing were still in operation and, much more importantly for a six-year-old, so was sweet rationing. There was an acute housing shortage. Vast areas of our great towns and cities were still bombed wastelands, Britain was almost exclusively a white society and, at primary school, I can still recall, in the second year of infant school, the map of the world that our teacher had permanently fixed on the wall and to which he pointed with great regularity. It showed a quarter of the world’s land mass painted pink to signify the British empire.
Six decades on, the world is a very different place, and so is the United Kingdom. We are now a heterogeneous society, with people from many religious and ethnic backgrounds proud to call themselves British. The empire has gone, to be replaced by the Commonwealth. The rate of social, industrial and technological change has been breathtaking. But through all this change, there has been the Queen—constant, reassuring, providing a sense of security and stability in an uncertain world, yet, remarkably, remaining in touch. I am delighted to support the Prime Minister’s motion.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
It is a great honour to join my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and other colleagues in the House’s tribute to Her Majesty the Queen on the presentation of an Humble Address.
On the night of Monday 4 April 1955, on the eve of his resignation as Prime Minister, my kinsman Sir Winston Churchill gave a dinner at No. 10 Downing street for the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. It was attended by Churchill’s closest political and military colleagues and friends, and by members of his private office and his family. The Prime Minister, in proposing the Queen’s health, said this:
“I propose a health to Your Majesty which I used to drink in the days when I was a young Officer in the 4th Hussars in the reign of Your Majesty’s great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria”.
He ended with the following words:
“And I drink to the wise and kindly way of life of which Your Majesty is the young and gleaming champion”.
I am sure that this whole House will agree that Her Majesty the Queen has, throughout her long reign, indeed been a gleaming champion for her country and for the Commonwealth. Crowned in the same abbey church as William the Conqueror, at the same age—26—as the first Queen Elizabeth 400 years earlier, she embodies all the best qualities and the continuity that are so important to our country and its splendid, independent people. This diamond jubilee will thus be an occasion for the nation to thank the Queen, who has served us so professionally, so loyally and so conscientiously through these extraordinary 60 years of some of the most tumultuous social, economic and technological change that Britain has ever seen.
The Queen brings to our national life an experience and knowledge of politics and events all around the world which is truly unrivalled by any other person in the land. Throughout her long reign, she has displayed great, good judgment, tolerance and absolute political neutrality at all times. When she ascended to the throne, her first Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, was of an age to have charged with the 21st Lancers at the battle of Omdurman in 1898, while her present Prime Minister was not even born in 1952. Such is the scale and breadth of the life that she has so triumphantly lived through.
The Queen is a source of powerful influence for this country throughout the world, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. She is the Queen of 16 countries, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the Head of the Commonwealth, an organisation that includes more than a quarter of the earth’s population. She thus brings a vital and often unrecognised addition to our efforts and our influence overseas. We in this House in particular should recognise this as an irreplaceable national asset of the first importance.
Every country needs someone who can represent the whole nation. It may seem primitive—and indeed it is—but if nationhood is to mean anything, it has to have a focus. In our case, for 60 years that focus has been, and remains, the Queen. Nations do have values, and they should be proud of them and willing to express that pride. That is what we are able to do with our monarchy and our Queen, and what we will do this year.
The Queen, blessed with a happy marriage to a remarkable consort who has done so much to support her, does a job that demands tremendous physical and mental toughness and energy. Quite apart from her still extensive public engagements, her work follows her wherever she goes, and always has done. Her life has truly been one of selfless duty. Yet sadly, there is probably no day when she will not read something about her or her family in the media or see something on television that is untrue, cruel or just plain silly.
We are indeed blessed to have in the Queen someone who is truly a remarkable example of dedication, efficiency and common sense, with a tremendously good judgment of people and—last, but by no means least—an excellent sense of humour. Those attributes, added to a perfectly wondrous dislike of pomposity and vanity, and an absolute inability to pretend to be anything other than herself, make the Queen what she is: arguably the most respected and admired—indeed, loved—public figure in the world.
I conclude as I started, with Churchill on the Queen. Broadcasting to the nation on 7 February 1952, on the death of King George VI, he ended with these words:
“I, whose youth was passed in the august, unchallenged and tranquil glories of the Victorian Era, may well feel a thrill in invoking, once more, the prayer and the Anthem ‘God Save the Queen’.”
And, 60 years on, so do we all, Mr Speaker—with all our hearts.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I rise to support the motion in the name of the Prime Minister and to associate myself with the comments that hon. and right hon. Members have made with great eloquence so far.
While I have the indulgence of the House, I want briefly to take only a few moments to report that the city of Leicester—and indeed, my constituency—is immensely proud, delighted, excited and honoured to be hosting Her Majesty the Queen, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge tomorrow, for the start of the diamond jubilee tour. Tomorrow, Her Majesty will be visiting one of the country’s most dynamic universities—De Montfort, in the city of Leicester. Our cathedral will be hosting the Queen—I believe for her first visit—for a service led by the Bishop of Leicester, and our directly elected mayor, Sir Peter Soulsby, will welcome Her Majesty to the iconic clock tower in our city centre.
As well as celebrating Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee, tomorrow is also about celebrating the city of Leicester and the thousands of Leicester people, of all backgrounds, who make our city the strong, diverse and vibrant place it is today. Throughout the last 60 years, families have come from all parts of the Commonwealth and all parts of the world to make Leicester their home. Under Her Majesty’s reign, Leicester and Britain have become more diverse, and stronger, too. Although we are diverse, we are united as a city. Tomorrow, people from Leicester, of all backgrounds, all communities and all faiths, will welcome their Queen—their Head of State. Perhaps they will welcome her in the varied dialects spoken in our city: “A Salaam O Alikum”, perhaps; “Namaste”, perhaps; “Sat sri akaal”, perhaps; or, more simply, perhaps the more familiar “Welcome to Leicester, your Majesty.”
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The preamble to every Act of Parliament that has received Royal Assent in the last 60 years refers to the fact that it is enacted by
“the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty”,
as well as by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and by the Commons, in Parliament assembled. That is indeed fitting terminology, in that there has been a real excellence in Her Majesty the Queen’s devotion, integrity, honour, service and duty to her people over the past 60 years. The Queen serves as an indefatigable unifying influence in an increasingly diverse nation and a Commonwealth of Nations composed of a plethora of countries with different languages, cultures, religions and forms of government.
Her Majesty’s commitment and public service are without parallel. When she was on a tour of Africa at the age of 21, the then Princess Elizabeth declared that her
“whole life, whether it be long or short, would be dedicated to the service”
of her people. And it has been. I venture to suggest that Queen Elizabeth’s ancestors would be proud of her—her late father particularly so—and that her heirs and successors will be driven to follow her example. The Queen is a model sovereign, who has performed her demanding constitutional functions with extraordinarily consistent good judgment. She has touched millions of lives through her innumerable visits. She inspires utter devotion from her regiments and the Church of which she is supreme governor. In the Commonwealth, the Queen has made an enduring contribution to the lives of millions of her people around the world. By her side throughout this period of change has been His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who has been in her heart and mind since she was 13 years of age.
In 1977, for the silver jubilee, and in 2002, for the golden jubilee, peers and Members of Parliament contributed to a gift on the parliamentary estate to be enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of visitors. Late in 2010, in keeping with that tradition, I established an all-party group. With the help of the then Serjeant at Arms of this House, Jill Pay, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, Lieutenant-General David Leakey, and the conservation architect of the estate, Adam Watrobski, I was soon able to approach you, Mr Speaker, and the then Lord Speaker, Baroness Hayman, in order to seek, through your good offices, a request to any Member of this House or the other place who wished to contribute, to make such private donation as they saw fit to a stained glass depiction of the royal arms, to be placed in the north window of Westminster Hall. After renovations have been completed in the coming months, that window will show the first royal arms to be displayed in the north window since the time of King Henry VIII. They will be opposite the arms of His late Majesty, King George VI, the Queen’s father.
No public funds whatever have been used for the manufacture of the stained glass window, or for its monumental display case or its forthcoming installation. That is thanks to the generosity of hundreds of parliamentarians from all sides in both Houses who, in response to your letter, Mr Speaker, have donated a total of £98,396 for this gift, which will allow a modest surplus to be remitted to the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust charity. That generosity is a manifestation of the enormous respect and profound gratitude felt by this Parliament for the selfless and uninterrupted service of our beloved sovereign. God save the Queen.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
In supporting the motion, I know that I speak on behalf of the bulk of the people in my beloved city of Sheffield in offering my congratulations and reflecting on the respect and affection in which Her Majesty has been held over the past 60 years. Reference has been made to the enormity of the change that has taken place in that time. I was reminded, listening to the radio this morning, that the first edition of the New Musical Express, published 60 years ago, featured Paul Robeson. I do not know what Her Majesty will make of this year’s Eurovision song contest, but some things never really change. Some changes have been very much for the better, in regard to tackling discrimination and gross inequality, and creating a care across the world that did not exist 60 years ago. Some of them have illustrated a loss, however, including the loss of the mutuality and reciprocity that were a feature of many of our communities 60 years ago.
One thing is absolutely certain: over those 60 years, I have managed to achieve the dishonour of making mistakes in front of the Queen on a number of occasions. The first was not, in fact, in front of Her Majesty. It involved a little boy, coming up to the age of six, in a school for the blind, when we were celebrating the coronation. Elgar was blaring out from a loudspeaker, and I rushed across the playground only to smash into a little four-year-old girl, spilling lemonade all over her skirt and blouse, which resulted in her bursting into floods of tears. That was the first, but not the last, occasion on which I have made people cry over the past 60 years.
Many moons ago, as leader of Sheffield City Council, I tasted the tea before Her Majesty arrived and described it as “absolutely disgusting”. I had it changed, only to discover that I had set aside her favourite brew. On another occasion when I was leader of Sheffield City Council, I made the mistake of declining Her Majesty’s help at lunch, when she offered to help me with a Barnsley chop. Had I accepted her help, I would have been spared the embarrassment of being told, at the end of the meal, that she was quite used to cutting up the meat for the corgis.
Dogs are a feature of Her Majesty’s life, and I could not let this occasion go by without recalling how much dogs’ instincts affect us, in the political arena as well as in their capacity as pets and social companions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) will remember our hosting an official visit by President Putin, in his first incarnation as President of the Russian Federation. As the arms were presented, my then dog, Sadie, uttered a deep growl from her chest which developed into a bark. That was obviously a precursor to the political change that we have seen in the Russian Federation.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Queen’s ability to put people at their ease. Perhaps I should mention the way in which she put me at my ease when I made another blunder. It was when I was being inducted as a member of the Privy Council in 1997. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn will recall that he had set me in the right direction to kneel on the cushion, but I missed it slightly. I was put right, and the Queen gently assured me that I did actually brush her hand with my lips, rather than her elbow with my mouth, which was the direction in which I had been heading.
These have been 60 years of a Queen for her people here and in the Commonwealth. She has been a Queen who has touched the hearts of those of all classes, distinctions, races, ethnicities and religions. We have had a Queen who has been able to hold our nation together, and I hope that her life will be long and that, in the years to come, she will be able to hold the United Kingdom together in the way that many of us wish for.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
It is a privilege and a pleasure to support the Prime Minister in his motion to send an Address to the Queen on the occasion of her diamond jubilee. Like the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), and everyone else in the House and beyond who have met her on a one-to-one basis, I have been daunted by the prospect as well as humbled by the experience. That is not surprising, given the record that she has achieved. She is not only the second-longest serving monarch we have ever had on these islands, but the second-longest serving Head of State in the world at the moment. I suppose if this were a primary school, I would offer a prize to anyone who could tell me who the longest serving Head of State is—
Simon Hughes
I will tell you later.
Picking up on the comments made by the Father of the House, I find it extraordinary that we have a monarch who has met nearly a quarter of all the Presidents of the United States throughout its history, and who has known a fifth of all British Prime Ministers. Those are extraordinary records.
In paying tribute to the Queen, I should also like to pay tribute to Prince Philip, who has stood alongside her for every month of those 60 years, and more.
Unlike the Father of the House, I am not old enough to remember the accession or the coronation, although I must be honest and tell the House that I was just alive at the time, and I am sure that my family were celebrating. Other events have been significant throughout the Queen’s life. When she has visited our communities, those visits have been really important. There have been conventional events, such as her visit to Llandaff cathedral when I was a little boy. It had been restored after sustaining bomb damage during the war. There have been conventional events relating to past jubilees. She came to the King’s Stairs gardens in Bermondsey, by Edward III’s manor house, to mark her silver jubilee, for example. There have also been some esoteric events. She came to an event near London Bridge a few years ago, in which she unveiled a stone in honour of a native American Indian who was buried there—a fact that came as a surprise to us all. It was a slightly unexpected mixture, seeing the Queen next to a red Indian chief somewhere near London Bridge station.
As the Prime Minister indicated, the Queen has certainly also gone beyond the call of duty on many occasions. The example that most comes to mind is indeed the blessed millennium eve celebrations at the dome. I think that she was reassured by stopping off at Southwark cathedral first, which she enjoyed and found highly appropriate. That visit probably also gave her the spiritual strength and courage to go on to the events that straddled midnight.
People have rightly paid tribute to the Queen’s international as well as national service. It is extraordinary that she is Queen of 16 countries, and of about 130 million people around the world. She is Queen of the second-largest country in the world—Canada—as well as of Tuvalu, a country of only 10,000 people. It is absolutely consistent with her service that the trust set up to mark the jubilee is intended to serve the poorest peoples of the Commonwealth—exactly the sort of mission she has always supported herself.
The Queen has been pre-eminent in making sure that people in the public service, and particularly those in military service, have been honoured and supported by her. We thank her for that, because they do the bravest and most difficult of jobs. She has also always gone out of her way to support those in voluntary service, commending that non-paid activity in our country and beyond. She has also been particular in making sure that she has supported and encouraged people of all faiths and backgrounds.
People have paid many tributes in this place on occasions during the 60 years. They have highlighted the Queen’s unassuming virtues and her faultless example. In fact, she has stood like a rock in a sea of troubles, she has lived out the promises made at her accession and coronation and she has exemplified dignity, experience, wisdom and, above all, her incomparable sense of duty.
As we say our grateful thank you to a Queen who has been our monarch for 60 years, it is also fair to say that she has also been our servant—the people’s servant—for 60 years. She has been a servant monarch, which is what she said she would be when she took the coronation oath.
Let me finish with two short personal comments. I am a member of the Christian Church. There are people in this Parliament of many faiths and of none. Speaking as someone of faith, may I say on behalf of those who have faith in general and of Christians in particular that when the Queen has expressed her views about the truths and good news of the Christian gospel, as she did in her Christmas broadcast last year, she has done so more honestly, more simply and more clearly than probably any other Christian leader in the world? People of all faiths should be thankful for that. She has absolutely got it right in expressing the faith in which she so clearly believes.
I am privileged to be the MP whose constituency includes the Old Kent road. The Prime Minister alluded to a relevant description earlier. We regularly call people—we are not the only people to do so—“diamond geezers”. I am not sure that the Queen would be overly keen on the second part of the description, but in the vernacular of Bermondsey, the Old Kent road and everywhere else: she is a diamond; she has been a diamond; and for the many more years we hope she reigns, she will go on being a diamond. On behalf of all my colleagues—and so say all of us.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, it is a great privilege and pleasure to endorse and to be associated with the statements of the Prime Minister and of other right hon. and hon. Members in support of this motion. For most of us and for most of the country, Queen Elizabeth II is the only monarch we have ever known. Only one other monarch, Queen Victoria, has reached this tremendous milestone. It is not just the length of service that has been so impressive, but the manner in which Her Majesty has served the people of this country. Dedication, commitment, judgment and sacrifice are words that spring to mind when we think of the Queen’s service to our country and to the Commonwealth over the course of her entire life.
At 21 years of age, Her Majesty pledged that
“my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.”
That promise has been well and truly fulfilled. During Her Majesty’s reign, she has of course been supported superbly by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who has obviously been a great source of strength to Her Majesty, as well as serving our country in his own inimitable right.
We from Northern Ireland appreciate deeply the commitment that the Queen has shown to our part of the United Kingdom over the course of her reign. Her Majesty has visited Northern Ireland on some 15 official visits over the last 60 years. She has travelled even during very difficult and dangerous periods when her visits brought with them severe risks to her personal security. I well recall one particular visit when, during very dark and troubled days indeed, I had the great honour as lord mayor of the great city of Belfast of welcoming her to the city. Her intense concern for and interest in the welfare of all of the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland was evident. People in our Province have always enjoyed visits by the Queen and members of the royal family. We look forward eagerly to Her Majesty’s visit later this year, so that once again we can show our respect and affection for her and the royal household.
On the first occasion that Her Majesty visited Northern Ireland as Queen in 1953, she spoke to the Northern Ireland House of Commons, saying:
“I assure you that I will always strive to repay your loyalty and devotion with my steadfast service to you.”
The then Speaker responded by saying:
“It is our heartfelt prayer that Your Majesty may be blessed with health and strength, long to reign over us.”
As we give thanks to almighty God today for the life and service of Her Majesty, we affirm that this continues to be our sincere prayer today. God save the Queen.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
As the Member of Parliament for Windsor, I wholeheartedly associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister and of other right hon. and hon. Members. During 60 years of service, there have been 60 years of change, but one thing has not changed and has remained constant—Her Majesty’s dedication and sense of duty towards our country and its people. On behalf of the people of Windsor, I wish to express my thanks and my best wishes to Her Majesty and the royal family. She is as welcome in her home in Windsor as she is throughout the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I join my fellow former member of Oxford university Labour club, the Father of the House, in paying tribute to Her Majesty. What has impressed me about her, among many other noble attributes, is her knowledgeability and her imperturbality.
I attended a meeting of the Privy Council, at which Her Majesty had the responsibility to prick sheriffs. She held an object that looks like a large knitting needle and in front a parchment roll, not dissimilar to another kind of roll, was unrolled before her. As the official read out the names, the Queen leaned forward and stabbed the roll. On one occasion when a name was read out, Her Majesty said, “But he’s dead,” to which the official’s response was, “Yes, Your Majesty, but if you will prick it, I will explain later.”
Her Majesty goes to enormous pains to obtain information in order to carry out her duties. When I attended the investiture at Buckingham palace, the Queen tapped me on the shoulder. She then made comments to me, which made it clear that she had taken the trouble to find out something about me. What I found even more encouraging and remarkable was that as each person being honoured came before her—there were a very large number—she had something to say to each one of them. It struck me as impressive that she went to all that trouble to make the day memorable for the people attending at Buckingham palace.
I want to pay tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh, too. I have been involved in a number of events with His Royal Highness. I particularly remember meeting His Royal Highness at Farnborough air show at the time when I was shepherding through legislation to nationalise the aircraft industry and to create British Aerospace. He had some extremely forthright comments and pieces of advice to offer about how British Aerospace should be nationalised. I took due account of what he said when we carried the legislation through Parliament.
While there are Presidents in countries all over the world, this country has what some might regard as an anomaly, whereby the Head of State is an hereditary monarch. The greatest achievement of Her Majesty is that she has proved by the way in which she has presided over this country for 60 years that hereditary monarchy provides a better basis for genuine democracy than any of the presidencies we see in different parts of the world. Her impartiality and knowledgability have demonstrated to all of us that we, who have the best democracy in the world—despite occasional electoral aberrations—owe that democracy, in which all of us are free, to Her Majesty. What she has done in making this United Kingdom a permanent democracy, a democracy that is impregnable, is perhaps the greatest of her many achievements.
Mr Speaker
I call Mr Steve Brine.
Mr Brine was on the list of those wishing to speak, but apparently he does not wish to do so, so I call Mary Macleod.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I am honoured to have the opportunity to contribute a few words to this humble Address to Her Majesty on the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. I strongly support the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who gave a powerful and poignant summary of what the Queen has done for this country.
When Queen Elizabeth II became our monarch in February 1952, the United Kingdom was a pretty austere place. It was only seven years after the end of the second world war, and tea rationing was still in place. The Queen was faced with a crisis almost immediately when the great smog of London killed about 12,000 people in December 1952, an event that shocked the world into starting the environmental movement. In her first Christmas message, aged just 26, she called on her people to
“set out to build a truer knowledge of ourselves and our fellowmen, to work for tolerance and understanding among the nations and to use the tremendous forces of science and learning for the betterment of man’s lot upon this earth.”
Those are wise words even today, as they were then.
As others have already pointed out, the Queen has witnessed some incredible innovations during her 60-year reign: the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, the first man on the moon, the first and last supersonic flights on Concorde, the first test-tube baby, the first personal computer and the world wide web, and the introduction of the mobile phone. About 90% of people in the United Kingdom now have mobile phones.
Her Majesty has also been a constant presence during many significant world events, such as Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, the construction and fall of the Berlin wall, the recessions of the 1970s and 1990s, and the economic crisis of more recent years. She has discussed the politics of the day with 12 Prime Ministers, from Sir Winston Churchill in 1951 to my right hon. Friend our current Prime Minister. That makes her probably the most experienced and well-briefed person in the country today. She has been at the heart of what has been important to Britain, and the challenges that we have had to face as a country over these 60 years. Our world has changed more in the Queen’s lifetime than in those of any of her predecessors, but she has remained a calm presence at the centre, earning the respect and affection of everyone.
I first met Her Majesty in May 1998 at Balmoral castle, beside the beautiful banks of the River Dee, in my role as part of the royal household. On that first evening, over dinner, I saw her wonderful humour, heard story after story of experiences that she had been through, listened to the pipes being played by Pipe Major Jim Motherwell, and talked about Scotland, which, of course, I consider to be an important part of the United Kingdom.
During my time as policy adviser, I saw at first hand the unbelievable work load that Her Majesty undertook daily as part of her unstinting service to this country and the Commonwealth. Her devotion to duty is unparalleled, and is reflected not just in her work load, but in the number of engagements that she attends and the visitors to this country whom she entertains. The Queen is patron to more than 600 wide-ranging organisations that support children, sport, the arts, health, science, animals, industry, education and the military, to name just a few. She takes a particular interest in all the armed forces in both the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, and is, of course, the wife, mother and grandmother of individuals who have served, or are currently serving, in the armed forces.
For me, the Queen represents the best of British values—loyalty, respect, family, volunteering—and reminds us of what it means to be British. In her diamond jubilee message, she asked us all to remember
“the power of togetherness and the convening strength of family, friendship and good neighbourliness.”
All those things are so important at the moment to everyone in the United Kingdom and throughout the Commonwealth.
The Queen even has the ability to transcend boundaries. I flew in this morning after looking at emerging and high-growth markets and businesses in Asia, and spoke to an American gentleman who said to me enthusiastically, “We love her, and we feel that she is our Queen too.” When I pressed him to tell me why, he said, “She embodies dignity, stability and grace.” I could not have agreed more.
His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, Prince William, spoke recently of how his grandmother had
“carved her own way completely”
and had managed to deal with the difficult balance between public demands and private life. At the same time, the Queen has not been afraid to listen to feedback from the general public, and to take action when it is needed. She has personally overseen a radical modernisation of the royal household to reduce spending, support female succession and embrace technology. Grants to the Queen and the royal household amount to less than 70p per person in the country, a figure that is far outweighed by their payments to the Treasury and the benefits of tourism to the economy. The Queen has also opened up the way for the royal household to share information. More than half a million people like her Facebook page, which I suspect is more than most Members of Parliament can say.
In 1897, on the day of her own diamond jubilee celebrations, Queen Victoria wrote in her diary:
“The streets were beautifully decorated, also the balconies of the houses, with flowers, flags and draperies of every hue.”
I look forward to similar festivities throughout the country during the celebration weekend in June, and encourage all local communities to hold the street parties and other events that do so much to bring us together in our own communities. Let us use this year of the diamond jubilee and the Olympics and Paralympics to regain our sense of Britishness. Let us be proud to be British. Let us talk up British business and, most of all, our people: those who really make Britain what it is today, with the Queen at the helm.
I want to join everyone here today in paying the warmest possible tribute to Her Majesty the Queen. Her devotion to duty and her energy are inspirational, and we cannot thank her enough for all that she does for our country and the Commonwealth. If we all did a fraction of what she does, our communities would surely be stronger and better. Members of Parliament are elected to serve our constituents and to make a difference to our country. What better example of service could they follow than that of Her Majesty the Queen? She has made an impression on so many people. She is a role model and an inspiration, for me, for women, for citizens of the UK and the Commonwealth, and for generations to come.
In supporting the Prime Minister’s motion and thanking the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, I end my speech with words from our national anthem:
“God save our gracious Queen”.
Long may she reign over us!
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the humble Address, and to support the motion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) told us earlier, tomorrow morning Her Majesty the Queen, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge will visit Leicester on the first stop of the diamond jubilee tour. That is a great honour for our city. Under the Queen’s reign, Leicester has prospered and changed. We have welcomed people from throughout the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. It is therefore fitting that tomorrow’s royal visit will begin with a dance that celebrates our city’s diversity.
Leicester has a long history in textiles, hosiery and shoemaking. Students on De Montfort university’s world-renowned footwear design course have been busy making a pair of shoes for the Duchess of Cambridge, and the royal party will watch a fashion show at the university. They will also hear about De Montfort’s Square Mile project, which aims to help local residents in Newfoundpool, Fosse and Woodgate, which are in my constituency. Students from Leicester college, including my constituent Amrik Mudher, will then help to make the royal lunch at St Martin’s house before the visitors proceed to Leicester cathedral and our historic clock tower.
We in Leicester treasure our history, we celebrate our present and we are confident about the future. There is a huge sense of anticipation and excitement about tomorrow’s visit. I know that tomorrow the citizens of Leicester will give the Queen, in the 60th year of her reign, a welcome of which our whole city, and country, can be proud.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a great privilege to be called to speak in this debate and thereby have an opportunity to pay tribute to Her Majesty the Queen, both on my own part as her humble subject and on behalf of the residents of Suffolk Coastal. For so many of us, she is the only monarch we have ever known, and what a wonderful example she has set of service, of family and of true commitment to our United Kingdom. Members of my family proudly serve in the armed forces, and the Queen also served during world war two, showing that what was good enough for her subjects was good enough for her. The example she set then was an important part of the national war effort.
I also pay tribute to the Queen’s steadfast consort, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. It is fantastic that he has recovered from his recent minor illness, and I am delighted that he will be starting the jubilee tour with his wife tomorrow in Leicester.
I pay tribute to the Queen for her visit to the Republic of Ireland last year. I wonder whether Her Majesty will ever realise the true extent of the impact she made. It may be a little controversial to say that it was a great parliamentarian, Cromwell, who tore Ireland apart. I think that the Queen’s visit last year will have gone a long way towards restoring the relationship between our two great nations.
I do not pretend to have had any contact with Her Majesty, but we have heard some wonderful insights and amusing anecdotes today. I do know, however, that the people who receive honours from her and those who attend her garden parties are thrilled to do so, as are all the people who queue up as I did as little girl in 1977—I also got a commemorative mug—and line the streets of Liverpool, Wrexham and other places because we want to see our monarch. The only times that I have had any contact with Her Majesty are when she was gracious enough to grant Royal Assent to a private Member’s Bill of mine, and thereby make it an Act of Parliament, and, of course, when I swore the oath to take office here in Parliament for the first time.
I think it is fair to say that Her Majesty has also touched the world. She is the Head of State for over a quarter of the world’s population. That is celebrated in Commonwealth week and at the Commonwealth games—and I hope she will open the Olympic games later this year. I encourage colleagues to take the opportunity of diamond jubilee week to host a Commonwealth day reception in their constituencies, to mark the Queen’s contribution not only to our country, but around the world.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) said, there have been many changes during Her Majesty’s reign. When the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), mentioned TV sets, I remembered my mother telling me that the coronation was the first time she watched television. In Wrexham, people crowded into one particular shop, because the shopkeeper had bought a television just to be able to watch that ceremony, which changed history. Many other things have changed—one of my favourite dishes, coronation chicken, was invented for that day and is one of its lasting legacies.
We cannot praise Her Majesty’s service to our country too highly. She is a mother, a grandmother and a great-grandmother. As has been said, she enjoys the company of dogs and horses, and on a visit to Suffolk earlier in the year, she went to Newmarket. On Her Majesty’s special weekend, we will all join her in celebrating what is great about our country. I am sure that she will continue to serve us for years to come.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) made a fine comment about His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who will begin the royal tour tomorrow on schedule. We all welcome that news.
It is a great pleasure to attend this debate and to listen so many fine and noble speeches. I was impressed by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). I remember the death of George VI, but not the radio broadcast by his kinsman the following night. I certainly remember the Queen’s coronation and the feeling in the country that we were entering a new Elizabethan era. That era has lasted longer than anyone would have imagined and has been to our country’s credit and honour.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have described their personal experiences of the Queen, the Duke and the rest of the royal family. I first visited Buckingham palace in 1984, accompanied by my wife. I saw the very first copy of Disraeli’s “Sybil, or The Two Nations” in an exhibition of manuscripts from Windsor castle. Her Majesty and Prince Philip came along and talked to us all very nicely. Dame Angela Rumbold, a former Minister of the Crown and Member of Parliament, was also there. Her husband, John, died recently, which is a great sadness to us all. Angela and I were officially paired in the House, and when I proudly told the Duke that, he turned to my wife and asked, “And you have an official pair, my dear?” He had that twinkle in his eye that I am not quite sure about. Fortunately for me, however, my wife held her peace.
Her Majesty visited Middlesbrough in 1992, when she and the Duke were touring the British isles for the last time on the royal yacht Britannia—former Prime Minister Tony Blair came to regret the decision to abandon the yacht. The yacht was docked in Hartlepool, but Her Majesty visited my Middlesbrough constituency, where she opened a children’s playground at Pallister park. The Queen clearly has greater knowledge of our parliamentary system than some Members, because she looked at me and said, “The Whips have let you off today, have they?”
One of my constituents asked me if I had been invited to a dinner on the royal yacht that evening. I somewhat shyly and diffidently said that my wife and I had, indeed, been invited. My constituent said, “I sent her a cruet set for her 40th anniversary. Will you ask her if she received it, and if she uses it?” It is always wise to seek to do a constituent’s bidding, of course, but I must admit that my courage failed me on that occasion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) described various mistakes made in the Queen’s presence. I have often said to people that one thing we must never do is address the Queen; we must wait for her to address us. On one occasion, commanded again to Buckingham palace, I stood in line to be introduced. When my turn came, I blurted out: “Your Majesty, I am your Second Church Estates Commissioner.” She replied, “Oh, really.” It took me some time to get over that. Later on, however, she came up to me and asked what the General Synod had been discussing last weekend—the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) will have taken note of that—which made me feel a lot better.
I was Her Majesty’s Second Church Estates Commissioner for 13 years, and I saw very clearly her dedication and devotion to her duties to state and to Church—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn also mentioned that. I remember her opening the General Synod at Westminster abbey. She is, of course, Supreme Governor of the Church of England through her coronation oath, which dates back to the time of Henry VIII. I saw how she looked at the people around her and took in the atmosphere. It was clear that she enjoyed the event; she was smiling in enjoyment and pleasure at her role as Supreme Governor—in marked contrast to what happened at the opening of the millennium dome, to which the Prime Minister referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) mentioned the Queen’s interest in other faiths. When she visited Lambeth palace on 15 February, she talked of nine families of faith. She referred to the significant position of the Church of England in our nation’s life and its duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.
I have referred to various visits to Buckingham palace, and I would not wish to omit the final visit I made to see Her Majesty there with other Members of Parliament. We do get invited to Buckingham palace from time to time. On this occasion I was with a group of MPs that included the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who I am sure would not miss this occasion today, when Her Majesty came to talk to us. Three years later, it was our time again, and the hon. Member for Epping Forest— now a friend—said, “Wouldn’t it be nice if Her Majesty came along and spoke to us again?” I spoke to the equerry and he managed to get Her Majesty to come and speak to us, and the hon. Lady said, “Your Majesty, we were together three years ago and you spoke to us then.” Her Majesty uttered the immortal words, “And we are all still here,” and so, 60 years on from her coronation, are Her Majesty and the Duke. It has been a mighty achievement for a monarch to reign for 60 years and that is why we pay tribute to Her Majesty and the Duke. We wish her well in her reign and we look back in satisfaction and gratitude at the service she has rendered to this country.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
I am very happy to verify the story of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). In supporting the Humble Address may I say that those of us who strive to show that there should be no barriers to a woman being able to achieve all that a man can achieve have in Her Majesty a shining example and a wonderful inspiration?
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
May I add my support to the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition following recent devastating events in Afghanistan? We must never forget that those who serve are the lions of our country. We owe them all an enormous debt of gratitude and I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of those who have tragically lost their lives in Afghanistan.
It is an honour to speak in today’s Humble Address to celebrate the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. As Her Majesty prepares to begin the next chapter in her remarkable history, it is right that we remind ourselves of the changes to the country and the world that have accompanied her most distinguished reign on the British throne. While the world has changed at a rapid rate, the Queen has struck the balance perfectly between stability and tradition versus change and modernisation. She reigns steadfast in her belief in duty, commitment and loyalty, steadfast in her belief in peace and prosperity both at home and overseas, and steadfast as a mother and grandmother who works tirelessly for her nation and her family. The Queen has served her country dutifully and with a quiet dignity and grace. I know that the Queen’s support for our armed forces really does matter to them and their families, especially on days such as today. I believe that the Queen’s service is best defined by one word—duty.
Her Majesty is undoubtedly formidable, but we know that she also has a sense of humour. I recall a story about a mayoress from a town that shall remain nameless, although I will say that it was not Barnsley, who showed the Queen around a refurbished town hall. During the tour, the Queen and mayoress arrived at an open cabinet containing a rather formal robe, which prompted the Queen to ask, “What is that robe for?” The mayoress replied, “This is our ceremonial robe, but we only use it for very special occasions.” A wry smile from the Queen said all that needed to be said.
In complex and challenging times for Britain and the world, the Queen has remained a reassuring constant. Her Majesty has worked tirelessly to support all her Prime Ministers and to build strong working relationships with countless foreign Heads of State and leaders of the Commonwealth countries. The Queen is well placed to head a country that has culture, the arts, heritage, design and technology at its core. Around the world, portraits of the Queen have become synonymous with the traditions of the British monarchy. Rolf Harris and Lucien Freud, to name just two, have had the opportunity to paint Her Majesty. Oh to have been a fly on the wall during one of Freud’s sittings with Her Majesty!
As we move into 2012, Her Majesty will inspire her nation again. In July, she will become the third British monarch officially to open the London Olympic games, following in the footsteps of her great-grandfather, Edward VII, in 1908 and her father, George VI, in 1948. Before that, the nation will gather to celebrate the diamond jubilee. In South Yorkshire, we will celebrate with festivals and street parties. Over the next 12 months, the eyes of the world will be on the Queen to inspire her people. I am confident, as, I am sure, are the whole House and the whole country, that she will, as ever, with a grace and devotion to duty that is admired and respected the world over, once more make this country very proud.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a great privilege to have this opportunity, on behalf of the Witham constituency, to support the Humble Address to Her Majesty the Queen.
In October 2010, my constituency was honoured by the first visit of Her Majesty to that part of Essex for a generation. She came to visit Wilkin and Sons in Tiptree, which has a royal warrant. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the company makes the finest jams and preserves in the world. In the weeks leading up to the visit, the air of excitement and anticipation was immense. That seems unimaginable in today’s era of short-term celebrity culture, but business men, schoolchildren and pensioners were all enthused and excited about her presence in Tiptree. The visit brought everyone together as nothing else could and blew us all away on the day. It is a testament to her remarkable character that everyone who met her felt inspired and delighted that the Queen had engaged in conversation with them. Despite the fact that that visit was only one of the hundreds she makes each year, everyone felt special to have spent time with Her Majesty.
Just as Tiptree celebrated Her Majesty’s visit, people across my constituency are now embracing the diamond jubilee celebrations. Witham town council has organised a competition for local schoolchildren to design a logo to mark this momentous occasion. With so many events, street parties and activities taking place in her honour, we can see that Her Majesty is perhaps the only living person who can command this level of respect and loyalty and bring our great nation together.
It is absolutely fitting, with the celebrations taking place across the country and the Commonwealth, that the House should pay its own tribute to the 60 years of selfless service that Her Majesty has given to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. She has relentlessly promoted Britain throughout the world, and there is barely a corner of the earth that she has not reached. Her Majesty has supported numerous charities and great causes throughout our country. She has acted as a confidante to a dozen Prime Ministers throughout her reign and done tremendous work. Her strong work ethic is inspiring, and her eternal optimism for this country is a great source of comfort in an era of change. As her visit to my constituency demonstrated, our sovereign lady is a true believer in the people and businesses that make our country the greatest in the world. Her Majesty is the embodiment of the British spirit, and long may her reign continue.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
My reason for speaking is that I have lived under four monarchs, and I would like to present a view that will represent a diversity of opinion in the country, which probably has not been expressed so far in the debate. A Head of State wearing a green dress and bowing her head to Croke Park was a very powerful symbol of reconciliation, which I believe will have a profound effect on healing the wounds that have disfigured life in the island of Ireland for generations.
The Queen is still working, doing a full-time job, having been born in 1926. What a splendid example to the nation and to the House, which has just two hon. Members who are octogenarians. Their distinguished contributions should ensure that we encourage greater diversity in the House. It is one area where we fail. Great progress has been made; there is a larger proportion of women Members and more Members from the minorities, although not yet enough, but we fail dismally on the number of people who can remember what it was like before there was a health service, for instance. We should look with gratitude to the Queen for providing a magnificent example.
My third positive point is from the writings of Robert Rhodes James, a former Member for Cambridge and a respected historian. He raised a fascinating point about the feelings in the Conservative party when Mrs Thatcher’s premiership was coming to an end. He wrote of concern in Conservative circles that Mrs Thatcher might decide to call a general election, acting in her own interests rather than those of the nation, and that the Conservative party, the House and the Cabinet would not be able to stop her. The only person who could have stopped her was the Head of State, and I believe all of us agree that the Queen’s strength of character and the fact that she had served many other Prime Ministers would give us full confidence that she was the best person in that situation or any situation when a Prime Minister decided to act in his or her interests rather than the interests of the country.
Another tradition is represented in this country, certainly in my constituency when, in 1839, a group of Chartists demonstrated and their purpose was not entirely benign towards Queen Victoria. Twenty of them were shot. It is right that we look at the relationship between the sovereign and ourselves in a modern Parliament. One welcomes the fact that a new coat of arms will be added to the many already displayed in the House, but sadly there is virtually no pictorial depiction of the struggles for democracy by the Chartists, the Tolpuddle martyrs, the suffragettes and others who shaped the rich and strong democracy we have today. We should put that right.
The speeches that have been made so far have been sincere and heartfelt, and virtually all were true, but if someone wants to be critical, they are not allowed to be. If a monarch, or just a relative of the monarch, strayed from the paths of sainthood and perfection, it would be impossible for a Member of the House to be critical of that person. That is not sensible. If that circumstance should arise, we should be allowed to talk freely if words of criticism are necessary.
It is right, too, that the quarter of the population who describe themselves as republican should have their views heard. We know that figure is reflected in the membership of the House. When there was a debate some years ago about whether there should be an alternative Oath, more than 100 Members voted for it. To avoid the verbal rigmarole that republicans have to go through when taking the Oath, we should have an alternative.
Finally, I am sure that even with the history of my city, where republicanism has existed for at least 200 years, all the people I represent, whether they see themselves as subjects or citizens, royalists or republicans, will wish the Queen well on this occasion.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
On behalf of my constituents of Romford and Hornchurch, I rise in support of the Prime Minister in the Humble Address to the Queen, and add my congratulations and heartfelt thanks to her Majesty for her service and dedication to our nation in this, the 60th year of her reign as our Head of State, sovereign and defender of the faith.
The diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen will be a wonderful celebration for all the people of these islands, and a truly historic occasion for British people throughout the world. Let us remember that although Her Majesty is dear to all of us in this country, she is also loved by millions across the globe. The Queen reigns over not only the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but 15 other realms, five Crown dependencies and 16 overseas territories, and 11 external territories of which Australia and New Zealand are sovereign; in total, 135 million people throughout 48 realms and territories, representing more than 18.8 million square miles of the world remain under the Crown.
From the Arctic north of Canada to the British Antarctic Territory at the most southerly end of the planet, from Norfolk island on the eastern side of the Pacific to the Pitcairn islands on the western side, from the Caribbean to the Indian ocean, and from the Falkland Islands of the south Atlantic to the Rock of Gibraltar, people across the world will be celebrating this joyful occasion. Today, in this mother of Parliaments, let us remember all Her Majesty’s loyal subjects from every corner of the globe, and together celebrate our shared heritage, represented so magnificently by Queen Elizabeth II.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I add our congratulations to the Queen and wish her well on the tremendous occasion of her 60th jubilee.
This is my second speech on an Humble Address; the other was six years ago on the occasion of the Queen’s 80th birthday. Of the six Members who contributed that day, only two have done so again today: the Prime Minister did so from a different position, but I speak from the same place and am happy to provide continuity for the Humble Address.
Her Majesty has had a long and impressive reign. I noted from a recent TV documentary that 60 years ago she pledged to serve the “imperial family”. Time has moved on, and so has the Queen, although not her inner gracious qualities and decorum. The imperial family has changed into a Commonwealth, as the Prime Minister noted earlier, and Her Majesty is now Queen of 16 independent states, a number that may be added to in coming years—a veritable growing family.
In the year of Her Majesty’s 80th birthday, six years ago, she cruised around the Hebrides—my constituency, Na h-Eileanan an Iar—perhaps her favourite destination in all her realms. Before she becomes our longest reigning monarch—God willing—on 9 September 2015, I hope that she may again have the opportunity to cruise around the Hebrides, as this year may be a bit busy for her.
In my childhood it was always a high point when Her Majesty visited the islands south of Barra, and travelled there in peace, and the three masts of the royal yacht Britannia were visible behind the hills when it was anchored in Vatersay bay.
Finally, I say in Gaelic—the old but also the modern language of Scotland—“Meallaibh ar naidheachd a Bhanrighinn Elasdaid is tha mi an dochas gum bi ioma Bliadhna sona roimhibh.”
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Opening today’s debate on the Humble Address, the Prime Minister mentioned how much Her Majesty enjoys the Braemar gathering, which takes place in my constituency. The secret of the success to which we have paid tribute today is the royal family’s ability to recharge the batteries in the highland retreat of Balmoral in the heart of my constituency. On behalf of the many neighbours who live in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, I associate myself with the remarks made today. I wish Her Majesty well in her diamond jubilee and support the Humble Address.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
I support the very gracious words of the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
It seems to me that if we were political scientists creating a state, as we did after the second world war, we would not begin with a monarchy in this day and age. It is an irrational, arbitrary, often deranged institution that depends upon the luck of genes, and it does not always work out well for the country, but not in this case. We must also, it seems, be careful about aligning too closely the history and identity of Britain with the history and identity of monarchy. Royal families come and go; some have very strong connections with the nation, others very weak ones—indeed, some do not even speak the same language as we do.
But there is no doubt that in the post-war years the monarchy of Queen Elizabeth II closely aligned itself with the changing history and identity of Britain, and often for the most curious reasons. On the one hand, Her Majesty was lucky. History is clear that those who do not wait around for the throne—those who have it thrust upon them at an early age—often prove to be among the most successful of our monarchs. In terms of longevity and achievement, being a queen rather than a king also plays well, particularly for the history of England. Added to that have been the remarkable personal virtues that have been spelled out so effectively by right hon. and hon. Members: patience, dignity, resolve, discretion, duty.
What has been so remarkable in Her Majesty’s reign has been the ability to let the monarchy assist in the transformation of post-war Britain. On her watch, Britain has changed from a predominantly Protestant, white and hierarchical society to a multi-cultural, mixed-race, secular nation inherently hostile towards privilege and inherited position. And yet, through all these extraordinary social and cultural upheavals, which have seen monarchies come and go on the continent, Her Majesty has managed to retain the nation’s abiding affection and provided some sense of the unity of values that we have discussed.
This is partly the product of the nature of monarchy, which is non-sectarian, imperial and then Commonwealth in its reach, curiously suited for the identities of a diffuse, globalised age. Similarly, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) suggested, one of the ironies of the Queen’s strength is her sense of faith in a multi-religious age, a deep commitment to the Church of England and its teachings; providing that official sanction for faith provides space for other faiths to express themselves. At times of repeated difficulties, the Queen has wisely kept the monarchy outside politics and stuck to the old royal aphorism that Ministers are king in this country.
But the work goes on. The monarchy and Her Majesty’s Government are going to have to deal very deftly with the growing calls for republican autonomy in former colonies, as we heard so recently in Jamaica and, inevitably, in Australia. The House of Windsor will also have to confront the challenge of separatism within the UK and perhaps the return to a fully federal vision of monarchy. There is certainly more to be done on both physical and intellectual access to the royal estates, their archives and their histories, but none of this should be an insurmountable challenge.
Finally, I am always wary when the House is too reverential towards monarchy. We should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who has departed, suggested, also speak to our different traditions. We should have a healthy respect but also a critical eye on the actions of the sovereign and on the sovereign’s finances, power and estate. We have our own history and identity in this place, a democratic rather than monarchical heritage that Britain also speaks to. As such, we can all pay deep respects to the enormous personal contribution of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
I can say that particularly from my constituency, Stoke-on-Trent, where the order books are strong and employment is up on the back of this summer’s celebrations. In the Potteries the kilns are hot for the diamond jubilee and, on behalf of my constituents, I am delighted to add my support to the Humble Address.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
May I associate myself with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the sad loss in Afghanistan today? One of the soldiers was a member of the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, and my thoughts are with the family and all those who have given their lives—the ultimate sacrifice—in fighting for Afghanistan.
I support the Humble Address today. Before I came into the House, I served Her Majesty the Queen and Duke of Lancaster as a member of the Scots Guards for nine years, and I am currently a member of the Queen’s bodyguard for Scotland. Now that our colleagues, the Scottish National party, have become monarchists too, perhaps there is less cause for me to use that body to guard Her Majesty in future.
I saw behind the scenes of the monarchy in my time before entering politics. We in the House know more than most that it is not easy to make people feel special on their occasion. It is not easy to show interest in the things they do every day, which they take to be so important. It is not easy to live under the daily gaze of the media, both in private life and in public life. We do this on occasion, but Her Majesty the Queen has done it for 60 years. Her family does it every day.
Not only does Her Majesty do that to the highest standard, but she leaves everybody she meets with the feeling that they have been touched by the monarchy and by the nation. When people are given an award by Her Majesty the Queen, it is not because of politics or favour but because our nation values what they do. That is something that she herself embodies. She also leaves with all of us a story of our encounters with the Queen or members of the royal family.
On one occasion I was the officer of the guard at Buckingham palace and I had to accompany Her Majesty the Queen to an investiture. I was at that time seeking a seat in the Scottish Parliament and I had been for the selection meeting on the Monday at Balmoral, in Crathie, to try and stand for the seat of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine in the Scottish Parliament. I was not lucky and did not get through to the final round. However, Her Majesty the Queen asked me what I had done and I said that I had been up in her neck of the woods, but unfortunately I thought that members of the selection board thought I was a bit too young. She said, “I think they should think again.” The next day I got a phone call, to be told that the shortlist of two was too small and would be expanded to five. I was then selected as the Conservative candidate for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and elected to the Scottish Parliament, and perhaps that is why I am standing here today.
The Queen also embodies the Sandhurst tradition of serve to lead, which is all about public duty. She taught me at Sandhurst that you give yourself to lead your country. Perhaps she is the true inspiration of the big society. We forget so much about the value and importance of public duty. People today need more stability. They need less politics, not more, and they need impartiality. Her Majesty the Queen has provided all that for our nation, and she has allowed our nation to feel secure in itself and to continue to achieve the greatness that this country achieves and stands for throughout the world.
On behalf of all the armed forces that I served with and the veterans whom I now represent in Lancashire, and my constituents in the Duchy of Lancaster and my constituency, Wyre and Preston North, I wish Her Majesty a happy and successful diamond jubilee, and long may she reign.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I add my support to the motion in the name of the Prime Minister and express my best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen in her diamond jubilee year. I recognise the very important contribution she has made to this country over that time and also to our relationships with other nations around the world. It is a remarkable and inspiring achievement that 60 years on from her accession to the throne, she continues to serve with undiminished energy, vigour, dedication and grace.
Other Members have highlighted the Queen’s service and dedication in many spheres of national life, but in my brief remarks I wish to focus on just one example that is of particular importance to me and those I represent, and to which the Prime Minister has already referred. Other Members have spoken of the changing times during which the Queen has reigned. Even during my lifetime we have witnessed some remarkable improvements in relations between Ireland and Britain, particularly over the past few years. However, the state visit to Ireland last year, hosted by the former President, Mary McAleese, which was the first state visit by a British monarch to that state in 100 years, lifted those relationships to an entirely new level and, I believe, have helped to make a tangible contribution to the building of a more shared and prosperous future in Northern Ireland.
Although the success of that historic royal visit was the result of detailed planning, careful management, sensitive choreography and strong political leadership, it was also in no small measure due to the unique warmth of the relationship between those two female Heads of State, who engaged with each other and with the hugely emotive and sensitive issues raised by the visit with the kind of dignity and humility that should mark our approach to all such difficult issues. The transformational effects that the powerful images and thoughtful reflections on our nations’ shared history generated by the visit had on healing the wounds of our difficult past are significant not only in their own right, but in laying out a template and a tone for our future engagement with each other. It was a vivid demonstration of the power of reconciliation and the generosity required for real leadership.
Although that special contribution was a very small part of her past 60 years of service to this country, I believe that it was nevertheless of huge value in Northern Ireland and in these islands and therefore deserves particular recognition as we mark this historic occasion. I pay tribute to the Queen and to Prince Philip for their service to date and wish them God’s richest blessing in the years ahead.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
On behalf of my constituents, I want to describe how the Queen comes across to a great many of us. I have never met Her Majesty, and until I attended a garden party last year I had never seen her in the flesh. Indeed, even then I saw her only from a distance. That is the great experience of many of my constituents and many in this country. However, one thing overrides all that. Many people regard Her Majesty almost as a member of the family, because they know her so well. In a time of crisis she is always there on our television screens. Indeed, Christmas day simply would not be Christmas day without Her Majesty’s 3 o’clock address.
One thing that shines out about having a monarch who is well above the political process is what she does when we have disasters and tragedies in our country, such as the tragic events of 7 July 2005. When she was able to visit the hospital and meet the people who had been so tragically and grievously wounded, the country was able to share in its mourning behind Her Majesty, a lady who is in no way linked to political organisations. During the Falklands war, when some suggested that it was simply too dangerous for her son to be sent into conflict, Her Majesty, never one to shy away from responsibility, would hear nothing of it. She said that he was a serving member of the armed forces and so would go and do his duty. With that comes the respect of the nation and of those who serve Her Majesty and this country. I will keep this short: on behalf of my constituents in Elmet and Rothwell, I simply say “God save the Queen.”
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
As the Member of Parliament for Britain’s oldest recorded town and the first capital of Roman Britain, I wish to be associated with the Address and much of what has been said. I can recall being a five-year-old at Myland primary school when King George VI died. I can also remember 16 months later seeing television for the first time and watching the coronation at a family friend’s house in Mile End in Colchester.
Like others, I wish to pay tribute not only to Her Majesty the Queen, but to the Duke of Edinburgh for all his support over the years. In particular, I want to mention the support that both have given to many youth organisations over the past 60 years. As a Queen’s scout, I will mention the scout movement and the guide movement. Of course, as Princess Elizabeth, our Queen was a girl guide, and there are other youth organisations that she and Prince Philip have supported. Of the many charities and organisations that she is directly associated with as a patron, I wish to mention LEPRA, the international charity tackling leprosy around the world, whose international headquarters are based in my constituency.
The Queen has made three visits to Colchester in her glorious reign, and I have had the pleasure of witnessing all of them: first as a pupil at St Helena secondary modern school for boys; secondly as deputy mayor of Colchester; and thirdly as the town’s MP. On two occasions the Queen has also visited the university of Essex in Colchester, an institution of which you, Mr Speaker, have fond memories as both a graduate and an honorary graduate. You will know that it is the most international of Britain’s universities. I think it is a safe bet that every Commonwealth country will at some stage be represented there, if they are not already, because over 120 nationalities are represented there. The Queen has also been a great supporter of our armed forces. As I represent the garrison town of Colchester, I wish to associate the garrison with my greetings to Her Majesty.
I am a constitutional monarchist. When we look at Presidents of the United States and of France, I think we see that constitutional monarchy has more than the edge. Finally, 2000 years ago Colchester was a Roman city. In the mists of time, somehow that status was lost. It would be marvellous if in this the diamond jubilee year the city status could be restored.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can be relied upon to send a copy of his speech to that magnificent institution, the university of Essex, and probably to a good many other institutions besides.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
When the first Queen Elizabeth made her golden speech back in 1601, she acknowledged that, more than anything else, it was the affection of her people that had sustained her through her long reign. Addressing one of your predecessors, Mr Speaker, she said:
“And, though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves.”
Over 400 years later, in our age of constitutional monarchy, we are fortunate indeed to have a monarch who, like her illustrious predecessor, has always understood that it is the affection of her people that is most important. The solemn oath that Her Majesty took at her coronation has been and is being fulfilled in every possible way. May I, on behalf of my constituents, offer praise and thanks for her 60 years of service as our Queen and head of the Commonwealth? She has truly lived a life triumphant. May God save our diamond Queen.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I join others in congratulating Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her diamond jubilee. As you know, Mr Speaker, this is a unique occasion, because normally we are not allowed to mention members of the royal family in this place. For 60 years Her Majesty, beyond all call of duty, has managed to be charming to her subjects. Having spent half that number of years in public service, I certainly find it a strain to be pleasant to people morning, noon and night. As I represent the constituency with the largest number of centenarians in the country, I can tell the House that they greatly look forward to the telegram they receive from Her Majesty the Queen—my own mother, Maud, is looking forward to her telegram on 2 May. Finally, I have a question for your good self, Mr Speaker: when Her Majesty celebrates her 100th birthday, who will send her a telegram? Long may she reign over us.
Question put and agreed to, nemine contradicente.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the occasion of the Sixtieth Anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne.
Ordered,
That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House.
Health and Social Care Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
To the House of Commons, this petition of residents of the United Kingdom, collected in Marton, Coulby Newham, Guisborough, Saltburn and Redcar over a period of one week, amounts to more than 700 names.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the Health and Social Care Bill.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the Health and Social Care Bill.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001012]
Points of Order
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This has been an important day, and we have just had an excellent debate. It is therefore disappointing that the Department for Work and Pensions chose this occasion to release, after the Prime Minister sat down, an announcement stating that two thirds of Remploy factories in this country will now close. That is a matter of great concern to Members on both sides of the House. Have you, Sir, received any request for an oral statement on this subject, and if not how may we now bring Ministers to this House to account for that callous decision?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just establish whether colleagues are seeking to come in on the same matter? I think Mr Bryant is.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking to do so, because you know that earlier this week I raised the matter of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), coming to the Remploy factory in my constituency. All the staff there, many of whom are very vulnerable members of society, have been deeply disturbed by the way in which she came into the office and left. They did not know whether there was going to be an announcement today; the written ministerial statement is simply called “Employment Support”. This has been sneaked out, it is unfair to treat disabled people in this country in that way, and the Minister is wandering around all the radio studios this afternoon. It is a disgrace. We should be treated better, and disabled people in this country should be treated better.
Mr Speaker
I will take one or two more points of order, then I really must respond.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon, in the Welsh Assembly, Labour’s Minister, Leighton Andrews, who is not responsible for this policy, will be standing, will be making an oral statement and will be open to questions from democratically elected Members of that Assembly. Yet here, in this place, we have the disgrace of a Minister who sneaks out a written statement. I am unable to question that Minister on the 47 loyal staff in Bridgend. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is unable to question her about the 74 staff in Porth, who also serve my constituency, or about the nine other factories throughout Wales which are threatened.
That is a disgrace, and I genuinely seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, because on a day when we have just spent, quite rightly, some time on an Humble Address to Her Majesty, an institution as venerable as Remploy—with people as loyal as its workers—has not received the courtesy of being addressed within this place. I know that you are a guardian of this House. I hope that you can help us.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Just a few weeks ago we had a Back-Bench business debate about Remploy. Dozens of my colleagues took part in it, and it is extremely discourteous of the Minister to fail to come to this House and explain to us exactly what is happening to the organisation. At my local Remploy factory in Aberdare, 42 people are going to lose their jobs, in a job market where there are no jobs. It is an utter disgrace to do that to disabled people at the moment, as it is for the Minister to offer a briefing in room W4 between 3 and 4 o’clock this afternoon, out of sight of all the people in this Chamber and away from the television cameras. It will not do, and I ask you to call the Minister to this House to explain what the policy is all about.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Those people are some of the most vulnerable workers in my constituency, and they were sacked by the Minister at 12.36 pm today through a written statement that was sent to the Library. Offering a briefing in private, when my constituents want to hear the justification for their losing their jobs, is not good enough, and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), should be ashamed of herself. She should come here and, if she is making the right decision, make the arguments.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday I raised the future of Remploy with the Chancellor at Treasury Question Time. There was no inkling of any sudden announcement of a mass closure of 36 factories, with the Swansea factory closing down and 1,200 disabled people losing their jobs. Is it in order to make such a statement through the Library, without even a debate about the future of individual factories and their financial viability, given that we have lots of orders coming in, and without even an oral statement? At a time when we have spent so long, quite rightly, celebrating the diamond jubilee of our Queen, Remploy, along with the future job prospects of hundreds of disabled people, is subject to a clandestine, cloak and dagger assassination. It is an absolute disgrace.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very concerned to hear that the Remploy factory in Spennymoor is to be closed. Surely it is possible for the Minister to come to the House at 7 o’clock.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to Members for their points of order, and I note what the hon. Lady has just said, and what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, about the possibility of something being offered to the House by way of a statement later in the day. I can offer no encouragement on that front. I simply make the following points. First, the House knows the importance I attach—the premium that I attach—to statements being made to the House, and to a proper judgment being made as to the merit of the case for scrutiny, there and then, of that statement; secondly, the Treasury Bench is heavily populated, and representatives of it will have heard the strength of feeling that has been expressed in the House this afternoon; and, finally, there are well established procedures for Members to raise the matter in the House tomorrow—procedures of which they will themselves be very well aware.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What can be done to clarify the Government’s position on the national planning policy framework? Last night’s “Newsnight” programme reported a very clear understanding that no significant changes would be made to the document, despite vociferous campaigns being run by the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the consultation process. If no changes are to be made, that will be a matter of great concern for many people, so have you been approached by the Government wanting to make a statement on the matter, and if not what can be done to allow the House to question Ministers on it?
Mr Speaker
I have not been so approached. The hon. Lady has at least started to provide a solution to the dilemma that she has identified, by airing her concerns in the House and by placing the matter on the record, and knowing her as I do I have a sense that her efforts will continue and accelerate in a variety of ways.
Speaker’s Statement
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I have a very short statement to make about the arrangements for Tuesday 20 March.
The House will meet for Prayers at 9.45 am. I will then suspend the sitting until 2.30 pm. Members attending the ceremony in Westminster Hall should be in their seats by 10.25 am. The Speaker’s procession with the Mace will enter Westminster Hall shortly before the arrival of Her Majesty the Queen. After the ceremony the Mace will be returned to the Chamber, so the Chamber will be closed to visitors until the sitting is resumed at 2.30 pm. I hope that that is helpful to the House.
Opposition Day
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the NI 2012 campaign to change perceptions of Northern Ireland and to encourage many more visitors to come to Northern Ireland; notes that, despite current economic difficulties, this campaign takes place in the context of a momentous year for the UK when the nation will celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty The Queen, and will host the Olympic Games; further notes that, in Northern Ireland, 2012 is the centenary of the Titanic tragedy, an event that remains seared into the world’s consciousness and culture, and the centenary of the signing of the Ulster Covenant and Declaration, often described as the foundation document of Northern Ireland; welcomes the enormous progress that has occurred in recent years in moving Northern Ireland forward; and looks forward to the programme of events and activities which will help make Northern Ireland the place to visit in 2012.
I count it as an honour to open this debate this afternoon, but it is correct and right, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to acknowledge the great shadow that has been cast not only over this debate, but across the United Kingdom, with the tragic news that the Prime Minister announced earlier today of six soldiers missing presumed dead in Afghanistan. We remember their families in our prayers, and we trust that they might find comfort in knowing that people are remembering them at this very difficult time.
There is an old cliché in marketing and public relations which states that perception is everything. Regardless of the whys and the wherefores, and even independent of the reality of events as they happen on the ground, a bad perception can be extremely difficult to overcome. Once tarred with such an impression, the tar can be exceptionally difficult to remove and sticks for a long time. For many people beyond the shores of Northern Ireland, their impressions of our corner of the United Kingdom were shaped by the nearly constant stream of negative headlines that were regularly beamed all across the world. With depressing regularity, our television screens were filled with images of carnage, human suffering and murder.
We must never forget the fortitude of our people in these years, for they did not bow to the scourge of IRA terrorism. We regret the tragic loss of life of every innocent victim of terror, and again we express our sympathy to their loved ones. Indeed, this is the anniversary of the murder of three men in a local village beside my home in Coagh, and also the two young soldiers who were murdered in Antrim. We think of their families also this day.
For many people, including investors and business leaders, the perception of Northern Ireland was of a region stuck down in the morass of intractable divisions and beset by problems that could never be resolved. It is therefore worth placing it on record that even in the midst of the darkest days there were glimmers of hope, and a few bright stars shone on the otherwise dark horizon. One area in which Ulster has always punched, sometimes literally, above its weight is in the realm of sport. Ulster people enjoy little more than applauding the success of one of their own. So the triumph of Mary Peters at the 1972 Munich Olympics raised people’s spirits in one of the worst years of the troubles of Northern Ireland. The sporting skills of George Best on the football pitch, Wayne McCulloch and Barry McGuigan in the boxing ring, or Alex Higgins in the snooker were sources of local pride. These people were sporting legends who, in their own ways, challenged people’s perception of what it meant to be from Northern Ireland.
Moving forward to more recent days, it is right that we acknowledge the incredible fact, seeing that we are a people of some 1.6 million, that we have stormed to the very top of the world of golf. Everyone in Northern Ireland is so proud of the success of Graeme McDowell, Darren Clarke and Rory McIlroy, who has recently reached the pinnacle of golf success, being named No. 1 in the world. These three giants of world golf are tremendous ambassadors for Northern Ireland, as indeed is my local snooker champion, Mark Allen from Antrim. Northern Ireland people are thrilled by their incredible success. In this Olympic year, I hope that Northern Ireland will reap the benefits of the Olympic games and will host a number of competitors and visitors from across the world.
There is no doubt that, in common with all other United Kingdom regions, we are experiencing the effects of the global economic recession. This has been the longest and the toughest recession in living memory. However, the great majority of people to whom I have spoken in my constituency and beyond are convinced that we must do all in our power to ensure that 2012 becomes a lift-off point for the community. There is absolutely no doubt that this year’s expansive programme of events will provide a useful means of dismantling the old perceptions about Northern Ireland.
Ulster people are sometimes known throughout the rest of world as being a little on the serious side and prone to a dose of pessimism. I suppose that, to a certain extent, that criticism is valid. We are, after all, the only people I know of in the United Kingdom who express happiness in a negative way. If one asks someone from London, “How are you?” I suggest that they would probably answer, “I am well, thank you.” Ask an Ulsterman, and one will usually be told two words: “Not bad.” Despite our perceived negativity, I am pleased to report that there is much good news from our small yet vital corner of the United Kingdom, including that we are the happiest people in the United Kingdom. I noticed what the Prime Minister said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I wish that the Prime Minister could see what we sometimes see on his Benches when we look at some of the faces there. I must confess that I understand what he says, but I am doing my best and playing my part in encouraging Social Democratic and Labour party Members to be more bright and cheerful in this House.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
To reassure my hon. Friend, this morning I passed on to the Prime Minister the compliments of the Northern Ireland section of this House to ensure that he would get the message about the Ulster sense of humour—that it pervades Northern Ireland and knows no distinctions or boundaries whatsoever. I look forward to the Prime Minister taking on board that lesson, and perhaps next week at Prime Minister’s questions we will see an end to the angry man and perhaps one of an even more pleasant disposition.
Dr McCrea
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
The Ulster humour has helped Northern Ireland through its most difficult days. Many others would have gone into the depths of despair; Northern Ireland was able to plough through over 30 years of continual terrorism and to come out at the other end having beaten the terrorists and ready to put Northern Ireland on a better footing. That says much for the character of the people of the Province.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Last week the Prime Minister commented on the happiness levels of the Democratic Unionist party, and this week the DUP has commented on the happiness levels of the Tories. What assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the happiness levels of the Liberal Democrats?
Dr McCrea
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that words would often fail me in describing the misery that I see on the faces of Lib Dem Members, but we will leave them for another occasion. I see from their vacant Benches that their level of interest in Northern Ireland affairs is really wonderful today.
Let me return to the good news from our small yet vital part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland’s unemployment rate is the lowest of any country in the UK. After London, Belfast is the most attractive city in the UK for foreign direct investment. Belfast is among the top 10 cities in the world for financial technology investments, ahead of Glasgow, Dublin and Toronto. Ulster pupils constantly turn in the best GCSE and A-level results of any UK region. These are things that we should rightly be proud of.
I suspect that very few people inside, let alone outside Northern Ireland are aware of those startling facts. That highlights the crucial importance of campaigns such as Northern Ireland 2012. Years of negativity have taken their toll, but I genuinely believe that people are starting to feel good about being from our wee country once more. The slogan for the NI 2012 campaign is “Your time, our place”, and that perfectly encapsulates the rising tide of optimism that exists in the Province. This year will be a tremendous boost for Northern Ireland, with so much going on that it is hard to keep track. Key events in the Province will include the opening of Titanic Belfast, the Olympic and Paralympic torch relay, the Irish Open at Royal Portrush, and the arrival of the Clipper round the world yacht race. The stated aims of the NI 2012 campaign are to change the perception of Northern Ireland, to raise our profile, to drive visitor numbers, to generate economic impact, and to underpin civic pride and self-respect.
I am proud to be from Northern Ireland, and I believe that more and more people from Northern Ireland are starting to feel likewise. We shall reap a remarkable reward. Just as Mary Peters and George Best played such an important role in showing the people of Northern Ireland, and the rest of the world, that hope was not lost during the dark days, imagine the positive impact that hundreds and thousands of ambassadors made up of local people can have in this wonderful year. As the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office observed recently,
“if you are not in Northern Ireland this year, frankly, you are no one.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 287.]
I heartily concur with that sentiment.
History is probably more important in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the world. It is certainly a deeply contested subject, which leads many observers to believe that the people of Northern Ireland are utterly consumed by history. That is a mistaken assumption. There is a new spirit throughout the Province, whereby people are prepared to look at history not in a dispassionate way, but in a way that threatens nobody and that allows people from different backgrounds to learn about our glorious history. It is our aim that everyone will more fully develop their understanding of the forces that have played such a role in shaping our society in Northern Ireland.
As a Unionist, I welcome the development of greater understanding and learning, because all too often, history books are written about the Province by people who have never been there and who know little of the circumstances about which they are writing. The biased and one-sided evaluation of history has caused great annoyance among the people whom I represent.
I am pleased that this year, we shall see a wide range of events to mark the centenary of the signing of the Ulster covenant and declaration. The men and women of Ulster who answered the call of Sir Edward Carson to oppose Home Rule from Dublin laid the foundation stone of the Northern Ireland state. Although officially, Northern Ireland’s year one is 1921, in a real sense 1912 was actually the starting point, because after the signing of the covenant and the declaration there could be no doubt in the mind of Lloyd George’s Administration that the Unionists of Ulster were not prepared to accept Home Rule from Dublin. From 1912, the irreversible slide towards the establishment of the state of Northern Ireland commenced.
It is important to note the significant role that women played in the organisation of the campaign against Home Rule, which culminated in the massive Ulster day demonstration on 28 September 1912. Women were the backbone of the campaign against Home Rule. Indeed, more women than men signed the declaration in Ulster. In many towns and villages, it was the local women’s organisations and individual women who delivered the logistical support required for the mammoth undertaking of gathering more than half a million signatures. That important aspect of the history of those significant events has not, in my view, received the coverage that it deserves. I hope that it will be more evident in the forthcoming centenary celebrations.
When I think of the ordinary Ulster women who gave so much for the cause that they believed in, motivated by a sense of patriotism and principle, my mind inevitably turns to the most remarkable woman of the last three generations: Her Majesty the Queen. I remember her coronation. I remember a fancy dress competition in my local town of Stewartstown. I was dressed as a little sailor. My sister won the competition and we were very proud of her.
The Queen is a constant background presence in the lives of many of our citizens, and comes to the fore on great national occasions such as Remembrance Sunday, the trooping of the colour and Christmas. The Queen has been the one fixed point in an ever-changing world. It is remarkable to think that this Prime Minister receives advice and counsel from a monarch whose first Prime Minister was Sir Winston Churchill. There is no doubt that Her Majesty has made good her vow that her whole life would be devoted to the service of her people. This year we mark 60 remarkable years of service, and we give thanks to Almighty God for all that Her Majesty has accomplished on behalf of our United Kingdom. We are proud to say, “Long may she reign.”
Many people in Northern Ireland, even people from a nationalist background, hold Her Majesty in high regard. I wish that their elected representatives would represent that position. I hope that the Government, within the obvious constraints of security, will afford as many Ulster people as possible the opportunity to say a big thank you to Her Majesty in her special year.
Finally, this year also marks the centenary of the maiden voyage of the RMS Titanic. It is impossible to understate the strength of the iconic Titanic brand. From San Diego to Singapore, everyone has heard of the famous vessel, but how many people know that she was built in Belfast? As the locals have been known to remark, “The boat was fine when it left Belfast.” I know that the Executive at Stormont are working hard to ensure that people feel the full benefit of this significant anniversary. I urge the Government to work closely with the devolved Administration in that regard.
Edmund Burke said:
“People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.”
This year, we pause to look back in thankful remembrance at all that our ancestors and earlier generations achieved, but we do so with a resolute determination to build on the inheritance bequeathed to us. I hope that posterity will record 2012 as a year of even greater progress in Northern Ireland. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on its choice of the motion for today’s debate. As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), who spoke with his customary eloquence and passion for Northern Ireland. I entirely endorse his comments about the six soldiers who have been killed in Afghanistan today.
Before I continue, I apologise to the House that I shall have to miss some of the debate. Shortly after my speech, I have to attend a meeting of the ministerial working group on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary. I know that the House debated that issue last week, when I was unavoidably absent due to a long-planned public meeting in my constituency. I have been going to Northern Ireland and visiting businesses nearly every week for almost five years, and have campaigned to put rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy right at the top of the political agenda. That became a firm commitment in the Conservative party manifesto and was included in the coalition’s programme for government, which resulted in a public consultation last year on a Treasury paper and the establishment of the ministerial working group. That all demonstrates that rebalancing the economy remains one of the highest priorities for me and my Department. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will of course be here throughout the debate to respond to the points made by right hon. and hon. Members.
I welcome the choice of subject for this debate. Let me say at the outset that the Government support the broad thrust of the motion. The Government will support the Northern Ireland Executive in their efforts to make Northern Ireland a better and more economically successful place. The Northern Ireland 2012 campaign is an excellent example of that endeavour.
The debate is also extremely timely. There has long been a complaint that the world does not get to hear about the many great things about Northern Ireland, not least the tremendous quality of life there. Only last week, a survey found that people in Northern Ireland are the happiest people in the United Kingdom. I am pleased that DUP Members are taking their lead from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and smiling today, reflecting the sunny disposition for which they are well known. While I am on the subject of humour, I should pay tribute to that other Carson, Frank, who sadly died last month. He put Northern Ireland on the map for all the right reasons during some difficult times.
In the major events that are to take place in Northern Ireland during 2012-13, we have an opportunity to reflect on how far we have come in recent years, how we can capitalise on that and how we can build on the remarkable international good will that Northern Ireland enjoys. In that context, I pay tribute to the contribution made by successive US and Irish Administrations and a number of key individuals, without whom much of the progress made might not have been possible.
Let us not forget just how dramatic that progress has been. When I first entered the House, debates about Northern Ireland were still dominated by security-related issues or the latest crisis in the peace process. Decommissioning, alleged breaches of the ceasefires, suspensions of the Assembly, the postponement of elections and emergency legislation were the main Northern Ireland issues that came before the House. Now, we have stable, functioning and inclusive political institutions. Responsibility for delivering the key public services rests in local hands and Northern Ireland is viewed across the world as an example of hope rather than despair. I pay tribute to politicians from all parties, both here and in Northern Ireland, for their efforts to ensure that that process of building stability and reconciliation continues.
With that hard-won political stability, we now have to focus even more resolutely on the challenges ahead, in particular rebalancing the economy and overcoming community division to build a genuinely shared future. I shall briefly say a word about each of those.
We all know that the Northern Ireland economy is too dependent on public spending—even the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) might agree. We understand the historical reasons why that is the case, but it is not sustainable. We have to revive the private sector to secure sustainable jobs and prosperity for the future. We shall discuss how to do that in the meeting that I am about to attend at the Treasury. One matter under consideration is the possibility of giving the Executive the power to vary the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland.
As I have said time and again, Northern Ireland has some truly world-class companies, including Wrightbus, which is delivering the new Routemaster bus for London, F. G. Wilson, Norbrook and Randox, to name but a few; and let us not forget world-renowned Northern Ireland brands such as Bushmills. Northern Ireland also has a growing reputation for the quality of our creative industries. The hugely successful “Game of Thrones” is filmed in Belfast, and Northern Ireland’s latest Oscar winner is Terry George, for his short film “The Shore”. There are bands such as Snow Patrol, which provided the soundtrack for the brilliant video that helped Londonderry to win the right to be UK city of culture next year, and who can forget the buzz around the MTV awards at the Odyssey in Belfast last November?
We have some great companies, some great brands and some dynamic sectors, but we need more of them, so the Government will do everything we can to create the conditions for the private sector in Northern Ireland to grow, and we will support the Executive in the areas that are devolved to it. One example of where we can work very closely together is in our efforts to secure foreign direct investment. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State recently joined forces with the Northern Ireland Enterprise Minister on a trip to the Gulf. I trust that that will be one of many joint initiatives in pursuit of our shared objective of building a new, dynamic, 21st-century, private enterprise-led economy, rather than one based on unsustainable public spending and debt.
One of the sectors where huge potential remains is tourism. Northern Ireland is a place of outstanding natural beauty, from the Giant’s Causeway right across to the Fermanagh lakes. We have some world-class attractions, from Derry’s walls to the new Titanic project in Belfast. As the motion reminds us, next month will be the centenary of the tragic sinking of the Titanic, and the eyes of the world will be upon Northern Ireland.
The eyes of the world were also on Northern Ireland this week, when Rory McIlroy became officially the world’s No. 1 golfer—a magnificent achievement. Northern Ireland is the golfing capital of not just the UK but the world, as the Irish Open at Portrush will reinforce. Let us hope that we can use it as a launch pad to get the British Open to Northern Ireland soon—we should all campaign together for that. In the week before Cheltenham, let us not forget Tony McCoy, champion jockey for 16 incredible years. Northern Ireland is now being energetically promoted in overseas markets through the agency of Tourism Ireland, a happy example of co-operation with the Administration in the south for mutual benefit.
The second area where we really need to see solid progress in Northern Ireland is the building of a shared future. According to one report, the costs of division, be it segregation or the duplication of services, amount to a massive £1.5 billion, and there are 85,000 empty school places. It is encouraging that the First Minister and the Education Minister agree that that cannot go on. In the new Northern Ireland, those issues have to be tackled—we cannot have a society in which everything is carved up on sectarian grounds—and most of the powers to tackle the problem rest with the Executive. We acknowledge the steps that they have taken so far, and we will support them when they have to take difficult decisions in the future.
I acknowledge that in a society that has been beset by deep-seated division, none of that work is easy and it will take time. However, if we are to change the long-term perceptions of Northern Ireland we must, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, work to build a
“shared future; not a shared out future.”
For many people, the events that we have lined up over the coming years will cast Northern Ireland in a completely different light. I shall briefly mention two of them.
First, the House has just presented an Humble Address to Her Majesty the Queen marking her diamond jubilee, which will be celebrated across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. As the hugely successful visit to the Republic of Ireland last May demonstrated, Her Majesty is hugely admired and held in great affection throughout these islands. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly referred to her at the weekend as “our magnificent Queen”, and I want everybody in Northern Ireland who wants to participate to have the opportunity to do so, be it through a street party, lighting beacons or planting trees.
Last November, I joined Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal at the Northern Ireland launch of the Woodland Trust’s jubilee woods project in Carrickfergus. I also recently met the Lord Mayor of Belfast and discussed a number of matters, including arrangements for the jubilee. I acknowledge the constructive and positive way in which politicians and parties from across the community, such as those on Belfast city council, have approached the issue. I hope it is a sign of how far we have moved on in Northern Ireland that one can be generous and respectful towards other traditions without in any way undermining one’s own beliefs. That has been seen recently in attendance at sporting events, for example. Last month, the First Minister attended a Gaelic Athletic Association match, and this week the Deputy First Minister was at the home of Northern Ireland football, Windsor Park. Those events are not in themselves particularly significant on this side of the Irish sea, but in Northern Ireland they are of enormous symbolism and evidence of progress.
The motion also mentions the centenary of the Ulster covenant, which falls in September. The catalyst for the covenant was the introduction in this House 100 years ago next month of the Government of Ireland Bill or, as it is more commonly known, the third Home Rule Bill. The passions that it generated are well known, and my own party played no small part in the parliamentary and constitutional battles from 1912 to 1914. The task for this generation is to mark centenaries such as that of the covenant in a way that is respectful and promotes a broader understanding of events, such as the fact that of the 470,000 signatures on the covenant, some 30,000 were from what is now the Republic of Ireland. To that end, the Government have been working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government on adopting a co-ordinated approach to the covenant and other centenaries to follow in the next decade. On Monday, we shall launch an exhibition in Westminster Hall to mark the centenary of the third Home Rule Bill, and we very much hope the exhibition will be able to travel to Dublin and Stormont.
The issues that we are discussing are hugely important to the future of every single person in Northern Ireland. As the motion makes clear, Northern Ireland has changed for the better. The events to which it refers, which I have touched upon this afternoon, will go a long way towards changing perceptions. However, as I have made clear, there are still significant challenges ahead if we are to build a truly peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland in which everyone has a shared future. The Government, working with the Executive, will do everything in their power to meet those challenges. In that spirit, I once again commend the hon. Member for South Antrim and his party for the motion, which we strongly welcome.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I concur with the motion and the comments made so far: 2012 will be a significant year for the communities in Northern Ireland. I note with interest the Secretary of State’s comments about several productive and beneficial events, and his recommendation of wider participation in them, but I raise a point of concern about that. It is unfortunate that Conservative and Labour participation in this debate is not as wide as the participation in this year’s events that he recommends to the people of Northern Ireland. Hopefully, lack of Conservative and Labour participation will be remedied in the coming weeks and months.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) outlined a series of events that are to be celebrated this year. The covenant is of considerable historical and cultural interest across the community. People want to be able to look back at, recommend and acknowledge the origins of the state of Northern Ireland, which many trace back to 1912 and the signing of the covenant.
The Titanic and other matters that are signally important to Northern Ireland’s tourism infrastructure have already been mentioned, as has the golfing greatness of Rory McIlroy, and of Graeme McDowell and Darren Clarke from my constituency. It would appear that Portrush is now the golfing capital of the world. I hope that that will be case not just in the Irish Open this year, but in the preparations for the Open in a few years.
I emphasise that 2012 is a year of preparation as well as commemoration. We are beginning a decade of commemorating centenaries. Up to 2021, we have a series of commemorations in which to participate and to acknowledge. I concur with all those who have said that the commemorations should be inclusive so that everyone can enjoy and celebrate. Many preparations have been made to ensure that that happens.
We are also preparing for next year, when Londonderry will be the first UK city of culture. In the next few months, there will be considerable interest and work to ensure that it becomes the template for all the others that follow. We have a small window of opportunity in which to prepare and organise to ensure that world sees what we all know is the case. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) alluded to the survey that shows that Northern Ireland is the happiest region of the United Kingdom. We all knew that. I was somewhat surprised in last week’s Prime Minister’s questions that the Prime Minister thought otherwise. I recommend that he attends some of the DUP’s parliamentary parties. He will find out that there is humour every day of every week of every month of every year. I understand that some correspondence is winging its way to him as we speak to ensure that he knows and acknowledges the type of humour that we have all expressed in the past 20 or 30 years, even in the darkest days.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the Prime Minister was not aware of the happiness in the DUP because he and some of his colleagues have spent the past number of years flirting and conniving with the Ulster Unionist party? Perhaps some of that has rubbed off and caused a perception that all Ulster politicians and all Unionists are somehow dour and miserable, whereas that applies to only one section of the Ulster Unionist party.
Mr Campbell
“More tea, vicar?” as they say in the best circles, as we move swiftly on. However, I concur with my right hon. Friend.
As we look forward, particularly over the next two to three years, we see important landmark decisions and historical events that need to be commemorated. In recent years, monumental and historically significant events came and went without advantage being taken of them to ensure that Northern Ireland plc benefited from them. We must not make that mistake this year or next. I therefore commend my friend in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Arlene Foster, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, for marketing this year and emphasising that Northern Ireland is the place to be. We need to ensure that the rest of the world sees—hopefully they will see it during the Irish Open—the marvellous, fantastic scenery on the north coast, the golfing that is beyond compare, which is why we get so many champions, and the culture of Northern Ireland.
The world needs to come to Northern Ireland, and I am glad that the Minister of State has said that on previous occasions in the House. We need to drive the message home to ensure that the whole United Kingdom will benefit. We are approaching the Olympics, in which the entire nation will participate. I hope that there will be medal winners from Northern Ireland. Many people have suggested that that will be the case particularly in boxing. I do not know why fighting seems to bring out the best in Northern Ireland, but it does. The boxing regime seems to deliver medal winners.
Dr McCrea
Does my hon. Friend agree that the warmth of the welcome that visitors will receive in Northern Ireland is beyond compare? Will he also acknowledge that when people come to the Olympics and to London, which will be the focal point, it is vital that they are encouraged to cross to Northern Ireland to see the beauty of our Province?
Mr Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for that. As he represents the constituency where Belfast international airport is, I expect him to ensure that the red carpet is rolled out as people arrive.
Many Departments in Northern Ireland are preparing for the various commemorations. Of course, like every other part of the United Kingdom, we are hamstrung to some extent because of the austere times. None the less, they must not prevent us from marking and marketing the events so that the people of Northern Ireland benefit.
I not only pay tribute to those who are preparing for the events, but point out to the rest of the United Kingdom and Members who represent constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales that a good, peaceful, progressive and prosperous Northern Ireland is in the interests of the United Kingdom. Just as we have exported many of our sports people and produced many engineers and inventors who have taken their expertise to an international level, we want to participate in the life of the nation, so that Northern Ireland’s place is secure not only in the United Kingdom but in UK history and for future generations.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
First, I echo the comments of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) about the tragic events in Afghanistan in the past 24 hours and the six servicemen killed in action. Their service and their sacrifice is an inspiration to us all.
I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing this most welcome debate. It is timely to have such a debate. As the motion suggests, it is indeed a momentous year for Northern Ireland, with the diamond jubilee, the Olympics, the 100th anniversary of the Titanic disaster and, of course, the same anniversary for the signing of the Ulster covenant and declaration.
It is my pleasure to serve on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The Committee has visited Northern Ireland on many occasions in the past 18 months, which I have found fascinating. For somebody who first became active in politics in the time of the troubles, it is remarkable to see what has been achieved and what progress has been made since the Good Friday agreement in 1998.
Although fantastic progress has been made and although I am in complete support of the Democratic Unionist party motion, it would be naive at best to ignore the ongoing challenges of the security situation in Northern Ireland. Let us be clear that although we all want to promote Northern Ireland’s economy, tourism and future, the threat level remains at severe. The fact remains that there have been 13 separate attacks against national security targets, and the intent and capability of organisations such as the Real IRA, Continuity IRA and others remains malevolent.
Furthermore, it is impossible to engage in dialogue with dissident organisations that show no signs of renouncing their violent or criminal ways. The Secretary of State has made it clear on many occasions in this House that the British Government will never compromise on the security of our citizens in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to the work that he and the Minister are doing to ensure that our citizens are protected, and to the security services, the police force and everybody involved on the ground.
Improvements are being made. There were fewer attacks in 2011 than in 2010 and I hope that trend will continue. Another positive is that both the leaderships of the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Volunteer Force remain committed to their ceasefires, albeit that members of both groups are still involved in unsanctioned violent activity. On a larger political scale, normality is slowly but surely emerging. Last year, the Northern Ireland Executive published its programme for government. As the First Minister, Peter Robinson, has said, it is a statement that Northern Ireland is prepared for the future, prepared to modernise and reform, and ready to move forward as one community.
Looking to the future, the security situation is a challenge facing Northern Ireland, but the economy is a challenge facing Northern Ireland and Britain as a whole. The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are taking steps to improve the situation. As hon. Members will know, the coalition Government have delivered on a commitment they made to consult on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy. As the Secretary of State has just said, the ministerial working group on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy met at the end of last year and will do so again today. That cross-departmental approach is most welcome and has been praised by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
Tourism will play a crucial part in rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy. Northern Irish business is set to benefit this year in particular because of the Olympic games, including to the tune of £18 million from games-related contracts alone. That is why I also welcome the announcement in January this year that Arlene Foster, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who has responsibility for tourism, had reallocated £3.5 million from her Department’s budget to prioritise the promotion of tourism this year. Along with other hon. Members, I hope for a successful year for Northern Ireland tourism this year while the eyes of the world are focused on Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
This year begins a decade of commemorations for Northern Ireland and we should of course look forward to them, but, as the Secretary of State has said, we must not be complacent and must remain vigilant. Let us remember that the dissidents have virtually no local support and that all the political parties are united against them. Long may that continue.
I am in full support of the DUP motion. From my own experience, I know the Province to be a wonderful place to visit. It is steeped in history and its friendly people have aspirations and hope for the future. One of my closest and oldest friends in my constituency is a former councillor called David Bell, who is from Bangor. He was very helpful when I joined the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in explaining some of the complexity and history of Northern Ireland politics, which I have found very useful.
We must accept that there are challenges with the ongoing security situation, political progress and rebalancing the economy, but, as the motion states, this year of commemoration and celebration should be the catalyst to realising the aspirations held by so many.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I am happy to join my regional colleagues in extolling the virtues and wonderful attractions of the region that we represent and that we are all very happy to call home. When I listen to them, I am conscious of the need for us all to have a constantly happy deportment—there is an onus on us to go about this place with the demeanour of Aer Lingus cabin crew, smiling at everything we meet. That was hard to sustain during my many long hours on the Financial Services Public Bill Committee yesterday.
The Social Democratic and Labour party tabled an amendment to the motion not because we disagree with the thrust of it—it recognises the significance of the opportunity that 2012 represents for Northern Ireland—but because we believe other points could have been made. I do not wish to dwell on this, but parts of the motion are perhaps gratuitously partial for some of us and could have been left out. SDLP Members wanted to make the motion a little less exclusive to Northern Ireland by dealing with the tourism and hospitality sectors more generally, and to make it a little less exclusive within Northern Ireland by ensuring some of its narrower and more partial references were not included.
Nevertheless, I have no umbrage to take with points that have been made by honourable colleagues from the Democratic Unionist party on the events that we will mark this year and in coming years. We must also deal with the inter-meshing and layering of those events, hopefully in a spirit of purposeful inquiry, which is one of the terms used in the context of Derry’s bid for UK city of culture in respect of dealing with the past, including the recent past. We should acknowledge those issues up front, deal with them in a spirit of purposeful inquiry, and engage visitors in that regard.
As we commemorate, we need to remember that, in the next decade, we will have not only a series of centenary anniversaries, but significant half-centenary anniversaries, which might be a lot more sensitive. We must manage all of them positively. We should handle the past sensitively—our commemorations should not make potential visitors sensitive, wary or inhibited about coming to any part of Northern Ireland. One great benefit of the 2012 promotion is that it has been fully embraced and well marketed by Tourism Ireland as well as by the tourism industry in Northern Ireland, which is very much behind that effort. We saw that in recent events in London—a very good event took place in St James’s palace. A team of devolved Ministers was there, including the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. That wide representation was important and positive.
Rather than just ensuring that we have positive events that people who already know Northern Ireland and are from Northern Ireland can celebrate positively, it is important that we get much more market reach. That is why this year is so important. It is not that it is the only year that people should come to Northern Ireland, but it is the year when people most wake up to the fact that they should come. I have no doubt that anybody who comes this year will come back and make many repeat visits.
It is important to ensure that people coming to the island of Ireland from any part of the world ensure that they experience the benefits of the whole island. In the past, many tourists to the south did not trickle over the border to the north, as they should. We want to ensure that in the now more benign context people are given every encouragement to do that.
My party’s amendment on the VAT issue was not selected, but we previously tabled an early-day motion that has the support of all parties. In the build-up to the Budget, we encourage the Minister to suggest to the Chancellor that it would be timely to consider giving the tourism sector, not just in Northern Ireland but everywhere in the UK, a boost through targeted relief on VAT rates. That was used very successfully in the south of Ireland last year and this year, and has been used in other parts of Europe as well. It is entirely consistent with EU rules and would be a good way of encouraging people to holiday at home. Unlike wider VAT reductions, it would trap the multiplier in our own economy by benefiting a home sector instead of paying for imports. We want to do that because it would support tourism more widely.
Mr Dodds
The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that Members from the Democratic Unionist party fully support his suggestion about what the Government should consider in the run-up to the Budget. There is no doubt that in terms of wins in the Northern Ireland economy and boosting employment, tourism is one sector where relatively rapid progress can be made, and targeted interventions, as he suggests, would be extremely helpful.
Mark Durkan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course, many in the media say that more people are likely to holiday in the eurozone this year because of the weakness of the euro, which is an added reason there should be a timely intervention from the Chancellor—to encourage people to holiday here within the sterling zone.
The changed perceptions of Northern Ireland are welcome but have been hard-earned and hard-won. They are a result of the changed context created by many political efforts over the past few years. I am certainly proud of the role that my party has played in consistently opposing violence from any quarter and standing up for shared institutions and political arrangements within Northern Ireland, within Ireland and between these islands. That, of course, has been vindicated in what we now see working so well. Many of the naysayers and detractors—those who were totally opposed and said that it would or could never happen—are now among those happily showing how well it works and doing so well. It is great to see that proof and vindication, although some of us, of course, have learned that vindication in politics does not always translate into reward, but so be it—we have learned to empathise with the prodigal son’s brother and get over it.
This is an important time for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for East Derry—I mean East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) before he corrects me—made this point not just about 2012 but about 2013 and beyond. In 2013, my city will be the designated city of culture in the UK. Furthermore, some of the efforts building up to that, including marking its successor role in the cultural Olympiad, will take place this year. It is important, therefore, that we see 2012 not just as a stand-alone occasion but as part of a platform or springboard into the future.
It is important, if we are to attract tourists, that we offer them not just value for money but value for time, which the tourism and hospitality sector in Northern Ireland has increasingly been developing—and has had to develop. In the past, there have been questions about whether visitors have had value for time. The Sunday problem has raised questions about what experiences and opportunities visitors have had, and in some cases, there has even been the Monday problem, because some visitor amenities are not open on Mondays.
We have to do more. We have to invest in our attractions and distractions for visitors, if we are to maximise the extraction of money, which is what we need out of tourism. There is more for different Departments to do—it is not just the job of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland, and there is not just the Chancellor’s role in respect of VAT; there is also a role for other Departments and local councils.
Members are used to hearing Northern Ireland Members plead that we are a special case because we are at the bottom of so many of the wrong league tables and so need special derogations and exemptions. In many instances, that will be true and valid for particular sectors, sections and interests in our community, but it is also important to recognise that increasingly sectors, industries and locations in Northern Ireland are getting to the top of the right tables, and not just in sports or whatever. When I listened to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) refer to the range of sporting achievements in Northern Ireland, I was reminded of a time when, as Deputy First Minister, I was going into the Assembly for questions. A civil servant came up to me hastily and said, “Great news! You get to announce this!” I was then given a note that told me that I could announce to the Chamber that Northern Ireland had just won a gold medal in the Commonwealth games—for shooting. I was somewhat reluctant to go in with that news, and when hon. Members are talking about boxing and other things, one can understand my trepidation.
I do not want to appear to avoid what the motion says about the Queen’s diamond jubilee, because the wrong thing might be read into it if I did. I have mentioned that I served as Deputy First Minister, some 10 years ago. When the Queen visited the south last year, I was reminded that during that time I became the first nationalist Minister on the island of Ireland officially to receive the Queen on the island, when, I officially received her during the Stormont part of her jubilee tour. I am not British; I am not a Unionist, a monarchist or a royalist. However, I respect any Head of State, and I particularly respect someone who is valued and esteemed by so many people, including my fellow countrymen. In that context, I have no issue with respecting others. We have to learn the ethic of respect and being respected, and that acknowledging other people’s loyalties and affinities does not compromise the integrity of one’s own. Not only is the way in which we can share, appreciate and celebrate each other’s beliefs and values together better for us; it also makes us a more attractive and comfortable place for visitors to come and engage in.
I just hope that, in recognising that, people recognise that there are other views, sensitivities, outlooks and affinities in Northern Ireland, and that people should not always make sweeping presumptions. I hope that everyone currently involved in the institutions in Northern Ireland can find comfortable ways of accommodating each other and showing mutual respect in an appropriate way. That was helped greatly by the manner of the Queen’s visit last year. All credit should go not just to Her Majesty and everyone associated with her remarks and gestures at that time, but to the previous President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, and her husband, Martin, for all the great work they did to improve not just relations between these islands, but relations within the island. That work was all solid investment in ensuring that perceptions of Northern Ireland would change and that our perceptions in Northern Ireland of each other and of our place would also change.
In that context, I have no hesitation in accepting the overall, underlying point of the motion, which is about the tourism drive and the welcome to visitors. I appreciate that there might not be a big attendance in the Chamber; indeed, I should put on record the fact that other Northern Ireland Members are conflicted, because we have an “Upstairs, Downstairs” situation in this place today. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs is currently meeting upstairs, so before someone starts twittering to the “Nolan” show or somewhere else asking, “Where were these people?”, I should point out that Members are conflicted and compromised, with some caught there and unable to be here.
Those who tire of us in Northern Ireland getting together to lobby for our special case may have an opportunity today to recognise that we have been able to get together to sell our special place through tourism. However, tourism and our visitor attractions are not the only things we have to offer. In terms of industry, sport, and academic and research achievement, Northern Ireland is moving ahead. It is surfing all the opportunities available to it, in the context of Europe and the wider island of Ireland, and maximising those opportunities that arise from its being well placed within these islands to gain things in the United Kingdom context and maximise things in an Irish context. It is in that spirit that, although I have cautioned the House about certain parts of the motion, I do not want that to eclipse the underlying endorsement of the worth of Northern Ireland as a place to go in 2012, and not just this year, but many more years thereafter.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I rise to speak in support of the motion tabled in my name and those of my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party. The motion unashamedly blows the trumpet and beats the drum for Northern Ireland, and we are well known for beating the drum there. I was raised in a house in which, unless we could beat or put up a Lambeg drum, we knew nothing. That was when I was a small boy. I have grown slightly since then—[Hon. Members: “Upwardly or outwardly?”] In more ways than one. It was a great childhood and a great part of my life and my culture.
Of course we on these Benches would say that Northern Ireland was the best place on earth, and that the greatest people in the world were those from Northern Ireland. Our motion announces to the world that Northern Ireland is open for business, and invites the world in its entirety to come along and join us. Whether they want history, culture, performing arts, spectacular scenery, activity holidays, sporting holidays or just lazy day holidays—which would suit me very well—there is something for everyone, and it is all served up by the people with the warmest hearts and the warmest welcome to be found anywhere.
It is a tradition in homes in Northern Ireland—as it might be in the rest of the United Kingdom—that the kettle is put on as soon as someone enters the house, and they are given a cup of tea. I am well used to that in my constituency. When I visit all the old ladies that I have to talk too, the buns are put on the table—
David Simpson
Absolutely. I was brought up in the country, and my background is in the meat industry, so I believe that I should be a good advertisement for that industry. Also, I have to say that it took a lot of money to put this physique in place, and it would be a shame to lose it.
We also have the best golfers in the world, and a good few of the best golf courses as well. We produced the greatest footballer that ever lived, and the greatest ship that ever sailed. We helped to build America and gave it many of its Presidents, including Andrew Jackson, whose family originates from my constituency, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Bill Clinton. We also gave it Richard Nixon, but we will move on pretty quickly. John Dunlap, who printed the American declaration of independence, was also from our shores.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend will be aware that we also gave America hillbilly music, which came from the hills of County Antrim. That country-style music swept across all the southern states of America. I think that Elvis Presley’s ancestors also came from Northern Ireland.
David Simpson
I was trying to avoid mentioning the fact that hillbilly music originated in Northern Ireland, but it is certainly part of the legacy of the Ulster Scots, and I will allow my hon. Friend to deal with that side of things, although I trust that he will not try to sing.
Joseph Scriven, from Banbridge in my constituency, gave the world one of the sweetest hymns in the English language when he wrote “What a friend we have in Jesus”. We have produced great inventors, too—Harry Ferguson, who produced the Ferguson tractors that can be seen all over the world; and Frank Pantridge, who invented the portable heart defibrillator, which saves thousands of lives across the world each year.
We heard about other contributions at a recent Prime Minister’s Question Time. The Prime Minister was asked about Northern Ireland’s ranking and whether Northern Ireland had the happiest people in the United Kingdom. He did not seem to think it applied to us; I do not know why. One of my honourable colleagues—he is no longer in the Chamber—mentioned the Social Democratic and Labour party. I do not know why he did, but I see that SDLP Members are smiling today, so things are looking up.
Let me assure right hon. and hon. Members that, although it sometimes seems that we in Northern Ireland have the worries of the world on our shoulders, there is a joy deep down in the hearts of the people of Northern Ireland—and we are very glad to represent them in this mother of all Parliaments.
Northern Ireland is not yet at the end of the journey. There is no doubt that we have come a long way in recent years. Just 10 years ago, the Province was a very different place and was in a different situation as the Assembly lurched from one suspension to another. Public confidence in the political structures was low, while public uncertainty about the future of Northern Ireland was high. The last 10 years have seen very significant change and positive progress—so much so that a recent Northern Ireland Life and Times survey showed 73% of the community favouring Northern Ireland’s remaining in the United Kingdom. That figure included a slim majority of the Roman Catholic community, which is encouraging.
It is not over-egging the pudding too much to suggest that such has been the progress made in recent years that Northern Ireland is more settled in this United Kingdom at present than Scotland is. Perhaps what is needed in Scotland is a second flank of Democratic Unionist party MPs, so that we could help the Scots to maintain their stand. That might not be a bad idea, and it is worth looking at. After all—here I go into a history lesson—King Fergus had the old kingdom of Dalriada, which eventually united the Scots under Kenneth McAlpin, and gave the land its name, while St Columba and his successors in the old Celtic Church gave it its heart, its vision and its passion.
As part of the generation that grew up amid all the troubles that we have come through, I can look back to very dark days. Like many people in Northern Ireland, I can look back to days when members of my own family circle were killed during those years. I can also look back over more recent years and trace the progress that has been made; and I can lift my eyes and look around me at the situation in the Province today and look forward to days yet to come. I can see the path and the upward curve that we are on.
Turning to wider issues, I am pleased to say that Northern Ireland has had many sporting heroes down through the years, and we have already heard about many of them today. For example, Kennedy Kane McArthur won the Olympic marathon 100 years ago in 1912. I have two gold medal winners from the Commonwealth games in my constituency—as one hon. Member mentioned, they won their gold medals for shooting. We also have Dame Mary Peters, who went to school in my constituency, and still comes to the constituency to get her hair done.
David Simpson
Not at the same place as me.
When Dame Mary Peters won the gold medal I was still at school, and I remember walking down the street in one of the towns in my constituency, Portadown, alongside the car. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), I also remember the celebrations for the Queen’s silver jubilee which took place throughout Northern Ireland. I have to say that my hon. Friend goes back a bit further than I do, and that I certainly did not take up the challenge to dress in a sailor suit. I do not think that my hon. Friend will live that one down for a day or two.
Other people have already been mentioned, but I think it is worth mentioning them again. We have had great legends like Joey Dunlop, who won five consecutive motorcycle TT Formula 1 world titles in the 1980s. We have also had many boxing champions down the years, and I know that many in the next generation will be as good as the greats that we have had in the past. More recently, our very own transatlantic rower, Kate Richardson, who comes from my constituency, set the world record as part of the Row For Freedom challenge. What a great event that was.
This year, Northern Ireland is the capital of the world when it comes to golf. Who would have thought five or 10 years ago that we would have the world’s number one golfer in the Province? All three who have recently won championships are great ambassadors for the whole Province, and for all the people of Northern Ireland as well.
That brings me to the wider elements of the motion, which refers to the anniversaries and events that are sprinkled throughout 2012. The Olympics will be a showcase for London, but—as other Members have requested—they should be for the whole United Kingdom as well. The world will descend on London for this, the greatest sporting show on earth, and it is vital for there to be a legacy: for London, of course, because that is where it is being held, but also for the whole United Kingdom. I urge the Government to ensure that that happens.
This year is also the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic and the signing of the Ulster covenant. The maiden voyage and sinking of the Titanic gave birth to a legend that has held a fascination for the world ever since, and the new signature Titanic project in Belfast promises to be a world-class project that will not only fascinate but attract visitors to Northern Ireland from all over the world.
The sinking of the Titanic gave birth to an enduring legend, but the signing of the covenant in many ways helped to give birth to Northern Ireland itself; but not before the flower of Ulster was cut down amid the mud and the death of the Somme and elsewhere. They died in their tens of thousands. Many who had signed the covenant volunteered and died in those fields of France. To many today, sadly, they are but names on some historic document, but they are sons and husbands who were never to return home again, and those who were lost were mourned: they were mourned in every parish, every village and every hamlet throughout Northern Ireland.
Also, of course, this year we will celebrate the diamond jubilee of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. What a monarch she has been! I had the privilege of meeting Her Majesty when she paid a visit to my constituency. It was a remarkable time for me and my wife. I remember that we attended an exhibition in the town of Banbridge in County Down. Her Majesty and Prince Philip were walking around the exhibition, and when they came to a display that was termed “abstract art”, Her Majesty looked at me and asked, “What is that?” I replied, “Your Majesty, you’re probably wiser than me.” We did not have a clue what it was—but it attracted a lot of people to the art gallery.
When Her Majesty addressed Parliament on 4 May 1977 at the time of her silver jubilee, she said:
“I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which Union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom. A jubilee is also a time to look forward. We should certainly do this with determination, and I believe we can also do so with hope.”
As representatives from Northern Ireland, we, too, cannot forget that she was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We want to take this opportunity to wish Her Majesty a joyous year of jubilee, and many more years yet to come, and to assure her of a warm welcome in our part of the United Kingdom.
Mr Dodds
My hon. Friend refers to Her Majesty’s forthcoming visit to Northern Ireland, and various Members have mentioned visits that the Queen will pay to their constituencies. Those visits are generally known about; they have been publicised and preparations have been made. However, although we must be conscious of the security issues, does my hon. Friend agree that as much notice as possible of Her Majesty’s visits should be given, so that everyone knows about her itinerary and can celebrate?
David Simpson
I entirely agree. We understand that there are security issues, but, in this year, it is important that as much notice as possible is given to the communities that Her Majesty will visit. People want to come out and see her when she visits Northern Ireland, so that they can express their loyalty and the love that they have for her. She has been a unique monarch in many ways. The royal family is sometimes given a hard time by the press, but the Queen has been a wonderful exemplar of the office she holds on behalf of all the people of this United Kingdom.
We are looking forward to welcoming Her Majesty to Northern Ireland. In my constituency, many street parties are planned. We have to put up with so much nonsense, however. I have read in the press that we will have to get approval from the health and safety people before we can put up bannerettes and so forth. Things have gone beyond what is common sense, but the celebrations will happen. I know that celebrations are planned right across the three towns of Lurgan, Portadown and Banbridge that I represent and in other parts of the 200 square miles of my constituency. We are looking forward to having a wonderful time, and we wish Her Majesty well. I note that, as someone mentioned earlier, Queen Victoria is the only monarch who has reigned for longer, but I think Her Majesty will overtake Queen Victoria’s reign. We hope, trust and pray that she does.
I know that my constituents were proud to be part of this United Kingdom when they returned me at the last election. My constituency is the second largest manufacturing base in Northern Ireland outside Belfast. In Northern Ireland questions today, I spoke about the investments that have been made in my constituency, one of which is a £13 million investment at one site in Portadown by Asda. Many other investments are pending and we look forward to good days in Northern Ireland.
I believe there are good days ahead. Yes, we have dissidents who do not seem able to live without the troubles and who just want to drag us back to the bad old days, but the Unionist people and others stood fast against the Provisional IRA and won the day, and we will continue to do that. Yes, we have lost a lot of good friends and a lot of people who were tragically taken by the bomb and the bullet, but we want to leave a legacy in Northern Ireland for those people who put on the uniform of the Crown forces. I can say in this House without any contradiction that when it has come to donning the uniform of the Crown forces, our young men and women have never been found wanting. We supported the Crown forces in whatever situation they found themselves in. Tragedy has hit Northern Ireland for many years but we thank God that we are starting to move in the proper direction. Northern Ireland is moving on. It will take a little more time but we have come a long way over a number of years.
Let me end on a more political note. We Unionists would repeat the words that Her Majesty spoke in 1977 and say that this jubilee is perhaps a time to remind ourselves of the benefits of the Union. We hear so much today about Scotland and the referendum, but I believe that the United Kingdom is better as one, with no division. We have heard for many years about legacy—together we stand, divided we fall. I believe that the UK will be better staying as it is today without the nonsense of this referendum and of Scotland being removed from the Union. I do not think the Scottish people want that, but time will tell; we will know when the so-called referendum takes place. I wish Her Majesty well and I congratulate all my colleagues who have spoken. We will continue, to the best of our ability, to keep Northern Ireland moving forward.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I am grateful to have a few moments of the House’s time to make a contribution to the debate, after the interesting and insightful comments we have heard from a number of Members.
It is a privilege to hold my position. With the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), I have already visited the Titanic quarter, and with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I saw the wonderful beauty of Strangford lough. I am looking forward to visiting South Down on Friday.
Vernon Coaker
The hon. Gentleman is ahead of me. I was about to say that I was looking forward to visiting all the other constituencies, but I think I shall have to start with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) who has been persistent in his desire for me to visit his constituency. Now that I have heard about the tea that is available at every stop, I shall make sure to go there. However, there is a serious point. From the visits I have made, it is abundantly clear that Northern Ireland is a place of stunning beauty and offers much to the visitor.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his apology that he would not be in the Chamber to hear my remarks. His point that the life of Frank Carson and his funeral represented all that is good about Northern Ireland was well made.
Notwithstanding the story about the little sailor, which will stay with many of us for a long time, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) was right to remind us today of all days, when we heard the news about the six soldiers, that we should remember all the victims in Northern Ireland over the last few years.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is not in the Chamber. He said that we should all—not just the Northern Ireland parties—encourage the broadest participation in these debates. That is important and it is incumbent on me and others to do so. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). We should realise that many Members, from Northern Ireland and elsewhere, who wanted to contribute to the debate are actually at a meeting of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
I do not want to say too much about the economy, although I have made considerable play of it over the past few months because it is extremely important. Indeed, the Secretary of State talked about it in much of his speech. I do not agree with the specifics of the cut in VAT mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle, but as the Minister of State will know, the Opposition have called for a temporary general cut in VAT to help boost domestic demand, which would help job creation in Northern Ireland.
I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing the debate. It is always good when Northern Ireland matters are discussed on the Floor of the House. I shall concentrate largely on the well chosen title of the debate, which welcomes the NI 2012 campaign to change perceptions of Northern Ireland. The work of Tourism Ireland has helped enormously in that respect.
Many Members recently attended the fantastic event at St James’s palace to launch NI 2012 in Great Britain. It was significant that both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and their colleagues from all parties in the Executive were there to show their support. There was a real mood of optimism at that event, and a spirit not just of hope but of expectation. The progress made in Northern Ireland was noted by every speaker, every performer and every guest. It was no longer a guarded, anxious, whispered aspiration that things would get better, but a confident, proud message shouted aloud that things are better and getting even better, and that Northern Ireland is a great place to live, to work, and in this instance to visit.
That is not to take anything for granted, and no Member who has spoken in the debate has done so or would do so. There is a huge belief in Northern Ireland that things which only a few years ago would have seemed impossible have been and are being done, as we continue to build a peaceful Northern Ireland. The overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and across Ireland and the UK have supported the political process and those who have driven it forward, including many in the House today. I say without fear or favour to hon. Members that it is a privilege to recognise the contribution that they and others in all parts of the House have made to enable us to get to where we are today.
It is the people of Northern Ireland who make it such a great place to visit. Their legendary welcome, their friendliness, their creativity, hard work, pride in their community and willingness to share their beautiful region with visitors are what I have most enjoyed about being the shadow Secretary of State. One of the privileges of holding this position is that it enables me, as I said, to visit Northern Ireland regularly and see at first hand the vibrant dynamism of the arts and culture, the spectacular scenery, the historical sites and the wonderful food and drink that make Antrim, Armagh, Derry, Down, Fermanagh and Tyrone the six must-visit destinations for 2012. As I have promised hon. Members from Northern Ireland, I intend to visit them all myself over the coming months.
But of course we still have to work to challenge the lingering stereotypes and perceptions that many outside Northern Ireland still harbour about the place. The remaining challenges include how we deal with the past and legacy issues, how to maintain security, and of course how to overcome the continuing economic and social problems. I do not see Northern Ireland as a special case; that would be demeaning to Northern Ireland, but there are certainly special circumstances that need to be recognised.
As other hon. Members have said, we are at the beginning of a decade of commemorations that will mark important events in Irish and British history. The motion mentions, of course, the Ulster covenant, which was a response to the third Home Rule Bill which came before the House 100 years ago next month. One cannot help but feel aware of a great sense of history when discussing these matters in the place in which they were debated a century ago, and when thinking of the great figures who took part in those debates and are remembered as giants of Parliament, politics and state.
I know that there are many differing perspectives on the history of that period, but ultimately that history is a shared one, so we can choose to use the different perspectives of it to entrench division, or we can use them to learn about history, ourselves and each other, bring communities together in a new understanding of what happened in that decade, and perhaps create some fresh perspectives which will help to bring about a better future in the decade ahead. I know that is the wish of the vast majority of people in these islands, and of all Members in this place.
We also mark this year the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. As the House heard earlier, during the 60 years of her reign she has displayed tremendous service, great dignity, selflessness and a dedication to all of the people of the United Kingdom, including those in Northern Ireland. Her visit to Ireland last year was truly remarkable. It opened up not just a new chapter, but a new volume in British-Irish relations. I join others who have done so today in paying tribute to her today, and I know that we all look forward to her visits to Northern Ireland throughout this year.
In 2012, this year of centenaries and jubilees, we celebrate all that is good about Northern Ireland. NI 2012 gives us the chance to showcase all that is good about Northern Ireland and indeed the island of Ireland. Northern Ireland is open for business, investment and tourism, not just this year but next year, with the city of culture in Derry-Londonderry and the world police and fire games, and beyond.
As an English MP, one of the questions I am most often asked by colleagues, friends and constituents is what Northern Ireland is like. I can confidently say to them now, as other hon. Members have done, to go and see for themselves. It is often said that perception is reality. The reality is that Northern Ireland is a great place, a changed place, and a place that wants people to come and visit it. I know I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we will do our very best to ensure that that becomes the perception as well. I say to everyone that it is time to put Northern Ireland firmly on the global map.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to the safety of offshore oil and gas activities, the Ayes were 308 and the Noes were 183, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
On what is a sad day, 2012 promises to be an action-filled year. The SDLP welcomes the progress that has been made in the north of Ireland over the past 10 to 15 years, of which we were very much part. We shaped the character of that progress and its development. In fact, we were particularly innovative in the political developments.
There has been much to celebrate in Northern Ireland, particularly with regard to our sporting heroes right across the sporting arena, whether in rugby, athletics, golf or the Gaelic Athletic Association. There is much there, and we must not forget that we are talking about a shared and inclusive society. There is much to celebrate in the film industry. Only two weeks ago a person from Northern Ireland won an Oscar for “The Shore.” Only last year the same director produced a film in Downpatrick, in my constituency, called “Whole Lotta Sole”, which will have its debut later this year. That film was centred on a fish and chip shop, but it was not necessarily about fish. In fact, it might have had more to do with the political turmoil out of which we have emerged.
There has been considerable movement away from violence and conflict and towards a more peaceful and harmonious society. We are all very glad about that and want to see the institutions that emerged out of the Good Friday agreement and the principles that were laid down in the agreement fully realised. Therefore, we believe that the institutions should be fully functional, that the Northern Ireland Executive should have a detailed programme for government and a full programme of legislation and that the North/South Ministerial Council must become fully operational. We also believe that it should be cross-sectoral in its approach, by which we mean that it should have a north-west focus, which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) would welcome, and a south-east focus, which would accommodate the interests of my constituency of South Down and those of north County Louth. We want more north-south bodies to be created, for the review of the north-south dimension to be published and for the Irish identity to be not only recognised and acknowledged, but given political weight.
That brings me to the motion. We welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland 2012 campaign is intended to change perceptions of Northern Ireland and encourage many more visitors. We want people to see the beauty of Northern Ireland, the scenery and the attributes of the people, which are already demonstrated through their inventions and sporting prowess and in many other fields. However, I am a bit afraid and will be looking to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to clarify some points for me, because it could be construed that the motion—how shall I say this?—focuses on a single identity and is one-track or single-dimensional, because it contains no reference to an Irish identity or Irish nationalism, which is also very much part of the north of Ireland and is represented in this House by the three SDLP Members.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The events of 2012 are the events of 2012: there is the centenary of the Titanic, the centenary of the Ulster covenant and the Queen’s diamond jubilee. So the motion, and its writer, did not dictate those dates, but does the hon. Lady agree that all those events, given that they will improve and provide opportunities to add to economic activity in Northern Ireland and can be enjoyed by all, should be seen not as single-identity events but as something that can unite all the people in Northern Ireland, who will be able to enjoy them and, indeed, benefit from them economically?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I say to all Members present that it is important that we look to all events and at all the attributes of the people of Northern Ireland. It is not enough simply to look through the narrow prism of one identity, but this motion could be construed as such, and I say that more in sorrow than in anger, and more with regret than anything else.
So I look to the right hon. Member for Belfast North—
Ms Ritchie
But I will be quite happy to give way a little later, when I have progressed with my contribution.
The motion underpins a Unionist agenda, it honours the foundation of a Northern Ireland state, and there is no recognition of my identity and where I come from. A growing proportion of those who reside in Northern Ireland are Irish, hold Irish passports, support the south of Ireland’s soccer team, support and participate in football and hurling, as part of the Gaelic Athletic Association, and speak the Irish language. That is part of our ethnicity and background.
I am not denigrating the views or the identity of others; I am saying that there must be parity of esteem, respect for both traditions on the island, and that when we are talking about the north of Ireland, or Northern Ireland, we should take into account everybody’s attributes. That is what moving forward means and what the new political institutions are all about: they are about moving forward together. I am quite happy to give way now to the right hon. Gentleman, who I hope will be able to elucidate that issue.
Mr Dodds
In an intervention, I shall not be able to do what the hon. Lady invites me to do, as I am conscious of Mr Deputy Speaker, but if she feels so strongly about the issue, why in the amendment to which her name is attached is there no mention of any issues to which she has referred or of any aspects that she has just discussed? Why, if she feels so strongly, did she not table such an amendment?
Ms Ritchie
No, I would know the answer anyway; I do not need anybody to tell me.
The right hon. Gentleman can, however, see what we have clearly done. We have concentrated on the practical politics that needs to be concentrated on, namely a reduction in VAT on tourism, because our tourism industry is being undermined. The amendment would also delete the partisan elements of the motion.
Ms Ritchie
Absolutely not. It is our duty as public representatives to try to heal divisions.
Ms Ritchie
No, I will not.
The political institutions that emerged from the Good Friday agreement were based on respect for political difference and identity, and around the three sets of relationships. There is no reference in the motion to that, to inclusion, to respect for political difference, or to the development of the shared society, to which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already referred.
For me, as the Member for South Down, this is also a Belfast-centred motion. I represent a constituency that holds two of Northern Ireland’s signature tourism projects—the Mourne mountains and St Patrick’s country. We in the SDLP want to ensure—hence our amendment—that where tourism is central to our economy, it is allowed to grow and prosper, because it is one of the major drivers of the economy. The tourism and hospitality sectors will be better placed to contribute to growth and employment if supported by targeted reductions in VAT, as permitted under EU rules. We call on the Chancellor to consider such timely concessions in the forthcoming Budget on 21 March.
There is little doubt that the outstanding character and assets of my constituency’s tourism offering are unsurpassed. In this month of St Patrick, I ask all hon. Members, as I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), to come and walk in the footsteps of Patrick. Contrary to the real spirit of this motion, Patrick was, and remains for us, the epitome of unity and diversity. [Interruption.] Patrick belonged to everybody. Patrick was head and shoulders above everybody else. We celebrate unity and diversity on 17 March. We celebrate the person who is the epitome of unity and diversity, and a symbol of partnership and inclusion, and we reject and resist calls for the domination of one form of nationalism over another.
I make those comments in order to highlight the fact that Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland have much to offer, but we have come from one place to another, and we must move ahead in terms of parity of esteem by respecting political traditions and respecting each other. This is not about a narrow form of nationalism; it is about a broader form of nationalism that embraces everybody on the island, both Unionist and nationalist. Only last year, I was very happy to be in Dublin to meet the Queen, and I met her on two separate occasions. [Interruption.] Despite the comments that have been made from a sedentary position by those on the DUP Bench behind me, I want, like my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, to place that on the record. We should always be very conscious of where we come from and do everything in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and the best interests of all the people of Ireland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I should like to associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and others in the Chamber about the six soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan. Last year I went to Afghanistan twice, and on one of those occasions, I was in Lashkar Gah, where it seems that the six soldiers lost their lives. One could not fail to be impressed by the courage, dedication and sacrifice of our soldiers. I suspect that many, if not all, of those in this Chamber pray for our soldiers every day, as I do before I start my work.
It is with great pleasure that I support the motion. I talked to my right hon. Friend about it beforehand, and one cannot fail to get excited about it. Unlike the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), I feel that it says all the good things about Northern Ireland and epitomises all the issues. It is exciting to have a proposal that promotes the whole of Northern Ireland, brings together all elements of political opinion, and ensures that we have something that we can all support. That is surely why people will, I hope, be flocking to our shores very shortly.
I am unashamed to promote my beautiful constituency. Other Members say that their constituency is the best, and that may be their opinion, but that is said of my constituency by people who do not represent Strangford. When the shadow Secretary of State was in my constituency, he said, “Jim, this is the most beautiful constituency that I have ever seen.”
Jim Shannon
That puts me in second place, but first place in Northern Ireland.
Recently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and I attended a Tourism Ireland event at St James’s palace. Everybody was happy to go, including the Deputy First Minister. He had no issues with the event; he was pleased to support it, as were other Members. I sometimes wonder why people make some of the points that are made when progress is going forward steadily, as it should be. My right hon. Friend and I were privileged to have our photograph taken with Christine Bleakley—I happen to be her MP. It was a smashing occasion. Barry McGuigan and Paddy Kielty were there, and there was a smashing end to the evening with Van Morrison. All the good things about both Northern Ireland and southern Ireland were made clear by Tourism Ireland.
This is an exciting time for us all. It is time to put Northern Ireland on the tourism map as the home of a rich cultural history, mingled with modern facilities and a shopping haven. We should be secure in the knowledge that once people get a taste of Ulster—in every sense of the word—and our unique hospitality and warmth, they will always come back for more. The “Lonely Planet” tour guide states that Northern Ireland is
“abuzz with life: the cities are pulsating, the economy is thriving and the people, the lifeblood that courses through the country, are in good spirits”.
That is how it is in Northern Ireland. I am sure that when the Minister replies, he will agree. Another part of the guide says that Belfast is one of the top 10 cities on the rise. Plenty of people are playing us up, encouraging us and telling the truth about Northern Ireland.
We now have the impetus of a new dawn, with little threat of violence and few fears over safety. In fact, Northern Ireland is now one of the safest places in the United Kingdom. That is how much progress we have made—that is the progress that the party that I am privileged to represent and the other parties in Northern Ireland have worked to achieve. There is a shared future for us all and we accept that idea. Some people may not be able to accept that, but we do and we are moving forward. This opportunity has to be exploited.
Our beautiful, natural and historic landscape, coupled with the vivacity that is integral to everything that originates in Northern Ireland, cannot help but draw people to our shores. Whether people come for rest and recuperation in our superior salons and five-star hotels; to tour the country on nature holidays; to reside in the quaint bed and breakfasts across Strangford and in many other parts of Northern Ireland; to tour in caravans, using the many caravan parks in Strangford and across Northern Ireland; or to go shopping in the city, followed by dinner and a show, Northern Ireland has it all. There must be a sincere and earnest push to show that to the rest of the world.
I could go on and on, but it seems that the only people who are fully aware of all that Ards, Strangford and Northern Ireland have to offer are those who are blessed to have been born there and those who have passed through. That is a loss to the people not only of my constituency, but of the Province. If Strangford was marketed to its full potential, people would know about its provision for nature lovers, with its cycling and walking routes aplenty and beautiful shores rife with birds and wildlife; for the weekend visitor who wants to shop and be pampered and to have a nice meal and a night out; for the caravanner who wants to take in the beauty of the countryside; and for those who want a base from which to tour Northern Ireland, but want to get away from the city. Belfast is a mere 20 minutes away and the seaside town of Bangor, with its carnival atmosphere around the pier, is only 10 minutes away.
I mentioned birds and wildlife, and shooting tourism—in the legal, correct sense—has great potential in Northern Ireland. The Minister of State is well aware of that, having shot game and pheasants at Rosemount and Greyabbey. It was the biggest shooting day there for many years, and I was told afterwards that much of it was down to his own gun and shooting prowess.
As I said, the shadow Secretary of State visited my constituency just a few weeks ago. Afterwards, he stated that he would be back. We encourage him to return, this time with his cheque book, so that he can buy for his family many of the nice things that are available. We look forward to that.
It would be remiss of me not to use this opportunity to talk about Strangford’s place in Northern Ireland. The breathtaking view from Scrabo tower in Newtownards to the moors on one side, Scotland and the sea on another and Belfast city behind cannot be surpassed and is rarely matched, as those who have been there, such as the Minister of State and the shadow Secretary of State, will acknowledge. In the town of Newtownards itself, there are superior hotels and a superior night life, a weekly market, cinemas, a great shopping centre complex and beauty salons aplenty, including an all-Ireland beauty salon finalist.
History and culture are rich around the Ards, with the well known Scrabo tower and Mount Stewart house and gardens. The area also has the only fully working fishing village in Strangford—I know that there are fishing villages in other areas, including Portavogie. Strangford has some of the best game fishing, with Strangford lough and the Irish sea. That potential is being realised, but we can do more. Tourism Ireland should push game angling.
In Portaferry, we have the Exploris aquarium, which attracts more than 100,000 visitors a year. It is an excellent venue and has the capacity to do much more. If someone takes the ferry from Portaferry across to Strangford village, in the neighbouring constituency—it takes eight minutes, cutting off more than an hour and a half of driving—they will be taking the route that Princess Alexandra took in 2003 as part of a themed day to recognise excellence in tourism across the UK.
For the more modern culturalist, we also provide the Battletown gallery in Newtownards, which is gaining an international reputation and shows that craft, painting and other fields are progressing well. The Eden pottery in Millisle in my constituency provides the opportunity not only to purchase superior pottery but to make it, as part of a tourism experience. We should do more of that sort of thing.
We also have antiques shops, coffee and tea shops and superior places to eat. The humble Comber potato has been recognised by Europe, and in Strangford we can give people a meal that no one else can—starting with Portavogie prawns, the Comber potato, the Ards steak and Willowbrook Foods vegetables, all to tickle the palate and give people the opportunity to have food that they cannot get anywhere else in the whole UK.
If someone takes a drive down the other side of Ards, they will come across Castle Espie wildfowl and wetlands centre near Comber. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North and myself both spoke on behalf of Exploris and the Castle Espie wildfowl and wetlands centre in a debate in Westminster Hall, and we expounded the pluses of those venues and the excellent tourism potential of the area.
We can also mention the historic and archaeological sites. There are links to monastic life in the area, and St Patrick was there. Before anybody else says it, I point out that he is the patron saint of the whole of Northern Ireland and everyone of all persuasions. Last Friday night I attended an event in Ballynahinch at which the Minister for Social Development, Nelson McCausland, spoke. It was organised by the Orange district lodge, and it was about St Patrick and his history. It was smashing to have it. That is the St Patrick I look to, and everyone should look to.
Ms Ritchie
I was careful to emphasise that Patrick is the epitome of unity and diversity. Patrick belongs to everybody on the island of Ireland. It is well known that, after landing in the River Slaney at the mouth of Strangford lough, he sailed up to Nendrum, which is in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and established a monastic settlement with his disciples. Patrick is the origin of everything and the symbol of partnership.
Jim Shannon
He is not the origin of everything, but he is certainly accepted by everyone.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
For the record, it is clearly documented that St Patrick was a Welshman who came to Ireland and farmed in the hills around Slemish.
Jim Shannon
He certainly travelled around Northern Ireland and he tended sheep in Slemish. That was clear from the historical talk that I heard last Friday. There is 7,000 years of history in County Down. Any history buff could not help but be enthralled by the preservation of days gone by in relation to St Patrick that is so evident in the area that I, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members represent.
The film industry in Northern Ireland is moving forward by leaps and bounds. More companies than ever are coming to Northern Ireland to take advantage of the opportunities for the film industry. Northern Ireland is quickly becoming a centre for the film industry in the UK and Europe.
We are looking forward to the celebrations of signing the Ulster covenant 100 years ago. Every council in Northern Ireland is arranging a special event to commemorate signing the covenant, which was the first step on the road to the creation of Northern Ireland. There are not many people in Northern Ireland who do not have a relative who signed the covenant—indeed, one of my constituents, an elderly lady called Mrs Simpson, whom I had helped with a few constituency issues, came in one day and said, “Jim, there’s my grandfather’s covenant.” It had pride of place, but she said, “You take that, because I know that you will appreciate it.” That now has pride of place in my home.
The Somme centre is on the edge of my constituency, which borders North Down. It preserves the memory and recalls the efforts of the Ulster Division in the first world war. It is an excellent venue that now attracts more people than ever. We have a wealth of history and a wealth of attractions. Clearly, tourism must be the way to take that forward. Celebrations this year will attract many visitors on 28 September. I hope that the re-enactments that are planned will draw those who have come to the UK for the Olympics.
Our little country with the big heart has a definite place in the 2012 Olympics and I want to ensure that we step up to the mark and claim our rightful place as an integral part of the UK, and a jewel in the crown of great British attractions. I believe that we can and must do that. We have world-class athletes who are already drawing attention to Northern Ireland in Olympic circles. It is no secret—other hon. Members have mentioned it—that we excel in boxing and shooting in Northern Ireland. That does not mean that we are violent people. It just means that we are good at certain sports, and those happen to be two of them. We bring medals home from Commonwealth games and Olympic games. Two members of the Comber rifle club in my constituency have consistently won gold and silver medals at the Olympic games and the Commonwealth games. We have an opportunity this time to hold some of the training camps for those who are going to the Olympics in the Province. No. 1 world golfer Rory McIlroy is proud to wave his Ulster flag at his victories, and that has already created great media attention. We also have great facilities to offer people who travel to the UK.
The first main event on our calendar this year is the Queen’s jubilee. It is set to become some event, with the councils in my area preparing themselves for a record number of street parties and events as we celebrate 60 years of our sovereign’s reign over us. It is good to have SDLP Members making a contribution to the debate; it is a pity that they could not do so when we discussed the humble address, as they were standing guard outside the door.
Our Queen has provided stability and continuity through changing Governments, changing ideals and a changing world. She has selflessly given of herself, with a diligence that is difficult to match, and she has maintained a quiet dignity through the journey of life in the public eye. She has given 60 years of dedicated service to our nation and is the epitome of a great lady—she exemplifies the best of British: kind, industrious, wise and respectful. Other members of the royal family are taking that tradition over. We notice from the news today that Prince Harry has become the fastest man in the world. According to the news, it is official that Usain Bolt was in second place in that sprint.
People will fly their flags with pride while bonding as communities to celebrate the reign of our Queen. That will happen in many places across the Province. If the high level of interest in and excitement at Prince William and Kate’s wedding last year are anything to go by—I am talking about the whole community across the whole of Northern Ireland—no one will want to miss the Queen’s jubilee.
Northern Ireland is moving forward in a way that no one could have foreseen 10 years ago. Even I could not have foreseen the progress that we have made, but I and the Democratic Unionist party are pleased with that progress. We are moving forward in leaps and bounds to deliver something for everyone, including the young boys and girls who have yet to grow up and get jobs.
It is time for us to take our place on the world tourism stage and to allow others to see, enjoy and be involved in everything that we have to offer—great lodgings, fantastic scenery, wonderful shopping, world-class golf and, indeed, world-class golfers, salons, and most importantly, that unique Northern Ireland hospitality that beckons people in and makes them feel part of the family. A holiday in Northern Ireland will refresh and renew. This year, it will give people a rich insight into our vast culture and heritage, of which we are so proud. One visit, and their opinion will be set for ever. Northern Ireland is the place to come this year and every year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the remaining speakers—there are two—I should tell them that I intend to call the wind-ups at 5.8 pm. If they could share the time, that would be very acceptable to all Members in the Chamber.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
May I first apologise for not being present for most of the debate? Unfortunately, I had a meeting to discuss the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland, which is a very important issue.
I gather that the debate has been fairly lively. The only two speeches I heard were from the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I did not know we had to parade the benefits of our constituencies in the debate. The shadow Secretary of State said that Strangford is the most beautiful constituency he has been to, but he said that before he had even been to my constituency, adding that he wanted to visit.
I think I can trump everything my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford said about his constituency. He has the Scrabo tower, which was built a mere 150 years ago; I have Carrickfergus castle, the oldest Norman fort, I believe, in the whole United Kingdom. He talks about St Patrick wandering around his constituency; King Billy landed in mine. He talks about the Ards shopping centre; I have a cathedral of consumerism at the Abbey centre. For goodness sake! For his mere Comber spud, I can offer Glenarm salmon, which is famous the world over. I could go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I know you want me to move on.
The debate is important, but I was a bit saddened by what I heard from the hon. Member for South Down. I like her, but her speech was not worthy of her. This debate was not meant to be about boasting about the Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland; it was about promoting Northern Ireland, whose people have different backgrounds, national aspirations, outlooks and huge historical differences. Nevertheless, I believe that 2012 offers an opportunity to all people in Northern Ireland to gain from the economic benefits that will arise from the unique events and anniversaries this year. Those events and anniversaries will also help us to understand some of our own traditions, background and history.
I was saddened, therefore, by the contribution from the hon. Member for South Down because this should have been a positive debate, and I hope that it will be seen as such. We are proud to live in Northern Ireland and proud that it has come through the dark days that have probably dominated most of our lives—certainly most of our political lives—and is moving on. The motion states that we are moving forward not because of what Unionists alone have done but because of what we have all done and the compromises we have all had to make. I believe that those decisions will ensure that the next 30 years are not blighted like the past 30 years. I was a bit saddened, then, by her negative approach.
Mark Durkan
The hon. Gentleman said that he had not heard the whole debate. On the positive changes made, the motion and 2012, does he acknowledge the particularly strong and positive role being played by Tourism Ireland—a body whose creation his party persistently opposed for many years and whose budget it tried to have aborted? Will he accept that he got that wrong and was negative, but that now it is doing good things?
Sammy Wilson
I would prefer to consider what all of us now have to do to promote Northern Ireland not only next year but in all the years ahead. And one area we have to offer and which has been identified as a growth industry is the tourism industry: it is labour intensive; we have a good natural resource that we can exploit to the benefit of tourism; and there is huge interest in past events in Northern Ireland. So we have the industry, the history and the architectural heritage, and we should exploit that.
Sammy Wilson
All of it, yes. That includes the features in the hon. Lady’s constituency that people visit and into which money has been poured to develop some of that tourism infrastructure, and the celebrations of St Patrick and that whole tradition—some claim St Patrick for the Roman Catholic community, some claim it for the Protestant community. It really does not matter! If St Patrick is a marketable commodity, let us make him a marketable commodity and benefit from it. [Interruption.] Yes, and a neutral flag as well.
It is disappointing that this is seen as divisive rather than unifying. There are huge opportunities for us in the celebration of the Titanic, of the Ulster covenant and of Her Majesty’s 60th anniversary. We have not been selective about these events. They are outside our control. This year is the 100th anniversary of some of these events, and we cannot dictate which ones we include and which we do not. They just happen to be there. We need to ensure, however, that we get the maximum benefit from them and that they are used in a way that is not divisive but unifying so that the whole community can benefit from the economic opportunity.
The motion recognises, at the very end, that we want to see Northern Ireland moving forward, and moving forward together. We recognise the progress made and we do not see these events as exclusive. They are to be enjoyed by people in Northern Ireland. Most importantly, we want them enjoyed by people outside Northern Ireland. I will not go through, as I am sure other hon. Members have, all the benefits of my own constituency, although I mentioned some of them in the introduction.
Mr Dodds
I very much welcome the tone and content of my hon. Friend’s remarks about the nature of the events that we are highlighting. However, while we are on the subject of events happening in his constituency—I think he referred to the “cathedral of consumerism”—I should just make it clear that the Abbey centre is actually in Belfast North.
Sammy Wilson
It is near the border, and I could not think of a cathedral in my constituency. Just as my right hon. Friend—the Member for Belfast North—purloined part of my constituency at the last review by the Boundary Commission, I have taken in some of the shopping in his. Indeed, those facilities are used mostly by people from East Antrim anyway, and would probably not be able to survive were they unable to go and shop there, so I suppose we share it to that extent—I knew it was probably a mistake to let him intervene.
I know that others want to speak, so let me say in conclusion that I hope that 2012 will be a year in which we see a further turning of the corner in Northern Ireland. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland know that there have been changes; after 2012, because of the international interest, people further afield will know that there have been changes in that part of the United Kingdom too.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), I have not been here for all the debate, because of my attendance at a Select Committee sitting. However, I welcome the opportunity today to celebrate and debate some of the wonderful things that are happening in our country and across our kingdom this year.
I notice that my colleagues have been boasting about their constituencies. How dare they, when they know that North Antrim exists! Someone once said that in North Antrim we have the manufacture of tobacco at one end, the manufacture of Bushmills whiskey at the other, and all the vices in between. I want to make it absolutely clear for the record that I represent everyone in North Antrim, and I am delighted to do so, including all those factories.
When people travel to the Olympics and celebrate the games this year, they will be travelling on a wonderful new bus. It has been dubbed the “Boris bus”, but it is actually the Ballymena bus, because it is made in my constituency. Indeed, this wonderful, iconic piece of engineering should be celebrated—indeed, I hope it will be—as people enjoy what is an environmentally friendly bus, a little bit of Ballymena travelling through London every day. That gives me a huge amount of pride about what we can achieve in our constituencies and what we deliver to the kingdom. We also have some wonderful areas for tourism, which I hope people will come and enjoy as well, not least the majestic Giant’s Causeway. Indeed, we look forward to seeing a new visitors’ centre opening there and to more tourists coming to see the constituency.
However, I want to focus my brief comments this afternoon on the latter part of the motion before the House, which draws attention to the centenary of the signing of the Ulster covenant and declaration—or, the Ulster solemn league and covenant. It was a seminal moment, not only in the history of Ulster and the history of Ireland, but in the history of these islands. It is an inspirational moment, and it should continue to inspire the people of these islands today. We should acknowledge the significant role that the signing of the league and covenant played, not only for the kingdom, but in helping during the great war in 1914. To put it into historical context, in 1916, seven men signed the proclamation for the republic in Dublin. In 1776, the American declaration of independence had 56 signatories. The Ulster covenant of 1912 had 218,216 men signing it in one day, with 228,991 women signing a parallel, uncompromising declaration of association with the Ulster solemn league and covenant. A further 19,162 men and 5,055 women of Ulster birth signed in Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Liverpool, London, Manchester and Bristol.
The Ulster covenant was truly an impressive demonstration of the resolve of early 20th century Ulstermen and women to remain citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as it was then. It also demonstrated a spontaneous solidarity in defence of the Union. Furthermore, it showed that Unionism was a popular, broadly based, democratic movement. Today, that resonates with me, as an Ulsterman and a Unionist and as one who is passionate about recognising that the Union is richly made up of all its component parts. The Union is only as strong as each and every one of those component parts. It is strong because of its association with Ulster, with Scotland, with Wales and, of course, with England.
Dr McCrea
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the findings of the highly respected Queen’s university survey of public opinion that has just been published, which shows overwhelming support for the Union? It found that 82.6% of people in Northern Ireland want to live in the United Kingdom and are proud to be British.
Ian Paisley
My hon. Friend makes that point well. What a year for that survey to come out!
The word “covenant” has important meanings. In modern parlance, it refers to a barter or bargain, but it also has the Hebrew meaning of a divine promise linked with a human obligation. Its literal meaning is a bond or fettering—something that should not be broken. So convinced were people of the need for the Ulster covenant that some of them even signed it in their own blood, to demonstrate that their passion for the Union was not something that could easily be torn up, and that it was part and parcel of their very soul and their very being. We should take inspiration from that passion and inspiration.
I have a wonderful book written by a guy called Colonel Crawford, which has a foreword written by Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Wilfrid Spender that outlines the importance of the covenant in the history of the Union and of the first world war. He wrote:
“Looking back, the British have reason to be grateful to the Ulster people for their stand for the Empire, and more particularly to Colonel Crawford, who brought from Germany, before the first Great War, more than sufficient arms to equip a division in Northern Ireland, and this was a large factor in releasing all six regular divisions for the Expeditionary Force. Germany lost those weapons at a vital time, and they proved invaluable in training the 36th Ulster Division, of which I was the acting general staff officer before its departure to France in 1915.”
The lieutenant-colonel goes on:
“The Ulster Division won undying fame at Thiepval in 1916, because it was largely composed of men who, like Colonel Crawford, had the true Crusading spirit. I hope that the younger generation in Ulster may be inspired by his…example”.
That was an example of boys’ own heroism, and boys’ own determination to do whatever had to be done to save something that people believed in.
I am glad that this Parliament is going to celebrate, support and endorse the covenant and the declaration. Even if a Parliament were to try to turn the will of a people on its head, the people would ultimately be right, and their determination should be recognised at all times. I want to put on record the words of Ulster’s solemn league and covenant. It states:
“Being convinced in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as the rest of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V, humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant throughout this time of threatened calamity to stand by one another in defending for ourselves and our children our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the right we hereto subscribe our names. And further, we individually declare that we have not already signed this Covenant.”
This was a seminal moment in British history that was determined not by the will of a Parliament or by the outcome of an election, but by the will and the mass movement of people power in that part of Ireland—in Ulster, the part that we cherish most—that said, once and for all, that it is the people that really matter. I hope that when we celebrate these wonderful events this year, we will recognise that these events are wonderful because of one thing—the unique peoples that make up these countries in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. We should recognise that we are a unique and wonderful people with unique and wonderful ideas, and that we have a right as a people to come together and to celebrate our diversity, to celebrate who and what we are, to celebrate the differences also, but to hold steadfastly to the fact that we have a proud and recognisable tradition—and that nothing should make us ashamed of it.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I am happy to conclude the debate, and I am grateful to everyone who has participated in it. As has been said, we have had a good, lively and generally good-humoured debate—with one or two exceptions. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), my hon. Friends the Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) for their contributions, as well as to the shadow Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for theirs. I know that the Secretary of State has had to leave the Chamber to engage in an important piece of work on behalf of Northern Ireland.
References were made in the early part of the debate to the natural humour of people in Northern Ireland. Some of that might have been lost in recent exchanges in this debate, but by and large I think it is right to say that the good humour and character of people in Northern Ireland—on both sides of the community—were a factor in bringing Northern Ireland through the darkest and deepest days of challenge and trouble to where we are now.
The very fact that we are having this kind of debate on the Floor of the House—and, indeed, those we regularly see taking place in the Northern Ireland Assembly—dealing with matters to do with the economy and social affairs, and how to attract more people by celebrating the opportunities for increased tourism, stands in marked contrast, as the Secretary of State said, to the sort of debates we were having 10 years ago, when we lurched under previous dispensations of political leadership in Northern Ireland from political crisis to political crisis, when we were debating suspensions of devolution, round table talks and all the rest of it. Under the current leadership in Northern Ireland, we now see steadfast and sure progress being made in a stable political environment.
As we know, the Northern Ireland Assembly has entered its second full term of devolution. That is no mean feat, but we sometimes take it for granted. Sometimes the House needs to be reminded of just how far we have come. Things that were unthinkable even a short time ago are now accepted as commonplace. We do well now and again to take stock and pause, and to reflect on and celebrate how far we have come, not to forget the challenges and difficulties, but to say that things have improved considerably.
Many people will take credit for that. Mention has been made of the work of political leaders. I join the tributes to them, but the true tribute, of course, goes to the people of Northern Ireland—the ordinary, decent people of Northern Ireland on all sides, the vast majority of whom, despite the violence and pressures on them during those times of trouble, voted consistently for parties that were opposed to violence and stood against violence, saying clearly that they wanted a democratic and peaceful way forward. Some people who were engaged in violence had to realise that and reach a point at which instead of trying to tear down the state of Northern Ireland, they gave their support to the police, the rule of law and the courts. That is a measure of just how far we have come.
As we heard earlier, on Monday a report from Queen’s university, which is highly respected, showed that some 82% of people want Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom on the basis of the political agreements that have been made. That is an amazing turnaround, and contrasts with the debate that is currently taking place in Scotland.
Central to the tributes that should be paid are tributes to our security forces. We should pay tribute to members of the police, including the part-time police. The other day I took a delegation to meet the Minister of Justice. Those men and women served in the RUC part-time reserve during the darkest days of the troubles, under serious threat of death and for very little monetary reward. They contributed to the bringing about of the circumstances that we all enjoy today. We should pay tribute to members of the Army—members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment—and to members of the emergency services. All those people made an immense contribution, and should never be forgotten—and, of course, we should never forget the victims who live daily with the pain and suffering of all those years of violence, as do their families.
We can view 2012 as a fantastic year of opportunity and we can reflect on the progress that has been made, but it is always important to bear in mind the sacrifice that is being and has been made by so many. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim, we should be conscious that we are speaking today in the shadow of the loss of six brave servicemen in Afghanistan, and obviously our thoughts and prayers are with their families at this time.
The motion is broadly drafted: we tabled it in good faith to celebrate the events that are taking place in 2012. It refers to the diamond jubilee, on which we had a good and positive debate earlier today, when the House was virtually united. It also refers to the Olympic games, the amazing Titanic centenary, and the centenary of the Ulster covenant. All those events are mentioned in tourism literature that has been published in Northern Ireland and is widely available.
We do not seek to be divisive in any way, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim pointed out, the motion refers only to events that are happening this year. Next year, 2013, Londonderry will be the city of culture, and the world police and fire games will come to Northern Ireland. Those will of course be celebrated, and there will be other events in 2014 and 2016. No doubt the whole issue of the Somme, and events that took place in Dublin, will also be discussed and commemorated.
We should commemorate events as they happen, in a positive way. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford and the hon. Member for Foyle referred to a tremendous event that took place not long ago in, of all places, St James’s palace—a royal palace that could be described as the heart of the British monarchy. It was an amazing situation. Ambassadors to this country are appointed to the Court of St James’s, the seat of the monarchy, but on that occasion the palace was taken over and branded with the images of Northern Ireland. The First Minister was there, as was the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness. He entered a royal palace and talked about the positive aspects of Northern Ireland. He did not make any of the points that the hon. Member for South Down has made in this debate, because he recognises that it is positive for Northern Ireland to commemorate events as they happen.
We should pay tribute to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and, indeed, Tourism Ireland for the work that they are doing. We must also acknowledge the budget that has been given for tourism in Northern Ireland. Tourism Ireland has responsibility for marketing Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom and to the wider world. The NITB has responsibility for marketing within Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. Some of us could certainly happily have a discussion about how best to market Northern Ireland, but that is a debate for another day. All I want to say now about the budget for tourism in general is that we need to get the biggest bang for our buck, whether through the NITB or Tourism Ireland, in promoting Northern Ireland. I am sure we all agree on that.
I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for South Down, but—in contrast to the remarks of her party colleague, the hon. Member for Foyle—her contribution was a little jarring. As she talks so much about inclusion, I hope she will use her influence and best endeavours in respect of a decision made today by Down district council, on which she and her party have enormous influence. There is consternation about the council’s decision to move away from a good and agreed model for the St Patrick’s day celebrations. Belfast and other councils have been looking to Down district as a model to follow, but that has been ended by its decision to adopt a flag for the St Patrick’s day parade that is exclusive, instead of inclusive. That has undone all the good work of the past 25 years, and I hope something will be done about it.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I grew up in a community that had similar divisions to those in Northern Ireland, although they did not result in the same regrettable outcomes. On the changing perceptions of Northern Ireland, although division once characterised the region, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the respect he has shown to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) reflects the respect that the different communities now have for each other?
Mr Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He served as a Northern Ireland Minister for several years during difficult times, and I pay tribute to him for the work he did then.
I like to think that politicians in Northern Ireland did respect each others’ positions, although that might not always have come across. Indeed, there is growing respect, even in the debates we are now having about commemorations and celebrations and the decade of centenaries. I believe that greater maturity is now being shown on all sides than was the case 10 or 20 years ago. People are now looking at issues in ways that are intended to create the maximum consensus, rather than maximum division. We will not always agree on everything. There will still be disagreements; we do not hide that fact. Members hold different views about the best long-term future for Northern Ireland and where we want it to be—we, as Unionists, firmly say we want to be within the United Kingdom, for instance. That should not stop us working together in the best interests of Northern Ireland, however, to promote the economic and social betterment of all our people.
I want to reiterate the point I made about the diamond jubilee. We have debated that, and I do not want to rehearse the sentiments that were expressed, but I ask the Minister to ensure that as much notice is given to the people of Northern Ireland of Her Majesty’s visit.
We face many challenges. The dissidents and the troubles have been mentioned. There are terrorists out there who still want to derail our process and we face grave economic challenges. I am well aware that there are still high levels of deprivation and poverty in my constituency and high levels of youth unemployment in particular. However, if all of us work together we can try to make things better. We must take advantage of the opportunities that exist in 2012 to build a fantastic future for our province. I am delighted to commend the motion to the House.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
This has been a lively—at times very lively—debate, but it has been an informative one and, on the whole, a good one. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) was early out of the traps and talked about the perception of Northern Ireland and how there was a job to be done dismantling people’s false perceptions. That is a good description of what we are seeking to do in this watershed year. He also alluded to the sporting heroes Mary Peters, whom we all see as the lord lieutenant of Belfast—no doubt she will play her part during this diamond jubilee year—George Best, who one might argue is somewhat different to Mary Peters, and Barry McGuigan. Those are all great heroes—to say nothing of Graeme McDowell, Darren Clarke and Rory McIlroy. The opportunities with the Olympics have also been mentioned. I have said before in this place that I am slightly disappointed that we are not having more teams in Northern Ireland for the Olympics. We have got the Chinese gymnasts and so forth, so we have got some teams, but we want to make sure that Northern Ireland shares in the Olympics before, during and, critically, in the aftermath.
We all know of the economic challenges facing Northern Ireland—we are not inured from those—but I shall not rehearse them today. Some Members referred to the happiness league, which I might come back to. However, I must say, given the general demeanour of right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon, I think their happiness is a given fact. It is quite proper, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said in his concluding remarks, to have this sort of debate on the Floor of the House. Is it not wonderful, as he said, that this debate is about the agenda we have been discussing rather than about the troubles and the whole issue of devolution and suspension that so bedevilled discussions in this place for too long? Perhaps one day all democratically elected Members of Parliament will take their rightful place here and speak up for their constituents and their part of the world, as hon. Members have done so well this afternoon.
Inevitably, we have heard much discussion about the signing of the covenant. We should remember that that came after the third Home Rule Bill, in reaction to it, and I am pleased to say that we are in co-operation and co-ordination with Dublin. I pay tribute to the Minister Jimmy Deenihan with whom I have been working on creating the architecture within which we can set this decade of commemorations. That starts next week in Westminster Hall with an exhibition on the third Home Rule Bill. We hope it will then travel on to Dublin and to Northern Ireland.
We have rightly heard a lot about Her Majesty the Queen all afternoon and we want to play our part in Northern Ireland in the diamond jubilee. I shall come back to her visit in a minute. On a lighter note, we heard the amazing revelation—if I had not been here to hear it, I might not have believed it if I had read it in Hansard—about the hon. Member for South Antrim being dressed in his little sailor suit. There is now a £100 bounty for photographic evidence of that. I have to confess that there is—not in circulation I am pleased to say, but in existence—a photograph of me in a sailor suit, but hon. Members would probably expect that.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is not in his place—I know that various people have had to go to different Committees—talked about the Irish Open and how he wants to open things up, as do we, and about the decade of commemorations. He talked about Londonderry—about Derry being the first UK city of culture—and he knows, as does the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), that I have been working quietly behind the scenes and with them to see if I can add any value to the city of culture efforts because we want to make that a huge success not only for the city but for the surrounding area.
Hon. Members also dwelled on a little bit of political history and the alliance between my party and the Ulster Unionist party before the election. I do not read blogs or tweets but I am aware of noises on the street and believe that even the Democratic Unionist party has been in discussions of one sort or another—deniable or otherwise—with the Ulster Unionist party. All I can do is refer to that old British Telecom campaign, “It’s good to talk.”
There was some discussion of rebalancing the economy, growing exports and inward investment, all of which we want to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) is the only member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee who was able to attend this debate. That is in no way to impugn the keenness of others to be here, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He talked about the security situation, which has not been much mentioned this afternoon. Of course, we need to be ever vigilant, particularly in a Chamber that displays the shields of Airey Neave, Ian Gow and Sir Anthony Berry, all of whom gave their lives to Northern Ireland. We will never forget the role played by parliamentarians of all persuasions in Northern Ireland’s troubled past.
We bitterly condemn, as a united House, all the attacks, not least in Derry-Londonderry, made by those who are trying to upset the city of culture, NI 2012 and the real progress that we have made. I give them a message from the House, loud and clear: they will not be successful.
My hon. Friend said that 2012 is a catalyst to realise the aspirations of many people. We can all concur.
The hon. Member for Foyle talked about a purposeful inquiry. There have been some good comments this afternoon about how we should address the decade of commemorations, and I rather like “purposeful inquiry.” Next week, I hope we can set the tone with the third Home Rule Bill exhibition. We heard about the launch of NI 2012 at St James’s palace, which I was able to attend. That, too, set the tone. Talking of tone, no one struck a better one than Van the Man—Van Morrison, who does not necessarily convey the Ulster sense of happiness and well-being that we now all recognise as the defining characteristic of Ulster men and women. None the less, he is one of my great heroes.
We heard a request for the targeted reduction, or even the abolition—temporary or otherwise—of VAT on tourism. I have looked into the subject, not least because my constituency is East Devon and tourism is extremely important in the south-west, and I have had a discussion with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). However, at the moment we need more revenue, to fill the black hole unfortunately left to us by Labour. I do not think the Chancellor is short of ideas for cuts—from fuel duty to income and corporation taxes—but I fear we shall have to wait until we have managed to restore some sanity to the UK economy.
We heard about the Commonwealth medal for shooting, and about Northern Ireland’s boxing prowess, both of which we celebrate, but we want to diversify slightly into other sports better to reflect Northern Ireland in the 21st century.
The Secretary of State had to absent himself to attend the joint ministerial working group on rebalancing the economy. I imagine that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were there, as was Northern Ireland’s Finance Minister, the Member for North Antrim, who is now in the Chamber—[Hon. Members: “East Antrim.”] There has been so much gerrymandering this afternoon that every Northern Ireland Member has laid claim to part of another Member’s constituency, so I hope the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will forgive me for that slip.
To make a serious point, the fact that people have come and gone during the debate does not show lack of interest. It shows that occasionally we are conflicted, particularly Ministers, which is why the Secretary of State and I were not at the Treasury debate held in Westminster Hall last week, a point that I hope is not lost on those who sought to suggest otherwise.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) gave us a rich diet of tea, buns and meat; he is no longer in the Chamber—he has probably gone to lie down. I can testify to Ulster’s legendary hospitality; the Ulster fry is the antithesis to the Jane Fonda workout. The hon. Gentleman was a veritable Wikipedia on Northern Ireland, listing many things that we never knew, but we certainly know now.
The hon. Gentleman said that Northern Ireland’s place in the UK is settled, as we also heard in Northern Ireland questions this morning, so I think we can take it as a given. We no longer hear so much from the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, about his arc of prosperity reaching from Iceland to the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps our sisters and brothers in Scotland would do well to look at Northern Ireland’s settled place in the Union and how it prospers as an equal, contributing and vital part of our great United Kingdom.
There were some questions about the visit of Her Majesty to Northern Ireland in her diamond jubilee year. Of course the Queen’s subjects wish to see her, but that must be balanced against other considerations. We hear what has been said and the Palace is aware that her subjects in Northern Ireland wish to express their loyalty.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the shadow Secretary of State, referred quite properly to the six soldiers killed in Afghanistan, as did other speakers this afternoon. It is horrific. For those of us who are from a military background, as I am, and those of us who have been to Afghanistan, as have so many of us in the Chamber, every time we hear of losses our heart goes out to the families, but six in one go is something that we have not got used to. Our hearts and our thoughts are with the families this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman repeated the call for a targeted cut to VAT. I point out—it may be an issue to which the Opposition Front-Bench team wish to return in the Budget—that such a cut is costed at £8 billion UK-wide, so if he is genuinely calling for that, it will have to be factored into any assessment that we make of Labour’s plans for the economy.
The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke about sporting prowess, including the Gaelic Athletic Association. I am very pleased, as are we all, that the GAA says it will play a role in all the commemorations over the next decade, as it should. The hon. Lady also spoke about film in Northern Ireland, to which the Secretary of State referred earlier. I am disappointed that the new “Titanic” series was not filmed in Northern Ireland. I raised the matter with various people, but the series was made in Hungary. That is a cause for sadness and I hope we can avoid such a mistake in future, but endless good productions are being made in Northern Ireland as we speak.
Then things all started to go so horribly wrong, when the issue of who owns St Patrick came to the fore once more. It was amazing. Just as the hon. Lady was claiming St Patrick for the mountains of Mourne and her own constituency, as if from nowhere the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) appeared, Mephistopheles-like, from some Committee to claim yet again that Slemish was St Patrick’s natural home and that he came from Wales. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House—
Mr Swire
The Deputy Leader of the House—I will make him into a shadow quite soon—is now claiming St Patrick not for Wales, but for Somerset, when my notes tell me quite clearly that St Patrick actually came from north Devon. I hope the good people of Northern Ireland and particularly their political representatives care so much about the right hon. Member for East Devon that they fight about him as much as they are fighting about St Patrick. We claim him for Devon, the Deputy Leader of the House claims him for Somerset, the Welsh no doubt claim him for Wales, but we know that he was at some stage in Northern Ireland. We will leave it to others to decide where.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for revealing my relationship with some of the wildfowl on the peninsula. I am most grateful to him for revealing what I do in my private time. I can tell him that when I am in Northern Ireland and armed, it is with the proper authorisation of the Chief Constable. I wish that was always the case.
I know the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world extremely well. It is a beautiful constituency. I would not make the rash statements that the shadow Secretary of State made to every Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland that theirs is the most beautiful constituency, because there are 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland, and when he gets to about 17, he will be rumbled. It is safe to say that they are all utterly beautiful. Some are more beautiful than others, but if I were he, I would not say which.
The hon. Member for East Antrim is a larger-than-life figure in politics in Northern Ireland, where he has to wrestle with economic troubles daily. He came from a meeting of the joint ministerial working group today and gave an upbeat and typically positive speech. He gave a virtual tour of his beautiful constituency, and so successful was he in doing so—I rather hoped you would stop him, Madam Deputy Speaker—that I do not think there is now any need for anyone to visit Northern Ireland; they could simply download the Sammy Wilson app and stay at home, which is not what we want at all. He also talked about Glenarm salmon, which is delicious and I can recommend to everyone.
I was particularly pleased to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s support for tourism, both Tourism Ireland and tourism as an enterprise, on which he has been working closely with the Northern Ireland Enterprise Minister, Arlene Foster, because 2012 presents us with a huge opportunity. Of course we start the decade-plus of commemorations, a time when we will look back, but it is also a time when we will look forward and present Northern Ireland as it is in the 21st century to a world that is largely ignorant of Northern Ireland. I have said it before and will say it again: if you are not in Northern Ireland in 2012, you are no one.
The hon. Member for North Antrim, who has had to leave to attend a Committee meeting—he sent me his apologies—having made his intervention about St Patrick, rightly made a public relations puff for Wrightbus, and we can see the evidence of its workmanship on our streets. Ken Livingstone probably calls it the Ballymena bus, but we will call it the Boris bus as we want to see Boris properly returned as Mayor of London. The hon. Gentleman talked about the excellent visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway, which is a must on anyone’s to-do list. Of course, he did not talk about the new golf resort at Runkerry, which we all look forward to. It was 10 years in the planning, which we cannot allow to happen again, but at least it is happening. It will be another attraction that puts Northern Ireland on the map. We have had various discussions about starting soon to market the island of Ireland as the golf states, rather than the Gulf states, because we will be rich in sport, if not in oil. He also spoke passionately about the signing of the Ulster covenant, and no doubt he will play an active part in the commemorations as and when they occur.
We heard from every corner of Northern Ireland this afternoon. There have been some disagreements, but if we compare those to the kinds of disagreements there might have been in a similar debate seven, eight or 10 years ago, we can see that it is remarkable how far we have come. From my perspective, we have a lot further to go. We are going there pretty quickly, and 2012 is the year we will start.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the NI 2012 campaign to change perceptions of Northern Ireland and to encourage many more visitors to come to Northern Ireland; notes that, despite current economic difficulties, this campaign takes place in the context of a momentous year for the UK when the nation will celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty The Queen, and will host the Olympic Games; further notes that, in Northern Ireland, 2012 is the centenary of the Titanic tragedy, an event that remains seared into the world’s consciousness and culture, and the centenary of the signing of the Ulster covenant and Declaration, often described as the foundation document of Northern Ireland; welcomes the enormous progress that has occurred in recent years in moving Northern Ireland forward; and looks forward to the programme of events and activities which will help make Northern Ireland the place to visit in 2012.
Backbench Business
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sergei Magnitsky
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Bill through the United States Senate, the Bill to condemn corruption and impunity in Russia in the case and death of Sergei Magnitsky in the House of Commons in Canada, the approval of the resolution of the Dutch Parliament concerning Sergei Magnitsky dated 29 June 2011, and paragraphs I and 20 to 21 of the resolution of the European Parliament of 14 December 2011 on the EU-Russia Summit; and calls on the Government to bring forward equivalent legislative proposals providing for a presumption in favour of asset freezes and travel bans for officials of the Russian state and other countries, wherever the appropriate UK authorities have collected or received evidence that establishes that such officials:
(a) were involved in the detention, physical abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky;
(b) participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for the detention, abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky;
(c) committed the frauds discovered by Sergei Magnitsky; or
(d) are responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture or other gross violations of human rights committed in Russia or any other country against any individual seeking to obtain, exercise, defend or promote basic and internationally recognised human rights, including those set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.
I first thank the Backbench Business Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for granting the debate, and the sponsors of the motion representing all three main parties, who include five former Foreign Ministers. I also commend the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has consistently raised the matter.
The debate was inspired by the brutal death of Sergei Magnitsky, a young Russian lawyer. Between 2007 and 2008, while working for Hermitage Capital, he exposed the biggest tax fraud in Russian history, worth $230 million. His legal team was then subjected to varying forms of intimidation. While other lawyers left Russia, fearing for their lives, Magnitsky stayed on to make a stand for the rule of law in Russia and strike a blow against the breathtaking corruption there. That bravery cost him his life.
Magnitsky was arrested in 2008 on trumped-up charges of tax evasion. In Putin’s Kafkaesque Russian justice system, the very tax investigators that Magnitsky had exposed turned up to arrest him. He was dumped in a filthy, freezing and overcrowded cell for eight months and fed putrid meals such as porridge with insect larvae and rotten fish, if and when he was fed at all. In such squalid conditions, he suffered acutely painful bladder and pancreatic problems. Eventually, a year after his arrest, he was transferred to hospital for emergency surgery, but when he arrived he was not treated at all. Instead, he was handcuffed to a bed and beaten by riot police. Doctors found him an hour later, lying on the floor. He was dead.
The Russian authorities blocked all attempts to bring those responsible to justice. Sixty people have been implicated in the persecution of Sergei Magnitsky, his client or in the original tax fraud, and they have been named by the US Commission on Security and Co-operation in Europe. They include senior officials such as the former deputy Interior Minister and the deputy prosecutor-general. The Moscow Public Oversight Commission, a watchdog mandated under Russian law, concluded that Magnitsky was tortured to death, but all the suspects were cleared by Russian investigators, some have been promoted and some decorated. In fact, the only people on trial are Magnitsky’s employer and Magnitsky himself, who is now the subject of Russia’s first ever posthumous prosecution.
Sergei Magnitsky joins that noble Russian tradition of dissidents who stood up for the rule of law, democratic reform and free speech—the tradition of Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov through to Anna Politkovskaya—but like many others who have been silenced for defending just causes throughout the world, Magnitsky stood for more than just Russia. Such people include Chinese human rights lawyer, Gao Zhisheng, tortured for defending property rights and free speech and currently held incommunicado at an unknown location; photographer Zahra Kazemi, arrested for taking pictures of the families of missing protesters in Iran, who gathered outside Tehran’s notorious Evin prison—she was jailed, tortured and beaten to death; and Hamza al-Khateeb, who was arrested during the Syrian protests last year. A month later his mutilated body was returned to his family. He was just 13 years old.
This motion is about keeping the flame of freedom alive for those brave souls. It calls on the Government to produce legislative proposals similar to the Bill going through the United States Senate with bipartisan support. It targets Sergei Magnitsky’s tormentors, who left a documentary trail of their crimes, but it would apply wherever there was evidence that a state official anywhere was responsible for torture, extrajudicial killing or some other gross human rights abuse, or was complicit in covering up such activities.
The evidence would need to be independently assessed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, by the Attorney-General or by some other appropriate authority. The designated person would be named and shamed, a stain on any regime that left him or her in post and a spur for reformers at home; they would be banned from entering Britain; and their assets here would be frozen. Of course there would have to be due process to allow anyone to challenge their designation, and the Government could make exemptions on the grounds of national interest, but the Secretary of State would have to publicly justify exempting anyone—a safeguard against misuse.
We would in effect be creating a presumption that targeted sanctions be imposed on those responsible for the worst international crimes against those who defend the freedoms we take for granted in this House and in this country. We would be sending a clear message that those responsible for such atrocities should not be able to fly into Britain, buy up property in Knightsbridge or head off down the King’s road for a bit of light Christmas shopping, as if nothing had ever happened.
This motion is not anti-Russia. It is pro-Russia. It is an unequivocal affirmation of our solidarity with those Russians who are suffering for having had the temerity to question the mafia-ridden practices of Putin’s nasty regime.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he accept that one of the problems in Russia is that although those in positions of leadership can perpetrate crimes against individuals by using the full undercover agencies of the state with absolute impunity, the one thing they most value and would not want to lose is the freedom to travel and to use their money, often stolen from the Russian people, in a life of luxury outside Russia?
Mr Raab
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation of and rationale for what we are trying to achieve. It is precisely that. We are not seeking to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction by depriving anyone of their freedom; we are merely saying, “You cannot come into this country if you have that kind of blood on your hands.” So the motion is not anti-Russia, but pro-Russia.
Mr Raab
I will not, because time is limited and many others want to speak.
The motion is an expression of solidarity not only with freedom fighters around the world, but with legislators in the United States, in Canada, in the Netherlands, in Sweden, and now in Italy, who are also scrutinising legislation or calling for Government action to hold to account those responsible for these terrible crimes.
Let me be clear about this. If we enacted this law, it would not end impunity overnight in Russia or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, but it would help to puncture it. It would express Britain’s disgust and our resolve not to turn a blind eye to such heinous crimes, and it would honour those such as Sergei Magnitsky, who died struggling to keep the flickering light of freedom in his country alive.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate and commend all right hon. and hon. Members who have supported the motion.
In all parts of the House, there is strong and unequivocal condemnation of the brutal treatment and alleged murder of Sergei Magnitsky. Mr Magnitsky, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton has explained, was a young Russian lawyer working on behalf of a British firm in Moscow. He is thought to have uncovered the biggest corruption case in Russian history—a case that implicated politicians, the police, judges, and members of the Russian mafia. Days after Mr Magnitsky filed a criminal complaint and testified on the involvement of the tax police, among others, he was arrested on spurious tax charges by the same tax police officers against whom he had testified. He was held in pre-trial detention for nearly a year. In prison, he was mistreated, denied medical treatment and beaten. He died just days before the one-year limit within which he could be held without trial expired.
As the motion underlines, this is one of several cases in Russia in which human rights defenders and those exposing corruption have been brutally murdered. World-renowned journalist Anna Politkovskaya, human rights activist Natalya Estemirova, and human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov have all been killed in cold blood for pursuing the truth. The brutality of the killings has even extended beyond Russia’s borders, with the murder of political exile Alexander Litvinenko on British soil five years ago.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The hon. Lady mentions cases including that of Natalya Estemirova. A couple of years ago, I was fortunate enough to be able to travel to Chechnya and, unfortunately, to see at first hand some of the appalling human rights violations there, including what had happened about the assassination of Natalya Estemirova. We may know who is responsible in the case of Sergei Magnitsky, but does the hon. Lady agree that one of the major problems is that investigations into such cases to get to the root cause of who has committed these appalling crimes are not undertaken, and that we need to use all diplomatic efforts to encourage the Russian authorities to do so?
Emma Reynolds
I do agree, and I will turn to the so-called investigation very soon.
I have given a shameful list of crimes in which justice never seems to be done. While those who bring to light allegations of corruption and abuse by the Russian state run a high risk of being murdered, those responsible for their murders appear to run little risk of being caught and punished. On the contrary, they seem to operate in a climate of impunity. These cases must be accounted for by the Russian Government.
The case of Mr Magnitsky has rightly been condemned around the world. Motions similar to the one that we are debating are being considered in other Parliaments in Europe, notably in Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and Sweden; and the European Parliament has agreed on a resolution. A private Member’s Bill has been presented to the Canadian Parliament, and in the US, Senators Cardin and McCain have introduced a Bill in the Senate. Our debate is about what the British Government are able or willing to do about the Magnitsky case and others in which a culture of impunity prevails.
In the UK, we have a long and proud tradition on human rights. A Conservative politician, David Maxwell Fyfe, was instrumental in drafting and introducing the European convention on human rights. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been outspoken on the Magnitsky case and on other human rights abuses. Britain cannot turn a blind eye to the Magnitsky case.
I sincerely hope that the Minister, in responding to the motion on behalf of the Government, will not repeat the same line that that we have heard countless times—namely, that it would be inappropriate to comment on this case until the official Russian investigation has reached a conclusion. That goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). In June last year, a Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said that the British Government were waiting on the report of the Russian investigation, which was due in August last year. In January this year, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), restated that position and said that the investigation was now expected to report on 24 January.
Given that the investigation into Mr Magnitsky’s death opened in November 2009 and has been delayed 11 times since, I hope that the Minister now accepts that the delays are unacceptable. Will he assure me and the House that we will not hear the same wait-and-see policy from the Government today? There are good reasons to doubt that the investigative committee will ever get to the truth of who killed Sergei Magnitsky. A delaying tactic by the Russian Government must not be allowed to become a convenient delaying tactic for our Government. In the light of that, what measures will the Government take to increase the pressure on the Russian Government in the Magnitsky case and many others?
Beyond that case, it is important that this debate takes account of the broader concerns about the horrific conditions in Russian prisons, which are well documented. According to Russia’s Federal Penitentiary Service, 4,423 people died in Russian prisons in 2010, and a huge number of Russian prisoners suffer and die from tuberculosis.
In July last year, President Medvedev’s human rights council reported that Sergei Magnitsky’s arrest was unlawful and that his detention was marked by beatings and torture aimed at extracting a confession of guilt. The only action of the Russian authorities in response to that evidence has been a decision to put the dead victim back on trial. That is unprecedented in Russian legal history. It is not only a grotesque parody of justice, but a gesture of contempt for the international community and the human rights norms on which it is built.
The motion refers to the international covenant on civil and political rights, reminding us that raising human rights issues is not about interfering in the affairs of the Russian Government, but is a way of holding Russia to its international obligations. Russia has signed the European convention on human rights, the universal declaration of human rights, the charter of Paris and the EU-Russia partnership and co-operation agreement, to name but a few. In signing each of those agreements, Russia made a solemn commitment to respect human rights. As a result, it has enjoyed the privileges that go with being a member of the international community. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the Russian Government are living up to their side of the bargain.
Turning to foreign affairs, Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and is soon to become a member of the World Trade Organisation. It has a key role to play in foreign policy in aiding the stability of Afghanistan and preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Russia’s role is also important in the case of Syria. As the Minister said this weekend, its refusal to co-operate with the international community is prolonging the horrific situation in Syria.
In conclusion, we recognise that only 22 years have elapsed since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 70-year domination of communism, and that a period of deep economic turmoil accompanied the transition. We want to see Russia back on the path of reform, not going backwards, which is what the cases of Sergei Magnitsky and many others demonstrate. We want a successful, open, democratic Russia, free of endemic corruption, where the rule of law is protected, not eroded; a Russia that has a strong voice in the world and that works with the international community, not against it.
In the run-up to Sunday’s presidential elections, Vladimir Putin promised to root out corruption and to guarantee human rights. We want to see those promises delivered. If the Russian Government do not put Russia back on the path of reform, their economy is likely to stagnate, their population will continue to decline, discontent will grow, and Russia’s stability will be at risk. That is not in Russia’s interests, nor is it in ours.
We support the motion as a signal of our condemnation of the impunity for those who disregard human rights in Russia and our condemnation of those who are responsible for Sergei Magnitsky’s death. We urge the Government to continue to press the Russian authorities using all the available channels and all the upcoming opportunities, including through the European Union. It is important to note that the motion sets out steps that go beyond the precedents set by this and previous Governments in acting on such matters. We are less convinced by those points and urge the Government to reflect on how best to exert influence on the Russian Government to encourage them to meet their human rights obligations, including in the Magnitsky case. However, we share and echo the overriding emphasis of the motion. It unites the House in its condemnation of the criminal and brutal acts perpetrated against a brave and committed man. It rightly calls for pressure to be increased on the Russian Government to deal with the case in a fair and just manner, without delay and without equivocation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and others for raising this important subject and securing the Back-Bench debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) for her remarks. I will listen carefully to Members who speak in the debate. I am conscious that many colleagues wish to speak, so I will try to keep my remarks to 10 minutes or so, but I assure Members that I will stay for the rest of the debate and reflect carefully on the matters raised.
I express my profound sympathy, on behalf of the Government and all Members, to the relatives and friends of Sergei Magnitsky. The circumstances of his death are deeply troubling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton set out. The fact that no one has been held to account for it is a matter of serious concern to the Government, and we raise the issue with the Russian authorities at the highest levels and at frequent intervals. It is important that those responsible are brought to justice, and we urge the authorities to do that. The issue is wider, however. The death of Sergei Magnitsky serves as a stark reminder of the human rights situation in Russia and the questions about the rule of law there. My remarks will cover both the specific and the general.
The presidential elections are now behind us. A new Government are coming in, and we shall engage with them with determination to secure justice for Sergei Magnitsky and to address the wider issues at stake.
Alistair Burt
I want to give way only a couple of times, in order to protect others’ time, but I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Bryant
I will be very brief. I just want to know whether the Minister is going to support the motion.
Alistair Burt
I ask the hon. Gentleman to listen to my remarks, and then he will understand the position that the Government take.
Most Members are familiar with the circumstances of Mr Magnitsky’s death, but I will give the Government’s view. Mr Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer working for Hermitage Capital Management, was arrested in November 2008 and taken into pre-trial detention, where he died nearly a year later. Before his arrest, Mr Magnitsky had been working to uncover an alleged tax fraud against the Russian state by certain law enforcement officials. He had given evidence against a number of Interior Ministry officials accused of tax fraud, and a number of the same individuals are alleged to have become involved in Mr Magnitsky’s investigation and detention.
In July 2011 the Russian presidential council on human rights published a report, which found that Mr Magnitsky had been denied medical treatment and beaten while in detention. Both those abuses contributed directly to his death. No one has yet been held to account for his death by the Russian authorities. The Russian investigative committee, which leads the criminal investigation into his death, appears to have made little progress, which we regret. The publication of its findings on Mr Magnitsky’s death has been postponed four times in 2011 and 2012, and the findings are currently due to be issued on 24 April. The lack of progress on the case is deeply troubling for all who care about human rights and about Russia.
We raise our concerns about the case with the Russian authorities at all levels, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East suggested we should. The Prime Minister discussed it with President Medvedev during his visit to Moscow in September, and most recently the Minister for Europe raised it with his opposite number Titov in late January. He urged the Russian authorities to complete a swift, thorough and transparent investigation into Mr Magnitsky’s death with no further delay, and that is the position of the UK Government.
There is no doubt that the case has wider implications on the rule of law and respect for human rights in Russia. Indeed, that is the premise of today’s debate. Mr Magnitsky’s death in pre-trial detention is not an isolated incident but a fate shared by about 50 to 60 people in Russia every year. The initiative behind the motion speaks to an instinct that we in government, and all of us in Parliament, share—to defend human rights, condemn those who abuse them and tackle a culture of impunity for those who do so, wherever it exists. The Foreign Secretary has always been clear that human rights are at the heart of the Government’s work around the world. As he has said, they are
“part of our national DNA and will be woven deeply into the decision-making processes of our foreign policy”.
The motion proposes that the UK should adopt a presumption in favour of travel bans and asset freezes for Russian officials allegedly implicated in Mr Magnitsky’s death. It starts with the Magnitsky case but goes beyond it, envisaging the application of that presumption to individuals charged with similar abuses in other countries. We are aware of the developments in other countries to which the motion refers. A Bill has been introduced to the US Congress, and in the Parliaments of the Netherlands and Canada there have been discussions in support of visa bans against officials allegedly implicated in Mr Magnitsky’s death. However, we are not aware that the Netherlands or Canada has taken action further to the discussions in their respective legislatures. I understand that the US Bill is still being discussed in the Senate. We cannot predict whether it will come into force or what form it might take if and when it becomes law. If Congress passes the Bill and the President approves it, we shall certainly look closely to ascertain whether there are lessons on which we might draw.
On travel bans, hon. Members will know that immigration rules enable us to refuse a visa when, for example, information on an individual’s character, conduct or associations makes entry to the UK undesirable. Entering the UK is a privilege, not a right. Equally, asset freezes can be deployed against individuals when those measures would effect meaningful change.
The House will also appreciate—here I must repeat words stated by the Government and previous Governments—that the UK has a long-established and globally consistent practice of not commenting routinely on individual cases. The Government and previous Governments have pursued that policy, and it remains our approach.
In the cases of Mr Magnitsky and others, we want the Russian Government to ensure that justice is done and measures to be put in place to prevent such cases from happening again. More broadly, the Government remain concerned about the rights afforded to ordinary Russian citizens and have been clear that more should be done to address them.
To that end, we have a twin-track approach to human rights in Russia. First, we promote dialogue bilaterally, raising cases at the highest levels. Our annual human rights dialogues with Russian officials give a clear opportunity to voice our concerns and track progress.
Secondly, we support non-governmental organisations that are working on those critical issues. For example, we are working with the Russian NGO, Social Partnership Foundation, to address the problem of deaths in pre-trial detention. This financial year, we have spent £1.25 million on projects supporting human rights and democracy.
Our work on human rights is wide ranging. Priorities include: better support and protection for human rights defenders; supporting increased monitoring and reporting of human rights abuses; and urging the Russian Government to investigate fully the unresolved murders of journalists and human rights defenders. The low success rate in prosecuting those responsible for the crimes perpetuates the perception of impunity.
This week, we were encouraged to hear that President Medvedev has asked for a review of the trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. We will follow progress on that with interest.
Political rights are an integral part of the picture. As the Foreign Secretary highlighted this week in his statement on the Russian presidential elections, while the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights election observation mission gave a positive assessment of voting on election day, it identified problems with counting at some polling stations, unequal campaign conditions and limitations on voter choice. Those issues should not be overlooked. A Russia with greater political freedoms, including the registration of political parties, freedom of assembly and freedom of the media, is in the interests of Russians and the wider world. I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton that the motion is about and for the benefit of Russia, not a criticism of Russia.
It is a time of great opportunity for civil society in Russia to help bring about evolutionary change. Civil society has shown its considerable energy in recent months. We will work closely with the Russian authorities and Russian NGOs to encourage developments in a positive direction on human rights in the coming months and years, and we will continue to work at all levels to achieve justice for Sergei Magnitsky.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing the debate. It is important that it is on a motion because the Government must decide what they will do. They must decide whether to support it, and thus take the action that it demands of them.
Several attempts have been made to try to ensure that the debate never came to pass. The Russian ambassador in London attempted to repress a previous debate, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), a former Minister for Europe, led. I know that the Russian ambassador also tried to ensure that you, Mr Speaker, stopped today’s debate happening. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the political process in this country and the need for democratic and open debate. No ambassador should write to the Speaker of this House to try to prevent a debate. It is perfectly legitimate for us to debate what we choose to debate.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
This is extremely important. I have already had to intervene on this with Mr Speaker after the Russian embassy put on its website a statement attacking me as a parliamentarian for raising the Magnitsky case. Someone has to talk to this Russian ambassador and tell him crudely to butt out of House of Commons business.
Chris Bryant
I had already made that point, but I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend that we will discuss what we want. I very much hope that nothing is put in the way of the all-party group when we go to Russia so that we can meet not only members of the Government, but members of the opposition.
There are two basic problems in Russia at the moment, the first of which is the impunity that attends so much criminality. Hon. Members have referred to Anna Politkovskaya, but many other journalists have been murdered. Had journalists been murdered in this country, everybody around the world would have been howling and demanding justice. Similarly, we are unable to get justice for the murder of Mr Litvinenko, because Russia maintains that no extradition is allowed for any Russian citizen. That prevents justice and means impunity for those in Russia.
The second problem is the regular, systemic state abuse of the criminal justice system in Russia, which has meant that Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been imprisoned on spurious charges—Amnesty International has declared him and Platon Lebedev as prisoners of conscience. It is right that we pursue such issues to try to ensure that there is a proper criminal justice system in Russia, and one that does not depend on torture.
I must confess that the Government’s response tonight is very disappointing. For a start, I did not know that our foreign policy was to wait for the United States of America to make up its mind in its Senate and Congress on what it will do about immigration before we decide what we will do. We should be free to make our own decision, particularly because the one thing many significant Russians in the Putin regime value above all else is the ability to travel to London. London is the place where they like to do their banking and shopping, and where their families like to go for their education, and so on. Ensuring that the people involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and the corruption he unveiled are unable to come to this country is a vital part of ramming home to the Russian Government that we want better relations with them and that we want to do more business with them, but that we can do so only when human rights are respected and corruption weeded out.
Mr Burley
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. On exactly that point, is not the other advantage of the motion that it will help to counter the impression that is forming among many British people that we are becoming a safe haven for all sorts of Russian crooks and gangsters?
Chris Bryant
That cuts both ways, because another problem with how the Russians use the criminal justice system is that they try to extradite many people from this country whom they claim are criminals. One such person is Mr Zakayev, who was accused of murdering a Russian Orthodox priest. The said Russian Orthodox priest stood up in court and gave evidence that he had not been murdered. In all cases thus far in which extradition from the United Kingdom has been sought, the judge has decided that the case has been proceeded with not on the ground of seeking justice, but on purely political grounds. That is something we must deal with.
I am certain that the Government are not allowing any of those people in. From all the nudge-nudge, wink-winks I have had—[Interruption.] I got a nod from the Minister just now—[Interruption.] No, he is just brushing his nose. It is clear from other Ministers and from those nudges and winks that the Government have no intention of letting any of those people into this country, but it is now time for them to say so openly. That would make a significant difference. Ministers trot out the line that no Government ever talk about whether people are being refused entry to this country, but that is not true.
Chris Bryant
I am not asking the Minister to do it routinely. I am asking him to do it in this specific set of circumstances, because I think it would be profoundly successful in transforming the views of the Russian regime.
The Minister’s speech, in effect, was a speech against the motion. [Interruption.] It certainly was not a speech in favour of the motion, and in this House a Member can only make a speech in favour or against a motion, because, in end, we either allow the motion to pass, which means voting for it, or we vote against it.
Alistair Burt
To clarify, the Government are not opposing the motion, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Chris Bryant
I am delighted with that. I think, in that case, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton has secured an important victory. However, it is regularly the case now, in these Back-Bench business debates, that the Government allow the motion to pass because they know they would lose the vote, and then do absolutely nothing about what the House has resolved. That brings the House and the Government into disrepute. I hope, therefore, that if the motion is agreed to—it sounds as though it will be, if the Government are supporting it—the Government will take forward everything laid out in the motion. I hope that they will have a timetable for implementing that by the end of the year.
Everybody in the House wants to do better business with Russia. Every businessman I have known who has done business in Russia has said that the biggest problem is the financial and political corruption, which makes it difficult for them to do clean business, and no business, especially since the Bribery Act 2010 was passed, wants to do dirty business. I say to Mr Putin that now is a unique opportunity for him to show a change of mind and of tack on human rights and political rights, and it is a unique opportunity for this Government to move forward and ensure that the Russians seize that opportunity.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is great interest in the debate, so to maximise the number of contributors in the short time available, I am afraid that I must impose, with immediate effect, a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
May I first reassure the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) that the Russian ambassador knows perfectly well that he will have no influence in the House of Commons? He is anxious that his bosses in Moscow see that he has done everything in his power to make their views known.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on giving the House the opportunity to consider a matter that has already been debated in many other Parliaments around the world. That is much to his credit. This debate is primarily about the personal tragedy of Sergei Magnitsky and his family. Magnitsky was a man of extraordinary courage and integrity, a symbol of the new Russia, both in his life and, sadly, in his death. He was a representative of the new Russia. The people who murdered him were symbols of the old Russia and, in some ways, the old Soviet Union.
To a significant degree, in some ways I am more disturbed by what happened to Magnitsky than by what used to happen in the old Soviet Union. The Soviet Union made no pretence of being anything other than a totalitarian state. It had no interest in the rule of law as we understand it. Indeed, on this issue, I suspect that it would have reacted quite differently from Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev. The Politburo would not have tolerated the state theft of $230 million from the Treasury by public officials acting in a criminal fashion.
President Medvedev would have us believe that Russia is now a country of the rule of law, but we know very well that in practice that is sadly not the case. Instead of moving towards belief in the rule of law, Russia is moving towards being a society that might very well be tolerating a relationship between the Russian state and organised crime that is deep and serious, and which extends to the highest levels of Russian society. That is a serious accusation to make, but the facts seem to point in that direction.
First, as I indicated, this has been no minor act of theft from private individuals, companies or some local department. The theft involved, by public officials, was from the Russian Treasury of $230 million. Of course, scandals happen in other countries. The test is the reaction of the Government to such situations. Not only has no serious effort been made to identify, try and punish those responsible for the theft, but the opposite has happened: the person who exposed the fraud was himself persecuted, and at the end of the day was murdered. That is a very sad situation. Medvedev and Putin have gone through the motions of punishing some minor officials, but instead of praising Magnitsky for what he did, he has been persecuted.
I do not necessarily suggest that Mr Putin or President Medvedev were personally involved, but there are only two possible explanations for their failure to respond. The first is that they are impotent to do so. That may be true of Medvedev, but I frankly cannot believe that Mr Putin is anything other than able to have responded, if he had so wished, in the most fundamental way, to identify not only the perpetrators of the crimes against Mr Magnitsky, but the theft from the Russian state. The only other explanation has to be that, for reasons of their own, those at the highest levels of the Russian Government are prepared to tolerate criminality of the most serious kind, because there is a sufficient common interest between those who have political power and those who wield power through organised crime to make doing what they did preferable to taking action of the kind that should have been taken.
I do not underestimate the seriousness of what I am saying, but if we could see Magnitsky’s fate as an isolated incident, one might be more charitable about the policy of the current Russian Government. However, as has been said, from the Opposition Front Bench and by others, there are so many cases of flagrant disregard for the rule of law. It is the blatant political interference in the judicial system—which goes way beyond the tragedies of the Magnitsky case—that is important. For some time now, Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev have been alleging that the fate of Khodorkovsky was nothing to do with politics, but entirely to do with his breach of the criminal law. The timing of the decision to review his case could not have been more political, and illustrates that those who were responsible for putting him in prison may now be realising that the reaction that that created throughout the world means it is time to allow him to be released.
The final thing that I would like to say in this short debate is simply this. By approving the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, we are not only showing solidarity with all those fighting for the rule of law in Russia, which is just as an important as the creation of a pluralist democracy, but saying to Mr Magnitsky’s family—we cannot say it directly to Mr Magnitsky himself—that we honour his memory and his achievements, and we are doing what we can to help what he tried to achieve.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), because my heart soared when he spoke in Foreign Office questions in January to call for the public naming of the 60 officials associated with Magnitsky’s death. I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate on the Floor of the House.
Just as my heart soared when I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it sank when I heard the official Foreign Office brief read out at the Dispatch Box this evening. The Minister of State knows that I am a fan of his, but in this case I urge him and the Foreign Secretary to make it clear that they are Ministers with a democratic duty to speak up for the House of Commons, which now wants clear action to be taken. It is nonsense to say that we have not named people banned from coming into this country. We have named Martha Stewart, the cook, for goodness’ sake. We also named George Raft, the actor, and Pablo Neruda, the Chilean Nobel prize laureate. If they were good enough to be named, so too can some of these Russian thugs.
I am not proposing a policy of latter day Palmerstonian “advocatus Britannicus sum”, or “Because I am a lawyer representing British interests, I must have some special protection.” I am saying that, as we develop and shape our diplomacy in challenging and difficult times, we have to leave some rusty old tools in the Foreign Office toolbox firmly locked up and sharpen our approach.
I am not going to repeat the comments on the nature of the Russian state that have already been well made by other hon. Members. I am not sure that it consists solely of a relationship between politicians and criminals. Russia is not a functioning constitutional, democratic state that observes the rule of law. There is no distinction between political and business life there, or between state employees and those who run enterprises of any sort. Mr Putin is the chief executive officer of an enterprise, and his Russia exists in order to enrich him and those associated with him, going right down through the state machine. This is vertical power, and what happened to Magnitsky was not a sequence of accidents; it was authorised at a very high level.
The campaign is important, but where are the British lawyers? In the 1970s, when Russian psychiatrists were abusing their medical professionalism by signing off on dissidents being imprisoned for being mentally disabled, the British and American legal and psychiatric professions rose as one to condemn them and expel them from international associations. Where are the British lawyers today? Why are they not standing up for their fellow solicitor or fellow silk in Russia?
We need to look at the broader question of how we deal with Russia. The snow revolution might have petered out on Sunday, but Russians have lost their fear and passivity as they look upon Putin as another long-serving leader. Such leaders exist in western, democratic countries too but, as with Helmut Kohl, Mrs Thatcher and Mr Mubarak, there comes a moment when the fear has gone. I believe that Britain should also lose its fear of speaking up for democracy in action, and take consequent actions.
Under the 70 years of sovietised Russia, very few Russians could travel, but during the Yeltsin and Putin years, we have gone back to the pre-1917 tsarist days when the rich of Russia came here, bought villas and were educated at Oxford, and Prince Obolensky scored great tries for England. Now, they are back in town. I have no particular objection to them, but the one thing that they will understand is being told that they no longer have an entry ticket into London.
I want to make a tiny party political point. I do wish that the Conservatives would quit their alliance with Putin’s stooges at the Council of Europe. They are there for different reasons, and I am not going to go into any of that now, but it is embarrassing that some of our colleagues and friends sit with the Russians in our main human rights body in Europe, at which the Russians are present and can be held to account. The Russians get a free ride there.
I would also like to ask some of our journalists to stop being Putin’s little helpers. If our poor Prime Minister goes for a ride on a horse, it makes the front page of The Times, and everyone mocks him and scorns him and says it is very serious. If Putin pulls on an ice hockey shirt and does a bit of midnight ice hockey, the editor of The Times is there, swooning at the feet of this majestic specimen of manhood. I do not expect the Chelsea football club programme, or The Independent or the Evening Standard, to be tough on Russia, but I think that the rest of our papers could be a bit harder on it.
I finish by quoting Anna Politkovskaya. At the end of her book, “A Russian Diary”, published after her murder in 2006, she wrote of Putin:
“So far there is no sign of change. The state authorities remain deaf to all warning from the people. They live their own life, their faces permanently twisted by greed and by irritation that anybody should try to prevent them from getting even richer. Our state authorities are only interested in making money. If anyone thinks they can take comfort from the optimistic forecast, let them do so. It is certainly the easier way, but it is also a death sentence for our grandchildren.”
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am not a member of the all-party group, and I have never spoken in this place about anything to do with Russia. However, I recently chaired a meeting at which Sergei Magnitsky’s former employer spoke, in detail and with emotion and depth, about Sergei’s life and death. It was impossible not to be moved, which is why I have come to speak in the debate today and to make a case for our Government to support the motion. That man died in the most horrific circumstances and he was the most principled of people. Sergei Magnitsky was killed by corrupt officials because he was a principled man who exposed officials as thieves, when a huge amount of money to be paid in tax to the Russian state disappeared overnight. Overnight, those officials, politicians, police officers and tax inspectors suddenly became very rich individuals indeed. That is the simple, tragic background to what we are discussing today, but the ramifications reach far further.
A ruling elite has sprung out of the chaos in Russia during the 1990s, and it preaches to the masses nationalism and pride in a powerful Russian state. At the same time, this ruling elite is weakening its own country through corruption, nepotism and greed. That contradiction is not for us in this House to solve. It is not our affair; we have no powers over Russian business. Proud Russian people, furthermore, do not take kindly to foreign interventions into their domestic affairs. The British Council would be able to inform us about that.
The British Government and this House, however, have influence over who enters this country and who crosses our borders, and over our domestic affairs, particularly in respect of foreign visitors. We do not have an entirely open border policy for Russian citizens. Indeed, I have been told that the visa regime between the two countries can make for an incredibly tiresome process. On rare occasions, we reserve the right to say to particular citizens of the Russian Federation that they are not welcome in the UK and we can deny them a visa.
Is there any greater indication that someone’s presence in the UK is not welcome or desired in this country than the fact that we are dealing with thieves, murderers, torturers and corrupt individuals? Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) said, the fact that these people can just pop into our country to do a bit of Christmas shopping is distasteful in the extreme. At the very least, we need to put some process in place to make sure that they are refused entry at the border.
On Sunday, Vladimir Putin was elected President of the Russian Federation for a third term. Mr Putin is known and recognised for his patriotic pride, and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) spoke about how Putin often displays this in taking off his shirt, attending ice hockey events or throwing in curling events to show us what a big proud man he is. He resents interference in Russian politics from anywhere outside Russia, which makes it ironic that the Russian ambassador thinks that this matter is unique to Russia. These Russians feel that they can interfere in what happens in our politics by trying to prevent this debate from taking place.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did the Russian ambassador write to you to try to prevent this debate?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful for that point of order. I hope that the clock will be held so that the time available to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) will not be reduced.
I can tell the House that I received a letter from the Russian ambassador, drawing my attention to what he regarded as the errors contained in the motion and the merit of what he thought to be that fact—I emphasise that this was what he thought to be that fact—being communicated to the sponsors of the debate. I replied to the ambassador, noting his letter and underlining to him that he must not expect me, as an impartial Speaker, to comment on the contents of either the letter or the motion. I reminded him of the date of the debate, and indicated that if he wished to communicate his views in writing to the sponsors of the debate, it was open to him to do so. I hope that my meaning was clear—that this House debates what it wants to debate and that if other people wish to send letters, they can send letters, but it is not the responsibility of the Speaker to act as a post person.
Nadine Dorries
Mr Putin does not want Russia to be treated any less fairly than any other country in respect of trade, defence or intelligence. That is fair enough, but he cannot expect Russia to be given any special treatment. Criminals—thieves, and those who have committed gross violations of human rights—are not welcome in the United Kingdom, no matter what passport they hold, and such criminals who happened to be British would be pursued to the full extent of the law.
Russia is held in deep affection in my office. Culturally, I am in awe of the country. Ilya Repin is one of my favourite artists. He was introduced to me by a master at Winchester college, Paul Thomas, when I went to speak there some years ago, and ever since then we have taken an interest in Russia—perhaps not quite as deep an interest as is taken in a certain Liberal Democrat Member’s office, but a deep interest none the less. However, that does not blind me to the faults of the Russian Government. What greater fault can a Government have than not only failing to protect their citizens, but being the agent through which they suffer, and protecting those criminals instead of the victims? I support the motion wholeheartedly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I too support the motion, and thank the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for initiating it. It is surely not a coincidence that the debate is taking place just after the Russian election. Indeed, it could be said to be pertinent, given that claims of corruption and vote-tampering seem to be legion.
When I began to research the case of Sergei Magnitsky, I felt as though I was reading a far-fetched conspiracy theory novel by someone like John le Carré. The difference is that this is not fiction but fact. It happened, but as yet it has remained unchecked and unpunished. I am a great believer in the sovereignty of individual countries. I believe that Europe interferes in our judicial system far too often, and it is not often that I would try to make contact with another judicial system, but when the corruption is as blatant as this, and when those involved are as unrepentant as they are, I believe that it is my duty as a Member of Parliament—and, let me respectfully add, the duty of the House as well—to stand up and be counted, and to say, “This is not right.”
What happened in the case of Sergei Magnitsky was and is not right. This young man of 37 was simply doing his job when he came across intrigue at the highest levels, and instead of taking a step back, he stood up and paid the ultimate price. The father of two was a hard worker, an intelligent man who believed in truth, and when he uncovered a criminal web as a result of 14 months of solid investigation and was able to point, with evidence, to those involved in the theft of $230 million from Russian taxpayers, he made a statement naming those involved. That did not happen by the way; it happened after months of investigation and discussion with many witnesses. The evidence that Sergei had would clearly have put people in jail if it had been heard in a British court, but it did not do so in Russia.
Sergei was arrested by the subordinates of those whom he had named as being involved within the police, but refused to back down and retract his allegations. He was imprisoned in a cell with eight inmates and four beds—a cell with no windows in the cold November Moscow winter—and was then moved to cells with no toilets, containing raw sewage. After continuing to refuse to withdraw his allegations, he was moved from prison to prison approximately 10 times. With each move, his property—not that he had much—disappeared, including, on the occasion of his last move, a water boiler that was essential to purify the harmful drinking water.
After six months of that mistreatment, Sergei became ill, lost almost 3 stone in weight, and was diagnosed with pancreatitis and gallstones. Both are treatable conditions, and in a British jail he would have lived, but because in the Russian jail it did not suit the authorities for him to get better, he did not. When he again refused to withdraw his complaint, he was denied medical treatment despite 20 formal requests, and was sent to a maximum-security prison with no hospital where, after screaming in agony for days, he was eventually moved to solitary confinement, chained to a bed, and beaten to death by eight men on 16 November 2009.
I ask Members to think about that date. I remember clearly what I was doing on 16 November 2009. I was doing my former job in the Northern Ireland Assembly, debating child poverty and trying to move Northern Ireland forward, while that young man was being beaten to death for being an honest man and for daring to stand up to those in power. I ask Members, “What were you doing on that date?” They may not recall exactly where they were on 16 November 2009, but I ask the question for a reason.
Just as I stood up for children's rights to live a life without poverty in the Assembly in 2009, today I must stand up in the House of Commons for a man who told the truth. I stand up against those who perpetrated the act, and who, rather than being punished, have been rewarded and promoted. I stand up against those who now seek to continue the torture of Sergei's family by charging him after his death with the very crimes that his evidence showed others to have committed, and I hope that the House will do the same. I stand here as a proud British man who is not prepared to continue to reward those who perpetrated this act against this young man—and against the people of Russia—and who believes we must take our place on the global stage and condemn what has happened. We must ensure that those involved do not have immunity and will not be free to travel to, or engage in enterprise in, our country, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) said.
There are times when the world must condemn another country’s decisions. This is one such time. We must condemn Russia’s determined protection of those who were involved in either perpetrating or facilitating the theft of $230 million in taxes and the unjustified imprisonment, torture and eventual murder of Sergei Magnitsky.
I fully support the motion and ask that we all uphold the ethics of this young, courageous man who said that he would not allow such things to happen in his country. We must not allow those involved to enter, or benefit in any way from, our country. We must send out the clear message that we will side with the United States, Canada and Holland in standing up for what is right. The British Government must act on behalf of Sergei Magnitsky.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am glad that we are having this opportunity to discuss this disturbing case, as it is very important that we do so. The death of Sergei Magnitsky in prison, when guilty of no crime, makes us appreciate living in a society where we enjoy rule of law. That he was ever imprisoned in the first place shows that Russia still has a long way to go if it is fully to leave behind the stark inhumanity of the Soviet period and reach the sunlit uplands of being a well-constituted, constitutional state.
There has been progress, however, although it has been limited. We should welcome the Russian investigative committee’s acknowledgment that Sergei died because of the conduct of the authorities who imprisoned him, and a criminal case has opened against the two doctors involved. It is disturbing, of course, that there have been delays, and it is ridiculous that Mr Magnitsky is now posthumously back on trial.
However, this debate also gives us an opportunity to discuss what is going on in Russia at present. Ever since marrying my half-Russian wife, I have taken a deep interest in Russia. I have no interest to declare, as she is not linked in any way with anyone associated with Putin or the Soviet era. Her family was expelled in 1917, despite donating the Michael palace—or, perhaps, because of that—where my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) can see the Repin masterpieces.
I have long been interested in Russia, therefore, which is why I was delighted to be asked by the Council of Europe to go there this week as one of its official observers. I think I am the only Member to have been in Russia this week; I have been there for the past five days. I travelled there full of cynicism about what is going on in Russia, and with concerns about Mr Putin’s party, and I should state at the outset that I do not condone in any way the restriction on the number of candidates or the lack of airtime for opposition candidates—they had some airtime, but not in prime time.
On Sunday, I spent 13 hours visiting polling stations in a rather drab suburb of St Petersburg, and I was impressed. Frankly, there is democracy working there. I was out at the polling stations before dawn, seeing the transparent ballot boxes being opened. The count was operated not by party officials, but by local people, mainly teachers. As far as I could see, it was done properly, according to the rules. I talked, through an interpreter, to many observers from all parties, who were present at all times. I saw the votes being counted. Generally, the atmosphere was good, and I saw no intimidating police presence.
I therefore want to rebalance the debate slightly. There has been a lot of Russia-bashing and Putin-bashing so far. I make no defence of the regime, but we must bear in mind that in my own lifetime Russia was a terrifying Stalinist dictatorship where people could be shot for expressing their point of view, so let us at least acknowledge that there has been some progress. Even 22 years ago it was a stultifying one-party state.
Chris Bryant
So was Spain, but the changes in that country have been much more dramatic and serious. Did the hon. Gentleman not see the reports of people who work for the Russian state being told that if they did not hand over a postal ballot form for somebody else to vote on their behalf, they would lose their jobs?
Mr Leigh
Well, we had accreditation and we were allowed to go and see all the absentee voting rolls. In the polling stations I visited, the absentee voting rolls were only about 10% of the total. Even if 10% of them were fraudulent or represented votes made under pressure from others, that could not significantly have affected the result. I am afraid that, whether we like it or not, in the polling station where I saw the count Putin won clearly. That leads to the question we have to ask ourselves: is Putin the bar to liberal pluralist democracy that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) described in his excellent article earlier this week in The Daily Telegraph, or is there some evidence that the reason why he is quite popular in Russia is that not all Russians want pluralist liberal democracy? I make no defence of that point of view; I just ask that question. In his article, my right hon. and learned Friend said that
“the only opponents permitted to stand in the election were the Communists and an unelectable oligarch”,
but all the parties represented in the Duma were allowed to stand. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) laughs; I do not pretend that the election was perfect, but progress is being made. We have to acknowledge that there were other candidates.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I think the hon. Gentleman is putting too positive a gloss on this. May I remind him of the case of Grigory Yavlinsky, the candidate of the Liberal Democrats’ sister party in Liberal International in Russia, Yabloko? He was simply denied the opportunity to stand by an electoral commission. It was not a fair election.
Mr Leigh
I immediately acknowledge that, and I do not condone the exclusion of any candidate from standing or the lack of prime-time airtime for Opposition candidates. I do not pretend it is a perfect democracy, but the House of Commons has to appreciate that this is still an infinitely freer election than has happened in the past in Russia. At least some progress has been made; let us not knock that.
There has been talk about the case of Mikhail Khordokovsky. I do not defend the tumbling and the show trial of that oligarch, but we have to remember what happened under Mr Yeltsin’s rule. He sold off the family silver to his friends, cronies and supporters, and there was no limit to the power of the oligarchs under him. I do not defend the trial, but Mr Putin was clearly sending a political message to the Russian people that no oligarch is above the rule of law.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
My hon. Friend might make that argument regarding the first conviction, but what message was Mr Putin sending by bringing Mr Khordokovsky to trial a second time, after he had served his sentence, and having him sentenced to many more years in prison?
Mr Leigh
Straight away, I make no defence of that, but we have to appreciate the internal politics going on in Russia. That is all I am trying to do. I do not think we should indulge ourselves, pleasant as it may be, in Putin phobia, which is sometimes nourished in our own commentariat. There are double standards and the democracy is not perfect, but unfortunately many of the Russians to whom I and others have spoken conclude that the west would rather see a Russia that is poor, weak and unstable as long as it subscribes to our notions of liberal democracy—and it is not for us to lecture them—instead of a Russia that is rich, influential and stable. That is primarily what they want. They might not share all our views about liberal democracy, but ordinary Russians whom one can talk to in the street are primarily interested in their pensions and their quality of life, which has improved immeasurably in the past 10 years. I therefore support the moderate tone that the Minister has taken today. We have to have an environment of respect for the Russian Government and we have to encourage dialogue with them rather than continually giving them lectures that, I am afraid, have absolutely no resonance with the Russian people. It is true that Russia is changing too slowly, but at least President Medvedev has attempted to reform the police service and get rid of the Soviet “people’s militia” system, so some progress is being made.
The death of Sergei Magnitsky leaves one cold and those guilty of it are thoroughly contemptible. Of course we condemn what is going on, but I think our Government are taking a measured and sensible approach in seeking to prevent any of those people from coming to this country and in not seeking to predetermine the outcome of trials that are taking place in Russia. My hon. Friend the Minister’s attitude in seeking to preserve good relations with an essential trading partner is a balanced and right approach, which I support.
Mr Speaker
Order. With three remaining colleagues wishing to contribute and a short winding-up speech by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) still to come, I am afraid that the time limit must be reduced with immediate effect to four minutes.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Although it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), I rise from the Liberal Democrat Benches of the coalition to support the motion unequivocally. I am pleased that there has been such cross-party unity—from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The motion was also signed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). That cross-party unity is important, not least because the UK bears a special responsibility in the case of Sergei Magnitsky. He was working for a British company, Hermitage Capital, and the gentleman who has spearheaded the worldwide campaign for justice, Bill Browder, is a British citizen. Our country therefore has an obligation to lead the campaign. The example being set by legislators in the United States, the Netherlands and Canada is one that we should and can follow.
The world has changed since the 1970s and the 1980s—the hon. Member for Gainsborough is right about that. Democracy has flourished in Latin America, eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Africa and Asia, and we hope that it will now flourish in the middle east and north Africa, too. Russia has been part of the process. It is undoubtedly a freer country than was the Soviet Union, yet the implication of all the issues we are discussing is that democracy is, if anything, in danger and potentially going in reverse in Russia, in a way that it is not in eastern Europe, Latin America or even Africa.
It is right that we are increasingly intolerant of human rights abuses worldwide, whether committed by monsters such as Joseph Kony of the Lord’s Resistance Army in central Africa, or murderous regimes such as that of Bashar al-Assad. Some mechanisms are useful against that kind of leader—for example, the International Criminal Court. In the case of Sergei Magnitsky and cases like it, however, the situation is more complicated. Russia is a country with democratic structures and space for opposition and pluralism; nevertheless, the state and the judicial system are being used as a mechanism for oppression. People are acting with impunity and assuming that they can get away with it indefinitely. We need mechanisms that will target not just the leaders but the accomplices, to discourage people from participating in such activity all the way down the food chain. For that, we need a faster and more effective process than referrals to the ICC.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda: we should not necessarily be waiting for measures to be implemented in other countries before we recognise that it might be right to act in this country. I accept that there are constraints on what the Minister can tell us, and I absolutely accept his personal commitment to human rights and democracy. He has done extraordinary work to raise those issues even when it was inconvenient to do so, not just with the Russian Government, but with many other Governments worldwide. I certainly give him credit, but it is important that we support the motion and seize our opportunity.
It is important, too, that we do not send mixed messages, for example in our suggested reforms to the European Court of Human Rights. There is danger in saying that national Governments can pick and choose which cases go forward. If we do that, it might be possible for Russia to do it too, which in the context of the Magnitsky case would be very dangerous. I am happy to support the motion. I recognise the constraints, but the time has come to speak out and to act.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on initiating this important debate. I am happy to support the motion, which I signed along with 40 other Members.
Such is the strength of feeling in the House that the debate is a welcome addition to the growing chorus of concern both in this country and internationally about the scandalous case of Sergei Magnitsky. I speak as a fellow lawyer who worked for many years in a free and open legal system, where justice was done and seen to be done. It chills me to the bone to think that a fellow lawyer who was doing his job had to suffer the most appalling indignities and death at the hands of the very authorities he was trying to expose.
For those of us who have heard the account of the life and death of Sergei Magnitsky, the sense of shock and outrage never lessens. For those who are hearing the case for the very first time, I would characterise it in this way: an independent lawyer was arrested, imprisoned, ill-treated and killed for blowing the whistle on the massive theft of tax revenue from the Russian state by its own officials. A simple recitation of those facts underlines the seriousness of the case. It is sadly indicative of the state of kleptocracy, plain and simple, into which the Russian state seems to be descending.
The Conservative party human rights commission, which I have the honour to chair, heard evidence from Bill Browder and others about the Magnitsky case as part of our ongoing inquiry into the role of professional people in countries around the world with poor human rights records. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, this debate is not just about Russia—it is about freedom itself. The motion is not anti-Russia. Those of us who love Russia and its people, who have visited the country on several occasions both before the end of communism and after, want to see it thrive and march down the road to freedom. At present, though, Russia is sadly far away from that road. That is why the approaches taken in other countries and other legislatures, most notably the United States Senate, are commendable. They point a clear way to concerted international action to deal with the perpetrators of such crimes in a way that affects them most significantly: by limiting their freedom to visit countries such as Britain and by freezing the assets that we know they own internationally. That is not interference in the domestic affairs of another country, but international action designed to express our disapproval, our disgust, at the role of officials in concerted and organised state corruption.
It is time for Russia to have its chance to reach freedom. All we are saying today to the Russian state and to those responsible for these crimes is that they should turn away from oppression and corruption, acknowledge the sins of the past, deal with them properly and join the free world in the fullest sense.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Sergei Magnitsky was born on 8 April 1972 and died on 16 November 2009, so he would have been younger than two of my children.
On 4 June 2007, Colonel Kuznetsov went with other people to take documents from Hermitage’s offices. On 24 December there was an application for a refund of capital taxes, which was approved in 24 hours. That was the stealing of the $230 million. The best description of what happened is on the website http://russian-untouchables.com/eng/. The Wikipedia article on Sergei Magnitsky is also pretty good. We have talked a little about the Cardin list, on which Benjamin Cardin, a senator for Maryland, lists 60 people who have been involved in the Magnitsky case. Two have been prosecuted. Of the lawyers who have been trying to help the investigation, one has been killed and five have been exiled. A colonel was put in charge of the investigation when complaints were made. It seems incredible that the head of tax office No. 28 in Moscow ends up with millions of dollars abroad when she and her husband together were earning about $38,000 a year. The colonel, who officially earns the equivalent of $10,000 a year, has more than £1 million in property in various countries.
I could go on, but the point is better made by reference to the full 75 pages of documentary evidence. There have been 3,500 articles in the Russian media on the case. It is not a question of only the west being interested; people in Russia are, too. Within about a month of the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky, the Moscow public oversight commission reported on 28 December 2009 what it thought had happened, but two years later, the Moscow authorities have not reacted. A Russian investigative committee has extended its term nine times and has still not reported.
My view is that Russia has a chance to recognise what it got wrong. Stealing $230 million was one crime, but arresting, maltreating and then murdering Sergei Magnitsky was a second, and then there was the cover-up. I pay tribute to the Russians for allowing many other Russians to find out much of what has happened, and the documentary trail is listed in the russian-untouchables list. Then there is the official position of the Russian Government. I believe that the former President understood that things had gone dramatically wrong, and the current President might understand that as well. I call on both to say what they will now do to give justice in Russia to a Russian, and give hope to those who work with them. Russia will either get worse or get better, and I hope that this debate will be part of helping it get better.
Mr Raab
I rise for a second time to wind up this timely debate, in which we have heard 12 powerful speeches from right hon. and hon. Members both sides of the House. The shadow Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), raised the wider human rights situation in Russia. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke of the state abuse of the Russian justice system. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) talked powerfully about the deep link between the Russian Government at the highest levels and organised crime. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) called for sharper diplomatic tools to address the situation and create some accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) talked about the damage corruption is doing to Russia itself. We heard other powerful and eloquent speeches, for example from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who talked about his recent experience of monitoring elections, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley).
I thank the Minister for his welcome update on the Sergei Magnitsky case and what the British Government are doing about it. I am delighted that they share the instincts that underpin the motion and are shared by so many of its sponsors. I understand that it might be tempting to wait and see what happens with the US Bill as it goes through the Senate, but I hope that the debate might spur the Government to take a lead. I hope that the Minister will heed the will of the House and consider the legislative proposals that have been talked about in the context of the forthcoming Queen’s Speech, so that we can take a stand against the henchmen of tyrants and despots and deny them the privilege of setting foot on British soil or buying up British property, as we would a terrorist or gangster. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Bill through the United States Senate, the Bill to condemn corruption and impunity in Russia in the case and death of Sergei Magnitsky in the House of Commons in Canada, the approval of the resolution of the Dutch Parliament concerning Sergei Magnitsky dated 29 June 2011, and paragraphs I and 20 to 21 of the resolution of the European Parliament of 14 December 2011 on the EU-Russia Summit; and calls on the Government to bring forward equivalent legislative proposals providing for a presumption in favour of asset freezes and travel bans for officials of the Russian state and other countries, wherever the appropriate UK authorities have collected or received evidence that establishes that such officials:
(a) were involved in the detention, physical abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky;
(b) participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for the detention, abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky;
(c) committed the frauds discovered by Sergei Magnitsky; or
(d) are responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture or other gross violations of human rights committed in Russia or any other country against any individual seeking to obtain, exercise, defend or promote basic and internationally recognised human rights, including those set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the debate you kindly answered a question about a communication from the Russian ambassador. If you feel that it would be suitable to invite the ambassador to a reception, many of us would like to come and listen to what he has to say about the matter we have just discussed.
Mr Speaker
It is very good of the hon. Gentleman, and very helpful, to seek to arrange my extra-Chamber calendar in the way he proposes, but I will reflect and digest—
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Speak for foreign policy, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
If the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions put that proposition to the House, I think that it would be divisible and there would be a Division. I note what the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has said. As he knows, there is no secret about the communication from the ambassador to me or my reply.
On account of the notable succinctness of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) in winding up the debate, we are in a position to come to the statement at 6.59 pm, rather than the advertised time of 7 o’clock.
Employment Support
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the reform of specialist disability employment support.
Today, the Government have published a Command Paper, setting out our plans for specialist disability employment support and summarising our responses to the Sayce review. Let me make one thing clear: these are difficult decisions, but the current system is not working for disabled people. Employment rates for disabled people remain almost 30% below those of non-disabled people. Exclusion from the labour market leads to exclusion from society at large, and I do not think that anybody in the House wants to see that happen.
That is why, back in 2010, we asked Liz Sayce to conduct a review of how we might make specialist employment support for disabled people work better. The review was detailed and comprehensive, and it took views from disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and many hon. Members in the House today. Today, the Government have published their response to that report, outlining how we intend to reform specialist disability support for the future. It includes putting £15 million more into Access to Work, a scheme that has been proven to be extremely successful in supporting disabled people into mainstream employment.
I have agreed that the funding for residential training colleges should be extended until the end of the academic year 2012-13, something that I know many hon. Members present will support as well. That will allow those colleges time to determine and to implement future change. They provide support into employment which is clearly valued, although costly, and we need to take further time to consider the options for the future.
We have also taken a difficult but important decision on the future of Remploy. The responses to the consultation on the Sayce review strongly endorsed the idea that money to support disabled people into employment should follow individuals, not institutions, and that Remploy factories should be set free from Government control. The responses also supported the view that Government-funded, segregated employment is not consistent with the objective of disability equality, which is at the heart of what this Government stand for.
We know that roughly 2,200 disabled people are supported by Remploy’s enterprise businesses, at a cost each year of about one fifth of the total budget for specialist disability employment programmes. Despite significant investment in those businesses, the cost of each employment place remains some £25,000 per year, compared with an average Access to Work award of just under £3,000.
The current system is not using the money that we have available most effectively, and in these difficult economic times we have to look at that very carefully. The current situation is not sustainable, and it is simply not working for the majority of the 7 million disabled people who live in all our constituencies throughout the country.
If money is spent more effectively, up to 8,000 more unemployed disabled people could be supported into mainstream employment, something I am sure the House will agree is the right approach. That is why I have decided to accept and implement the Sayce review recommendations on Remploy. That will be done in two stages. In stage 1, the Government will reduce their current subsidy to Remploy from the beginning of the new financial year, so that we cease funding factories that make significant losses year after year and restrict funding to those factories that might have a prospect of a viable future without a Government subsidy.
Remploy’s board was asked to consider the impact of the decision before it was made, and as a result of the decision to reduce current funding the board is proposing—subject to important consultation with staff and unions—to close by the end of this year the 36 factory sites that it considers unlikely to be able to achieve independent financial viability.
Remploy will shortly begin collective consultation with its trade unions and the management forums on the proposed closure of those factories, and on the potential compulsory redundancy of 1,518 disabled people at those sites and those associated with them. In stage 2, the Department for Work and Pensions will work with the Remploy board to identify whether these potentially viable Remploy businesses can be freed from Government control, including by employee-led commercial exit or open-market sales, and how this might be achieved.
I recognise that this announcement will be difficult news for the staff in Remploy factories and understand that they have will have concerns about the future. As part of collective consultation, the Remploy board will consider all proposals to avoid compulsory redundancy. Moreover, we are absolutely committed to supporting Remploy employees with an £8 million comprehensive personalised package of support for all those who are affected by these proposals. Any disabled member of staff who is made redundant will receive an individual offer of up to 18 months’ help with the transition from Government-funded sheltered employment to mainstream employment. This support will include access to a personal budget—on average, £2,500—to aid that transition. We will also be working with employers and the Employers’ Forum on Disability to look to offer targeted work opportunities for all displaced staff. We will establish a community support fund to provide grants to local disability organisations to support Remploy employees in making the transition from sheltered employment to mainstream employment.
This decision commands the support of disabled people’s organisations and disabled people themselves. It is also a decision that I would have thought the Opposition wanted to support, because back in 2007 the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said of Remploy:
“the reality is that it is simply not viable.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 449.]
We, as a Government, have taken forward his plan and have come to a natural point that he, too, would have come to in this process.
The Government’s commitment is to support many more thousands of disabled people into work, and the changes that I am announcing today will enable us to do exactly that. I believe that this strategy better fits the needs and aspirations of disabled people in the 21st century, and a more equal world where disabled people participate fully in the mainstream, not in Government-funded segregated jobs.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement, but frankly it was a statement that she obviously did not want to give to this House in person. Let me give this advice to the Minister and to Government Members: even if the situation is difficult, it behoves a Minister to come to this House to explain it. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. These exchanges have already been too noisy. The House must calm down. We cannot have a situation in which people trade insults across the Chamber, shouting out “Where is this one or that one?” Let us just cool the temperature and have a decent exchange. The House knows that I will want to facilitate such an exchange.
Mrs McGuire
It is fair to say that Remploy is not an ordinary organisation; it is one that has been part of Government’s provision for disabled people since the second world war. We all recognise, in all parts of the House, that it has had to adapt to changing conditions over the years, but there is no point in the Minister trying to hide behind the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain). My right hon. Friend came to this House and answered questions in this House, and he made some of the difficult decisions that we hoped would set Remploy on the road to success. Recently, however, there has been only one debate in this House on the future of Remploy, and that was held, thanks to the courtesy of the Backbench Business Committee, in Westminster Hall on 15 December. Today, the Government have tried to abrogate their responsibility as the custodian of the Remploy legacy and as the ultimate employer of the 1,752 people who today found out by written statement, or in some cases from telephone calls from Members of Parliament, that they will no longer be in a job in three months’ time.
Nobody in this House disagrees with the Minister when she says that disabled people want to have a choice about where they work. Nobody argues that such opportunities have not opened up over the past few years for many disabled people. However, many of the opportunities have been offered by organisations such as Remploy that give disabled people a real job in the jobs market. It was clear even from the Sayce review that the best factories offer job satisfaction, a supportive and accessible environment, and a reasonable income for their employees.
I will not run away from the fact that my Government, and I as a Minister, had to wrestle with the issues relating to Remploy. We cannot rewrite history. However, our position on disabled people in 2007 was astonishingly different from what the Minister has put before us today. If she truly believes in co-production, why was there no co-production with the trade unions, the disabled people who work in Remploy and the Remploy board over the past few months? I have the greatest admiration for Liz Sayce and for some of the work that she has done, but to put forward a closure programme that will potentially put 1,700 on the dole on the basis of a report by an individual is not acceptable.
We must recognise the legitimacy of the position of the mainstream of the disability movement, which is that it does not like supported factories or Remploy. However, that does not mean that it is wrong to support people in these factories. Perhaps the mainstream needs to recognise that Remploy offers a real job in a supported environment.
I will put some questions to the Minister before you call me to order, Mr Speaker. In opposition, the Conservative party supported the five-year modernisation plan, so why did the Minister embark on a review nearly two years before that timetable had been exhausted? Why are the Government pulling the funding from the next financial year, which leaves a period of only a few days? Was warning given to the Remploy board before the last couple of weeks that it would have to manage this speed of change and a massive redundancy programme over the next few weeks?
When the modernisation statement was made to the House in 2007, the now Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—[Interruption.] Please do not laugh if I pronounce “Ewell” wrong. I do not know how it is pronounced. He said at that time:
“Let me assure Remploy and its employees that the next Conservative Government will continue the process of identifying additional potential procurement opportunities for them and the public sector work force.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 451.]
What has the Minister done, now that the Conservative party is in office, to ensure that her ministerial colleagues fulfil that promise? What discussions has she had with the major procurement Departments, including the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence? Did she look at the procurement opportunities that her Department could have offered to Remploy? What discussions has she had with her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage local authorities to consider opening up opportunities for their local factories? What efforts has she made to encourage her colleagues to identify procurement opportunities under article 19?
Given the Minister’s intention to embark on this course of action, how did she involve the board of Remploy and the trade unions in the discussions about the issues identified in the Sayce report? I am not talking about their responses to the consultation, but about what real co-production she was involved in. What recognition did she give to the trade union analysis of the current operation of Remploy’s enterprises and the questions that it raised about the company’s business practices?
There is a feeling around the House that the consultation was flawed from the beginning because the Minister said that she was
“minded to accept the recommendations of the Sayce review”.
A Government cannot start a consultation if they have already said they are minded to accept the recommendations.
By how much will the Minister reduce the subsidy to Remploy in the next financial year and the one after? She highlighted the fact that there may be options for the so-called stage 2 factories. What will those options be, and what criteria will she lay down for the transfer of any business and its associated assets to the open market?
The Minister says that the support that she will give to disabled people who are made redundant will last for up to 18 months and potentially be a personalised budget of £2,500. How is that £2,500 expected to meet the needs of many of the people in Remploy?
Where will the jobs come from? At the factory in Ashington, 35 people are chasing each job, and in Acton—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the shadow Minister that I know these are extremely important matters, but I feel sure that she is bringing her questions to a close. In fact, I am certain that she is in her last sentence.
Mrs McGuire
I am indeed, Mr Speaker.
I finish by saying to the Minister that in each constituency where there are factories at which redundancies will be made, there are tens of people chasing every job. She made a point about the increase in Access to Work, but that scheme requires jobs. Tonight, 1,700 people do not know whether they will have one in three months’ time.
Maria Miller
I am very happy to have come to the House today to discuss our proposals. [Interruption.] Communication is very important on this matter, and many Members have had many conversations with me about Remploy over the past two years. I have already laid a written statement and met many of the MPs affected. Indeed, I have spoken to the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who is not in his place.
We take staff communications very seriously indeed on a matter such as this. It is not right for the right hon. Member for Stirling to call into question the way in which it has been managed, because my colleagues at Remploy have put great effort into ensuring that disabled people employed by Remploy are well aware of today’s process. Indeed, we have worked closely together throughout the consultation process. As I have said, there were 1,400 submissions, including from disabled people, Opposition Members and staff at Remploy factories.
Most important of all, this Government decided when we came to office to take forward the modernisation plan that Labour Members had put in place. In these very difficult economic times, we could have taken a different decision, but we chose not to. We chose to stick with that plan and see how things progressed. I am afraid that in year four of the modernisation plan, it is clear that the objectives that Labour set out were simply not going to come to fruition and were not realistic. I think some Opposition Members will know that.
The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions, some of which I believe I may have answered in my statement, but I want to ensure that I have covered every point she made. The Remploy board has been fully informed of all the procedures that we have gone through and all the decisions that have been made, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken to his Opposition counterpart to ensure that he was well informed in advance of today. We ensured that the procurement commitments that Labour put in place were taken forward. In fact, we have been working with Remploy for the past two years to attempt to make the modernisation plan work, but we are where we are and these difficult decisions now needed to be taken.
There has been a great deal of discussion by Opposition Members about the number of jobs that are available to disabled people. I should like to put it on record that the employment services arm of Remploy has done a magnificent job of helping disabled people into work. I believe that many hon. Members will agree with that. Indeed, last year, Remploy’s employment services arm supported 20,000 disabled people throughout the country into work, with 2,000 individuals with disabilities in Wales and another 2,000 in Scotland helped into work. Those jobs are available if individuals can get the support and training to access them.
The decisions are not easy, but we are continuing a policy that the previous Administration started. When we came into government, we confirmed that we would continue that plan. The truth is that the Opposition would have had to make those decisions themselves.
We enlisted the help of experts to try to ensure that our decisions were right. Liz Sayce, in her role in Radar, brings to the matter an expertise that many hon. Members will acknowledge. Today, we are taking forward her recommendations, and I am afraid that I cannot understand the tone or the nature of the right hon. Lady’s remarks.
Labour Members should remember that many factories were closed on their watch, and perhaps they did not make the right decisions then. They would have had to face the same choices. Today’s discussion is not about money because, as Opposition Members know, the money and support for specialist disability employment is protected under the Government—£320 million plus an extra £15 million to ensure that the changes that we are making today will result in more disabled people in work, with more money to support them to do that.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is much interest and I am keen to accommodate it, but brevity is of the essence.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome the extra £15 million that the Under-Secretary has announced today for helping disabled people. Does she agree that we are likely to secure better value for money for that extra funding, and we will be able to help more disabled people, if it goes to individuals rather than institutions?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right. In this day and age, we need to recognise that disabled people want to live independent lives. We are committed to that as a Government. To do that, we need to help more disabled people into work and we are more likely to achieve that if we can ensure that that money is used most effectively. The proposals that we are discussing will help an extra 8,000 disabled people into work.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
As the Under-Secretary knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has been very successful in getting public bodies locally to buy furniture from the Swansea Remploy factory. Now that that factory’s order books are full, will she look again at its potential to be cost effective and drop her plans to close it?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is important that factories have work to do. All too often in the past, factories have not had enough to do. Indeed, in the very recent past, half of Remploy employees in factories have had nothing to do. I do not find that acceptable, but if there are opportunities to avoid redundancies, we will work with hon. Members of all parties to do that.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the Under-Secretary for her statement and the Opposition spokesperson for her response. The decision is difficult but I believe that it is right. The Under-Secretary knows my views—I have worked in this area for many years. I would like to get a couple of commitments in the House. Will every penny saved remain in the area to help many more thousands of disabled people into work? I do not want it to be a cost-cutting exercise. Secondly, if the Under-Secretary cannot do so this evening, will she bring to the House later some detail about the exact programme over the 18 months to ensure that people from Remploy move into employment?
Maria Miller
I can reassure my hon. Friend that every penny that is saved in the programme will be reinvested in supporting disabled people. Indeed, we will spend £15 million more as a result of the real, clear need to ensure that we have sufficient support in place. I can also reassure him that we already have the detailed programme of support for Remploy employees who are affected by today’s announcements. Several Opposition Members attended a meeting that I held earlier to ensure that people have the information to hand. I will continue to hold meetings with hon. Members to ensure that everybody is aware of the support that is in place.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Seventeen hundred people will lose their jobs as a result of this statement, including 1,500 disabled people. The Minister’s case rests on the argument that there are better ways to help disabled people into work than through Remploy. Will she therefore guarantee to come to the House six months after the closures have taken place and detail exactly how many of the 1,500 disabled people who will lose their jobs have gained alternative employment?
Maria Miller
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to ensure that we know what happens to individuals who are affected by the measures announced today. Unfortunately, under the previous Administration, no such tracking was put in place. That was a mistake, and one that this Government will not be repeating. I hope that he is not advocating our retaining segregated employment, but I can absolutely undertake to him that we will monitor and keep track of these measures, because we want to ensure that as many people as possible can enter employment.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I equally support the view that money should follow people and not institutions. As a past employer of excellent disabled people, I found that the support to help them to find us was variable to say the least. What can the Government do to improve that support to establish and build on those connections?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that employers have a vital role to play. All hon. Members will know that there is a great deal more work to do to help employers to understand the very valuable contribution that disabled people bring to the workplace. I am working hard with many disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. Through our new disability strategy, we will ensure that we continue to work with employers to ensure that they see the advantages of employing disabled people, and through our additional support for Access to Work there will be tangible financial support.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
So the Minister’s big idea for getting people who are disabled back into work is to start by giving them the sack. There are three factors in Wales being hit hard: seven of the nine Remploy factories in Wales will close; 272 of the 752 employees are in Wales; and jobs are being lost in communities that already face mass worklessness, such as Merthyr Tydfil, Aberdare and Abertillery. What consideration did the Minister give to human costs before making her announcement, or was her only thought the cold logic of the balance sheet?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to me earlier, because we are talking about supporting more disabled people into employment. As a result of the announcements we have made today, 8,000 more disabled people can seek the support that will make the difference between them being able to get into work and facing a lifetime on benefits. Disabled people in this country should not face a choice between a lifetime on benefits and a job in a segregated factory. They deserve to be able to work for employers such as BT, Royal Mail, Sainsbury and Marks & Spencer, all of which are actively working with Remploy employment services to get people—not only in Wales, but throughout the country—into employment.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
We would all like to see more disabled in mainstream employment, but does the Minister accept that some people who work in Remploy factories will not be able to hold down a job in mainstream employment for the longer term? Given that so many people without a disability who are more than capable of working shy away from doing so, should we not do everything we can to support people who could sit at home on disability but who want to go out to work for their own dignity? No fair-minded person questions my hon. Friend’s commitment to improve the lot of people with disabilities, but will she ensure that none of those people from Remploy factories who wants to earn an honest day’s pay will be left behind by her changes?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend and I have spoken about this before. I do not think that we should sell disabled people short. Many disabled people working in Remploy employment factories have excellent skills. I want to ensure that they have the support and opportunity to have the sorts of jobs that I know most disabled people want in their lives. Independent living, not segregation or inequality, is at the heart of the Government’s approach.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Does this statement not sum up this heartless Government inhabiting millionaires’ row? They are sacking hundreds and hundreds of disabled workers in areas of high unemployment. Some of them, in areas such as mine, previously made redundant by Remploy, still have not got jobs. It is time that this Government and their accomplices, these tinpot Liberals, understood that this is the most heartless thing that they have done since they came to power. It is time they went.
Mr Speaker
Order. Members can have their opinions. Let us cool it and hear the Minister’s answer. I say that to no particular individual but to the whole House. Let us hear the Minister.
Maria Miller
I suppose that I should remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) that he supported a Government who closed 28 factories. What is inexcusable is that his Government did absolutely nothing on tracking to establish how to put in place the right support for individuals affected by their decisions. The simple truth is that as a result of the Labour party’s approach, the factories have lost £225 million since 2008. That is money that we should have been using to support more disabled people into work, and that is at the heart of our proposals today.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I commend Waitrose in my constituency for its structured programme of employment opportunities for people with disabilities. I also commend my hon. Friend for taking this difficult decision to make the money go further. Will she say a little about the responses from the disability organisations about how to help more disabled people into mainstream employment?
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right: we have to make the money go further and, in these difficult economic times, ensure that the money is being used most effectively. Our consultation on the future of disability employment support received widespread—indeed, almost universal—support from disability organisations. Mind told us:
“We agree that Remploy should be radically reformed, with high quality support for everyone affected”.
Disability Rights UK said:
“We appreciate that the Sayce review has caused some concern… However, we believe segregated employment for disabled people is unacceptable.”
The simple truth is that the Labour party is out of step with the majority of the disability world. I urge it to consider more closely its response to the statement.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I hope that the Minister, as she faces me, feels a little embarrassed for completely misleading me earlier this week. I, in turn, misled people in my factory, and I hope that she apologises for that. I am afraid, once again, that this is the nasty party at work. It has never changed. It has not changed in the 28 years that I have been in the House. It is an absolute disgrace.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the Minister replies, I seek confirmation from the right hon. Lady that she was not suggesting the Minister misled her here in the Chamber.
Mr Speaker
No. We are grateful for that confirmation. The Minister will have heard the question, and she can answer.
Maria Miller
And I can say to you, Mr Speaker, that I would never want to mislead the right hon. Lady at all, here or in any other place. I would gently bring to her attention the fact that there are 37 disabled people employed in the Aberdare factory. The loss at that factory last year was £800,000, and that is against an estimated 13,600 disabled people in Cynon Valley who are of working age. Does she not believe that we should be doing more to support those individuals? The proposals in today’s statement will do just that.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for her conversations with me in recent months, as she has come to this difficult but, I believe, correct decision today? Many people at the Alder Hills site in my constituency and their families will be worried tonight, but that worry will not be allayed by the invective in the two contributions that we have just heard from the Opposition. Will the Minister say what more we might do to seek the advice of disabled people, so that as they try to access mainstream employment, we can learn from their bad experiences in the past of trying to do that?
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, and I think he is right that many vulnerable groups and individuals who are listening to this debate will be taking close note of who is trying to offer the support that is needed, and we on the Government Benches want that to be constructive support. He will be aware that we are putting in place a budget of some £8 million, half of which will be used directly for personal support budgets for individuals, both in his constituency and elsewhere—some £2,500 a head. I want that to give every individual who is affected the proper support, so that we do not have a repeat, perhaps, of some of the problems of the past to which Opposition Members have referred.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Minister has repeatedly refused to give information to Members of Parliament about the viability of individual factories. She is now giving them at the Dispatch Box—she gave them to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). That is a very deficient approach. Today, Liz Sayce said:
“I think it is really important that those factories should be given a chance to show if they can be viable”.
Will the Minister now—finally, on the day that she has announced its closure—give to me the figures about the viability of the Wrexham factory?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman will be able to have sight of the report that we have put together, which looked at the whole network to see which factories we could put into a financially sustainable position. Again, however, I would gently remind him that the Wrexham factory in his constituency supports 41 disabled individuals, at a cost of £900,000 last year, against an estimated total of 7,400 disabled people in the Rhondda who are of working age. Does he not want to do more to support—[Interruption.] My apologies, Mr Speaker: in Wrexham—the Rhondda is in the south; Wrexham is in the north.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
I have to say that once again I find myself in disagreement with my coalition colleagues on this matter. Can the Minister give an assurance that those companies that are not—[Interruption.] I have to apologise, Mr Speaker: that was a call from the Remploy factory. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be sufficient help to enable—[Interruption.]
Mr Hancock
May I seek an assurance from the Minister that those factories that are happily not up for closure at present will be given all sorts of assistance? I would also like her to give an indication, if she can this evening, of what help will be given to those Remploy operations to stay in business. Does she also accept that some people employed by Remploy—many in my constituency have been there for 10 or 15 years—will find it difficult to find other employment?
Maria Miller
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend an undertaking that we will want to work together with individuals in factories that are in wave 2 of the process, because we want to find ways for those organisations to succeed. However, he should be aware that we are indeed able to support disabled people into employment, through the employment services programme, so although he rightly says that it can be difficult for people to make that transition, it is not impossible. With the right support, people can move from segregated factories into mainstream employment.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Minister referred to the £2,500 of transitional funding for the workers, and I note that that is an average figure. If it is to make up the difference between benefits and the wages that the workers would have earned, it will last about six months. If they are still unemployed after that time, will there be further transitional assistance? If not, some of those families will plummet into poverty.
Maria Miller
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the money I am talking about will be on top of the quite significant provision that we make for redundancy in the process.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Local authorities in the former Humberside region struggled with a similar problem to that of Remploy involving B-line. In 2007, the then Labour council in North Lincolnshire decided to close B-line down. Since then, there have been far too many people with disabilities presenting to MPs and councils in the area and requiring support. What can my hon. Friend say to those people who will be affected by today’s decision? Specifically, will she assure me and the House that social enterprises will be engaged to help the individuals affected, and that there will be a guarantee that every worker affected will get the maximum support, rather than just the average sum?
Maria Miller
I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that the individuals who are affected by these announcements will receive unprecedented levels of support from the £8 million package. We want to ensure that each individual is given the kind of personalised package of support that they have not received in the past, to enable them to make the transition from segregated employment to mainstream employment. We want to do as much as we can to improve the opportunities for more disabled people to live independent lives.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
If the Minister has read the responses to the consultation, she will be aware that, following the last round of voluntary redundancies, a large number of people were still not in work 18 months later. Why does she think it is going to be different this time, when she is proposing compulsory redundancies at a time that she has acknowledged to be one of economic difficulty?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman might not have heard me say earlier that, in the last major round of redundancies, which took place under the Labour Government in 2008, no process was put in place to track the progress of individuals who were offered support. Indeed, we found that some 40% of the individuals involved took retirement or early retirement. I want to ensure that people have the right support, and that they can see that there is an opportunity to move forward. Now, more than ever, it is important that we get this right. The last Government ducked these decisions; they did not take the difficult decisions and they did nothing to ensure that disabled people could get the job opportunities that they needed.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The Minister rightly recognises the success of residential training colleges such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People college in my constituency. Will she reassure me and other Members who have such colleges in their constituencies that departmental officials will make themselves fully available to the colleges as they explore alternative ways of working and being funded?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend and I have had many conversations about the importance of the college in her constituency. The simple fact is that residential training colleges up and down the country provide important specialist support for disabled people to get into employment. I have already given a clear undertaking that we are going to provide funding for those residential training colleges through to the end of the 2012-13 academic year. Indeed, my officials are already meeting the heads of those colleges to ensure that we have a clear plan for retaining that expertise in the new funding environment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There are still a lot of Members wanting to get in. We therefore want short questions and short answers.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
No one will be surprised to hear that the workers in my local factory were devastated by today’s news. They feel particularly angry because for the past two years, the management and the work force have been working together to try to develop a social enterprise that would include not only the Remploy workers but other voluntary organisations around the city. They have gone a long way down the road to achieving that, but there is now huge uncertainty. My reading of the literature that has been produced today is that the factories are to be closed, which means that—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will say it loudly this time: we want short questions, please, not speeches. Mr Doran, a question—now!
Maria Miller
We are going into a 90-day consultation on phase 1 factories. If individuals want to come forward because they feel that there are opportunities to reduce the level of redundancies, Remploy would obviously be pleased to look at them.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
What conversations is my hon. Friend having with employers about increasing employment opportunities for disabled people?
Maria Miller
I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that we have had extensive conversations with the Employers Forum on Disabilities, which is going to work closely with us on the employment support package that we are putting together for the individuals affected, particularly making sure that, through its first shot scheme, disabled people can get those interviews and get in front of employers, which can be so important in securing jobs.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Nobody would deny that mainstream employment is important for people with disabilities, but some people who are employed in Remploy factories are there because they cannot secure mainstream employment. Will the Minister give the House a commitment today that at the end of the 18-month period, she will produce a report showing the individual destinations of people in employment and, if she proceeds with this closure programme, what percentage of them have jobs?
Maria Miller
Again, the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that unlike the previous Government, we will track the destinations of the people affected today. I do not doubt his very real and important concern, but disabled people really have the capability of working in mainstream employment, and I think it is our responsibility to make sure that we give them the skills and support to be able to do that.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Given that many of these employees will enjoy a lot of camaraderie and community, as well as jobs, will my hon. Friend confirm that the mentoring and support offered will be beyond what is currently offered to them? Will she also confirm that local charities and local organisations will work closely with these employees so that they can be involved in the community?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the community aspect of Remploy is important. It is something that all who are involved with Remploy understand. That is why I have allocated £1.5 million to a community budget to make sure that the broader benefits of Remploy are taken into account so that that support is there not just for employees, but for their families and the broader community, too.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Is it not shameful that the workers in the Remploy factory in Wishaw did not even know that they were losing their jobs until I phoned the factory this afternoon? In Motherwell and Wishaw, there are 21 people going for every single job application, so what will happen to those Remploy people who do not get a job in the next 18 months?
Maria Miller
Communication is vital. The hon. Gentleman has to understand that this is part of a 12-month process. We have been in consultation, and 1,400 people contributed to it. It is well known that we have been in this process. Today, Remploy management took a great deal of time to make sure that that communication process continued. I challenge him to look at some of the facts and figures for his own region—to look, for example, at the number of disabled people who are getting into employment. That is something that we believe should be available for Remploy employees as well.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Everyone in the House will empathise with the people who are at risk of losing their jobs tonight; there is no question about that. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the support these people will receive will help a greater number of people to get into jobs and that the money will be used effectively? Does she share my surprise that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who just five hours ago expressed his concern that the Minister should be here tonight, is not here tonight?
Maria Miller
Obviously, it is important for Members to take part in this debate. I can reassure my hon. Friend that as a result of the proposals that we have announced today, some 8,000 more disabled people will be helped into employment. This is not just about the £320 million that the Government have already announced that they have protected to support this important group of people; it is about an extra £15 million on top of that, and I think that our actions speak very loudly.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I think that the 54 disabled people who are losing the jobs at Remploy in Chesterfield will see through the Minister’s warm words and rhetoric. The fact is that more disabled people than able-bodied people are unemployed generally: it is a desperately difficult jobs market out there anyway. The Minister has already dodged this question twice. Will she commit herself to coming back to the House in six months and telling us where those who have lost their jobs at Remploy have gone, so that we can establish whether her warm words mean anything to the 54 people in my constituency who are losing their jobs?
Maria Miller
I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s genuine concern for his constituents, but I do not think that I have dodged that question. I have made it clear that we will monitor the progress made by disabled people, and I am always happy to come to the House and talk about the progress that the Government are making.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
When the Ystradgynlais Remploy factory in my constituency was closed under the last Labour Government, a number of my constituents transferred to Baglan, which I think today’s written statement refers to as Neath. It is included in the stage 2 list as being potentially viable. Will the Minister ensure that the Remploy board is given all the encouragement and resources that are needed to ensure that that viability continues?
Maria Miller
We certainly want to help the Neath factory to realise what is clearly its potential. I hope that we can work with my hon. Friend as well, and that his support will ensure that the factory is the success that he feels that it can be in the future.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell us what criteria will be used to determine whether factories on the stage 2 list, such as the one in my constituency, will remain open, and against what time scale they will be judged? Will she come back to the House at the end of that time and tell us how many of them will remain open?
Maria Miller
The stage 2 factories are factories that we believe, on the basis of independent reports, have the opportunity and potential to be financially viable. What we need now is an opportunity to talk to people who may be interested in taking them over. We are committed to what is in recommended in Liz Sayce’s report, which is the freeing of these factories from Government control, and we need to ensure that we have the right support and plans to be able to do that.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that as a result of this tough and difficult decision it will be possible to help thousands more disabled people who do not currently live near a Remploy factory, such as those in my constituency?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend speaks for the 7 million disabled people of working age in this country who do not have the opportunity to work at Remploy. We must use the £320 million of protected money, and the extra £15 million that is going into Access to Work, to ensure that many more of those individuals who are unable to be employed at the moment have the opportunity to be employed, and to lead independent lives as a result.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am particularly disappointed by the timing of today’s announcement. It stretches credulity that at a time of rising unemployment and fierce competition for every single job, the Government are planning to take supported jobs away from people who are already very disadvantaged in the labour market. What net financial savings does the Minister expect to arise from this policy? Once the redundancy bill, the benefits bill and the personalised support have been delivered, will creating all this uncertainty actually save any money?
Maria Miller
This is not a savings measure. I know that the hon. Lady is very concerned about this matter on behalf of those of her constituents who work in Remploy factories, but I assure her that we are trying to ensure that the money is used more effectively, so more of her constituents can get the support they need. It simply cannot be right for us to continue to let the factories lose £68 million a year—and cumulatively more than £200 million over the modernisation plan period—when we could be using that money more effectively to support more disabled people into employment.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I am concerned about the way this difficult decision will be reported. Will she make it clear that the decision has not been taken in order to cut public expenditure, and that instead more money will be going towards enabling disabled people to live and work independently, free of prejudice, with support, so they can do what they want to do in their lives?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I put the following simple fact to the House: as a result of what we are announcing today, 8,000 more disabled people throughout the country will have the opportunity to move into work, compared with 1,500 people who work in Remploy factories and who will be affected. In these difficult economic times, we have to take tough decisions, but this is a decision that is about much more than that; it is about the sort of country we are—a country that wants to have disabled people included at the heart of our communities instead of in segregated factories.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I would agree with the Minister’s logic if we were in a period of full employment across the country or in regions such as the north-east of England, but the north-east is bearing 10% of the total cuts announced today. Sadly, I am convinced that very few, if any, of the people affected in my constituency and in the north-east in general will find other employment easily. What support will be given to the people of the north-east, so that they can get another job in the north-east?
Maria Miller
I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s sincerity, but he needs to look at the facts. Some 20,000 disabled people were helped into employment last year, and that was achieved not in easy economic times, but in the difficult economic times we inherited from Labour. We made sure that 20,000 disabled people were able to get into employment. I can reassure him that throughout the country we are very effectively getting disabled people into employment, and that the £8 million we have put aside for employment support will help ensure that his constituents get the sort of support that I know he would want them to get.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
The acoustics in the Chamber are slightly awkward tonight, so I did not quite hear the Minister’s answer about how many Remploy factories were closed by the last Labour Government. I would therefore appreciate it if she would repeat it. We in the Public Accounts Committee found out today that 442,700 people started apprenticeships in the last year. Can she assure us that there is cross-departmental working to ensure that such opportunities are available to all people?
Maria Miller
I am very happy to be able to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I apologise if Members did not catch the answer to which he refers: under the previous Administration, 68 factories closed—[Interruption.] I apologise; 28 factories closed under the previous Administration. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. If the House were a little quieter, we would all be able to hear exactly what is being said. May I also ask the Minister to give briefer answers and, once again, ask Members to ask a single, brief question?
Maria Miller
Twenty-eight factories were closed under the previous Administration, and some 1,600 people were affected.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
My constituents who work at Remploy in Wishaw in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) have been coming to me for the last year to express their fear that what has been announced this evening would happen. After having been sacked so unceremoniously today, without an earlier statement or even a phone call, I do not think they will agree with the Minister that they have been set free. If she has made this announcement from the goodness of her heart and to encourage more disabled people into mainstream employment, why is she not ensuring that each Remploy employee has a new job before she lays them off?
Maria Miller
There was a statement earlier and I just want to make sure that the hon. Lady is clear that what Remploy announced today is that it will be consulting on the future of the people who will be affected by the announcements. She used the word “sacked”, but that is not correct. I can absolutely assure her that the support that will be in place will be the support she would expect to be there for her constituents to make sure that every one of them has the support to enable them to get back into employment.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Having anticipated this event I took the opportunity to discuss with the Remploy factory in Burnley the future of the site. Will the Minister confirm what will happen to the assets of that site? Will she be prepared to hand them over to the work force so that they can start up their own business? They tell me that without the present astronomical overhead costs from central control and Government interference, they will be very successful, but they need assurances that they can take it on as an individual business. Will they be able to take on the company’s assets?
Maria Miller
I assure my hon. Friend that I would very much like to work with him on that and look at the proposal he mentions. We have spoken at length about this and I am sure that, working with officials, we can make sure that the details are available to anyone who has a firm proposal to put forward.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to the Chamber this evening, but hon. Members will note that a Labour Minister in the Welsh Assembly saw fit to answer questions on this, with an oral statement, seven hours ago. In it he said:
“I regret that repeated requests by Welsh ministers for a constructive dialogue on Remploy factories in Wales have not been taken up by the UK Government.”
Will the Minister accede to the immediate request of the Welsh Assembly Government for discussions about the Remploy assets so that they can work with unions, social enterprises and others to make sure that we have viable ongoing businesses in all those premises?
Maria Miller
Officials have already met officials in the Wales Office and I am meeting with Ministers next week.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Leeds Remploy office placed 307 people in work last year—a record to be applauded. I also applaud these efforts to end workplace segregation. Will my hon. Friend focus on monitoring the personalised support schemes to ensure that more people are helped into work in future and are not left behind as has happened in the past?
Maria Miller
I can absolutely give that undertaking to my hon. Friend. Again, I note that 8,000 more disabled people will be able to be supported into work as a result of today’s announcements.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
What will be the total cost of shutting down these Remploy factories, including the costs of redundancy and settling with suppliers?
Maria Miller
This is a protected budget and we will make sure that the costs involved will be covered within the budgets that are available and that as a result of the measures we are taking today more disabled people will be helped into employment over this spending review period. Any costs associated with the changes we have announced today will be included within existing plans.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend take every opportunity, particularly tonight and tomorrow, to stress in the media that the funding will go to the disabled individual rather than to the institution, so that the voices we hear on this are not just those of the unions?
Maria Miller
Many people listening to the debate will be somewhat surprised that in this day and age we still have this approach to supporting disabled people in this country. I know there is union involvement in the factories and perhaps that had some bearing on the problems that the previous Administration had in taking tough decisions on this issue. I assure my hon. Friend that we will take the right decisions for disabled people because we are listening to their aspirations for the future, not the unions.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier, the Minister indicated that stage 2 factories such as the one in Clydebank in my constituency can expect no more support than stage 1 factories in finding a way forward to a sustainable future. Will she reconsider that position and put a taskforce into each of the stage 2 factories at least?
Maria Miller
The important point I made earlier to the hon. Lady about her factory is that we believe that the phase 2 factories have the opportunity to become viable and we shall be looking at ways to make that happen. I hope that, perhaps working with her, we can identify somebody who is able to take on that challenge at local level.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Today’s announcement is a crushing blow to the staff at Wythenshawe Remploy, who have battled against closure for four and a half years. They have made the factory more efficient and have boosted sales, yet their reward is that they are classed as a stage 1 factory, which means that it will close. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that if in the 90-day consultation period a credible proposal is made to keep that factory open—perhaps as a social enterprise—it will be given sympathetic consideration and adequate support?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The heartless, callous decision announced today casts hundreds of hard-working disabled people on to the scrap heap, probably for a lifetime. The Minister continues to state that they will get jobs elsewhere, but in my constituency, 55.5 people are after every jobcentre vacancy. Can the Minister tell me where they will get employment?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman really should have been listening to what I was talking about. Under the Labour Administration, 28 factories were closed in very difficult circumstances. What we are doing differently is making sure that the proper support is put in place, which it probably was not in the case of factories closed under Labour. We want to make sure that disabled people who are affected by the plans today have that support, and I hope I can call on the hon. Gentleman’s support to make sure that his constituents are aware of it.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
In 2007, the Conservatives said they would do all they could to support Remploy when they were in government. Does the Minister agree that the shambolic and shameful way the statement has been made today epitomises the Government’s cavalier and out-of-touch attitude to vulnerable people, and represents a broken promise to the dozens of disabled people in Edinburgh who are losing their jobs tonight?
Maria Miller
I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman needs to listen to what I am saying here. What we have done as a Government is to follow the Labour modernisation plan. We have followed it for the last two years and continued to make sure that in these tough economic times £555 million continued to be available. What we are not doing is wasting money; we are making sure that the money we have is going further.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I notice that the excellent Coventry plant is down for reconsideration. I also notice that the Minister certainly has not consulted me, or any of the other Coventry MPs. Can we have an undertaking that she will consult the Coventry MPs? More important, to help her with her reconsideration we are prepared to give her a tour of that very successful factory, which does work for Jaguar Land Rover and other automobile industries. Is the Minister planning to privatise that plant?
Maria Miller
I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I think I have visited the factory in Coventry. We had a consultation on the process, with many contributions from hon. Members, but obviously I shall be happy to meet Coventry Members at any point in time.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
I have visited the Remploy plant in my constituency so often that I am practically on first-name terms with most of the work force. They are fantastic—a mix of able-bodied and disabled people—and I cannot help but fear that they would be offended by the continuous references to a segregated workplace. Thankfully, Dundee is not earmarked for closure, but what assurances can the Minister give the work force in Dundee that they have a future there?
Maria Miller
The assurance I can give the hon. Gentleman and the work force in Dundee is that whether their factory is phase 1 or phase 2, they will get the support they need, either to work in mainstream employment through our £8 million support fund, or to look for alternative viable ways of taking the factory forward outside Government control. The hon. Gentleman will share with me the desire to make sure that more of his disabled constituents can get work, which is why I hope he can support our plans today.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I must say I am amazed that I am standing here in the 21st century discussing state-subsidised segregated jobs. Can the Minister confirm that the Government spend more than £60 million a year and that the operating loss on the factories was £68.3 million last year? Disabled people in my Bracknell constituency would welcome funding from the Government to support them to get into profitable jobs in the future, because they do not have the opportunity to be employed in a state-subsidised factory.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right. The cumulative figure for the factory losses is well in excess of £200 million. That is important money, which could have been used more effectively to support more disabled people throughout the country into work.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Will the Minister apologise to the deaf employees at the Springburn Remploy factory in my constituency, who were denied the dignity of a signer to tell them this afternoon that their jobs were gone? Does the Minister accept that with just 45% of disabled people employed—some 30% less than the non-disabled population—with a flatlining economy, with 20 people in my constituency chasing every job that is available, the question is: where will the jobs come from?
Maria Miller
I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises about the Springburn factory. I would absolutely apologise to factory workers if there was not a signer available. I will look into that in detail. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the number of disabled people in his constituency who have been supported into mainstream employment through our employment services programmes and many others. We know that disabled people want to be able to live independent lives, and through the changes that we are talking about today we can support many, many more to do that.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Croespenmaen in my constituency has worked hard to make its business a success. It has shown faith in Remploy. It is a pity that the Government could not show the same faith in it. Today’s announcement is nothing short of a kick in the teeth. Does the Minister believe that 90 days is long enough for these people to plan their future or try to save their factory?
Maria Miller
I know the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this. We are absolutely showing faith in disabled people in what we are doing today. The plans and proposals that we have put forward have the full endorsement and backing of many disabled people throughout the country, and the work that has been done by Liz Sayce is an important contribution to the way we can help improve the lives of disabled people in Britain today.
Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)
Bearing in mind the Minister’s statement in respect of residential training colleges, she is aware of Portland training college, whose patron is Her Majesty the Queen in this, the diamond jubilee year. Will the Minister accept an invitation to visit that college to meet directors, staff and, of course, students to talk about their future?
Maria Miller
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard in my comments earlier, I understand the value of residential training colleges and I will be delighted to accept his invitation.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell the House when she envisages that the factories will start closing? I know that there will be a great deal of distress about this in north-east Wales. We do not see it as a state-subsidised industry. We see it as to do with disabled people in a very challenging economic situation.
Maria Miller
I understand the hon. Lady’s commitment to supporting disabled people in her constituency. There is a 90-day consultation period, so that will be completed and then we will talk to disabled employees about their futures. I hope we can continue to keep her up to date on that progress.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Minister gave a shambolic reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), in much the same way as she addressed Remploy workers and the House. What are the redundancy costs calculated to be, and what is the impact on businesses which are customers or suppliers?
Maria Miller
It is very difficult to give facts and figures when we are in consultation. That will depend on the outcome of the consultation. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be able to be furnished with those figures when the consultation is complete.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Leaving aside the utterly shabby way in which the Minister tried to sneak out the announcement today—[Interruption.] Utterly shabby. Does she not realise that one of the reasons that there are Remploy factories in places such as the Rhondda and in Cynon Valley is that we already have some of the highest levels of unemployment and the highest levels of disability? Will she guarantee that not a single person in the Aberdare factory or in Porth will be forced into redundancy?
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and hope that he received my letter, which clarified that I enjoyed my discussions with the Porth factory and very much understand his support for them. I gently remind him that the factory supports 74 disabled people. He needs to ensure that he is also thinking about the 12,400 disabled people in his constituency—[Interruption.] The Porth factory lost around £200,000 last year. We believe that we need to challenge ourselves on how we can use that money more effectively. Last year in Wales employment service—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr Bryant, you asked a question. Please listen to the answer and stop shouting across the Chamber at the Minister.
Maria Miller
I was simply going to point out that 2,000 disabled people got very good jobs in Wales last year. The hon. Gentleman really needs to focus on the fact that there are employment opportunities there, but we need to ensure that his constituents and those of other hon. Members have the skills and support to be able to take those jobs up.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I ask Members to leave the Chamber quietly and save their congratulations for outside, Mr Lloyd, so that we can proceed.
Business without Debate
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union Documents
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the House (12 March)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (13 MARCH)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Petitions
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The village of Torphichen has one shop, and in that shop there was a sub-post office. Sadly, because of family circumstances, the previous owner closed the shop and returned the licence for the sub-post office to the Post Office. The Post Office has stuck a notice on the window of the shop but consulted absolutely no one. The shop has been bought—thank goodness—but unfortunately it appears that the Post Office is not prepared to put back the sub-post office that was previously part of the network.
The petition, signed by 340 residents, states:
The Petition of residents of Torphichen, West Lothian,
Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about the provision of Post Office services in Torphichen, following the closure of the Post Office when the previous sub-postmaster gave up the lease on the premises; declares that the Post Office had said that the closure would be temporary; that no consultation has been carried out on any proposal to close the Post Office permanently; and declares that the Petitioners believe that a reduced service is not justifiable or acceptable.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the Torphichen Post Office is reopened.
And your Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001011]
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
To the House of Commons, this petition of residents of the United Kingdom, collected in Marton, Coulby Newham, Guisborough, Saltburn and Redcar over a period of one week, amounts to more than 700 names.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the Health and Social Care Bill.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the Health and Social Care Bill.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001012]
Historical Enquiries Team
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Speaker for allowing me to highlight two cases in which the Historical Enquiries Team has been involved: specifically, the deaths of Kenneth Smyth and Hugh Lexie Cummings.
Policing and justice were devolved in April 2010. After that, on 3 November 2010, the Secretary of State felt able to stand up and not only take part in a debate about Bloody Sunday, but take on the burden of apologising, along with the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government. On Wednesday 30 November 2011, I asked the Secretary of State a question directly relating to the HET:
“The HET investigated the murder of my cousin, Kenneth Smyth, on 10 December 1971—those on the street knew who committed the murder—and Lexie Cummings was murdered on 15 June 1982. HET investigations into both cases concluded that no action should be taken. The concern is that the investigations might not have been thorough, so does the Secretary of State accept that confidence needs to be instilled in the Unionist community and that the HET therefore has considerable work to do?”
The Secretary of State replied:
“I am grateful for that question. I do not entirely agree. The HET is impartial, and the latest polling commissioned on the reaction of the families is extraordinarily high: 90.5% said they were very satisfied or satisfied with the performance of the HET.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 919.]
I am here to represent those families who suggest that some investigations into events during the troubles have not been concluded satisfactorily.
Why is the Bloody Sunday case any different from the one under discussion? I could cynically suggest the difference by asking, has not enough money been spent on the investigations to warrant the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Surely the reason could not be that the families of those men, who faithfully served Queen and country in awful times, are not worth as much. Just because those men wore the uniform of the British Army, does that make them expendable or cannon fodder? I trust that that is not the case, but I shall be very disappointed if I find out that it is.
I thank each and every Member who has stayed behind to hear what the families of those men have asked me to say in this House, respecting and honouring them for the sacrifice that they made for the people of Northern Ireland and for the whole UK. The presence of every hon. Member has been noted and is appreciated.
Kenneth Smyth was my cousin. I remember him well. I looked up to him as an expert shot who introduced me to shooting at a young age, as a six or seven-year-old, and represented the B-Specials of the Ulster Defence Regiment in shooting at Bisley. I have a photograph of him being presented with a prize and a medal by Bill Craig, the Home Affairs Minister from way back in the old Northern Ireland Parliament.
Kenneth used to send me pigeons through the post the whole way from Strabane to Ballywalter—it gave a whole new meaning to pigeon post, so it did. If the birds arrived within a couple of days they were still okay to eat, but if they arrived a wee bit later they were not, I am afraid, quite as edible—but that is by the way.
I have Kenneth’s UDR beret, and my first son is named after him. I admired him when he took part in shooting competitions for the UDR, and perhaps as a young boy I wanted to be like him. I can well remember the day that his life was taken away.
Kenneth’s sister Shelley described him in an interview for a book entitled, “If Stone Could Speak”, and I shall use it in my illustration of him:
“Kenneth Smyth loved hunting or anything to do with the outdoors and, as often as possible, spent his time in the fields and countryside around his native Castlederg in County Tyrone. He was the eldest of four children and described as very talented while at school and with a great ability at hand crafts especially anything to do with wood.”
He was a joiner by trade. The book continues:
“Being a lot younger than Kenneth, his sister Shelley does not remember much about his earlier years, but she does remember him as being very quiet natured and a person who enjoyed fun. In later years Kenneth went to stay at his grandparents house and kept his gundogs there so that he could go hunting more easily in the nearby countryside. Because of the constant terror campaigns being waged in Northern Ireland, security was always of paramount importance and, to supplement the regular police service, the Special Constabulary or B Men were formed. Kenneth was a member of this force and he carried out regular security duties around the frontiers of Northern Ireland and guarded specific installations against attack.
He was still a member when he decided that he would like to go to Canada and join the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and went over there to follow his ambition. It was partially the police and partially the wide open spaces which attracted him, but he only stayed a month as his grandparents pleaded with him to come home as they missed him so much. Around the time he came home, the B Men had been disbanded and was to be replaced by the Ulster Defence Regiment, so he decided to join up.”
Kenneth became a sergeant in the UDR. The book continues:
“As with other members of the security forces, Kenneth was well aware of the risks and took precautions to ensure his safety as much as he possibly could. While he was at home, he placed his car in the garage and closed and locked the garage door. On the nights that he went out either socially or on business he left the garage door open so that he could drive inside in safety and not provide himself as a target by getting out of his car to open it.
One particular night he was out and, for some unknown reason, he closed the garage door and obviously someone who was watching”
not too far away
“must have assumed he was at home. A group of masked and armed men attacked the house and forced their way inside. His grandfather”—
my grandfather—
“was talking on the telephone and this was pulled from the wall by one of the raiders. They made their way straight to Kenneth’s bedroom, but, on seeing it empty, left the house again and ran off into the darkness. After this Kenneth received numerous death threats including one in a note form that was left on the windscreen of his vehicle when it was parked it in the nearby town of Strabane”
in County Tyrone.
“He took the threats seriously enough to take proper precautions and, for months prior to his death, he slept in a different house every night so that he would not have a known routine.”
At that time, there was a petrol bomb attack on his grandparents’ house and they had to grid their windows.
“In September 1971, Kenneth got married and went to live back at his family home in Castlederg, where he and his new wife took over the top flat in a house. Friday 10 December 1971 was a day which seemed no different to any other, as the family carried on their normal routine. Kenneth had his own successful construction business and that morning, he had collected one of his workmen to take him to the job they were working on. They were travelling along Lisdoo Road near Clady, outside Strabane, when they had to stop because of a rope that had been tied across the road. Kenneth stopped the car”—
a Jeep—
“to reverse away from it, but a number of gunmen began shooting at the vehicle. Kenneth’s passenger, Daniel McCormick, a Catholic, who was also an ex member of the UDR, was shot and killed” ,
leaving a wife and four children, one of whom was disabled,
“with Kenneth being seriously wounded. Kenneth managed to get out of the vehicle, but fell on to the ground. While he lay there, he was shot again at close range and died from the injury. Kenneth’s body was taken to his church”—
a Church of Ireland church outside Strabane—
“and was given a fulltime guard until the funeral on the Sunday as there were fears that the body would be stolen. He was then buried with full military honours. He was the 5th UDR soldier to be murdered.”
The HET’s summary of intelligence said that there were no recorded threats, yet there were plenty that we were aware of: the gunmen calling at Kenneth’s home, the arson attack on his grandparents’ bungalow, and numerous letters and phone calls to him. The family therefore strongly disagrees with the HET. The HET has also said that one man who was questioned admitted to being there that day and to having shot at the Land Rover. He was tried in the Republic of Ireland, convicted of offences in relation to terrorism and sentenced to a term of imprisonment from 1974 to 1978, when he was released. He continued to live in the Republic until his death in 1995. The obvious question is this: why was he never prosecuted? Why was he never brought across the border to answer for his crimes? Why was he never extradited? The explanation that the HET provided—that it was possibly a matter of papers being lost or overlooked—is not a satisfactory conclusion or an answer for the family, who are still grieving.
The man named an accomplice who carried out the murder, and despite that man being arrested in London for terrorist offences, he was never charged for the murder of Kenneth Smyth. When asked why not, the HET said that the man denied it and the evidence was not good enough to take the case further. Does that provide closure for the family? No, it does not—far from it, especially when it is clear that most of the people in the area knew who had carried out the attack and were powerless to do anything. Has the HET investigation revealed any further evidence? No, it has not.
At this stage, I will say that I am very aware of the funding limitations of the HET and the fact that there is only so much that it can do. My problem is that the closure that it was designed to bring to families, along with the hope of prosecution, has not come close to being fulfilled in Kenneth’s case. Does the Minister feel that the fact that the HET was given a budget of some £38 million to investigate 3,268 incidents, whereas it cost the Bloody Sunday public inquiry £191 million to investigate the events surrounding the deaths of 13 men, reflects the differences between the two cases?
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that our profound sympathies are with him in the memory of Kenneth Smyth. There is a great deal of concern across the House about the time frame in which the HET—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman turn around so that we can all hear him?
Stephen Pound
I apologise profoundly, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a great deal of concern throughout the House about the time frame in which the HET conducts its inquiries. The Northern Ireland Assembly has requested that the Secretary of State hold multi-party talks on this subject. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that that seems to be a positive way forward, in accordance with the expressed formal wish of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The talks are about the past. I am talking about specific incidents and cases involving the HET. I feel that these questions have to be answered. However, I accept his point.
If the HET had had the appropriate funding from central Government at the time of its investigations, when it was under the direct control of the Secretary of State, would the outcomes have been more extensive and brought satisfaction to the family?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We appreciate the deep sensitivity of the issues of which he speaks. I speak as the one party leader who lobbied for and supported the creation of the HET. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who was the Secretary of State at the time, can vouch for the fact that only one party lobbied for the HET and supported the Chief Constable of the time in so doing. Perhaps if more of us had recognised what was involved, we would have secured better resources and, more important, a stronger mandate for the HET. The limitations on the HET’s mandate are part of the problem, as this important case demonstrates.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with him wholeheartedly that if there had been better funding, the investigations might have come to more successful conclusions.
The second case I mentioned at the start of my speech is that of Hugh Cummings, known as Lexie. Twenty-nine years ago on 15 June 1982, one of life’s true gentlemen was killed when Lexie Cummings, aged 39, from Artigarvan outside Strabane in County Tyrone and a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, was shot by the IRA at close range in the back and the chest as he got into his car in the centre of Strabane, during his lunch break from the menswear shop where he had worked for 25 years:
“Lexie was well known and held in high regard by everyone in his community. The small village of Artigarvan came to a standstill for his funeral, where the Presbyterian minister told mourners:
‘In the face of tremendous provocation you have remained a totally loyal and law-abiding community. You have watched helplessly the very flower of manhood being systematically murdered. Your anger and frustration runs very, very deep. Yet there has been no retaliation and there will be no retaliation because your faith is built on the solid rock of the righteousness of God’”.
The family refused to accept a letter of sympathy from the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, James Prior, which was delivered to them on the day of the funeral. They sent the letter back with the message that
“the hands of the security forces should be freed”.
A spokesman for the family said at the time:
“Nothing is being done, feelings are running very high on this issue. Innocent, defenceless people are being mown down and no action is being taken against the godfathers who are walking the streets. They are getting away with murder”.
When the HET investigated the death of Lexie Cummings, it found a different story. It found that a thorough investigation was carried out by the RUC at the time, which found cartridge discharge residue—gunpowder residue—on the suspect. It found fibres from the suspect’s trousers on the seat of the car, which was left abandoned at the scene of the crime. The two guns that were used were found by the Garda Siochana the next month and tests confirmed that that was the case.
It was an open-and-shut case, and yet questions must be answered. Why did William Gerard McMonagle not stand trial for the murder of Lexie Cummings? How was it that William Gerard McMonagle was allowed to travel across the border to safety and freedom, and to begin a new life, which has led to him being the mayor of Letterkenny today? Why was he never extradited, when it was known where he was? Why was there no co-operation between the Garda Siochana and the RUC to bring McMonagle to justice?
The HET did not have access to the answers or criteria that the Director of Public Prosecutions used to issue his decision, which stated that in 1986 there was not a
“suitable case to make a request to the authorities in the Republic of Ireland for the return of Mr McMonagle”.
Why was that? Was the HET prevented from finding out the answers and the truth?
How did the DPP reach his decision of 2003? It was that
“having reviewed the evidence and information now available and obtained the opinion of counsel, I have concluded that there is no longer a reasonable prospect of convicting William Gerard McMonagle of any criminal Offence. I therefore rescind the direction of 13 December 1982 and direct no prosecution of William Gerard McMonagle”.
What was the evidence, and why were the family not made aware of it? Can the Minister tell us what answer we should give the family about the criteria by which the decision was reached? The HET cannot provide the answer—who can? Can he? Why was McMonagle no longer classified as on the run even though the HET confirmed that he was never granted an amnesty?
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Minister of State may reply by saying that some of the very important points that my hon. Friend is making are about devolved matters. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that we have difficulty in explaining to our constituents why, on the one hand, these matters are all devolved and there is a limited sum of money to investigate hundreds of killings, yet on the other hand the Minister and his colleagues stand in this House and announce expensive and long inquiries, albeit not open-ended judicial inquiries, into other cases?
Jim Shannon
My right hon. Friend puts my case coherently, and I thank him for that.
There are too many questions that the HET cannot answer, due to its scope and resources, but to which the family of Lexie Cummings deserve an answer. They turn on the news and see the mayor of Letterkenny, Gerry McMonagle, who ran from justice in Northern Ireland after having been proven to have been at the scene with gunpowder residue on him, embracing his freedom and his position in life. The family visit the grave of a true gentleman, Lexie Cummings, with questions in their minds and grief in their hearts. Who can answer their questions and give them closure? Questions must be answered, because the family cannot forget that Lexie Cummings was a good man and worthy of justice. They know that for a reason unknown to them, someone has seen fit to give an unrepentant republican murderer the opportunity to parade around, with no fear of justice, in his mayoral robes. That is cruelty in the extreme, and I am here today to ask for parity in the help provided to that family and others so that they can have closure, as my right hon. Friend clearly said.
Those who had committed crimes during the troubles were asked to come forward before the Good Friday agreement. Those who did not admit their crimes but remained at large cannot be given the same amnesty, nor do they deserve their freedom. All the men and women who were murdered in the troubles by paramilitaries—in uniform or out of uniform—demand our respect, which I know we give them. I feel that the Northern Ireland Office is not giving their families the right support, and I know that a great deal of Unionists feel that, in the Government’s eyes, their pain is a second-class pain. The lack of Government representation tells me that that view may be justified, as we in the Unionist community feel. The washing of hands did not make Pontius Pilate clean, and it will not make others of that ilk clean in this case.
There is a social media page on Facebook called “Castlederg Forgotten Friends”. Part of the reason for its being set up was that Castlederg, which is one and a half miles from the border, had 26 unsolved murders—26 families with unanswered questions. For two of those families, I have made their case and their point tonight. They need help. The site clearly lists those who were murdered, and under each post it says, “Lest we forget”. Let that be the cry from this House tonight, and I hope from the Minister. We will remember them, and we will support their families and help them grieve their loss in whatever way we can.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate and thank the other Members who have participated in it.
There has been no washing of hands, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. However, as hon. Members know, following the devolution of policing and justice in April 2010, matters relating to the Historical Enquiries Team are the responsibility of the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, particularly the Minister of Justice, to whom I spoke yesterday. You will therefore understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am unable to comment in detail on HET operational matters, which are for the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Let us remind ourselves of the history of the HET. It was set up in September 2005 to investigate some 3,259 unsolved deaths relating to the troubles from 1968 to the Belfast agreement in 1998. I would like to put on record the Government’s strong support for the HET and its work with the families of those killed.
The HET provides a valuable role in bringing resolution to and addressing any concerns that may remain for the families of victims of the troubles. That is supported by the findings of a recent survey, which showed that 90% of family members—across all community groups—indicated that they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the HET. That is an extraordinarily high figure, and the HET is to be commended for achieving such high satisfaction rates.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned funding. Let me comment briefly on the current situation. The HET is midway through its seventh year of work, and it is worth noting that its spend to date is around £34 million. Let us compare that with the combined total cost of £300 million for recent inquiries. Bloody Sunday—I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the Saville inquiry was set up under the previous Government—cost £192 million; the Hamill inquiry cost £32 million; the Nelson inquiry cost £46 million; and the Wright inquiry cost £30 million. The good value for money that the HET provides is clear, as opposed to open-ended and costly inquiries, of which, as the Secretary of State has made clear time and again, there will be no more.
To date, I understand that the HET has already investigated, or is in the process of investigating, 2,423 deaths, which are dealt with in a chronological order. Of those, the HET can currently say that 1,375 were caused by republicans; 724 were caused by loyalists; 265 were caused by security forces; and 59 were caused by “unknown”. I understand that the HET has also referred 26 cases to the PSNI for further investigation.
All those cases are the subject of ongoing live investigations, and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment further. However, I note the valuable role that the PSNI and the HET play in helping bereaved families find justice.
We remain strong supporters of the HET. Both my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have on many occasions highlighted their support for the work of the HET.
Not every investigation will result in closure for the family and friends. I am aware of how strongly the hon. Gentleman understandably feels about the brutal murder of his cousin, Kenneth Smyth, in December 1971, and Lexie Cummings in June 1982. Both were members of the UDR, which suffered so badly during the troubles.
However, for many families, the HET’s reports bring comfort and some understanding of the circumstances of the death of a loved one. I commend its work to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fire Service (Metropolitan Areas)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to open the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Williams.
May I first thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for all the work he has done on the funding cuts in metropolitan authorities? Those who have been following the issue know the sheer amount of work he has done to build cross-party consensus. That includes organising meetings, especially with the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who has responsibility for the fire services. I also thank those right hon. and hon. Members who are attending the debate, as well as those who could not attend, but who have been campaigning on this issue.
I want to pay special tribute to Steve Morris, who was part of the green watch at Bolton central fire station. He was part of a nine-man crew that was called to attend a fire at a house in my constituency. The narrowness of a nearby alleyway meant that the fire brigade vehicle could not get near the house, and the hose was not long enough to get into it. Steve and three other brave firefighters therefore ran towards the house, taking a massive risk. Steve said that
“when inside searching for occupants there was a flash and I realised that my uniform was on fire. I was like a human torch. The skin on my face felt like it was melting and my gloves had shrunk on to my hands.”
Steve was unconscious in hospital for seven weeks. After he woke up, he stayed in hospital for a further eight months and had numerous operations. He suffered burns to 52% of his body and had to have all his fingers amputated. He also broke an elbow and damaged his spine, and he had to learn to walk again. I know the family he tried to rescue—Mrs Begum, aged 71, and her granddaughter Alana, aged four, who was visiting from Australia. Mr Morris is now married to his long-term partner, Pauline, and he is still contributing greatly to the community.
Today’s debate is about recognising the special work of firefighters and the daily risk that they take on our behalf. I hope we can continue to build the spirit of cross-party consensus on this issue—for them and for ourselves. I am sure the Minister, too, is concerned about the safety of our citizens.
The background to the debate is the settlement for the six metropolitan fire authorities—I will refer to them hereafter as the mets—which have been adversely affected by the funding proposals. In purely alphabetical order, they are: Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and West Yorkshire.
The six mets serve 11 million people, and that does not include the transient population. The mets provide more than 50% of professional full-time firefighters. In the event of a major national disaster, the mets would be expected to provide half our national resilience capacity, as they have in the past.
If the cuts proceed in the present format, services will be unsustainable, leaving the UK more vulnerable. The risk and the economic effect of disasters would be significantly greater in the met areas. The Trafford centre in Greater Manchester is the largest industrial estate in Europe, and two of the biggest football clubs in the world are in the same area.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining today’s debate which, as Members can see, has generated huge interest. Does she share my concerns about the resilience of the fire service? Last year, we had the disturbances in Greater Manchester—in Salford and Manchester—and there was also the possibility of national incidents. Does she feel that the unfairness of the settlement could result in a reduction of our resilience and our ability to tackle such challenges?
Yasmin Qureshi
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Greater Manchester also faces the threat of possible terrorist attacks.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the Trafford centre and the football and cricket grounds in my constituency, and we should add Trafford Park industrial estate. We therefore have a number of high-profile, high-risk sites, and it is important that they are protected and resourced. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that if we can deploy resources only to those high-risk, high-profile sites, there will be no back-filling to other less risky sites, which will mean that smaller incidents will escalate and become larger and more dangerous?
Yasmin Qureshi
I entirely agree. As my hon. Friend eloquently put it, other areas will be given lower priority.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining the debate, and I pay tribute to all our firefighters, both full time and part time. Leaving aside the proposed cuts, does the hon. Lady agree that another issue that will definitely compound this situation is whether Europe gets its way on the working time directive?
Yasmin Qureshi
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the issue he raises is debatable. Obviously, it is a European directive, and I do not really want to get into that issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
In an endeavour to be helpful to all Members—[Interruption.] I hope the hon. Lady will take it in that spirit. I hope Members will find it helpful if I say that it remains the Government’s firm intention to protect the opt-out from the working time directive, which is rightly accepted—I hope the hon. Lady will agree—as a critical issue for the fire service. I hope she will forgive me for taking the opportunity to get that on the record early in the debate.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the Minister for that intervention.
The mets have the most fire calls per head of population, as well as the highest levels of deprivation, which everyone accepts is one of the single biggest determining risks in fires. The met areas also have concentrated conurbations, with many streets full of terraced houses, offices and other buildings. The risks in the mets are therefore greater than in the leafy suburbs.
With all the challenges they face, the six mets have been very responsible and prudent with public money. They have already delivered 62% of the savings in the fire budget across the two years of cuts, and they have done that with a minimum impact on front-line services. The cuts planned for future years are unsustainable and would lead to life-threatening reductions in fire cover and national resilience capacity. Fire services have already cut out the fat, and they will soon be cutting to the bone—I hope the vegetarians among us will forgive my analogy.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I add my voice to the congratulations given to my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate. Is she aware that the chief fire officer of Merseyside, among others, has made it clear in briefings that he is concerned that if the cuts go ahead, even on optimistic assumptions about the impact, he will be in danger of not being able to meet his statutory obligations?
Yasmin Qureshi
I agree with the hon. Lady. The chief executive of my fire authority says the same thing. I was going to talk about the cuts using the example of Greater Manchester fire authority, because that relates to my constituency.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the debate, and on her conduct of it. I am full of praise for what she is doing. It is difficult to understand why the review formula should mean a 13% fall in the financial grant to the West Midlands over the past two years, which compares to a figure of 6.5% nationally, and why the met areas, and certainly the West Midlands, have been picked on and victimised as we have.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining the debate, and I pay tribute to the firefighters. Obviously, she and I will not agree on the general need to reduce public spending, but does she accept that there are concerns on both sides of the House about the equity between metropolitan areas, the London area and the shire counties? I thank the Minister for agreeing that fire officers can speak to civil servants to deal with the details of the formula, but people on both sides of the House will be concerned to see that the outcome is more equitable than it has been to date.
Yasmin Qureshi
Again, I entirely agree. I am just about to come on to the unfairness of the cuts to Greater Manchester fire authority, as compared with, say, Cheshire.
Greater Manchester is one of the largest brigades in the UK, covering 500 square miles and serving a residential population of 2.5 million. It is on track to make £12.5 million of savings, but to achieve that and carry out further cuts it can crew only 59 fire engines during the day and 55 during the night. To crew a fire engine 24 hours a day all year round costs £750,000. As a result of the cuts, 15 fire engines will become unavailable for use. During a dry spring or summer, the brigade can regularly have 40 fire engines committed to fires across the moorlands, protecting roads, villages and homes and areas of outstanding beauty. Greater Manchester fire authority will simply not be able to maintain minimum cover for town and city protection. Nor will it be able to do preventive work such as the 60,000 home safety visits it completes each year. That work has had a profound effect on reducing the numbers of accidental fires. The service will not be able to do the work with young people and children that has led to significant reductions in deliberate fires, and to lives being turned round. The mets, as well as the right hon. and hon. Members present, are asking for a fairer allocation of funds across all fire authorities.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Is it not ironic that the most efficient fire authorities, in the places with the highest levels of deprivation and the highest risk of fire, are the ones whose budgets are being cut furthest, whereas some more affluent authorities, which are less at risk, are being given an increase? Does not that show how bad the system is? It is up to the Minister to defend that system, and move away from a situation in which fire officers cannot work out how he reached his figures.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point.
We need either a risk-based grant approach, with a more even and fairer distribution of cuts across the fire and rescue services, or an alternative method of additional uplift funding to the mets that recognises their wider contribution to the safety of our societies and communities. I ask the Minister to recognise the unfairness and the unsatisfactory nature of the current grant mechanism.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate, and I hope that the Minister is listening to this part of it, as well as the part to which he responded earlier. The key issue seems to be that in the past we have received greater efficiency savings from the mets; and we have had bigger cuts in the first two years of the current spending review. The important thing now is to make sure that we do not get bigger cuts in the next two years. That preventive work must continue. There are high-risk steelworks in my constituency, as well as the deprivation that my hon. Friend has discussed. We cannot have a reduction in the number of fire engines and stations that cover those important responsibilities.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point.
Greater Manchester fire service has had to make cuts, and it has done so. Now it must make a 9% cut, whereas Cheshire will get a 2% increase. Many right hon. and hon. Members have made that point this morning. A cynic could be forgiven for thinking that the only explanation for the disparity is that most of the Members of Parliament in Cheshire belong to the coalition parties, and most Members of Parliament in Greater Manchester are Labour. I hope that that is not the case. I have deliberately tried not to go into too many statistics and percentages, which I know the Minister will be well aware of. I have tried to make a case for the mets, and I hope that the Minister will consider the matter fairly and judiciously. I will not speak any longer, because so many right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
Hywel Williams (in the Chair)
Order. A large number of hon. Members have written in—nine at least—so I appeal to them to keep speeches short. The screens at the back of the Chamber are being attended to. We do not have a Government Whip present, although I thought that Mr Brady might have abandoned his distinguished career for the delights of the Whips Office; but clearly he has not.
I call Ian Austin. [Interruption.]
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I am grateful, Mr Williams. I am sorry; I thought you would call someone over on the Government side first.
In my constituency, Sedgley fire station has already been closed, as a result of the cuts and savings that West Midlands fire service must make. When it closed, Dudley station was allocated an extra targeted response vehicle, so it had one of those—it is basically a smaller fire engine—and the two standard engines that it had before. Now it will lose one of those, and the targeted vehicle will go as well, to be replaced by a Range Rover. When Sedgley closed, we were told that other parts of my constituency would be covered by fire engines from Tipton station, but that will also lose an engine.
The background is that when all fire and rescue services were expecting to face cuts as part of the comprehensive spending review, they planned well in advance, to protect their communities. However, when the exact figures for each service were announced, it was immediately clear that the cuts were anything but fair. As we have heard, some were handed increases to their formula grant, whereas others were handed cuts, such as West Midlands, which is being given the biggest cut to its revenue spending power—7.73%—of any brigade in the country. Even taking into account the effect of the proportion of council tax to grant and the small special grant to encourage a council tax freeze, a number of brigades still receive more money in formula grant than they received in 2010-11. Cheshire is an example.
In addition to the unfair way in which the grant is calculated, it is based on an illogical formula, which does not take account of a number of key considerations. As we have heard, many of the most deprived areas are among the worst hit, despite the well-established link between deprivation and fire. Four of the top five most deprived fire authority areas in the country are covered by metropolitan brigades, and they have been handed the heaviest cuts. Also, no consideration was given to the reforms and efficiencies already made in services when the cuts were calculated. For example, in West Midlands new crewing systems have already been introduced. Cover has been reduced in quieter periods. New appliances have been brought in to deal with specific incidents. However, brigades that have not yet undertaken such reforms, such as London, have been cut far less.
Hazel Blears
On the important point that my hon. Friend is making about reform, many metropolitan authorities, including Greater Manchester, have been making reforms, reducing jobs, reskilling and redesigning the service for years. Does he agree that these proposals are incredibly short-sighted because they will cut prevention? Therefore, rather than saving money in the long term, this unfair grant settlement will increase the cost to the whole fire service.
Ian Austin
That is absolutely right. Brigades that have not undertaken these reforms should be the ones that come under the most pressure to achieve them now. If savings have to be made, those are the areas from which they should come.
One of the reasons why West Midlands stands to suffer the most is that we maintain the lowest council tax precept in the country. It is just £47.83 for a band D property, compared with £87.84 for residents in County Durham. We are therefore more heavily reliant on formula grant than others, so we receive a much higher cut to the overall force budget. Furthermore, part of the difference has been caused by the Government’s decision to award a specific grant to fire authorities and councils that is equivalent to a council tax rise of 2.5%—if council tax is frozen this year. That has benefited those with higher council tax, as they have obviously received proportionately more.
Representatives of the metropolitan authorities have put together a series of cost-neutral proposals that will ensure a fairer settlement in 2013-14 and 2014-15. They are asking the Minister to consider implementing a flat percentage cut to formula grant, so that all fire services play their part in achieving the savings that he says have to be made. They say that that could easily be achieved through ministerial use of the floor damping mechanism and that metropolitan authorities would still shoulder the heaviest cuts over the four years.
Mr Winnick
In a briefing paper from the Association of Metropolitan Fire and Rescue Authorities, of which I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, it is stated that if the present formula goes ahead and we do not have the fair formula that we want, there will be 40 redundancies on a 13.5% reduction in grant, which is obviously a great danger to our constituents. A 27% cut over the next few years could cause the loss of 300 posts after natural wastage. Is that not a great danger to our constituents in the west midlands? I hope that the Minister will respond and recognise our concern.
Ian Austin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will address those points when he responds to the debate later.
Mr Watts
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government’s proposals are led by the fact that they expect people to make efficiency savings? Bearing in mind that metropolitan authorities already have the most efficient fire services, it will make any further savings more difficult to achieve. Is this not rewarding the most inefficient fire services at the expense of the most efficient ones?
Ian Austin
That is absolutely right. In all other areas, the Government argue for reform, savings and efficiencies, yet here we find the authorities that have done the most and made the greatest savings being penalised the most. Forgive me for my cynicism, but it does seem that many of the areas represented by the Minister’s right hon. and hon. Friends are being saved from the cuts that the areas represented by so many Opposition Members are having to make.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I am one of the Government Members who represents one of the affected metropolitan authorities. Quite apart from the importance of getting fairness for all metropolitan areas, is it not also an irony that one of the effects could be to reduce the capacity of metropolitan fire services to provide surrounding counties with the support and the backfilling that are so important?
Ian Austin
That is right. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he is one of the few Government Members who are taking part in the debate, and he is absolutely right. The forces that cover metropolitan areas provide a really important service to the whole country, which is why he and his colleagues should be taking these issues seriously. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he responds to the debate later. I do not propose to say anything more beyond that, because so many Members wish to contribute.
John Hemming
May I put it on the record that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) is equally concerned about this matter, but she cannot make it to this debate? The fact that she is not here today does not mean that she is not concerned.
Ian Austin
That is a great point. I am really pleased that I took that intervention! As I was saying, I will draw my remarks to a close, but I very much hope that the Minister will respond to all the points made during the debate.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing it.
I want to talk about the impact on Merseyside of cuts that are running at twice the national average—up to 12% over two years. As colleagues have said, Merseyside already has a highly efficient service. My question to the Minister is how on earth does it make sense to make cuts at double the national average in Merseyside, West Midlands, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, Nottinghamshire, Cleveland, Cambridgeshire and Shropshire, with Greater Manchester only a fraction below the figure of those other mainly metropolitan areas, while making real-terms increases in funding for Devon and Somerset, Dorset, Staffordshire, Cheshire, Essex and Hampshire? Is there not a pattern emerging about the nature of the authorities that are facing these double-national-average cuts and the authorities that are seeing real-term increases? I will leave it to Members to draw their own conclusions.
How can authorities such as Merseyside deal with that 12% cut when they have already made the savings over a number of years? Perhaps the Minister can also answer the point about why they have had that cut, while others have had increases at the same time. Merseyside has made the back-office and management savings, put in place a three-year pay freeze and taken money from the dynamic reserve.
The issues of resilience capacity and heavy industry that we talked about in Greater Manchester are also true of Merseyside. Just down the road from my constituency are the docks, which are surrounded by residential areas. Therefore, in the event of a major incident, not just the industrial areas but the nearby residential areas would suffer. Without the necessary back-up, how can those areas be protected?
The plans for future years make various assumptions. The chief fire officer has already assumed the pay freeze, a 4% council tax increase and the fact that no additional contributions will be made to the pension, yet he is still short by £8.5 million. Merseyside has made the savings that it can. If further cuts are double the national average, as they have been so far—the national average is £8.5 million—goodness only knows where he would go to make those savings.
Maria Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that the chief fire officer would be in the invidious position of not being able to meet his statutory obligations to keep the people of Merseyside safe?
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the question that arises for the Minister is, exactly how does he define what the statutory obligations are for the metropolitan authorities, such as Merseyside? What level of service does he deem to be necessary to protect the people of Merseyside and the other metropolitan areas?
In the Minister’s written answer to my parliamentary question, which I received only this week, he said:
“It is for elected members of each authority to determine such matters, acting on the professional advice of their principal officers and following full consultation with the local community.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2012; Vol. 541, c. 485W.]
May I tell him that the professional advice of the chief fire officer of Merseyside and his colleagues is that it is not possible for them to maintain the current service on the funding settlement that the chief officer has already received, and it will be even more impossible for them to protect the community that they serve given the proposed future cuts? In addition, I can tell the Minister that the local community do not accept that these cuts should be made at all. In fact, they say that none of the cuts should be happening and that they want to be protected by the fire service. However, they are also aware that, with cuts of this nature, it is impossible for the chief fire officer to maintain the level of service that is needed.
Mr Watts
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given what the chief fire officer of Merseyside has said about the inability to do his job, it is incumbent on the Minister now to stop and freeze the changes in the system and to get his own officials to talk directly to the fire officers who have been affected by the cuts, so that we can maintain public safety and protect lives in our areas?
Bill Esterson
That is exactly right, and the Minister should be doing exactly what my hon. Friend suggests: listening to the chief fire officers, taking on board their concerns, considering what service is actually needed in each metropolitan authority and ensuring that that service can be supported by the funding that he provides. Otherwise, we run huge risks.
We have already heard about the inability of the fire services to continue preventive work, such as fitting smoke detectors, which saves many lives and has reduced the number of deaths in homes over a number of years. If that work does not continue, there is a grave risk that that very welcome reduction—a move in the right direction—will be reversed, with all the danger that is implied. Of course, the fire services not only carry out preventive work; they also have the ability to respond to call-outs. It will take only one major incident in any of the metropolitan authorities to show the folly of these cuts.
As a number of Members want to speak, I will draw my remarks to a close, but I urge the Minister to look at the impact of these cuts, which in Merseyside and many other metropolitan authorities is double the national average, to listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) has said and to go back to the drawing board and reinstate the funding, so that the fire services can protect the communities that we represent.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Williams, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning.
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate. I also want to mention the constructive way that the debate has been conducted until now. I hope that the tone that I will strike will not be too different from that of others who have spoken, but it is important that I place on record the feelings of people from across Merseyside.
Before I do so, however, I think that right hon. and hon. Members from all parties will join me in praising some of society’s bravest men and women, who work as firefighters in all four corners of the country. Firefighters do the most difficult of jobs in the most difficult of circumstances; they are never questioning but always relentless. There is no greater exemplar of that fine tradition than the Merseyside fire and rescue service. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to Britain’s firefighters and long may that continue.
Today I speak not only as the MP for Liverpool, Walton, but as a son, brother, husband, father, motorist, home owner, property owner and frequent user of public transport in and around our great city of Liverpool, including our world famous “Ferry Across the Mersey”, and I hope that the man responsible for that song—the great Gerry Marsden—soon recovers from the bout of pneumonia that he is currently suffering from.
Merseyside fire and rescue service does not just put out fires; its officers also save lives on our roads and in our factories and offices, and they protect people using the River Mersey. That is why I greatly fear what this Government have done to the service to date, as well as what they have in store for it. I sincerely hope that the dangers that the Government’s decisions will bring to me, my family, my property, my constituents and every single person who lives in, works in or visits the Liverpool city region are never realised.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is talking about the dangers that people are confronted with. Does he agree that there are a lot of volatile industrial processes around the Liverpool city region and in neighbouring regions, and that these cuts will make incidents such as occurred in the Sonae factory in my constituency even more difficult to deal with, if they mean that the fire service does not have the resources to meet all those challenges?
Steve Rotheram
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend is on record expressing his concerns about that particular factory. I must declare an interest—my brother works there, so if my right hon. Friend does close the factory down, my brother will be unemployed. But my right hon. Friend is correct, in that Merseyside and Greater Merseyside have petrochemical industries and other really volatile industries, which need the resilience of a well-funded and well-staffed fire and rescue service.
As we have already heard, it cannot be right for the six metropolitan areas outside London to shoulder 60% of the total reductions burden, with Merseyside being disproportionately affected; some may even say that it is being deliberately targeted. The disproportionate effect on Merseyside is especially true when we compare the areas that have had grant cuts with the areas that have had grant increases. For instance, while Merseyside has received a grant cut that is more than the national average in both of the last two years, Hampshire, Sussex, Shropshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire—otherwise known as “Tory heartlands”—have each received grant increases. Whether that is just a coincidence is for others to decide, but put simply the formula is flawed and unfair.
Mr Watts
My hon. Friend points out that many people in our metropolitan areas feel as if this Government are targeting them, not only because of the fire service cuts but because those cuts come on top of the police and council cuts. With these cuts, the biggest share of the pain is being borne by the least able in the metropolitan authority areas, and those people wonder why the Minister is taking this unfair view of the metropolitan areas’ problems. It is up to the Minister to address that feeling. Those people are asking, “Why is this Government targeting, once again, the poorest areas in Britain?”
Steve Rotheram
Of course my hon. Friend is right. With regard to what has happened on Merseyside—I can speak for Merseyside in particular—we have had the largest and deepest cut to our grant settlement from Government. That has been a cut to our police grant, fire grant and just about every other supporting grant that we received from Government. We have seen the largest and deepest cuts. Again, I ask, “Is that a coincidence?” As I said before, it is for others to decide, but I would say that it is a strategic decision to balance the economy on the backs of the poorest.
In 2011-12, Merseyside’s grant cut was almost twice the national average and for 2012-13 Merseyside’s grant cut will be more than three times the national average. That means that our total grant has been cut by £9 million in the first two years of this disastrous and desperately unfair period covering the comprehensive spending review. I believe that that is dangerous; the Minister knows that it is dangerous; the Prime Minister knows that it is dangerous; and the people of Merseyside know that it is dangerous. There is grave uncertainty around the Merseyside fire and rescue service, as we wait for the Government to announce the grant figures for the third and fourth years of the CSR period.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
It is not just the metropolitan areas that are being affected. I realise that this debate is about those areas, but these cuts also impact on other fire and rescue services, including the Northumberland fire and rescue service. I just want to put something into context. All my hon. Friends and the hon. Members who have spoken have described the cuts in percentage terms, and in percentage terms they are absolutely horrendous. But can we just put the cuts in terms of the cost to human beings? Until now—that is, in 2010 and 2011—there have been 1,000 job losses in the metropolitan areas’ fire services and it is estimated that there will be an additional loss of 2,000 front-line posts, 50 fire stations and 100 fire appliances if these cuts go ahead. What message does that give to the firefighters—those brave men and women who run towards fires when everybody else is trying to run away from them—and to the general public?
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend has asked a question, which I will answer in relation to human beings. Our fire and rescue service on Merseyside is contemplating losing 150 firefighter posts, potentially through compulsory redundancies. That has never happened in our local authority’s history. Five fire stations are currently being earmarked for closure, including the Aintree fire station, adjacent to my own constituency. In addition, 11 fire engines will be removed from front-line response under the proposals. Five fire engines have already been removed—reduced from 42 to 37—as part of phase 1 of CSR. The cuts will reduce overall front-line operational capability to 26 engines, a reduction of nearly 40% since the start of CSR.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend has given us stark figures in relation to the cuts that Merseyside fire and rescue service is about to impose. Does he agree that that is on top of losing more than 500 firefighters since 2002, and that the funding proposals will compound the very serious problem that we face?
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend makes an important point, highlighting the cumulative impact of all the cuts on areas such as Merseyside. It has been debilitating for the people in the fire and rescue service who go out and put their lives at risk every single day. For the good of the people of Merseyside, for the good of their safety and for the good of common sense, I urge the Minister to please stop this uncertainty. All we want is for the Minister to do as he said he would: make cuts that are fair. I want him to reassure me and the families in my constituency that response times will not double from five minutes to 10 because of reduced capacity.
We have come to expect a certain level of arrogance from the Prime Minister, but this Minister knows all too well the dangers of a complacent approach to the fire and rescue service and the impact that the cuts will have on operational preparedness, national resilience and our communities’ safety. It is time to get real and stop gambling with the safety of Merseysiders.
Hywel Williams (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to start the wind-ups at 10.40 am. There are currently seven Members indicating that they wish to speak, six of whom have written. Please be brief.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who has done so much to co-ordinate the concerns of Members of Parliament and fire and rescue authorities in metropolitan areas.
The truth is that in good times and bad, there will always be a row about grant redistribution. Leaving aside the political inclinations of any particular Government, there is a balance to be struck between the sparsity of rural areas and the disadvantages and high risks of urban areas. In more than 30 years’ involvement in council and parliamentary politics, I have never seen such a grotesque distortion of grant allocation to metropolitan areas.
The six metropolitan areas serve a quarter of the population of this country outside the capital. They carry the highest risks in terms of fires and other emergencies, and they make a major contribution to national resilience. Yet in the first two years of this spending period, they have been expected to make 62% of the overall cuts that are required. By any measure, that is grossly unfair. It cannot be repeated in years 3 and 4 of the spending period.
I want to pay tribute to the fire and rescue authorities in this country, particularly Greater Manchester fire authority, chaired by Councillor David Acton. The fire authority has made its concerns known to Government, but it has also got on with the practical and difficult task of making the required cuts, while doing everything that it can to protect the front line.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Does my parliamentary neighbour accept that not only Councillor David Acton has been making that case? Before him, Councillor Paul Shannon, who led the fire authority for two or three years, made the exact same case to Ministers. He has described the unfairness of the grant allocation as scandalous and unjustifiable. He put the case very strongly to Government.
Paul Goggins
The hon. Gentleman has put his comments on the record. I stand by my remarks about Councillor David Acton. As the new chair of the authority, he has taken on the task with incredible strength, at a difficult time, when he faces so many difficult decisions in terms of the cuts that we face.
I also want to pay tribute to Gary Keary, a constituent of mine who chairs a branch of the Fire Brigades Union in Greater Manchester. He typifies the FBU’s approach in Greater Manchester. It has campaigned against the cuts and made the public aware of the implications of the cuts, but it has also been prepared to work constructively with the authority and with management to protect the public and minimise risk wherever possible. The cuts made in Greater Manchester have been largely back-office and management cuts, but they have also affected the front line, which I will come on to in a second.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the FBU. To get its view on the record, I will read a quote:
“The FBU is clear that these cuts will wreck the fire and rescue service. They are not being made on the basis of needs or risk. They have decided arbitrarily to meet the government's forced-march deficit reduction target. The cuts will put the public and firefighters at risk.”
That is the view of FBU branch secretaries across the country and in metropolitan areas.
Paul Goggins
Such views are echoed in Greater Manchester as well. Of course, the FBU and its members have done their very best to make sure that the front line of the service is protected as far as possible and that the risks to the public are minimised.
In my own constituency, the front-line cuts that have had to be made, even in years 1 and 2, will make a substantial difference. In the Wythenshawe fire station, the number of staff available 24/7 will be reduced from nine to eight from 1 April. In Sale, in the other part of my constituency, the number of staff available 24/7 is reducing from nine to five, and one of the two appliances will no longer be available, so that is a substantial cut. Even so, the expected response time will be measured in seconds rather than minutes. Again, that pays tribute to those who have made the decisions to try to protect the public.
A similar level of cuts in 2013-14 and 2014-15 would be an absolute disaster for my constituents and for the constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members here. In Greater Manchester, an equal share of the cuts required nationally in those two years would mean cuts of £24 million. If the same distorted criteria are used in 2013-14 and 2014-15, the cut required would be £38 million—a difference of £14 million. That would have disastrous consequences for my constituents and for others.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case on behalf of his constituents. As an MP in a metropolitan borough in the west midlands, I support what he is saying in terms of ensuring that any future cuts should be made evenly across fire authorities. However, does he agree that West Midlands fire authority has been a significant beneficiary of the damping mechanism that has been put in place? Will he join me in asking the Minister to give greater clarity on how that damping mechanism is going to be applied in future and whether the same criteria will be applied?
Paul Goggins
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I welcome his support for the overall thrust of the argument, which is for fairness in the allocation of grants in the final two years of the spending period, which we have not seen in the first two years. I encourage him and all his colleagues to discuss constructively with the Minister the best way forward. We all hope that the Minister will have constructive things to say when he winds up the debate.
Hazel Blears
My right hon. Friend has referred to the settlement as a grotesque unfairness. He has made a powerful case this morning. Is he aware of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s own figures that say that, in areas of deprivation where there is high unemployment, where people live alone and where there are many disabled people, someone is perhaps four times more likely to be in a fire? Apart from the unfairness of the settlement, it is actually downright dangerous. On its own figures, the Department ought to review, as my right hon. Friend says, this grotesquely unfair settlement.
Paul Goggins
I am aware of the higher risk, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has placed it firmly on the record. I am clear that, if the unfair grant distribution is applied in the final two years of this spending period, my constituency and others will lose appliances, staff and fire stations, imposing huge risks on our constituents’ lives. The grant allocation must relate to risk, and must take account of the national requirements for resilience and responses to emergencies.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this vital debate. For the people in Tyne and Wear, the issue is a real worry. The main work done by the fire service in our area includes covering two major trunk roads: the A19, which leads to two tunnels under the Tyne, and the A1. The A1 western bypass, which runs through my constituency, is 200% above its planned capacity. It is the third most congested road in the UK. Due to the state of the road, despite the fact that it is a dual carriageway, the speed limit is 50 mph along the A1 throughout my constituency. That is partly due to the number of road traffic accidents that the fire service must deal with. We have industrial sites, chemical plants, gas production plants, ports, rivers, offshore installations, high-rise flats and many areas of deprivation, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) referred a minute ago.
What do we in the Tyne and Wear area face? I have had discussions with Iain Bathgate, the retiring fire chief, and Councillor Bob Heron, with whom I had the privilege to work for 20 years as a coal miner, a job in which we knew a thing or two about the risk of fire. They have told me categorically that over a four-year period, Tyne and Wear fire service is facing a 35% budget cut. To try to resolve that, they have engaged in discussions with Ministers and the civil service. When the fire service and elected officials have asked, “What do we do?” the response is, “Make cuts to the back office.” The fire service chief said, “Let’s pretend I can run a fire service without any back-office staff. If I do that, I can save 17% of the budget, which means I am halfway to where you need me to be. What can I do?” The response was, “You have to manage it,” with no more information.
The fire service has already been managing it. Over the past few years, more than £8 million in savings have been made, which has included 109 front-line firefighters losing their jobs. Last year alone, we lost an appliance at Birtley fire station in my town. I worry that we will end up with an emergency-only service. I have no doubt that the great men and women in the service will make it work and do their best, as all our public servants do, to ensure that service is provided, but what will happen to the community?
This is a debate about community. I remind the Minister that his is the Department for Communities and Local Government. I will give two examples. The town of Birtley in my constituency has a boxing club. It was founded 30 years ago, with the support of the fire service, the police and the schools. They realised that prevention was the main thing, so they set up the boxing club. Part of the remit for the young lads who went to the boxing club was that they had to go to school and perform well. The young men coming through are now representing the country, but first and foremost they are being trained in how to behave properly, have self-respect and self-esteem and help care for the community.
Likewise, Chopwell, in a more remote part of my constituency, is surrounded by some of the biggest forests in the north of England. We had a huge problem with young people setting fires up there. The retained fire service in that part of the world has become the community centre for young people. It is a brilliant place. Last year, it was burgled, and the community insisted on holding a social to raise funds. The firemen said, “Look, you don’t need to. We’re insured,” but they said, “We’re having it,” because of their respect. My worry is that we will lose that link. It is a genuine public service.
I say to the Minister that the D in DCLG does not stand for “decimate the service”. The C does not stand for “cut terms and conditions for the work force, including pensions”. The LG does not stand for “all we have to do is let go of thousands of dedicated public servants”. The real story is that it is all part and parcel of the present Government’s drive against the public sector. It is an ideological drive to get the public sector out of the way and let the private sector fill the gap, led by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Bradford bulldog, who is determined to show that he can cut harder than anybody else, aided and abetted by the Minister. Between them, they have become the Eric and Ernie of public services. I have no doubt that the Minister has a raft of jokes to throw at us, but nobody is laughing in the fire service, and nobody is laughing in our communities.
Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate. The more I listen to hon. Friends and colleagues, the more I feel that it is essential to say one thing to the Minister. He will have in front of him a brief prepared by his civil servants. As Ministers and former Ministers, we know that sometimes we are obliged to act as our civil servants advise, but we also know that we have discretion. I say to him at the outset that I hope that what he is hearing will lead him to go to his Secretary of State and use his power as a Minister to say, “I think we’ve got this wrong.”
As I listen to my hon. Friends, I have no doubt that the present arrangements under the funding formula have not only produced an inequitable position but will put lives at risk. People will die. I pray that that will not happen, but the Minister will know that if, as a result of the cuts next year or the year after, a number of people in any constituency die in an out-of-control fire in a school or business, an inquiry will be demanded. The inquiry will say that mistakes were made, and that the fundamental mistake was that when the cuts were introduced, not enough account was taken of the risks.
The Minister has a chance. He has some months to go to his Secretary of State and say, “I think we may have a problem with the formula we’ve been given.” It is his choice. He can do so. In Merseyside, we have already lost many firefighters. We used to have nearly 1,400; we are now down to 880, and shortly it will be 800. The coming cuts will drive us down to 650. Further cuts will be made to fire stations and to the number of engines. The question is whether it is safe to go further.
This year, there will be no pay increase, and there will be a 4% increase in the council tax precept. That means, at best, an £8.5 million cut to Merseyside. What that means in my constituency is that we will lose one fire station, almost certainly in Eccleston. Hon. Members may feel that we must all share the pain equally, but let me be clear about what the pain means. In 2004, the Merseyside fire service produced an important report in which it concluded that
“for all property fires we intend to get the first firefighting resources to the fire in 10 minutes or less”.
One of my hon. Friends has already referred to the Fire Brigades Union. I ask the Minister to reread its 2010 report, which discusses why response times matter. The report says that
“in the late stages a minute or two can make the difference between life and death”.
It also says:
“If a person has survived near to a fire for nine minutes, one minute later the fire could have increased in size by such an extent that they will be killed.”
I will tell the Minister what it will mean if the Eccleston station closes. The station serves 21,000 households, many of them disproportionately old. It serves 15 primary schools, three secondary schools and two colleges. Last year, the fire service attended 66 fires and 19 road traffic collisions. I asked the chief fire officer to give me his assessment of how long it would take for the two engines from St Helens to get to parts of Rainford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts). He said 15 minutes. That is five minutes more than what everybody knows is necessary to save lives. People will die.
Let us be clear. Numerous stations will close. All of that will cause problems, but when a Minister knows that the consequence of what he is doing will certainly be death, he has a huge responsibility to go to his Secretary of State and say, “If this material from the chief fire officer in Merseyside is correct—he is not a politician; I simply asked him for figures—we need to talk to him, sit down with the fire authority and look at the risks, because we are being told that people will die.” The Minister is a good man, and he has a choice. He can exercise his choice, accept the responsibilities of his office and say, “We have something wrong here, but we have time to change it.” It is his choice, and I very much hope that he has heard my hon. Friends’ remarks this morning, because the policy will cost lives.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I will keep my remarks short, because many representations have been made by hon. Friends from across Merseyside this morning.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for his work along with other Members in campaigning on this important issue. I, too, add my voice to those who honour our brave firefighters, who risk their lives daily to protect the British people. I will focus on two points to support what some of my hon. Friends have said; I am conscious of the time and I want to allow other Members to make their contributions.
Our fire authority in Merseyside is led by Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens. He has done much work to make the cuts imposed on the fire service while protecting front-line services. That has not been easy, and tough choices have been made. Pay has been frozen for three years, and back office and management have been cut and shared. We often hear from the Government about trimming the fat. Back office functions have been severely shaved to make them the leanest of any comparable service. Reserves in Merseyside have already been spent, and innovations have been made, a list of which I will share with the Minister after this debate. The council tax precept has been raised, and 92 firefighters and 80 support staff have lost their jobs. In short, everything that could be done to ensure that the fire service keeps doing the vital work of saving lives has been done. There is absolutely no fat left to trim, and there is no low-hanging fruit to pick. Only the bare minimum remains. Despite that, our fire service is facing even more significant cuts.
We are waiting to hear from the Department in December about the next round of budget reductions. The best-case scenario is absolutely sobering. As we have heard from other hon. Members, we are looking at the closure of five fire stations, including Allerton fire station in my constituency. There is the prospect of 11 fire engines being scrapped and 150 firefighter posts being lost. It is sobering to think that that is the best- case scenario.
If the second phase of cuts follows in the same vein as the first, it is likely that the authority’s cut will be significantly higher than the national average on which that estimate is based. Some £17 million could be lost. There is absolutely no chance that the cuts can be made without damaging the firefighting capability in Merseyside. We all agree that our firefighters do an incredible job. They place themselves in dangerous situations every day to protect us and save lives. We should be doing everything we can to make their job easier, not harder. We have already heard stories in Merseyside about the fire service struggling to attend all incidents now, before the second round of cuts.
With that in mind, I urge the Minister to think long and hard before he imposes huge cuts on fire services in all metropolitan areas, including Merseyside. If he is committed to a national cut on that level, then I urge him to use the time between now and December to look at how it could be distributed more evenly, so that metropolitan areas are not disproportionately affected, our front-line services can be maintained, and our public can be adequately protected.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
I am grateful for a late opportunity to speak in this debate. I think I am on the third version of my speech, and you will be delighted to know that it is down to one page from seven.
I would like to add my thanks to those expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing the debate and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for liaising and bringing the mix together, and for arranging a meeting with the Minister.
As the only Member from south Yorkshire in the Chamber, I would like to place on the record the financial situation that is hitting West Yorkshire fire authority. For the first two years, the cut in grants equalled 11%, amounting to £13 million, under the unequal grant distribution introduced by the Minister. Even with an equal distribution, the cut would have been 6.5%, or £6.8 million. The difference between the two distributions underlines the task that the Minister is pushing on the fire authorities. It indicates that the fire authorities do not live in an unreal world. If they were facing equal cuts, there would be a different attitude, even though the cuts are particularly tough.
The next two years raise questions for the Minister. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) in pleading with him to speak quietly but firmly to his Secretary of State about the position facing fire authorities and emergency services in the final two years of the spending review. If firmness and quietness do not work with the Secretary of State, and if nothing else works, the Minister should point out to the Secretary of State that the second and worst year of the spending review is the year of the election. In view of what the fire authorities are saying to Members about the effects of the cuts, it will not be a nice position from which to fight an election.
One year of cuts is severe, but there will be two and even three years of cuts. What happens when it hits four years? There will be 13% of cuts for West Yorkshire fire authority over the next two years. If the sacrifice were shared equally across the country, the cut would be 5%. In money terms, it would be £19.8 million over the two years instead of £12.8 million. The figure of £12.8 million is formidable on its own, and it would be that figure only if there was an equality of sacrifice.
The first set of cuts cost 170 firefighters. It caused crews to be cut and cost many support services. We are speaking about grants, but they are only one part of the picture—the revenue part. There is the expenditure part, where even after cuts, the fire authority will have to look for £9.1 million in 2013-14, and £13.7 million in 2014-15. That is after the authority has made what it—not politicians—regards as cuts that will still allow it to look the public largely in the eye and say that safety has been taken into consideration; I emphasise “largely”. We are facing those sorts of budget difficulties. On top of the 170 firefighters in West Yorkshire who will go by the end of the second year of the spending review, 380 firefighters are pencilled in to go in the next two years.
John McDonnell
The Fire Brigades Union regional secretary, Pete Smith said:
“This will reduce our ability to respond to major outdoor fires which have damaged our moorlands and major flooding which has hit this region in recent years…There are times when we have been seriously stretched even with our current resources. These cuts risk tipping us over the edge and that will have a very serious impact on the public.”
That, from the front line, reflects exactly what my hon. Friend is saying.
Mr Mudie
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I have been critical of the present cuts. I have questioned the fire chief seriously and challenged him regarding the safety of my constituents. We have a lot of back-to-back houses. The chief is closing the fire station in the area, and I worry about the safety of our constituents, in terms of the time that vehicles need to get to a fire. My hon. Friend makes a good point: faced with the final two years of the spending review, the Minister has to look seriously at this issue, including an equality of sacrifice—my hon. Friends have already referred to the strange and distorted distribution of cuts.
Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, I was able to meet the Minister. I went further than my right hon. Friend, however, in saying that I did not accept the spending envelope with which the Minister was working. The spending envelope is acceptable only if it is the Government’s will for every service to be cut by a certain amount. Because of the nature of the emergency services, provision cannot drop below a certain level without danger to the public, and to say that the emergency services are the same as libraries or other services shows a distorted set of values. I challenged the Minister about the spending envelope, and urged him, as the person who would be responsible for the consequences of any serious fires due to the cuts, to go to the Secretary of State and spell out the dangerous position that we are in.
At the meeting, the Minister agreed that his officers would meet representatives of the metropolitan fire authorities to go through the details and see whether they could accept any of the points that have been made. Let me say quietly to the Minister that I hope he will take that seriously, and that it results in a changed distribution of cuts to deal with some of the problems faced by the metropolitan fire authorities. In view of the serious points raised in this debate by representatives of big metropolitan areas, I hope that the Minister will go to the Secretary of State and say that the policy that is being pursued is unsafe and could put a lot of innocent people in serious danger.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Williams. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this vital debate, and I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for his excellent work in bringing this topic to the fore. It is a vital issue and it is important to debate it this morning.
I hope that the Minister has listened to the contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber. There is a degree of cross-party consensus and concern about the impact of the cuts, and certainly the overwhelming view in the debate—and indeed across the country—is that the cuts go too far. My right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) got to the nub of the issue when he pointed out that the cuts could result in people losing their lives, and that that could result in a public inquiry. Can the Minister put his hand on his heart and say that he would be in a robust position to defend the Government’s stance if such a tragedy were to occur and were followed up by a public inquiry?
The metropolitan fire authorities make the greatest contribution to national resilience in our country. To undermine that resilience in such a way is regrettable, and the Government should think carefully before they proceed. As today’s contributions to the debate have made clear, the metropolitan fire authorities have been singled out for vicious cuts. They are not the only services facing cuts; many fire and rescue authorities are confronting cuts across the country, and that will be particularly true in years 3 and 4 of the spending review. We have seen only the start of the cuts; the worst is yet to come.
The Minister was pleased to secure what he felt was a concession in that the cuts to fire and rescue services were back-loaded rather than front-loaded. We have already seen the devastating consequences of the first two years of back-loaded cuts, but the cuts will become even greater, which paints a very worrying picture. It simply will not do for the Minister to stand up and use the Pontius Pilate defence—I know he has also used it in written responses to right hon. and hon. Members—and say that it is for locally elected representatives to determine how they deploy their budgets. If locally elected representatives do not have the money in the first place to allow them to deploy their budgets and meet their statutory responsibilities, it will not do for the Minister to say that it is a matter for local areas.
Having looked at the figures, it is clear that the areas with highest demand will be hit the hardest by the per capita funding cuts, and it is incumbent on the Minister to explain a funding formula that has such perverse outcomes. For the record, I will go through some of the figures. In Greater Manchester, there are 8.74 incidents per 1,000 people, yet there will be a per capita cut of 82p; in Merseyside, 10.87 incidents per 1,000 of the population, and a per capita cut of £1.05; in South Yorkshire, 8.56 incidents per 1,000 people, and an 85p per capita cut; in Tyne and Wear, 9.70 incidents per 1,000 people, and a 99p per capita cut; in the West Midlands 8.03 incidents per 1,000 people and a 94p per capita cut; and in West Yorkshire 7.89 incidents per 1,000 people and a 32p per capita reduction.
That cannot be justified in any parlance, and the Minister must try to explain how he can defend such cuts. We know that the cuts have already led to thousands of firefighters losing their jobs across the country, and that fire stations are closing. We know that appliances are being decommissioned as a consequence of the reductions, and that the greatest number of job losses, decommissioned fire appliances and fire station closures are occurring in the areas of greatest need.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the cuts, the excellent preventive work for which the fire and rescue service is responsible is suffering. What a crazy situation to put the nation in—cuts to preventive work are having to be made as a result of the reductions in funding from central Government. We will see more incidents of arson and the other problems that the fire and rescue service is called on to deal with, such as young people engaging in antisocial behaviour. The fire and rescue service does excellent work with young people, for example in the youth engagement schemes that take place around the country.
It is clear that the Minister’s cuts are arbitrary and are wrecking our fire and rescue service. The metropolitan fire and rescue services are bearing the biggest burden. The cuts are putting firefighters’ lives at risk and endangering the public. There will be increased casualties, and more properties will be lost as a consequence of the cuts to the fire services. That is not just scaremongering. I quote the author of “Fire Futures: Role of the Fire and Rescue Service (Delivery Models) Report,” which was commissioned by the Minister and said that
“these funding reductions will imperil their ability”—
the ability of fire and rescue services—
“to carry out risk-based budgeting and implement their local Integrated Risk Management Plans…let alone play an effective part in the National Framework. When all the frills have been removed, every spare ounce of fat burned off, and every possible efficiency saving identified and implemented, there will remain only real cuts to the core service and a real increase in casualties and property loss.”
That is a damning indictment of the Government’s direction of travel in relation to fire and rescue services.
I hope, having listened to the passionate speeches from right hon. and hon. Members who have great experience on this issue, that the Minister will consider what he has heard today, talk to his colleagues, think again, change course and reduce these cuts. The nation is relying on him.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing the debate and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Lady is of course right to pay tribute to the firefighters in her constituency and in green watch and to many others across the country. I have been involved in the fire service, one way or another, for 35 years. I have been the leader of a fire authority. I have had to wrestle with the difficulties of balancing a budget. Throughout those years, I have met firefighters in stations. I have dealt with the fire unions regularly.
Robert Neill
I will not give way very much, I am afraid, because I want to answer some of the points that have been made. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, let us see how we get on.
There is no monopoly of concern for the fire service in either party or personal terms. Equally, we have to recognise that, as with all the public sector, the fire service must deal with the difficult and pressing financial situation that we inherited from the previous Government. I make no bones about that. We must therefore deal with difficult financial circumstances in a sensible fashion. There is no point in denying the need to reduce the deficit, and I do not think that most responsible people on any side do. It is not helpful to use the rather selective quotations that we have just heard or highly coloured scenarios. There are difficulties, which are being addressed by fire services through hard work, and I recognise that. It is equally important, however, to provide the full context, which may not have been picked up fully in the debate.
First, it is right, as has been observed, that back-loading is recognising the position of the fire service as an emergency service. It is worth noting that the reductions applied to fire and rescue authorities have been less than those applied to local authorities in general. No one likes to have to make reductions, but the inheritance is such that it cannot be avoided.
Secondly, it is important to realise that the much criticised formula is—I say it bluntly—essentially the formula that this Government inherited from Opposition Members when they were in government. It is a bit rich to hear criticisms of illogicality from hon. Members who were effectively the authors of the system—a system that the Government are proposing, in the coalition agreement, to change. Let me spell that out a little more clearly.
Robert Neill
May I make a little progress? I want to get this on the record, and then my hon. Friend will understand why.
It is important to recognise that, under the current system, the metropolitan authorities none the less receive far more protection from the damping system than any other type of authority. The Government took the view, despite arguments from some quarters to the contrary, that it was right to maintain the damping position. That has protected the metropolitan authorities more than anyone else. For example, West Midlands fire and rescue authority benefits from damping to the tune of £8.5 million in 2011-13. Overall, there is approximately a £26 million benefit to metropolitan fire authorities from floor damping protection in 2011-13.
Robert Neill
I am going to make these points before I start giving way to anyone.
That is more money than they would otherwise have had. The Government maintain that protection. Non-metropolitan areas contribute towards that protection.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Government changed an element of the formula that we inherited to increase the relative needs weighting, which operates to the benefit of metropolitan authorities, because it reflects more of the needs that arise in urban areas. It targets resources on those authorities that are more dependent on central ground. It is not right to suggest that the Government have sought to target metropolitan areas. The operation of the formula is, I think, potentially flawed, which is why the Government, through the Localism Act 2011 and the Local Government Finance Bill, are moving away from the crude system of formula grant to assist in a business rate retention that will enable us to treat authorities fairly.
Mr Brady
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. As a fellow Conservative Member who represents a metropolitan constituency, I would not expect him to be biased against metropolitan constituencies. Most of us have engaged in this debate—not just today, but before—in a very constructive way, and so has the Minister. Whatever the origin of the formula, I hope that he will accept that its implementation is resulting in particularly harsh cuts in metropolitan areas. I hope that he will give serious consideration to whether a more equitable arrangement can be found to spread the cuts more fairly around the country.
Robert Neill
I understand my hon. Friend, but it is right to say that, in 2012-13, formula grant average per head in metropolitan fire and rescue services is £26, as against £19 per head in non-metropolitan areas. We should not think that there are no pressures and fire risks in non-metropolitan areas.
Robert Neill
I want to finish this point before I give way, if hon. Members will forgive me.
It is important to recognise that there are concerns. That is why, after the meeting organised by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), I indicated that my officials would be happy to meet officials from the fire authorities. I assure him that that is still the case. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because of his action on this matter and because he has not yet spoken.
John Healey
I thank the Minister for giving way. I thank him for his willingness to meet us and for charging his officials to work with those from the metropolitan authorities to get to the bottom of the situation and to consider the future. Does he recognise that there is cross-party and cross-area concern? Does he recognise that that concern is not about the first two years of the spending review; it is about years 3 and 4? The six fire chiefs, uniquely, have to come together to ensure that any cuts that need to be made are made evenly and equitably across all authorities in England.
Robert Neill
I will make sure that those meetings take place. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are now moving to a new system.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Robert Neill
I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I want to get this point on the record, along with other important points that need to be made for the sake of balance.
I assure the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne that when we design the new system, we wish to ensure that there is fairness. That is why, in setting the baseline under the new system, the risks element will be taken into account. We have decided that, under the new system, fire and rescue authorities will be designated as top-up authorities, so that they will have the confidence of having a significant proportion of their funding protected and will not be subject to volatility by business rate growth. They will have that protection, plus the protection of uprating annually by the retail prices index.
Robert Neill
I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. We are seeking to deal with those measures and will continue to work with authorities across the sector.
It is also important to put on the record that other funding streams are relevant to the fire service. Funding for the national resilience element is outside the formula grant. That has been referred to on a number of occasions. It is important to bear in mind that the funding for new dimension equipment, for example, increased in 2011-12 from 2010-11. The total metropolitan authority funding for new dimensions is £8 million. There are also specific grants in relation to urban search and rescue, high-volume pumps and so on. We maintain our stance that that will be treated as a new burden issue should more be required.
Capital grant funding for metropolitan authorities has been significantly increased. In Greater Manchester, the increase is 82%. Metropolitan fire authorities will benefit from £25 million capital funding, so it is not entirely accurate to talk solely about the formula grant. The Government are making other resources available to local authorities and fire and rescue authorities in particular to assist them with the need for service reconfiguration.
DVLA Closures (Scotland)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I am grateful for having secured this debate.
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is an important organisation in respect of the service it provides to motorists and the £5.7 billion a year that it raises for the Treasury. I shall focus on the problems arising from the DVLA’s proposals to close 39 of its local offices, particularly those in Scotland, because there is a Scottish angle that I am anxious to discuss with the Minister.
I shall focus on my local office. The office in my constituency is particularly busy, as are most of the offices throughout the country. Some 2.4 million people a year use their local DVLA office. The figures show that between 80,000 and 90,000 people a year use the Aberdeen office. In the past three years, there have been more than 250,000 transactions involving individuals using their local DVLA office for various purposes. Some 79 services are provided by DVLA at local offices.
On examination, the figures are stark. For example, Aberdeen has one of the highest rates of use of personal number plates, or cherished number plates to use the DVLA term—about 18,000 in the past three years. People might expect nothing less from an area that is fairly rich in oil and gas money.
The proposal is to transfer all the functions of the 39 offices to Swansea, which is the main headquarters of the DVLA. The consultation document by the DVLA and the Department for Transport is one of the weakest that I have seen: we are getting motherhood and apple pie and heading for sunny uplands, but there is little—virtually nothing—about the 1,200 jobs that will be lost in this process and little risk assessment of the financial analysis. We are not even told how much the Department expects to save in this operation. In addition to all that, there is no impact assessment and no consideration of what the consumer—the customer—is likely to face.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
The Edinburgh local office, which is not in my constituency, although I have constituency work there—it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart)—provides a service for the motor trade, which it finds valuable because it enables it to carry on its business swiftly and efficiently with people with whom it has built up a relationship. Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of that service is a loss to those businesses?
Mr Doran
Indeed, it is. Motor dealers who have sold a car want it to be registered as quickly as possible. Registration is one of the largest components of the work of the office in my constituency. A significant number of objections or letters of complaint from the motor trade have been sent to the DVLA as part of the consultation. The motor trade will be damaged substantially by the local closures.
Another option is to replace the local offices with the Post Office. I have no objection to business going to the Post Office—we all want our local post offices to improve their businesses—but no one in that organisation can provide the technical help and support that the local DVLA offices provide. The other option is to go online. I am happy that the DVLA have made significant progress in this area. I have re-registered my car simply online: it works well and I am pleased about that.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
There are DVLA offices in Coleraine, Londonderry and Ballymena. Going online also jeopardises those jobs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that going online is not necessarily the best way to save those jobs?
Mr Doran
The jobs have not really been considered in the consultation document. I understand that 1,200 jobs are at risk and some of those—200 or 300—will be moved to Swansea, if people are prepared to move. The hon. Gentleman is right. Despite the progress made by the DVLA in going online and its digital technology, I understand that there is a huge gap in the technology. The trade unions’ assessment is that it will take at least four or five years to fill that gap. That will add to the problem.
The other route being offered to customers is the post. We are talking about 2.4 million new transactions shifting from local offices to the centre in Swansea. A pilot test run a year or two ago, looking at postal loss—envelopes that go missing between the DVLA and its customers—showed that some 0.9% of post was lost. That does not sound like a lot and I am told that the DVLA has got that figure down to 0.5%, but with the number of transactions that will transfer to Swansea the potential loss is huge: almost 120,000 of 2.4 million letters will potentially be lost.
I have calculated that, if everyone in my area used the post—clearly they will not; this is just for illustration— over the past three years we would have lost 1,250 communications. Given that many of these communications will contain identification documents, such as passports, that is a serious problem. I should like the Minister to comment on that.
We are given three potential ways forward and there is a serious problem with each of them. More important, from my point of view as a former practising solicitor, are the legal consequences of another aspect of the DVLA’s work. The key responsibility in the local areas is enforcement.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that a key danger of the reorganisation is the potential effect on evasion of vehicle excise. I am also sure that he is already aware that if evasion rose by only 0.5% it would wipe out all the savings of this reorganisation.
Mr Doran
The hon. Gentleman is right. The 2004 figures, which are the most recent that I have managed to get hold of, show that evasion of vehicle excise duty was about 5%. That is a significant figure. Every percentage point costs the DVLA £57 million. Even a small increase, say 0.5% or 1%, would mean that the £28 million in savings expected from the closure process will be wiped out. It is not unrealistic to say that through this process, we are heading, particularly in Scotland, towards the serious possibility that evasion of vehicle excise duty will increase.
In the system at the moment there is an enforcement office in each region. In Scotland, that office is in Glasgow. Around the country, vehicles go out on our streets patrolling with number-recognition equipment, tallying what they find with DVLA records to pick up vehicles on which the vehicle excise duty has not been paid. It is quite a sophisticated operation.
I am told that responsibility for vehicles is to be removed from the local office, but Scotland has a particular legal issue. In England and Wales, and perhaps in Northern Ireland, the DVLA is the prosecuting authority, but in Scotland everything operates through the procurator fiscal, who has to operate within the confines of Scots law, which involves corroboration of every piece of evidence presented to the court.
In my local area, there are between 200 and 300 contested cases a year, because someone either pleads not guilty or ignores a summons from the court. That needs evidence, which at the moment is provided by an officer from Glasgow travelling to the local sheriff court, which could be just around the corner in the Glasgow sheriff court or in Orkney, Shetland or Western Isles. An assessment is made in each case—basically, a cost-benefit assessment: what is the cost of sending an officer to Shetland or Aberdeen and what are we likely to get in the way of a fine? If the costs outweigh the likely fine, a case will probably not be proceeded with, so people are already getting away with refusing or failing to pay their vehicle excise duty.
If the same cost-benefit analysis is done in the Swansea office, sending someone from Swansea to Shetland or even Aberdeen becomes a major operation. There are major cost factors, including overnight stays, which are unlikely at the moment. The cost will rise, and will we also see a rise in evasion of vehicle excise duty? If we do, what assessment has been made of the cost? Where is the financial analysis to show us what the new system might mean for evasion, in particular if we continue to provide evidence that must be from a witness, on which there is no option in the Scottish courts? What is the analysis? It strikes me that we will be opening the gates to people who might be prone to think that they can get away with evading their vehicle excise duty, and that undermines the whole system.
Among the problems to be considered, I have mentioned the consultation document, which is flabby and weak in every respect—I am concerned about it, because there is a host of areas where we do not have answers, some of which I have outlined. There has been no consideration of the huge rise in inconvenience to the public who use the local centres in significant numbers. The evidence is available: 2.4 million people a year will be inconvenienced, many of them businesses, some large, some small. The consultation report tells us that some such businesses already use the online system but, from my contacts in the motor trade, they are more interested in completing their licence or registration on the same day, rather than waiting several days, perhaps longer, for the material to come back from Swansea.
Also, from experience of such significant changes and reorganisations, the first two or three years are likely to be chaotic as the system beds down. I have commented on the loss of documents, in particular passports, which are valuable in themselves but are lost at huge inconvenience to the individual passport holder and with a possibly large profit for any criminal into whose hands the passport might fall. The potentially significant rise in tax evasion would be at significant cost to the Treasury. At this stage, with the lack of information from the consultation process, it is difficult to see anything positive. I have a simple question for the Minister: what is the point?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure to be working under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Williams, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing the debate. If I were in his position, I would be in his seat, and he would probably be in mine.
The changes that we are proposing and that were subject to consultation are not only about money. The service offered by the DVLA to the British public is quite different from any offered by most other agencies: apart from the collection of vehicle excise duty revenue that we do on behalf of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the service is paid for by the people who use it. The DVLA has to be self-sufficient in how it operates. At the moment, the types of service that we offer to the public in offices around the country could clearly be done more professionally, efficiently and helpfully, and at a cost that could help the taxpayer as well. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the 2.4 million people who use the offices each year, but that equates to less than 6% of DVLA transactions, although they take up almost 25% of DVLA staffing levels. I shall leave others to do the mathematics, but if we can operate more cost-effectively, that is what Governments should do.
Many services are offered at different offices around the country, and the hon. Gentleman rightly alluded to the profitable business of cherished or personalised number plates—whatever we want to call them—but the system is quite archaic. Someone has to prove the MOT for the vehicle from which the plate is being transferred, even though the transfer has been approved by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency: the vehicle has to be brought to the test centre and the process gone through. We want to speed that process up—we want more cherished number plates in Aberdeen. If there is money in Aberdeen to buy cherished number plates, the DVLA wants that money, because it helps to balance the books in the country. At the moment, there is a disincentive because the measures are complicated, which anyone who goes through the process will realise. We want to simplify it as much as possible.
Throughout Government, we want to use digital portals much more efficiently. Some 50% of all DVLA transactions now go through the digital portal, with people sitting at home or at their local library. That service continues to be rolled out across the country. On non-payment of VED, I am pleased that the latest figures are much better, and less than 1% is lost—in other words, people not paying are less than 1%. A lot of hard work has been done in the regional offices and the Swansea central office, but much of the success is to do with automatic number plate recognition. Modern ANPR cameras are ridiculously accurate—I hope people are listening to the debate—and, as we have rolled out ANPR through the police and through our camera technology, we have picked up more and more people. More individuals are being made aware that they are likely to be caught and prosecuted, which is why we have that level of less than 1% at the moment. There is no way in the world that I would be standing in the Chamber to condone any process likely to let that figure get worse. Most prosecutions are done through Swansea—I shall come on to the Scottish issues in a second, which are different, I accept, but we have taken them into consideration.
Mr Doran
A lot of the improvement in the capture of defaulters is because of the number of patrolling recognition vehicles, but my understanding, certainly in Scotland, is that they are being removed. Are they being removed throughout the country? What impact assessment has been made of the effect of that on defaults?
Mike Penning
There is a roll-out, not a roll-in, to use probably perverse language—more and more vehicles are going out. I will not tell the country where they are and where they will be, because I want to catch and prosecute people.
If any hon. colleagues have not been out on patrol with their local police with ANPR in the vehicle, I urge them to do so. They should contact their local constabulary and go out with them, because it will be an eye-opening experience for them. They can then explain to their constituents just how advanced the technology is. I sat in a police car on the side of an A road in Milton Keynes recently, but as the vehicles went past an alarm went off in the car if they did not have any insurance or MOT, and we knew who the vehicle was registered to. ANPR is very accurate. As we have rolled out continuous insurance—
Mike Penning
I urge the hon. Gentleman to bear with me, because I want to make a little progress. I am conscious that, otherwise, Mr Williams will shut me up before I have had an opportunity to address the issues that he raised.
I fully accept that there is some concern in the motor industry, but it is split. I regularly meet the industry’s representative bodies, and I have met representatives of the motor trade in my constituency. What we are proposing will be more efficient. It will not be a case of putting documents in the post and losing blank tax discs. We will use a secure system, and speed will be subject to a contract. Delivery will be the following day, and it may sometimes be possible to offer same-day delivery.
Most of the complaints that I have heard from colleagues have come from people at local offices, who believe that they may lose their job. I fully understand their concerns, but the necessary efficiencies will mean that the risk to the motor trade of holding whole books of blank tax discs in their showrooms will be removed. At the moment, showrooms receive them in blocks, and are responsible for those blocks, which they may return if they do not use them. That is not efficient for them or for us, and we intend to roll out a more efficient way.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that the system in England and Wales is different from the system in Scotland. The system in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) knows, is completely archaic, and no electronic portals can be used because the database is not compatible with the database in Swansea, so we must do something about that. There may be an Adjournment debate on the subject, but I thought I should raise the matter. We must deliver a much better service for the Province of Northern Ireland. In Scotland, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North rightly said, the procurator fiscal is the prosecutor, but we do not intend to have everyone sitting in Swansea and then taking lovely journeys to Shetland and the Western Isles.
Mike Penning
The hon. Gentleman agrees that it is a lovely journey. I have been to Shetland and the Western Isles, and I agree, but it takes a while and requires an overnight stay.
We will work with the procurator fiscal. I am not a lawyer, but this place is full of lawyers, and we will ensure that case notes are available with the evidential base for prosecution. I want the number of prosecutions to rise, not fall. If anyone in Shetland and the Western Isles believes that they will not be prosecuted because of the cost analysis, they are wrong. We will be able to roll out prosecutions on a level playing field throughout the country. I fully accept that at the moment that is not the case. I apologise to those who live at the extremities of this great nation of ours, but we will ensure that whether people live in London or Shetland, they will be prosecuted if they break the law.
The consultation is genuine, as is any consultation I introduce. I remember standing here and speaking about a completely different consultation and saying that it was not a closed deal. Matters that were not in the consultation will arise. Some 400 colleagues and others have contributed to the consultation, which closes on 20 March. We will consider all submissions, whether or not they were detailed in the consultation.
The issue is categorically not just about saving money, although there will be savings. It is my responsibility, and the responsibility of the chief executive of the DVLA, to ensure that we provide a service to the public that is as cost-efficient and as accessible as possible. There is demand for a more digital service, and for it to be provided through the excellent post office network, which we have all defended in this Chamber over the years.
It is imperative that at the end of the consultation we ensure that all the issues are considered. If the plans go ahead, we will ensure that, wherever possible, staff will be transferred to other departments if that is what they want. If there are redundancies, we will ensure that we handle them correctly, and if retraining is required, it will be provided. Only the other day, I met a group of DVLA workers who were worried because they had never filled in a CV or applied for a job. Assistance will be given to everyone who applies for a new job in a Government agency or Department, or who are leaving DVLA. That is a moral responsibility, as well as a legal one.
We must ensure that the cost base is delivered correctly and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) said, we do not lose the benefit of the current level of non-payment, which is 1%. I cannot claim full responsibility for that, because I have been in the job for only 21 months, and the figures cover three years, so the previous Government must have been doing something right to achieve that figure. Some of that excellent work is done in local offices but—I hate to say this—most of it is being done through technology and at Swansea.
There will be more than 300 new jobs at Swansea. That does not equate with the 1,200 jobs at risk around the country, but some of those new jobs may be taken up by existing DVLA staff if they wish to relocate, although I fully understand that relocating from Aberdeen to Swansea would be extremely difficult. That is why we will offer redundancy packages if necessary.
My job is to ensure that we deliver the best possible service for the public, who are telling us that they want a more digital system. I accept that some businesses are saying one thing, and others are saying another, but as long as we can ensure that we deliver the service to the motor trade professionally and without much of the risk, I think they will be happy, and they have mostly indicated that they will be.
We want to sell many more cherished numbers, particularly in parts of Scotland where there are affluent people who want to use their disposable income in such a way. We must make it simpler for them to do so, and end the present bureaucratic and archaic system.
Veterans (Mental Health)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Given the nature of this afternoon’s debate, I should like to pay tribute to the soldiers missing and believed killed in Afghanistan. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families at what must be an incredibly difficult time.
It is always a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, and indeed to initiate a debate in this Chamber. I feel, however, an even greater sense of privilege due to the special nature of this debate. Like many Members on both sides of the House, I am a great supporter of our armed forces family. From serving personnel to veterans, those brave men and women have served our country with dedication, and they deserve admiration, respect and parliamentary attention.
I should like to discuss veterans’ mental health, which is one of the few subjects that quite rightly commands political unity on both sides. The work of successive Governments over recent years has given the issue great momentum, and early in the debate I should like to commend the previous Government on the work that they did on behalf of veterans. I also congratulate the Minister on the way that the current Government have championed this worthy issue.
My interest in the mental health of veterans comes from my frequent correspondence and discussions with one of my constituents who is the mother of a veteran. Her dedication to improving the provision and information provided to veterans is inspiring, and I hope that she will take heart from today’s debate.
In recent years, efforts to tackle the cruel stigma that is related to mental health issues more generally across society have begun to make a difference to many of those who suffer from what is often an invisible illness. Indeed, it has been estimated that one in four people in the country suffer from some form of mental health issue each year. The Mental Health Network, which is part of the NHS Confederation, has carried out excellent work, and over the past few years, it has been heartening to see the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health working closely with the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and others in the voluntary sector to provide a range of improved services for veterans who suffer from mental health problems.
Let me take the opportunity to praise the work of all charities up and down the country that work day in, day out with members of our armed forces family. In particular, I should like to champion the Royal British Legion and Combat Stress—two charities that play a vital role in delivering key services to veterans and serving armed forces personnel. Together, those charities offer vast experience, unquestionable compassion and unwavering dedication. With approximately 22,000 armed forces personnel leaving the service and returning to civilian life each year, we must appreciate the wide-ranging mental health issues that can be provoked by experiences in war-torn countries and dangerous conflicts around the world.
Over the past 10 years, British troops have been involved in a range of conflicts from Iraq and Afghanistan to Bosnia and Sierra Leone, and the bloody experiences of those wars cannot fail to leave a mark on those who confront them. When we think of the sacrifices made by armed forces personnel, it is right to consider not only the often terrifying physical risks undertaken, but the mental strains that are placed on our brave servicemen and women.
It has been estimated that more than 27% of veterans suffer from a common mental disorder. For those armed forces personnel who leave the service each year having experienced direct action in recent operations, the transition from service life to civilian life is often traumatic. For many, the future is uncertain, and owing to the stigma that surrounds mental health issues, many sufferers fail to seek help on leaving the services. If they do seek help, it is often at a dangerously late stage. A Mental Health Network briefing last year suggested that, on average, veterans do not come forward for mental health support until 14 years after their discharge. Sadly, homelessness and alcohol or substance abuse is more prevalent among veterans when compared with others of similar age or social background.
I have three main objectives in this debate: first, to commend the superb work that has been carried out on behalf of veterans who have suffered from mental health problems in recent years; secondly, to seek assurances about the continuation of parliamentary support for such work to be maintained on a more permanent basis; and thirdly, to ensure that our provision for veterans is coherently delivered in the best possible manner.
The previous Government’s “New Horizons” strategy document bound the NHS and the MOD to improve access and support for the early treatment and prevention of mental health illness among servicemen and veterans. The current Government, led admirably by the Prime Minister, launched the military covenant, which enshrines into law the Government’s duty to support the entire armed forces family. The covenant makes a new commitment to provide
“extra support for veteran mental health needs.”
Soon after taking office in 2010, the coalition Government asked my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) to produce a report on veterans’ mental health. He should be congratulated on his truly outstanding work and recommendations, and I encourage any hon. Member who has not yet read the report to request a copy from the Library.
My hon. Friend’s “Fighting Fit” report received favourable backing from the Government, and rightly so because it includes a raft of measures to ensure better provision for veterans and their families. Among 13 action points and four principal recommendations, the report specifically calls for
“An uplift in the number of mental health professionals conducting veterans outreach work… A Veterans Information Service (VIS) to be deployed 12 months after a person leaves the Armed Forces… trial of an online early intervention service for serving personnel and veterans.”
As part of the Government’s initial response, a dedicated 24-hour mental health support line for veterans was launched in March 2011, operated by the charity Rethink on behalf of Combat Stress and funded by the Department of Health. In addition, the number of mental health professionals was doubled from 15 to 30.
With the “Fighting Fit” report, the Government’s military covenant and the previous Government’s valuable work, much effort has been made to deal with this issue. The objective now, however, is to ensure that that wide-ranging support, financial assistance, e-learning provision and information literature continues and is focused in the most effective way possible.
I have a number of questions for the Minister to which I hope he will respond, although I accept that some information might require communication with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. First, will funding for the dedicated 24-hour support telephone line continue after the one-year trial, which I believe is soon coming to an end? I believe that having someone on the end of a telephone at any hour of any day who is willing to listen, able to support and trained to understand must be of tremendous reassurance and assistance to affected veterans. The continuation of funding for that telephone service would indicate a clear commitment to veterans, and I urge the Minister to push for that support to continue.
With an eye on the future, I ask the Minister to outline the time scales involved in implementing the new veterans service to which the Government have made a commitment. A key issue as we discuss the future of such support is the difficulty of keeping in touch with veterans. As discussed earlier, many leave the service and move on to temporary accommodation or work. It is impossible to provide meaningful support if we do not know where veterans now live or work. Will the Government do more to track and store information about veterans, and will that information be shared with key partners?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that there is a particular problem with regard to the Territorial Army and reserve forces? Many of them are spread out across the nation, and we do not know where they are. At least, regulars have the regimental family around them, even after they become veterans. People from the TA are often out in the wide world without anyone to provide such support.
Julian Sturdy
I agree. It is also worth noting that reservists tend to suffer more from mental illness, if they have experienced conflict, than regular soldiers, so it is probably even more important that we understand where the reservists are and can monitor that and target help towards them.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and I support the laudable aims that he is describing. Given the established difficulties with keeping track of individual soldiers and the difficulties with giving the necessary support post discharge to all manner of servicemen and women, is it not time that we started to consider the possibility of a veterans agency that brings together all these things and provides a co-ordinating review and a hub point for all these services?
Julian Sturdy
I agree. As I said, there is a real problem about the joined-up thinking that needs to be done. A tremendous amount of work and services are out there, but we need to bring that all together, under one roof. I will come on to that later if I can.
There remains a real danger that too many veterans will slip through the net because they fail to be registered for initial support on leaving the service and get lost in the system thereafter. The best way to ensure that support gets through to veterans is to keep up to date with veterans, as has been said.
Having touched on the increase in mental health nurses across the strategic health authorities covered by an armed forces network, I ask the Minister to outline the initial effect that the Government believe those nurses are having. Is there sufficient demand for the increased services? Do we need to consider increasing the numbers further? Ensuring that Government provision is frequently reviewed in such a manner will help to keep the ball rolling on this very important subject.
Without wishing to ask too many questions, I should be grateful to the Minister if he confirmed how many of the 10 health networks have now developed integrated services for veterans with specific mental health problems. As I said, ensuring that our provision is targeted correctly and effectively in supporting veterans is key.
I should now like to deal with the online package of interventions for veterans. In response to a recent written question tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), the Minister, who I am delighted to see will respond to this debate, stated that the uptake of membership of the Big White Wall among the armed forces family is exceeding expectations. It would be interesting to know whether uptake among veterans is also high. Although I am a great supporter of online interventions, my slight fear is that information, assistance and forms of community engagement are all present and accessible online, but only if someone actively searches for them. With respect to veterans who suffer from mental health problems, we cannot expect all of them to be able or even willing to carry out such research. Are those leaving the service provided with the relevant links and information before they leave?
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I, too, commend my hon. Friend for initiating the debate. Does he agree that there is a key role to be played by local authorities in providing the information for veterans that he is describing? David Herbert, a constituent of mine in Halesowen, was instrumental in bringing together a veterans charter in the Dudley borough, precisely to signpost veterans towards key information in the local area, including information on provision of mental health services.
Julian Sturdy
I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. I agree that local authorities have a key role to play, and I agree with the point about the veterans charter, which could go a long way towards delivering what we need, because ultimately we must signpost services correctly. That is the real point. As I said, there are great services out there, but I fear that if we do not signpost them to veterans effectively, we might be missing a trick.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House and to people outside it, particularly veterans, by initiating this debate today. One of my constituents, Charlie Brindley, is a veteran and a champion of veterans’ causes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should look for the best way of using such people as champions to assist us in reaching veterans and dealing with the difficulties in relation to mental health even more effectively?
Julian Sturdy
I agree. We must use the experience of such people to help us in this process. Signposting is the key. We have the strategy, but we need to bring things together in a coherent manner that best serves veterans such as those whom hon. Members have mentioned in their constituencies.
As I have said repeatedly, the work carried out in this field recently has been outstanding, yet we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to engage more public interest. We must continue to provide direct funding and support and to monitor each initiative to ensure that it is proving effective. There are so many different strands of support. My final plea is that all the excellent provision be kept together in a specific and coherent strategy. We have already in the debate heard about a number of different ways in which that might be done. If the provision is too loose, too disjointed or too sporadic in its implementation, we run the risk of undermining the general force of the positive work in this area.
I appreciate that a number of hon. Members would like to contribute to the debate, so I shall briefly conclude my thoughts. The work carried out by charities such as Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and so many others literally saves lives. I applaud every one of them. Likewise, hon. Members on both sides of the House who have championed our armed forces should be proud of the work achieved in recent years to assist veterans who suffer from mental health problems. However, our work in scrutinising the present Government and future Governments must never cease. We have a duty to monitor and assess and to push those at the very top to ensure that veterans are at the top of our leaders’ agendas.
I save my last words for both serving and retired servicemen and women. I have never served in the armed forces family, and I expect that only those who do will truly understand the pressure, sacrifice and honour that such service entails. I do not pretend to understand what it must be like to face danger and even death on foreign shores on behalf of Queen and country. However, I can assure all veterans that I shall continuously do my best to ensure that they are never forgotten once their service is completed, that their needs are met by the country to which they gave so much and that their dedication and commitment are rewarded, acknowledged and, indeed, celebrated.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate. Sadly, we do not give anything like the attention we should to the consequences of our decisions to go to war. There are even instances where attempts seem to have been made to suppress knowledge of those consequences. In the past, it was possible for me as a Back Bencher to read out the names of all those who had fallen in the Iraq war and later in the Afghan war. Such practice is now expressly forbidden by the rules of the House. If I attempted to read out those names and their ranks today—I think that they would make a greater impression than any speech that I could make—it would take about 25 minutes to complete the list. The House has decided that it does not want to hear that, so it will never happen again.
There was an attempt to change the system of announcing the names of the fallen at Prime Minister’s Question Time. The names were announced on a Monday and a Tuesday, but MPs protested, saying that they wanted to hear those names announced at a time when hon. Members and the press could give them their maximum attention, so we have now gone back to the original time. I believe that the country wishes to understand the consequences of war.
I want to mention the case of a constituent of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). If I have the hon. Gentleman’s permission to mention the details, I will be happy to relay the story. The case of Sergeant Dan Collins has moved everyone. He went to war at the age of 29. He was optimistic and courageous and had a brilliant record of service. He was shot on two occasions and on two other occasions, he was damaged by improvised explosive devices, but the incidents that tormented him the most were the deaths of two of his friends, one of whom died in the most dreadful circumstances, having lost a number of limbs. The sergeant was holding him as he died. It was that incident that tormented him. He had fine treatment from his family, a loving girlfriend and help from the local charity, Healing the Wounds. Tragically, he took his own life earlier this year—he had attempted to do so before.
If today’s tragedies are confirmed, the number who have fallen is 404. Sergeant Dan Collins will not be numbered among those and neither will many others. The results of the Afghan war will be seen not just in the numbers of the dead and the civilian dead, who are uncounted, but in the 2,000 soldiers who are now broken in body or mind. It is right that we should do all that we can to treat them with the greatest care.
We should say a word of thanks to the Welsh Government, who have taken this matter very seriously. Recently, the Welsh Minister for Health, Lesley Griffiths, announced that she was setting up a £500,000 fund to ensure that every health authority in Wales has a specialised doctor with experience in dealing with veterans to deal with those who come back from the war. It is absolutely right that we do not disguise or shy away from the consequences of our actions.
In my time in Parliament, we went to war in Iraq on the basis of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. We stayed in Afghanistan mainly on the pretext of a terrorist threat to the United Kingdom from the Taliban. That threat did not exist; there were threats from al-Qaeda, but not from the Taliban. We are now being told that we should contemplate war against Iran on the basis that it has missiles carrying nuclear weapons with a range of 6,000 miles, which do not exist.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about the mental health of veterans? The scope is getting a bit too wide.
Paul Flynn
I am grateful for your patience, Mr Dobbin. Finally, when we establish a code of conduct and a covenant between us and the soldiers, our main duty should be to put as the first line a pledge that we will never go into a war that is unnecessary. That is our duty in this House. If we are to avoid fatalities and more people being mentally damaged, our main task is to resist those who cry for war.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
It is a great pleasure and a privilege to speak in this debate today. I have been in this House for nearly two years and I have not had the opportunity to raise the issue of the mental health of veterans in the way in which we have done today. I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) for securing this debate and for the measured and eloquent way in which he has brought the issues to the House.
I join my hon. Friend and other colleagues in passing on our respective condolences to the service men and women, and to the families of those who died in Afghanistan so recently. I endorse everything that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said. It is an utter tragedy and one of the largest losses of life for many a year. I remain of the view that the sooner we bring our troops home from Afghanistan, the better it will be.
This debate is certainly overdue. I want to make a declaration. I send out my thanks and support to the various charities, volunteer groups and individuals who provide support. I echo the words of support for the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes. If I need to declare that I have raised funds for such groups while serving as a Member of Parliament, I do so. I certainly need to make a declaration that I have represented, as defence counsel, multitudes of soldiers facing criminal charges, which was a salutary and depressing experience. Many of the soldiers had committed criminal offences, which they had no desire to commit, because they were suffering from mental health problems and fundamentally from post-traumatic stress disorder.
I represented a Royal Marine who had broken down in a supermarket after he had been unable to get together the right amount of money at the till. He felt that the lady behind the counter, who had been perfectly civil to him, had not been as co-operative as she should have been and it all became too much. The nature and the prevalence of post-traumatic stress are such that it is always the very smallest things at the end of the process that result in the demise of the mental strength of people who have quite happily stormed up Tumbledown ridge, gone across the Gulf deserts and fought repeatedly in a way that very few of us in this House can even contemplate. It is how we provide support that is important. As defence counsel for some of these lads and, on one occasion, a woman, I saw very strongly how their spirit was broken. I have also seen, over the last 15 to 20 years of lawyer practice, plenty of examples of these people falling through the system.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech about how people fall through the net. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), mentioned Charles Brindley, who has been trying to do some work around GPs. Many GPs do not seem to be aware of the military assessment programme that is available. Often if someone presents with a mental health issue, the GP is not trained or aware of the services and support that can be made available. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that GPs are better educated and better trained in dealing with such individuals?
Guy Opperman
I entirely endorse that point. Although it is incumbent upon Members of this House to raise the profile of this issue and to try to disseminate information about the types of health care support that exist, it is also incumbent upon the relevant health trusts and authorities to ensure that in future a degree of information is passed down the net to individual GPs and action teams, particularly those teams dealing with alcohol abuse, so that the organisations in the regions are able to support the veterans who are out there.
I have worked with a charity called Veterans in Action. It involves some constituents of mine in Northumberland but it also involves servicemen and women who are based in Lancashire and all over the country, who are attempting to do various things. For example, they have a pilot project with the Lancashire Drug and Alcohol Action Team that involves meeting up with GPs to work with them and trying to do exactly the sort of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) has outlined.
However, the worry is that, although individual groups in our constituencies are all doing very good work to provide a degree of assistance to veterans, there is no overarching body providing global support. What often happens, therefore—for example it has happened with Veterans in Action, which was set up in my constituency and is now working throughout the country—is that the individual soldiers effectively get fed up with the process and decide to provide support themselves.
I supported what the previous Government did. They were working to do a great deal more than had previously been done. Successive Governments have improved care for veterans over time. But the “Fighting Fit” report and the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) have clearly taken things to the next stage and a better level.
I will digress slightly, because in my constituency I have the Albemarle barracks and the Otterburn ranges, troops from my constituency are serving on a regular basis in Afghanistan with the 39 Regiment Royal Artillery, and the Ridsdale ranges provide all the weapons that are tested before the soldiers use them. I also have a large number of constituents who have served in the forces. For example, many Falklands veterans live in my constituency and have come to see me because of the experiences that they have suffered and the lack of support that they have experienced. That was under a different Government and, frankly, I am not here to criticise any Government. However, there is no question but that the degree of support given to the Falklands veterans was limited compared with the support that we are giving to the veterans who are returning from Afghanistan now. Things have got better.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), I wanted to say that in the 30 years following the Falklands conflict—it is rather timely to make this point, this year being the anniversary—more soldiers were reported to have committed suicide after the conflict than had actually died in the conflict itself.
Guy Opperman
It is interesting, is it not, that today is 7 March and on 7 March 1982, exactly 30 years ago, about three and a half weeks prior to the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, which happened on 2 April 1982, the British ambassador in Argentina wrote a cable from Buenos Aires to the then British Prime Minister, saying that matters were escalating. It is very well known, and it was reported in the Franks report that assessed the Falklands war, that “contingency plans” needed to be made. That was not enough and a war began, then escalated. I certainly will not go down the route taken by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) by digressing further. However, the point is that the treatment of the veterans of the Falklands war was not as good as the treatment of veterans now, partly because there were difficulties at that time in understanding what post-traumatic stress disorder was.
From a health standpoint, PTSD is not confined to victims of conflict. There are also plenty of victims of PTSD who were involved in normal, day-to-day accidents and disasters, whether it is industrial health accidents or factory accidents; people can have PTSD arising from those things. We need to change the way that PTSD and other aspects of the mental health of veterans are visualised, because it needs to be recognised that PTSD and other mental health conditions are just as much a disease or condition as breaking an arm or suffering from cancer, and it is just as difficult to solve or treat.
I move on. I endorse entirely what was said about the current situation, and I will abbreviate my comments to making an assessment of the current situation. Various studies have shown that a very large proportion of our veterans are suffering from PSTD. At present, approximately 24,000 veterans are in jail, on parole or serving community punishment orders. That is the astonishing number that emerges if we assess how many veterans are going through our criminal justice system. It manifestly shows that, for whatever reason, we have not done enough.
Let us also bear in mind that American studies have shown that approximately 30% of the US troops who were in Vietnam suffered from PSTD, or about one in three. That is an absolutely staggering number. Therefore, although we might look at the respective troops coming home from Afghanistan, and at those who fought in Iraq and other conflict zones, and think that they are all right, three out of 10 soldiers will genuinely suffer PTSD. They may suffer it in year one after their return. Year 14 is the average length of time that it takes, but it can take as long as 25 or 30 years, and throughout all of that time, their individual families are suffering and going through particular difficulties.
I applaud the “Fighting Fit” report and the work that is being done. However, I regret to say that that is not enough. Personally, I do not consider that it is enough. I accept entirely that we are in straitened times and that, with every budget, we have to consider the way in which things are dealt with. Nevertheless, I very much hope the Minister will give the sort of assurances that charities and individual soldiers’ organisations seek about their future, and that there are commitments on an ongoing basis to the matters outlined in “Fighting Fit”, so that those charities and organisations have the reassurance that genuine efforts will be made to ensure that their funding is sustained; that mental health systems are structured properly; that the recommendations of the inquiry into medical examinations while soldiers are still serving are properly implemented; and, given that we are introducing all these ideas from “Fighting Fit”, that there will be proper assessment of those ideas after they are introduced. I agree that organisations such as the Big White Wall are not necessarily being utilised in the way that was envisaged; they are being utilised, but not necessarily in the way that was envisaged.
I would very much like to see an overarching body for veterans. I would like a veterans agency to be considered by the Government, and the Government to consider whether there is a possibility of bringing together certain parts of the NHS, the Ministry of Defence and social services and housing elements, which make up so much of all the difficulties that our servicemen suffer, and dovetailing that with the health services that are provided in prisons.
We can look at the way that people are dealt with in terms of health services in prisons. I have extensive experience of going to see clients who are former servicemen and who have received a custodial sentence or who are held on remand. There was absolutely no doubt that they were hopelessly unable to deal with the difficulties of a custodial sentence, or the difficulties of being detained, at that particular time, in circumstances that they would normally have been perfectly able to deal with.
Mr Gray
I have agreed with much of what my hon. Friend has had to say, but I have some difficulties with the notion of the establishment of a new agency to carry out the functions that existing Government bodies are required to carry out at the moment. If there were a veterans agency, would there not be a risk that people at the Department of Health or the Ministry of Defence would shrug their shoulders and say, “Someone else is doing this for us, leave it to them”, and that the services received by veterans would be significantly worse than they are at the moment?
Guy Opperman
I accept there is always a risk that, if we create some new body, we will be in a position whereby everybody passes the buck and says, “Well, they’re sorting it out”. However, I am clear that every single MP could come to this House and say, “I have individual examples of people in my constituency, or stories that I have heard of former servicemen.” Those servicemen are continuing to slip through the net—they are unaware of the individual aspects of the services that are available to them—and the Government are not necessarily acting as an overarching body to ensure that they are aware of those services.
Let me give some examples. There is very good evidence from the “Fighting Fit” report and other studies that follow it up that there should be a leavers pack for soldiers and, for example, an ability for veterans to be monitored after they have been discharged. All those services are good, but they stop after a certain period and the Government do not go back to those individuals to ask, “Are you actually all right? Are you in a position to cope with the vicissitudes of your life and your existence on an ongoing basis?” That is the sort of thing that I would like done. I concede that it may be possible to do such things in the present Departments, but there must be more joined-up thinking, because the problem is ongoing, and there are examples.
I am conscious that other Members wish to get into the debate, so I will abbreviate my comments. I want to talk about the work of Veterans in Action, a classic charity, which is run by individual veterans. For a number of years, they have been providing in-depth support, which they have found is, sadly, lacking in the system. They tell me that there is no generic way to collect veterans’ information and that it is collected very much on a local, case-by-case basis. Similarly, they say it is extremely difficult to get organisations to work together. They also tell me that the Big White Wall is not being used as it was intended to be and that people are using the Combat Stress helpline as a first point of contact.
A great many smaller, third sector organisations and charities set up by veterans are having similar problems. With no national directory or local directories of such organisations, it is immensely difficult for individual veterans who are constantly moving around—who have problems with housing and with all the dislocation that goes with that—to harness the efforts of such organisations. Therefore, just as successive Governments have done amazing work looking after individual veterans’ health in conflict zones, we should do more to look after their mental health after they have left those conflict zones.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the shadow Minister at 3.40 pm.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on opening this important debate.
I must admit that I am not a natural when it comes to defence-orientated debates. I do not come from a garrison town and I have no experience of the forces—I suspect I am naturally too insubordinate to fit into them. However, I have a genuine interest in this issue. It is spurred not so much by constituency cases, although a soldier came to see me who was severely traumatised by the conflict he had endured, and the atrocities he had seen, in Aden. It was an awfully long time ago, but it had scarred his whole life, traumatising him, driving him to alcoholism and creating huge mental health issues. I also dealt with a case in which a gentleman who had been advised by the Ministry of Defence to assist it with research at Porton Down on the common cold subsequently had a lot of worries that were quite unrelated to his exposure to the common cold.
What really sparked my interest, however, was my experience on the Public Accounts Committee, which produced a series of interesting reports on and around this area that showed up some quite distinctive and worrying issues. The report I want to dwell on was called “Ministry of Defence: Treating injury and illness arising on military operations”. It showed quite categorically that the forces were excellent at dealing with people’s physical ailments in the theatre of war and subsequently—the profile and the results were good, and the medical treatment was exemplary. When it came to mental health, however, there were some very odd results. For example, it appeared that American and British soldiers exiting the same theatres of war had widely disparate experiences in terms of their mental health, with more Americans reporting themselves, or being reported, as having mental health problems by a considerable margin.
Even more strangely, the figures coming out of the British forces for mental health problems showed soldiers were experiencing no real anxiety at all; in fact, they showed that troops were in just as good mental health as the ordinary population, which was odd. During the PAC inquiry, I told Sir Bill Jeffrey, who was permanent under-secretary at the time:
“I think we would all accept that war is extremely stressful and people see some horrid, fearsome things that would disrupt the psychology of almost anybody. What surprises me”—
then and now—
“is that the referral of the Forces appears to be lower than the referral rate of the population as a whole.”
I put it to him that that was intrinsically implausible:
“You would have thought there would be more mental health issues amongst a population of people who see quite traumatic scenes than amongst those who do not.”
More brutally, I said the rate of referrals
“is actually lower than the population at large. In other words, it would appear…that in the confines of Committee Room 15”,
where the PAC was meeting,
“we are far more vulnerable to mental health stress than people in the operational theatre of war.”
It can be pretty torrid in the PAC at times, but I suggest that result shows that something is going awry in the forces’ reading of troops’ mental health post-war.
Equally puzzling was the disparity between people coming out of the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres of war. Lieutenant-General Baxter, who was then the deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, explained:
“I think you have to look at the nature of combat…When you are being shot at and you can shoot back, it is a lot less stressful than when you are being bombed or suffering indirect fire.”
I do not know whether that is true, but it invites serious questions about the level and quality of screening when people are discharged.
Other reports that the PAC produced at the time were equally troubling. They showed, for example, that squaddies were far less well prepared for the outside world than they could have been when they were discharged. There were also troubling statistics, with which we are all familiar, about high rates of alcohol problems, imprisonment and homelessness among people leaving the forces.
That is all very troubling, and the causes are fairly complex, but one thing is absolutely clear: the screening of soldiers exiting the theatre of war was very poor in the British forces. Often, it was done simply through self-completed questionnaires, but people do not ordinarily volunteer any deep psychological problems they may think they have in such a questionnaire.
There was also evidence in the PAC report that I quoted that support for people in the theatre of war was relatively poor. The most that they seemed to get out there most of the time was three community nurses, along with one consultant psychiatrist every three months. If people showed up with problems in the theatre of war, those problems were unlikely to be fielded especially well. There are particular issues here, and we must be prepared to face up to them. One, although I have only anecdote to go on, is that some people enter the forces because the structure that they provide is exactly what their personality needs. When they leave the forces, however, that structure simply disappears. Often, their homes will have gone, and their families will sometimes have gone, too, so they find themselves in difficult territory.
A second suggestion is that there is necessarily a culture of mental toughness in the forces, so people are slow to own up to whatever problems they may have. Those problems might therefore go unrecognised and be submerged for quite some time, and that is at the root of some of the problems that were so well analysed by the hon. Member for York Outer.
We in this place have clocked these problems, and quite a lot has been done about them. Since 2010, when the PAC report I quoted was produced, there has been a surprising amount of really good progress. On 6 April 2010, the previous Government committed themselves to providing £2 million of new funding. They can be credited with increasing the number of helplines and endeavouring to increase the education and training of GPs. We also pay tribute to the Murrison report, which represented excellent progress. Before that, the Ministry of Defence even did some research, which helped everything along. There is strong cross-party commitment to recognising these problems and doing something about them. In a sense, therefore, Parliament can justifiably credit itself with having done something about a very real and clearly identified problem.
I would like to conclude by thinking about where we go from here. My concern is that most of the solutions that were proposed following the previous Government’s deliberations and the Murrison report involved something along the lines of specialist health service commissioning. I do not want to talk about the difficulties of the legislation currently going through Parliament, but such specialist commissioning is an issue. The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) has advocated as a solution getting round specialist commissioning to some extent by means of an agency that is a one-stop, catch-all arrangement. Creditable though that suggestion is, it will not get us out of the business of specialist commissioning, because the problems will show up locally in many diverse settings. I wonder whether the Minister will say something about that.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
When I was the Defence Minister with responsibility for such matters, we set up pilot schemes with the NHS, with which Combat Stress was involved. Delivery issues are important, because in most respects the treatment is exactly the same whether the patient is a civilian or not, but some members or former members of the armed forces would prefer to talk to someone with experience in the armed forces. That is why we involved such people in the pilots.
On the other hand, other people from the armed forces did not want to see someone who had also been in the armed forces, because as far as they were concerned that life had finished, or they wanted to move on, or they had had a bad experience. It is a difficult issue to come to terms with, and that is why there is a need to mix and match support and clinical help. It is important for people to have that choice.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on bringing forward such a sensitive topic, and I associate myself with his remarks about today’s tragic news about the loss of life in Afghanistan.
Like many hon. Members who have attended the debate, I am encouraged to participate following a meeting a month ago with a constituent of mine, Mr Paul Marston, an ex-serviceman. He expressed serious concern about the lack of recognition for servicemen leaving the armed forces who are affected physically and mentally. That prompted me, as it did many other hon. Members, to look into the situation.
Approximately 22,000 armed services personnel leave the service to return to civilian life every year. There are an estimated 5 million veterans in the UK. For many of those people, who are used to support within the armed forces family, it is often difficult to cope outside the military framework. Veterans face a range of problems associated with mental health, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) drew our attention, ranging from the failure to hold down employment and problems in their personal lives to alcohol or drug misuse and contact with the judicial system. Given the contribution that veterans have made to our country, it is vital that the Government should do all in their power to provide a dedicated mental health service for veterans.
I have a further interest in the matter, as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Like many other hon. Members, when I first arrived here I knew nothing about the armed forces, and through that scheme I have had the pleasure of visiting troops abroad and have learned something of their lives at first hand. I have met some of them at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. I have recently returned from a trip with the scheme to the Army training centre in Kenya, where I met soldiers taking part in a hot climate training exercise in preparation for a tour of Afghanistan later this year.
Having met the servicemen and listened to my constituent and other people, I welcome the Government’s commitment to act on the review carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). I understand that there were four key recommendations, including an increase in the number of mental health professionals providing outreach work for veterans and the introduction of a veterans information service, deployed 12 months after a person leaves service.
The Government have also, of course, published the armed forces covenant, which sets a framework on how the armed forces community can expect to be treated. It includes improving veterans’ access to mental health services, such as building a greater focus on mental health into discharge and examination. My constituent made the point to me forcefully that early intervention is the key. We need to ensure that veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental health-related issues are spotted early, and I am pleased that the Government recognise that.
It is important to work to remove the stigma that is in many ways attached to mental health trauma, particularly for veterans. Such awareness could be raised by a national memorial to those who suffer mental health problems because of combat. That is not my idea, but the idea of Mr Marston, who is frustrated by the treatment of veterans. I pay tribute to his dedication to that cause. He has told me about a new veterans contact point close to where he lives, but says there is little awareness of it in the veteran community, or even the wider community. That facility has the potential to be of massive benefit to all ex-servicemen, but Mr Marston believes that it has not been sufficiently publicised.
Mr Marston would like the idea of such a monument to be pursued, and he has registered an e-petition on the No. 10 website, calling for such a memorial to injured soldiers. There are, of course, many memorials to those who have fallen in war, but the one suggested by Mr Marston would be particularly for those who suffer from physical or mental health problems, and it would raise the profile of veterans with health issues. It would also be a worthy endeavour in itself. I acknowledge that that is outside the area of responsibility of the Minister who is responding today, but it will be of substantial comfort to Mr Marston and many of his colleagues to know that consideration is being given to recognising in that way the contribution that veterans have made.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I was not planning to speak, Mr Dobbin.
Andrew Percy
I will speak only for three or four minutes, which I think will give the shadow Minister and the Minister longer than they were expecting; but as there was not a line of hon. Members waiting to speak, I thought that I would add my voice to this important debate. I apologise, Mr Dobbin, for not dropping you a note.
I congratulate my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), on securing this important debate on a vital issue. There are no party politics involved; we all agree about the sort of services that we want provided for ex-service personnel. I just want to tell the story of a constituent of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). He is the gentleman whom I mentioned earlier, Charles Brindley, who is the vice-chairman of the Royal British Legion in Brigg, in my constituency. He has been trying to put together a project in the area to establish better mental health and support services for veterans. He is trying to co-ordinate through the councils, and I am pleased that North Lincolnshire council has taken him up on his offer of working with it.
There is so much involved in trying to bring everything together. The e-mails that we have had from Charles Brindley and the discussions that we have had with him have been quite enlightening. He has been trying to work with the Prison Service, and he found out that one prison does not have a dedicated individual to respond to ex-service personnel there. He has been trying to work with the primary care trusts and GPs on the very point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman): raising GPs’ awareness of what is available through the NHS for ex-service personnel. He has also been trying to work with other organisations that I would not even have thought of, such as Age UK, which has told him that older people may now be starting to present with mental health problems that go a long way back.
A range of organisations and institutions come across ex-service personnel at different points in their lives and provide them with services, and the fact that they are not necessarily always joined up concerns me. Some of what is happening can certainly be brought together under the auspices of the local authorities, but I echo the idea of a dedicated veterans agency. The example that is probably most similar to what we want are the incredibly dedicated services, including specialist health services, provided to veterans in the United States, where veterans seem to be provided with a lot of support that we in this country sadly do not give.
As many Members have said, it is often far down the line that mental health problems start to rear up. This summer, I met one of my ex-pupils walking through the town centre. I had not seen him since I taught him when he was about 16, and I asked him what he had been doing since then. He said, “I’ve been out in Afghanistan.” I think he was in a Yorkshire regiment. He said, “I got shot. I’ll show you.” He then rolled up his trouser leg to show me his bullet wounds. I asked him if he was okay, and he said, “I’m absolutely fine. I’m going to get paid out now. I’m going to get a better pension, and I’m going to get a house. Everything’s fine.” He may think that he is fine now, but in 10 or 15 years’ time, with his career in the military effectively ended, a mental health problem, as we know, could rear its head. What will there be to support that individual then? He is getting a lot of support from the Army at the moment—he had no criticism of that—but in 10 or 20 years’ time, that support might not be there, or he might not know how to access it.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that another consequence of delayed stress and trauma for veterans can be the impact on their family relationships. Representing families in courts, I have seen over the years that that has caused difficulties. It has been largely a case of fathers having a less meaningful relationship with their children and being less able to take responsibility for them.
Andrew Percy
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. We have probably all seen examples in our surgeries of military service sometimes leading to breakdowns, which are then presented at our constituency surgery for assistance. I am reminded of the old saying: while the physical wounds may heal, the mental scars never quite go away. So I endorse what has been said by other Members today.
John Pugh
One of the themes in the debate today has been whether we do or do not have a veterans agency. Somebody said that the veterans agency is an American model, but the Americans do not have our GP system. Even with the existence of a veterans agency, is there not a problem with how that then interacts with the GP, who will often be the first port of call when problems occur?
Andrew Percy
That is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) accepted. In creating anything, there will always be interaction problems. We all know where we want to be; how we get there is probably a bit more difficult. Now that the shadow Minister and the Minister will have a little more time, I am sure that they will expertly plot a course forward to deal with these issues.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this important and topical debate. We have heard the sad news today that six of our service personnel are missing and presumed dead in Afghanistan. It is a poignant reminder of the reality of serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families at this time.
I note that we had a similar debate on this subject last year, proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). It explored many of the important issues surrounding the mental health of veterans. It is right that we should again take the opportunity to discuss the welfare of our serving personnel and veterans and the impact on their families. For veterans’ mental health, we need to look at the true picture of how people are affected after they have left service. Indeed, we should be paying as much attention to the issues that face service personnel and their families when they leave the armed service as when they are actually in service.
The UK’s armed services are among the best in the world, and we can rightly be proud of them. We owe them a great deal of gratitude for the work that they do in our name. The charity, Combat Stress, has shown that a significant minority of servicemen and women suffer from mental ill health as a result of their experiences. A study in May 2010 into personnel who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan showed a 4% prevalence of probable post-traumatic stress disorder. An estimated 180,000 troops have served in those two operations: if 4% develop PTSD, that equates to 7,200 more sufferers.
The study also highlighted a prevalence of 19.7% for common mental disorders, and 13% for alcohol misuse. We must look into ways in which we can deal with that and ensure that the right facilities and support are in place to diagnose and treat such conditions. Admittedly, improvements have been made in recent years. Mental health pilot schemes have improved support and treatment for personnel suffering from mental health problems.
In 2007, the Labour Government extended priority access to NHS services to all veterans whose medical conditions or injuries were suspected of being due to military service. Priority access had previously extended only to those claiming a war pension, and efforts were made to raise awareness of that. As has been mentioned in the debate, we now have the armed forces covenant enshrined in law, which I think all hon. Members welcome.
The interim report on the covenant summarises the Government’s approach, taking forward recommendations in the report by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), “Fighting Fit”, which I also welcome. I understand that the report’s recommendations were rolled out over the past year, many of which were introduced as pilot programmes to be reassessed after their initial trial periods. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the pilots and also an assurance that his Department has been promoting them among serving personnel and veterans’ communities.
Most Members will have met ex-service constituents who have been directly affected and heard about their experiences, some of which we have heard in the debate today. We should rightly recognise the important work done by organisations such as Combat Stress, which provides an invaluable service to veterans around the country. Its centres and outreach work allow veterans to get the help and support that they need in a specialised environment, along with other veterans who are going through similar experiences.
The Enemy Within campaign run by Combat Stress seeks to tackle the stigma that, unfortunately, as we have heard today, can be a barrier to people getting the support and help that they need. Currently, they have a caseload of more than 4,800 veterans, including 228 who have served in Afghanistan and 589 who served in Iraq. The majority are ex-Army: 83.5%. Their youngest veteran is just 20. The invaluable work of Combat Stress and other organisations, such as the Royal British Legion, is to be warmly welcomed, but the Government should also take on their fair share of the responsibility. It is important that we do not view the services offered by the voluntary and charitable sector as any sort of replacement. That work should complement, not replace, the services that the Government offer.
Indeed, as we already know, the charitable sector is facing an incredibly tough time at the moment. Even though organisations such as Combat Stress and the Royal British Legion have continued to have generous support from the public, we should not assume that those services will always exist and always have enough funding to run. The Government should decide which services they have a duty to provide and should fund them properly. The Government need not always be the vehicle to deliver those services, as we have heard, but they can fund experts such as Combat Stress and the Royal British Legion to do so on their behalf.
The Government should also consider how mental health services for veterans can be guaranteed, when their national health service reforms are creating so much uncertainty. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), although I am reassured by the Minister’s reply that a single commissioning body, the NHS Commissioning Board, will be responsible. I think that that is the right way forward.
Clearly, those in the armed forces are trained to do a tough job and rightly have to develop a tough mental attitude. This, of course, can mean that it can be harder for people coming out of the services to admit that they have a mental health problem, let alone talk about it. We should also take into account how long it can take people actually to get the support that they need. Combat Stress has suggested that the average length of time is 13 years. In some cases, it has taken veterans 40 years to seek out the help and support that they need. That is far too long, and we should do all that we can to shorten the time and to let people know that help is available for them now.
Combat Stress has also provided detailed evidence involving cases of individuals who have faced marriage break-up, unemployment, social isolation or substance abuse because they were unable to deal with their mental health problems. However, as with all mental health conditions, a great deal of stigma still surrounds it, which can make it much harder to talk about openly. Until we tackle that stigma, it will be difficult to make significant changes.
I appreciate that it is hard to establish the level of need without a tracking system. As we know, there is no record of how many veterans are being treated for mental health problems on the NHS. Clearly, if we cannot quantify the problem, it is difficult for the Government to quantify the true cost of treating mental illness among former members of the armed forces.
Nor should we overlook the impact of deployments on the mental health of our reservists, as has been mentioned. As we know, the Government’s Future Force 2020 plan showed that the role of reservists will increase significantly in the coming years, mirrored by reductions in the number of regular service personnel. It must make sense for the Government to ensure that support is in place for reservists prepared to take on those extra responsibilities.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for his speech. Is there not a problem in the offing, given that the Army is being reduced to 82,000 soldiers and certain regiments are being disbanded? We need to know what the NHS Commissioning Board and the Department of Health are doing to aid those who will soon be former soldiers entering civilian life and to determine their mental health issues and what type of help the NHS can provide.
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely agree that we must ensure that ex-service personnel are supported. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that in his closing remarks.
One recommendation in the report “Fighting Fit” stated that a veterans’ information service should be deployed 12 months after a person leaves the armed forces and that regulars and reservists should be followed up approximately 12 months after they leave. Will the Minister update us on how that is developing, and what plans the Government have for the future funding of the Combat Stress-led 24-hour support telephone line for veterans? Will the Department provide an evaluation of how the funding for “Fighting Fit” has been spent, what it has achieved and what will happen for future funding? What additional steps is the Department taking to raise public awareness of issues that relate to veterans’ mental health?
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
While my hon. Friend is on the subject of funding, is he, like me, keen to hear from the Minister whether he supports our call for a £1 million fund for research into legacy issues from Afghanistan and Iraq, with a focus on mental health? That could be paid for by a reduction in generals in the forces.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Labour Front-Bench defence team has made that commitment, which is laudable. Redistributing part of the saving to serve veterans’ mental health shows that the issue is a priority for us.
This debate has provided us with the opportunity to explore the issue of our veterans’ mental health and welfare. I pay tribute to Combat Stress, the Royal British Legion and other groups that, along with many service organisations and charities, play an outstanding role in supporting the whole armed forces family, for which we should thank them. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer on securing the debate. We must ensure that our servicemen and women receive support after their tour of duty is finished. Surely, we as a nation owe them that.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I am delighted that the House once again has the opportunity to debate an important issue, although it is sad that we are holding this debate against the backdrop of tragic news from Afghanistan. We await the final details of what has happened over there, but we must give full consideration to the families and friends who might be suffering at this terrible time.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate. I also thank the other hon. Members who have taken part. The number of hon. Members in the Chamber for a Westminster Hall debate shows how important it is and why a debate is justified after we had one only three months ago.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on their contributions, and I thank the hon. Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Southport (John Pugh) for theirs, but I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer on the measured, informed and caring way in which he introduced the subject. It became clear as I listened to him that it is important to him as both a constituency Member of Parliament and as an individual. That came through during the course of his remarks.
As hon. Members will be more than aware, members of the armed forces put their lives on the line for their country, but it is we as parliamentarians who send them into combat. It is therefore incumbent on us to do everything that we can to protect their health and well-being, that of their families and that of veterans. There is no issue of greater importance for this Government, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it one of his priorities.
It is crucial and universally accepted that the health care provided by the Defence Medical Services to serving members of our armed forces is second to none. It is equally important that services are provided for our veterans for the rest of their lives when their health is affected as a result of their service, and that those services should be second to none. That is why I am pleased that in recent years, great strides have been made. I was particularly delighted to see in the Chamber a former Minister who had responsibility for veteran affairs during the previous Administration: the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who was here to listen to and participate in this debate. While he served in that post, he had a record of which he could be justifiably proud.
Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, raised the question of funding. Real-terms funding for the NHS as a whole is increasing, as we all know, but we have invested more than £7 million of funding in veterans’ mental health over the spending review period. I reassure hon. Members that we will continue to fund veterans’ mental health initiatives for the lifetime of this Parliament.
The focus of this debate is on raising awareness of veterans’ mental health. I feel strongly that we are now tackling the issue from a far more informed position than we once did. Thanks to charities such as Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, awareness of the well-being of the military community is high both in Parliament and, fortunately, among the general public.
I highlight the work of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), to whom many hon. Members referred. The report that he produced will push forward the agenda to improve and enhance veterans’ health. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked my hon. Friend to conduct a study on the relationship between the NHS and the armed forces, including former service personnel, in terms of mental health. The result was the report “Fighting Fit”, which I commend to those who have not already read or seen it, although, judging from my hon. Friends’ speeches, a disproportionate number of hon. Members in the Chamber have read it.
I am proud to say that both the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence have been working on the report’s implementation ever since it was published, which represents a milestone in the effort to improve mental health care for ex-service personnel. For me, one of the strongest themes of the report, and a factor that is particularly relevant to the topic of this debate, is the effect that service care can have on the mental health and well-being of those who have served. Some obvious themes emerged from the findings of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire, echoed in research by some of our partner organisations, in particular our strategic partner, Combat Stress. Its research shows that the average ex-serviceperson can take up to 14 years to seek help for anxiety and depression that has developed as a result of their service in the armed forces. Combat Stress put it vividly, and said that
“those veterans suffer terribly in silence, often for years, before seeking help”,
a fact that was echoed in hon. Members’ speeches.
We must keep that in mind when services are designed. The help that we offer must be accessible throughout veterans’ lives, not just when they return from duty. We must also remember that today, we may just as well be designing and delivering care for Falklands veterans as for those who have served bravely in Iraq or Afghanistan. We owe it to all groups of veterans to get things right, to understand that mental health issues can come into an ex-serviceperson’s life long after they have been discharged, and to communicate that message to the public. It should be a key part of any awareness campaign.
“Fighting Fit” makes it clear that some veterans can never bring themselves to seek help—those who will not admit, even to themselves, that they have a problem, and who must rely on close family members and friends to help them move forward. In partnership with Combat Stress, we have launched a 24-hour veterans’ mental health support line run by a charity, Rethink. The helpline is based on the principle of lifelong care and offers support to veterans of any age and at any stage in their lives. Families may also contact the helpline, both for themselves and to talk about a loved one. It allows both groups to receive targeted support from people trained and experienced in dealing with often complex mental health needs.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) raised the issue of funding the helpline and its future funding. I am extremely pleased to announce that the total number of calls taken by the helpline is now upwards of 5,000. Hon. Members may be aware that we initially launched the helpline as a one-year pilot, which expired at the end of February this year. However, I am pleased to announce today that we are continuing to fund it for the next year and will consider future funding after that. Working closely with Combat Stress and other partner organisations, it will continue.
We are also working to introduce a veterans’ information service over the next two months or so. It will routinely contact service leavers 12 months after they are discharged to establish whether they have any health needs that require attention. The “Fighting Fit” report refers to the service as something of a safety net to help veterans once the support structures available to them during their service lives are no longer readily accessible. To get it right, it is essential that we are able easily to identify veterans, so we are working with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that a veteran’s status is properly recorded on his or her records. However, we must equally recognise that some who leave do not wish to have their veteran’s status recorded, and it is right to respect those wishes.
Returning to the issue of the safety net, there is another key point when it comes to an awareness of mental health issues of any sort. Perceived isolation can have a bad effect on mental health problems. The problem is bad enough anyway, but among ex-service personnel, it is often particularly bad, because the camaraderie that exists within a forces setting is so pronounced. It makes sense that once the institutional support network goes, an ex-serviceperson might feel alone, adrift or isolated. Support services should not necessarily try to recreate that camaraderie. It is often more beneficial in the long term to help veterans come to terms with their change in circumstances. By creating services that are easily accessible and trustworthy, we are going some way towards building an environment in which an ex-serviceperson feels accepted and understood, and in which recovery is more likely.
At the heart of easily accessible services should be a requirement to make them readily available in each local area. Having a service in each area, especially if it has a high military profile, goes a long way towards raising awareness of veterans’ mental health issues in the country as a whole. I am particularly proud of the effort that the Department of Health and my officials have made to spearhead the set-up of armed forces networks in each of the old strategic health authority areas. The networks are groups of representatives from the national health service, service charities and the armed forces who can represent the health and well-being interests of serving personnel, their families and veterans in the local area.
As part of meeting the “Fighting Fit” recommendations, integrated veterans’ mental health services are now being set up in each network area by the local NHS working in conjunction with Combat Stress. The services are at different stages of development, but I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, who specifically asked about this, that six of the 10 are already up and running and the remaining four will come online shortly.
We have also increased the number of mental health professionals providing services to veterans, not by the 30 recommended in the Murrison report, but by 50. My hon. Friend will be aware that the recommendation was 30, but we have been able to exceed that, and there are now 50 in place, which will considerably help to provide support and assistance to veterans.
Mr Burns
No, I will not, because I am almost running out of time.
The partnership with Combat Stress and the innovative solutions delivered by the NHS at a local level is to be applauded. Regarding effectiveness, we are still in early days, but initial feedback has been positive, with more veterans being identified in the mental health care system and receiving the treatment that they need and deserve.
I want to point to an example of what is happening in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer. The work of Andy Wright with the vulnerable veterans and adult dependants project is particularly noteworthy and warrants praise. I am delighted to report that the project has delivered high levels of patient satisfaction, with 85% being very satisfied with their therapist. It is an excellent example of collaboration, which can only serve to raise further the profile of veterans’ issues more generally.
There is a final and vital aspect of veterans’ mental health and care that I would like to explore, which hon. Members have mentioned, and that is stigma. The title “Fighting Fit”
“recognises the importance of stigma and of making interventions acceptable to a population accustomed to viewing itself as mentally and physically robust.”
Stigma is a big barrier standing in the way of ex-service people getting help, and it is vital that we do everything we can to reduce it. Many Members on both sides of the House will be aware of the “Big White Wall”, an online well-being network for serving personnel, their families, veterans and the general public. It is a social network that allows people with mental health problems from every walk of life to engage with others who have similar problems. The anonymity of the network allows for a free and frank exchange of experiences, with a view to generating a wider sense of support, and it is staffed by professional counsellors. The Department of Health and the MOD are funding a one-year pilot for service personnel, their families and veterans on the “Big White Wall”. I am pleased to say that it has had excellent take-up. Up to 1 March, 2,019 places of the original 2,400 provided in the pilot have been filled. Of those, veterans represent 40%, with 38% being serving personnel and 22% family members.
Launched on the same day as the “Big White Wall”, and in conjunction with the Royal College of General Practitioners, an online e-learning package aims to educate civilian GPs about the conditions from which veterans often suffer. The idea is to reduce the stigma attached and increase the likelihood that GPs will be able to give veterans effective and suitable care. That has been successful with its target audience; the package has had almost 14,000 hits since its launch.
I believe that there is a consensus on both sides of the House that much is being done, but much more remains to be done. The more we as Government can engage with veterans, the public and the media, the more likely mental health issues will be understood more widely. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will continue to work together to help the services reach their full potential, so that no ex-serviceperson ever has anything less than all the support that they need of the highest quality.
Typhoon Aircraft (Exports)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
I give warning that I will call the Minister in this debate no later than 20 past 4. We have had a couple of problems in previous debates.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I am delighted to have secured this debate on support for export sales of Typhoon aircraft. It also gives me great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), is responding. That is appropriate considering all that he has done on recent visits, on behalf of the Government, to India.
It is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of my hard-working constituents in Fylde, many of whom are employed in the aerospace industry. In my constituency, BAE Systems’ Warton site employs 6,272 people, with a further 4,000 employed in neighbouring Samlesbury. Indeed, BAE Systems provides one in four of all local manufacturing jobs in Fylde. Typhoon is the world-class platform on which the long-term success of UK military aerospace is predicated. That is why I called for today’s debate.
Those jobs are vital in our mission to rebalance the British economy, by returning manufacturing to its core. The military aerospace sector represents 70% of all UK defence exports, which are worth £4.5 billion a year to the British economy. Typhoon alone directly supports 10,000 jobs in the UK, and more than double that indirectly. At a time when all parties are rightly worried about youth unemployment, it is important to appreciate BAE Systems’ commitment to training and developing people, with 1,000 apprentices and 500 graduate trainees at any one time. It also sustains a supply chain made up of many small and medium-sized enterprises, including 1,200 suppliers in the north-west alone.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Companies such as C-MAC and Norfolk Capacitors in Great Yarmouth are also part of the supply chain to MOD projects and other organisations’ projects. Does he agree that the issue affects SMEs across the country, including in places such as Great Yarmouth?
Mark Menzies
Absolutely. BAE Systems is always the company one thinks about in relation to Typhoon, but my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that component suppliers—large and small—are located in every corner of the country. I know he has spoken up on behalf of his constituents on the matter.
As well as benefiting the economy as a whole, supporting the Typhoon programme has direct advantages to taxpayers by reducing the Ministry of Defence’s unit costs. Savings are generated through increased production runs and a global network of operators, as well as through the pooling of spares and other support-related activities. Exports level out the peaks and troughs of domestic demand and give the MOD more programme flexibility. They also underpin some of our most important strategic relationships.
BAE Systems’ highly skilled work force have extensive expertise and experience over many decades of working in-country with global partners to deliver platforms that best fit their unique operational requirements, such as the Hawk trainer in India and the Tornado in Saudi Arabia. I have no doubt that the same work force are more than capable of continuing to deliver that level of service with Typhoon.
In all defence exports, the importing Government are the customer, and their relationship with the exporting Government is vital. That is why our support is so vital: customer Governments need to know that a Typhoon acquisition will enable interoperability, and facilitate a close and enduring relationship between the air forces of the two countries, with opportunities to train together, share assets and doctrine, and determine ways to enhance capability and reduce the cost of operation. Here the support of the MOD, in particular, is crucial. It is important that we continue to give our partners that confidence.
I believe the Government understand that. That is why, while respecting Germany’s role as consortium leader, the British Government have given such strong backing to the sale of Typhoons to India.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate because the Eurofighter and BAE Systems are critical to his area. He talks about the Government’s relationship with BAE Systems. One anonymous industry source was reported in the newspaper as saying about the Typhoon Indian contract:
“Our defence industry is not working in tandem with the Government as much as the French worked with Dassault.”
What would the hon. Gentleman say in response to that?
Mark Menzies
The hon. Gentleman summed it up: it was an anonymous source. My experience is that the British Government and BAE Systems have no criticism of each other in the way they have been working to try to achieve the best for the work force in Warton. The Prime Minister himself took a leading role in the UK’s largest trade mission to India in living memory. I was encouraged.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As he knows, BAE Systems at Brough is just outside my constituency. We have a few choice things to say about BAE, but that is for another time. In relation to the Typhoon contract, which was another blow for the whole of BAE, including in Brough, does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite bizarre, given how much foreign aid we give to India—I think four times more than the French—that we are not in the running? There is still an opportunity for the Government to get their full weight behind the contract and to say to the Indians, “We expect something in return for what we give in aid.”
Mark Menzies
My hon. Friend has put that in words that I possibly could not. I will come later to some of the things that I think the British Government could do.
It is important to clarify the importance that the British Government place on this. I was encouraged, not just by the Prime Minister’s visit to India, leading the delegation, but by his proactive approach and extensive knowledge of the topic at a recent meeting that hon. Members held with him at No. 10 to discuss this important matter. I also thank the Minister for his two ministerial visits to India within the last year; he need take lessons from no one when it comes to upholding the interests of the UK defence sector abroad. None the less, I would encourage him, in his ongoing discussions with his Indian counterparts, to urge them genuinely to review, even at this late stage, the details of this contract, in particular, to note the advantages that working with BAE Systems on Hawk has brought the Indian air force. It should not be forgotten that both the Royal Air Force and the royal Saudi air force use the Hawk as the trainer aircraft for Typhoon. Together, those aircraft mark a perfect partnership in Anglo-Indian co-operation.
India has always been a proud nation; now it has truly come of age. India’s new role is not just regional but international. Britain has consistently supported United Nations Security Council reform to recognise that reality. However, if India is to play its full part on the world stage, it needs the very best military equipment. Typhoon, I believe, is the best fighter jet currently on the market. Diplomatically, India’s international position would also be enhanced by stronger relations with the UK and other partner nations—Germany, Italy and Spain.
It is important to remember that the consortium is made up of private sector companies that need to take primary responsibility for any commercial deal. They must continue to work together to provide a united front for potential customers. They must be proactive in seeking deals on behalf of their shareholders. Perhaps most importantly, they must be competitive on price. However, Government can play a supporting role, as the example of Nissan proved so successfully yesterday. To that end, I ask the Ministry of Defence to give a long-term commitment to enhance Typhoon with operational capabilities that are essential to both the RAF and export customers, such as e-scan radar, and the integration of new weapon systems.
Graham Jones
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. He is passionate about BAE Systems. That passion is there for all to see and has been ever since he was elected. The Government’s White Paper, “National Security Through Technology”, suggests that British companies no longer have priority when it comes to MOD contracts. What does that say to foreign Governments, if the UK Government are unsure about whether they are going to buy their own products?
Mark Menzies
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which, were it to be taken literally, as he just said it, would be a cause of concern. However, the White Paper states the UK Government’s commitment to research and development very clearly, and that is an area on which we lead the world. The Government, through the White Paper, are determined to continue to lead the world in those strategic sectors.
Typhoon exports are not just a matter for the Ministry of Defence. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence is responding to the debate. However, Typhoon exports are inherently cross-departmental. It is vital for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, from the Secretary of State down, to engage fully with its German and Indian counterparts. I also urge all relevant Departments to ask their Indian counterparts whether they are looking at this contract beyond price, as this product offers world-leading capabilities.
The India deal is by no means done, but we would clearly not be here today if it had gone perfectly thus far. We must never allow ourselves to be in this situation of uncertainty. The good news is that the upcoming bids will be led by Britain. The British-led consortium is well placed to take advantage of our historical ties with Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Qatar and, crucially, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Foreign Secretary’s leadership in reinvigorating our vital Commonwealth bonds should also stand Typhoon in good stead. While the Minister can only respond on his Department’s behalf, in his response, will he please give an indication of the level of Government support for engagement with those countries? In particular, can he reassure me that the Ministry of Defence has played its full part in enhancing relations with Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and will continue to do so in the coming months? I also ask him to encourage other relevant Departments to be as proactive as he has been.
We should never be shy about supporting British defence exports—other countries are not. We must not allow ourselves to be caught queuing, while others are elbowing their way to the front. Let us never forget that the Typhoon is an exceptional aircraft, built by the finest work force in the world, and that it showcases the very best of British engineering on a global stage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
This is rather earlier than I had anticipated. It is an enormous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, as you and I share a number of matters in common.
I am delighted to respond to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing it and on having brought with him reinforcements from both sides of the House in support of his case. It is good to see the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who has just made an outstanding speech in the House in tribute to Her Majesty, as befits a former Army officer; he did so with great aplomb.
Since my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde first arrived in the House, he has been extraordinarily assiduous in making the case not only for his constituency, but for the wider aerospace industry. In that, he is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Michael Jack, who was always a doughty champion, too. As my hon. Friend made clear in his speech, the aerospace industry is vital to the economic life of the north-west.
The Government attach great importance to the role of exports in restoring the country’s economic health, following the catastrophic destruction of the public finances by the previous Prime Minister. In line with the Government’s commitment to promote responsible exports, as set out in the coalition agreement, we have been especially active in supporting and promoting defence exports to overseas customers. We have intensified our support for bilateral engagement by directing that every Minister travelling overseas will promote the best that Britain has to offer, including its defence exports. I hope my hon. Friend will take reassurance from that.
Let me stress that such activism by the Government is founded on responsible exports, taking full account of UK legislation on licensing and our international treaty obligations. Our keenness to support UK industry does not translate into a cavalier policy to sell anything to anyone. As I shall say later, defence exports play a critical role in enhancing our international relationships, to which my hon. Friend referred.
Although this is an effort right across the Government and the lead for trade promotion rests with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Ministry of Defence has been doing much of the heavy lifting to bring practical effect to this Government policy. In that endeavour, we enjoy massive support from the Defence and Security Organisation element of UK Trade & Investment, led by Richard Paniguian, whose team do an outstanding job for us and for Britain’s defence industry.
With regard to Typhoon, the cross-Whitehall effort is brought together at the very top, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. Must of that is down to the personal leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself. Ministers and senior officials meet continually with a view to ensuring that industry has the appropriate Government support to help further its various campaigns across the globe. I pay a particular tribute to our ambassadors, high commissioners and defence attachés around the world for their contribution to that team effort. It is, astonishingly, quite a joined up exercise. It is more joined up, particularly between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the MOD, than I ever anticipated when I was in opposition.
In my role as Minister for International Security Strategy, I have already visited 15 countries so far, including Chile, Brazil, United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Indonesia, pressing the case for Typhoon or promoting the Type 26 global combat ship, and, always, championing the depth and breadth of British industry’s capability in the defence and security sectors—businesses large and small.
Graham Jones
I have a concern about some of the export orders. Some of them involve new build at the factory sites of Samlesbury and Warton, but some involve displacements from the RAF. When the Minister is seeking new orders, is he seeking new build orders, or is he seeking to displace some of the Typhoons that were destined for the RAF?
Mr Howarth
As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde made clear in his speech, the customers are overseas Governments. We do whatever we can, within reasonable limits and within the constraints that apply to us in providing the equipment that our own armed forces require, to provide what the customer is looking for. Clearly, new build is preferable because we understand that it generates jobs in the United Kingdom. However, other countries are increasingly looking for technology transfer and partnership. Trying to deal with that issue is challenging.
I recently returned from a successful trade mission to India, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde mentioned, where I led a delegation of 25 British defence companies, large and small, to promote the very best that Britain has to offer. That kind of initiative is designed to demonstrate to our friends in India our serious intent to build lasting partnerships with them. I am due to return to India for its defence exposition later this month, so I will see the Indian Minister again. I will mention India specifically in a moment.
Typhoon has already secured a number of export contracts beyond the four partner nations, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which has ordered 72 to date, and Austria, which has ordered 15. The MOD is actively supporting DSO and working with Eurofighter Typhoon’s three other partner nations on a number of other campaigns, which are at an advanced stage, including in Oman, Malaysia, the UAE and a further tranche for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The UK is in the lead in responding to the requirements of Oman, Malaysia and the UAE, and Her Majesty’s Government and BAE Systems, as UK prime contractor, are also fully involved in those campaigns, led by our partners.
The MOD’s support activity has included deployments of aircraft to the Dubai and Malaysian air shows. The latter engagement also took in valuable participation in a multinational exercise within the five powers defensive arrangement. The RAF has also made platforms available to carry out impressive flight evaluation trials here in the UK, so that the overseas customer can witness Typhoon’s superb performance at close quarters. That is pretty impressive stuff by any measure, but all the more so when viewed against the backdrop of recent operations.
Earlier this month, a delegation from Malaysia visited the UK to undertake such a flight evaluation trial. RAF Coningsby hosted the Royal Malaysian air force, and a demanding schedule of sorties covering a wide range of mission scenarios was carried out, supported by maintenance demonstrations by teams on the ground.
We were very pleased to receive Oman’s request of 21 January for a proposal from BAE Systems for the supply and support of Typhoon aircraft. That represents an important step towards the contract and is a further sign of the strong and enduring relationship between our two countries. My noble Friend Lord Astor and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) are well connected in the two countries I have just mentioned and have performed a huge service in adding to the strength of the British engagement.
As I mentioned, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia signed an agreement to purchase 72 Typhoon aircraft, under the former Government. That is welcome, and together with initial logistics and training packages, it is worth several billion pounds to the UK and our European partners. We hope to provide a further tranche in future.
In the UAE, following representations from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Eurofighter Typhoon was invited in November to submit a bid for 60 aircraft, when it had been thought a deal with another contractor was about to be signed. We are all working hard to prepare an attractive, competitive bid to one of Britain’s oldest allies. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is due to visit the UAE shortly. This morning, I talked to Alan Garwood from BAE Systems, who returned this morning from the UAE. I assure all hon. Members in this Chamber that that is indicative of the effort that has been put into this campaign across the Government and industry.
Of course, we are disappointed about the decisions made in Japan and India, but of course we fully respect their decisions. The Indian Government have chosen not to take Typhoon into the detailed negotiations phase of their medium multi-role combat aircraft competition, but the Eurofighter Typhoon consortium and the partner nations stand ready to enter into further discussions with the Indian Government, should that be their wish.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde on securing the debate, which is important for his constituency. I have a genuine question for the Minister, relating to how optimistic we should be about the prospect of the Indians changing their minds. Will he tell hon. Members how many contracts the British Government have got to that stage that have then been subject to such a change of mind, because that is not common, is it?
Mr Howarth
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising an important point. India had to select from two bids on the basis of price, price, price—nothing else. We understand that that is the procedure in India and that, unless and until negotiations with L1—the lowest bidder—have been exhausted and do not lead to a contract, at that point and only that point the Indian Government will be able to enter into negotiations with the other bidder. I assure the hon. Lady that we are maintaining a close interest, but we have to respect the Indian Government’s decision. Beating them about the head and saying, “You made the wrong choice,” is not the best way to win friends and influence people, least of all to encourage a customer to turn to a company.
We stand ready. I have to say that, in this case, the UK is not and never has been in the lead. The campaign in India has been led from the outset by Germany and EADS Cassidian, not by the UK and BAE Systems.
A great strength of Typhoon is that it is proven on combat operations, as we found out in Libya. I thought that it might help if I put on the record some of those achievements. Typhoon’s performance stood out from its coalition contemporaries. Fully loaded with up to six air-to-air missiles, four 1,000 lb bombs, a targeting pod and two under-wing fuel tanks, it was able to cruise at more than 500 knots and at heights in excess of 40,000 feet, taking it well clear of rough weather.
The combination of Typhoon’s long-range radar and data-link integration gave its pilots exceptional situational awareness, which enabled them to control and co-ordinate less well-equipped coalition assets. In six months of deployed operations, the Typhoon force flew more than 600 sorties for a total of just over 3,000 flying hours, without any requirement for an engine change, and delivered more than 200 precision weapons. The aircraft’s excellent reliability resulted in no sorties lost owing to serviceability issues. That is a pretty outstanding record.
Defence exports generally make an important contribution to sustaining our defence industry, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Some 300,000 people are employed in the defence and aerospace industries, which provide tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs. In 2010, defence exports amounted to approximately £6 billion and made a significant contribution to the balance of payments. Figures from UK Trade & Investment show that in the first decade of this century the UK was, on average, the second most successful exporter of legitimate defence equipment in the world, not least in my hon. Friend’s and my constituencies.
It is not simply about money and getting cash in. As my hon. Friend implied, helping our friends to build up their own defence and security capabilities contributes to regional security and helps tackle threats to UK national security closer to their source. No other industry in this country can leverage influence so much as defence, which is why we are giving it such a high priority.
I pay tribute to the UK companies, large and small, throughout the supply chain that are participating in this export drive, including Rolls Royce, SELEX, Martin-Baker, MBDA and Ultra. That reminds us that the Typhoon is not just a BAE product, but encapsulates a range of outstanding British and European technologies. Having paid such a tribute, I extend it to my hon. Friend and highlight the contribution of companies in Lancashire, because in calling this debate he pays tribute to the company and its employees for bringing so much back into the constituency of Fylde and the north-west more generally. I shall, of course, forbear from saying too much about the north-west, as I represent the Farnborough Aerospace Consortium in my neck of the woods, but we are complementary.
I reassure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty’s Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, are working to support Typhoon exports and British industry more widely, but in these straitened times others are doing much the same and we should not expect an easy ride. The UK enjoys historic ties with a wide range of countries, often dating back centuries, greater than any other nation can claim. Our strategy is to revitalise those ties, both in the interests of our mutual defence and regional stability and to the benefit of our outstanding aerospace industry, of which this country can be truly proud.
Syria and Lebanon
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I announce that I intend to call the Minister 10 minutes before the end of the debate, at 10 to 5.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
In January I joined a parliamentary delegation to Lebanon, organised by the Council for Arab-British Understanding, which included my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). We set out to examine the effect of the Syrian crisis on Lebanon, to meet with Syrians, including opposition representatives and refugees, in particular in the border areas, and to speak with Lebanese politicians about their perspective on the crisis.
Lebanon and Syria are two countries whose geography was once one, whose history is shared, whose ethnic and sectarian make-up is similar and whose economies are intertwined. Lebanon’s sole functioning land border is with Syria, from where it gets many of its food imports, while Syria depends on Lebanon for banking and financial services. Lebanon is possibly the most affected of the neighbouring countries by the crisis inside Syria and is an example of why that crisis, in contrast to the Libya situation perhaps, is so dangerous to the border region.
The impact of the crisis is felt in many ways, at security, political, economic, confessional and ethnic levels, each of which I shall touch on briefly. On security, Syria presents a serious risk to Lebanon. I will come on to refugees later, but their numbers, which are increasing at present, will undoubtedly affect the sectarian and political balance in Lebanon. Even before the crisis, an estimated 300,000 Syrian workers were in Lebanon, all with families inside Syria. Many Syrian opposition activists, some of whom we met, are active from within Lebanon. Many told us that it was and is unsafe for them in Beirut, where they feel monitored by supporters of the Syrian regime.
We visited Tripoli, and sectarian clashes were clearly a possibility, especially along the fault line between the Sunni and Alawi areas—sadly, subsequently, three deaths resulted in February. The security situation has not been helped by Syrian interference in Lebanon; there has been a series of kidnappings in the Bekaa valley in recent weeks, as a result of the security vacuum in the border area, some apparently for money but others clearly political. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), what representations the British Government have made to the Lebanese Government about their responsibilities towards Syrians living in Lebanon. In Lebanon, we heard many unsubstantiated accusations of al-Qaeda activity in the Bekaa valley, but many Lebanese to whom we spoke were dubious. Has the Minister received reports of such activity, and what is his assessment of what is happening in the Bekaa valley?
Politically, Lebanese politics is polarised into two groups, those who support Assad and those who do not, referred to as the coalitions of 8 March and of 14 March. Hezbollah is the most powerful force in Lebanon and remains supportive of Assad. Critical questions that everyone was asking when we were in Lebanon were about how strong that support is and what Hezbollah’s position would be as and when the crisis in Syria deepens. I ask the Minister whether the Government will sanction discussions with the 8 March parliamentary bloc about the Syria crisis. It is important for us to persuade that group of the advantages to Lebanon of not becoming directly involved in the internal affairs of its neighbour.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate on this important issue. On the position of Syrians in Lebanon, there is an assertion that, predominantly, the security forces in Lebanon are very much unsympathetic to those opposing the Assad regime. Did he see evidence of that?
Mr Love
The picture is, indeed, complex. Broadly speaking, the 14 March coalition is opposed to Assad and 8 March is broadly sympathetic. Clearly, Hezbollah has strong connections with the Assad regime and, if we are to take its views at face value, it places a great deal of importance on maintaining that regime, but we heard conflicting views about who was standing where exactly. As the situation in Syria deteriorates, we are yet to see what will happen in Lebanon, and that is one of the issues that I am raising in the debate. Does the Minister agree, if I may put it this way, that there are all the ingredients for potential civil conflict and tension within Lebanon, the tragic history of which we all know?
On minorities, there are almost 300,000 registered Palestinian refugees, living mainly in 12 UN refugee camps and some 20 unofficial camps. We visited two camps during our visit to Lebanon, and it became painfully clear that the Syria crisis has polarised opinion in an already difficult situation, so the Syrian problems are not helping the future of the Palestinian people living in Lebanon. There is also minority solidarity; Lebanese Alawis are of course concerned about the fate of their Syrian counterparts, as are the Druze, the Sunnis and the Christians. Recently, even the Maronite patriarch was moved to support the Assad regime, claiming—I have to say, somewhat ludicrously—that it was the most democratic Government in the region. Similarly in Turkey, the Turkish authorities fear the effect of the Syrian crisis on their Arab Alawi population and their Kurdish community.
The two countries are somewhat dependent economically. Sanctions are hitting Lebanon as well as Syria, and tourism is down. Many of the communities that we visited close to the border were dependent on smuggling, and those communities are suffering the substantial additional burden of hosting the refugees. Does the Minister agree that the international community should look at how to assist Lebanon in handling the economic impact of the crisis in Syria?
The most important consideration is the refugees. The UN is reporting that, following the crisis in Homs and the shelling of other areas in Syria close to the Lebanese border, between 1,000 and 2,000 refugees are trying to cross the border. That is in addition to the some 7,000 refugees already registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the north and the many thousands unregistered in Lebanon; the UN estimates that around 1,500 vulnerable Syrian refugees are in southern Beirut. The total number of refugees, according to the UNHCR, now exceeds 15,000 and is growing fast. According to Save the Children, about one quarter of those refugees are children under the age of four.
We visited Tripoli and Wadi Khaled, close to the border, where refugees were being hosted. Their stories confirmed the litany of horrors that we have all heard concerning the events in Syria and in Homs in particular. There were no refugee camps, and people were surviving in abandoned homes and other buildings, frequently with no heating and inadequate shelter. They were dependent on Lebanese families, some of whom were relatives, who were already incredibly deprived, and had lost out due to the absence of cross-border trade.
The Red Cross told us that it could cope with perhaps another 2,000 refugees before pressing the panic button. That was in January, and during the two months since then that figure has been overtaken. Many of the refugees were entering Lebanon via the Bekaa valley, a Hezbollah-controlled, Shia-dominated area. That was, and is creating tensions. All the refugees were fearful of the Lebanese security forces, and many were too scared to register with the UN, fearing that their details would be shared with the Lebanese authorities.
The UNHCR was operating in far from perfect conditions regarding the status of the Syrian refugees. Under international law, they are clearly refugees, and deserve all the rights and protections that go with that status. However, Lebanon has always been deeply sensitive about refugees, and prefers to refer to them as Syrians fleeing the unrest. The Lebanese Government would not recognise them, nor grant them their legitimate rights; for example, they have not issued them with refugee IDs. As a result, they cannot leave the border areas. Our understanding from the UNHCR is that immediate additional funding is needed to cope with the crisis. What assistance is the UK providing to UNHCR? Will the Minister consider providing further assistance as a matter of urgency to help with the looming crisis in that country?
What did the Minister make of the recent comments by the Lebanese President that the influx of some Syrian families into Lebanon as a result of the turbulence does not constitute a major problem because they can “stay with their relatives”? He continued:
“We are treating the Syrians who fled as families, as relatives and not as refugees.”
Do the Government accept that they are genuine refugees? What discussions have there been with the Lebanese authorities on their responsibilities to recognise and protect refugees, and accord them their full rights under international law? What plans have the Government made with their international partners about the possibility of a humanitarian disaster in Syria if the economy there crashes, the security situation deteriorates even further, and the regime falls, which is a real possibility, leaving chaos in its wake? Have the Government discussed contingency plans with their Lebanese counterparts? In particular, has the Minister raised the issue of humanitarian access from Syria to Lebanon? What support can the EU and the UK give to the UNHCR to meet its needs should that happen?
The situation in Syria is critical and deteriorating, and that is having a significant impact on Lebanon. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Government are not only monitoring the situation in that country, but are ready to take action to support those in need at the present time.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) on obtaining this debate. It is absolutely the right time for the House to be discussing the issue in greater depth than we have been able to do so far. The humanitarian situation in Syria is clearly of enormous international concern, and is frankly nothing short of outrageous, which is an overused word.
My hon. Friend and I met a young boy in hospital in the north of Lebanon, who had been severely injured by what was probably a nail bomb used by the Syrian authorities, perhaps the armed forces, to make war on children, in this case on a child of four or five. The Syrians’ medical skills saved his leg, and that is a great triumph, but it belies the fact that many other children have been killed in the conflict. The plight of refugees in Lebanon is genuinely pitiful. My hon. Friend made the important point that the Lebanese Government do not accord refugees any form of proper status under international law, so they are outwith what international law dictates they should do. I again ask the Minister whether it is possible to exert pressure on the Lebanese authorities to reconsider the matter, because that would make a material difference to the way in which refugees can be treated in Lebanon.
As my hon. Friend said, many refugees in Lebanon are housed with family and friends, but sometimes with total strangers. We saw families with many children packed into small rooms, sometimes without fathers, and often without proper access to financial support. Their plight is difficult, because many refugees are not registered with the UNHCR. Of the 15,000 or 16,000 refugees in Lebanon, perhaps only half are registered with the UNHCR, and depend on assistance from groups such as Save the Children, or perhaps friends and relatives, but the problem of what aid is available to the UNHCR and its assessment of need is a real one. I hope that the Minister can throw some light on what the international community is doing in that context.
The other issue that I want to put on the record is the need to recognise that what is taking place in Syria is enormously important in its own right, but may also have a hugely destabilising effect on Lebanon, a country that has known massive destabilisation for many years. Frankly, the region cannot afford to have Lebanon plunged again into crisis, because that would have an impact not only on Lebanon, but on its neighbours, including Israel, and the capacity for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and so on. The issues are much more than those that apply to a country that in recent times has received relatively little attention in our media.
The humanitarian crisis and political destabilisation are extremely toxic, and I hope that the Minister can provide some assurance that at international level the situation in Lebanon is at least part of the consideration as we rightly debate internationally how to push Syria towards a better future, how to get rid of the vile Assad regime in Damascus, and how to move the whole region to a better place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) on securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject. He is extremely knowledgeable and experienced. As he explained, Syria and Lebanon have an intertwined history, and what happens in each affects the other. The Assad regime has long played an unhelpful role in Lebanon. In addition to ensuring a peaceful transition in Syria and ending the atrocities there as soon as possible, an important priority of this Government is to ensure that stability in Lebanon is not another victim of Assad’s repression.
Let me first address what is happening in Syria, and what we are doing about it. 15 March will mark the passing of the first anniversary of the Syrian regime’s sustained and brutal violence against its own people. In the last year, the UN has estimated that more than 7,500 people, including 380 children, have been killed. As the hon. Members for Edmonton and for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) said, the suffering is appalling, and the suffering of so many children is atrocious.
As well as the large number of people who have been killed, the Syrian regime is engaging in an horrific campaign of repression through widespread and systematic human rights violations, including the torture and rape of men, women and children. In recent days, much of the focus has been on Homs, where the Syrian regime has conducted a campaign of indiscriminate shelling and violence against the civilian population. Reports from Paul Conroy and other brave journalists demonstrate the appalling human suffering inflicted by the regime. The Syrian Government must bring an immediate end to violence across the whole of Syria, in Homs, Hama, Damascus, Deraa and elsewhere.
Rehman Chishti
The Minister will know that the European Union imposed crippling sanctions on the Assad regime in order to stop the killing and repression. Is he concerned that to a certain extent Syria has been able to wriggle out of those sanctions by working with banks and financial institutions in Lebanon?
Mr Bellingham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that, and I shall cover it in some detail in a moment. As I understand it, 114 individuals and 39 entities are now subjected to asset freezes and travel bans. The latest round of sanctions, which was agreed at the end of February, included freezing the assets of the Central Bank of Syria and restricting the regime’s access to the gold and precious metal markets. We will look into my hon. Friend’s point about Lebanon and Lebanese banks that may also operate in Syria, and I will make sure that I write to him about that.
We are gravely concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Syria, and the actions of the regime are making it incredibly difficult for humanitarian agencies to respond. The UK is doing all it can to address the humanitarian situation in that challenging context. We are providing funding, as well as stepping up political pressure on the Syrian Government to allow unimpeded access to the UN and aid agencies, a full assessment of civilian needs, and the delivery of vital relief goods to all those affected by violence.
We fully support the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Baroness Amos, in her plans to visit Syria to negotiate for humanitarian access and gain a better assessment of needs on the ground. I was fortunate enough to meet Baroness Amos last Monday in New York. She is now in Syria and we urge the Syrian Government to allow her full access to travel safely and freely in the region.
President Assad continues to exert brutal military force against his own people, and he is responsible for the appalling situation in Syria. We believe that he has lost legitimacy and can no longer claim to lead his country. As the Government have repeatedly made clear, he should step aside in the best interests of Syria and the unity of its people.
It is vital that those committing these awful crimes are held accountable for their actions. We have sent experts to the region to help gather and document evidence of human rights violations and abuses, and they will work closely with UN agencies, NGOs and other key organisations. The UK fully supports the Arab League’s efforts to end the violence in Syria and its plan for a Syrian-led political solution to the crisis. The establishment of a Friends of Syria group of over 60 countries is a further important step towards putting in place a political plan that addresses the concerns of all Syrians, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. We also welcome the appointment of former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan as the joint special envoy of the UN and the Arab League on the Syrian crisis. The UK extends to him its full support, and stands ready to provide assistance to his team in its vital work to bring an end to the violence in Syria.
In the EU, the UK has been at the forefront of delivering 12 rounds of sanctions targeted on those supporting or benefiting from the regime, and those associated with them. I will not repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), but we have made a start on restrictive measures, and it may be that further such measures will be required.
Tony Lloyd
The Minister can rightly claim that the Government have been at the forefront of tightening the sanctions regime against Syria. Would it be possible to begin to identify not only those at the very top such as President Assad, but those around him who have taken part in war crimes? If we could begin to identify such people by name, that would bring pressure to bear on senior players in the Assad regime.
Mr Bellingham
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to identify those people, and we will ensure that expert help is available for that work of identification and analysis. As I said earlier, those who have committed these terrible crimes will be brought to justice.
Last week, the deteriorating security situation and risks posed to our embassy staff led the Foreign Secretary to withdraw our staff from Syria. That decision in no way reduces our commitment to active diplomacy and to maintain pressure on the Assad regime to end the violence. We will continue to work closely with other nations to co-ordinate diplomatic and economic pressure on the Syrian regime through the Friends of Syria group and the EU.
Let me now look at how the current violence within Syria risks destabilising the region. As the hon. Member for Edmonton made clear, the despicable actions of the Syrian regime inside Syria impact on Syria’s neighbours. Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey are all affected by the continuing bloodshed, and the consequent flow of refugees has potential implications for their security and economies. Lebanon’s historical, confessional and economic links to Syria make it particularly vulnerable.
The number of refugees fleeing violence in Syria to safety in Lebanon is steadily increasing. Determining the numbers, however, is difficult. The UNHCR has registered at least 7,200 Syrians near the northern border of Lebanon, but there are undoubtedly many others. We estimate that the real figure is closer to 20,000, with a further 5,000 unregistered people likely to be in the northern border area and Tripoli; 5,000 in the Bekaa valley; 2,000 in the southern suburbs of Beirut; and 600 in the southern city of Saida. The Qatari Red Crescent has said recently that it believes a total figure of 50,000 Syrian refugees is credible. That is a huge figure, and shows the sheer scale involved. The hon. Members for Edmonton and for Manchester Central made an important point about displaced Syrians who have found refuge with relatives or host families, and I note the concerns that such arrangements might reach the limits of sustainability if those numbers continue to increase. We have regularly urged the Lebanese Government to continue their work with international agencies to provide shelter and protection for Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Generally speaking, the Lebanese Government are responding effectively in a difficult political context.
I was asked what the UK is doing to support the international effort, with particular reference to the UNHCR. We have doubled core funding to the UNHCR this year to help it carry out its work globally, including in the middle east. The Department for International Development provided £39 million for 2011-12, and we remain in close contact with UNHCR as this fast-moving situation develops. A DFID humanitarian adviser has been deployed to the region to get a better understanding of events on the ground and identify ways in which the UK might be able to help.
We will work closely with the Lebanese Government to improve conditions for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Importantly, that includes work to improve the governance and security arrangements in the refugee camps. To that end, the UK committed £117 million of non-earmarked funding for 2007-11 to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.
Mr Love
I am listening carefully to the Minister’s speech. One recent concern was about the actions of the Lebanese authorities in trying to restrict the numbers of people coming across from Syria, particularly in the Homs area. We should be urging the Lebanese authorities to open up humanitarian access, should conditions in Syria deteriorate. Will the Government make a commitment to urge the Lebanese authorities in that direction?
Mr Bellingham
We will certainly look at that point and I will take the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on board.
The UK is continuing to look into reports of limited Hezbollah involvement in Syria. Any Hezbollah support for the Syrian regime’s ongoing brutal repression would be a huge mistake and counter to Lebanese interests. Hezbollah’s rhetorical support for President Assad has exposed the hypocrisy of its supposed commitment to the poor and oppressed, and significantly undermined its credibility across the region. We urge all parties in Lebanon with any influence over the Assad regime to use that influence to seek an early end to the repression.
As has been expressed, the impact of events in Syria on the Lebanese economy should not be overlooked. We are working closely with the Lebanese Government to support economic reform, including offering support on regulatory processes to ensure long-term prosperity in Lebanon. UK companies have been involved in assisting the Lebanese Government to explore potential oil and gas resources in the country’s maritime waters, and our embassy remains active in supporting UK companies to play a greater role in Lebanon’s ambitious plans to develop its infrastructure. As part of the prosperity agenda, I assure the hon. Member for Edmonton that we are working hard at improving our bilateral trade. Indeed, we have made a commitment to increase such trade by 15%, year on year, over the next two years. That is what we are doing to try and bring wealth and prosperity to the people of Lebanon.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, and if there are points that I have not covered, I will write to him. The UK is committed to ending the bloodshed in Syria, to preventing it from destabilising Lebanon, and to helping the peoples of that region realise their aspirations for a more democratic, peaceful and prosperous future.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cabinet Committee List
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Today I am publishing an updated Cabinet Committee list. I have placed a copy of the new list in the Libraries of both Houses.
Medical Assessment Programme
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Ministry of Defence Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) will move from facilities at St Thomas’ Hospital, London, to the Reinforcements Training and Mobilisation Centre (RTMC) at Chilwell in October 2012. The MAP offers mental health assessments to ex-service personnel who have deployed on operations since 1982 and have mental health problems related to their military service.
The House is aware of the report published by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for making improvements in mental health care provision for service personnel and veterans. We fully support the report’s recommendation that the MAP service continues while NHS mental health services are further developed across the UK, and remain committed to doing all we can to help veterans with mental health problems related to their military service and to making improvements to the services we provide.
There are significant advantages in collocating the MAP with the RTMC at Chilwell. This will provide a more structured professional environment for the MAP physician; benefits for clinical governance and flexibility from working alongside the reserves mental healthcare service; and improved cost effectiveness from sharing the facilities already in place at Chilwell. This move is also expected to benefit the majority of veterans as demographic data indicate that a high percentage are being referred from the north and the midlands.
Single Payment Scheme
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
In my statement of 11 January 2012, Official Report, column 16 WS, I explained that the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) had met its first performance indicator for the 2011 Single Payment Scheme (SPS.) The Agency’s second performance indicator for the scheme was to pay 95% of both the number of eligible claimants and of the total estimated fund value by the end of March. I can now confirm to the House that these figures have been reached over three weeks ahead of schedule and significantly earlier than has been achieved in any previous year.
As at 5 March, RPA had made SPS 2011 payments totalling £1.651 billion (95.4%) to 100,605 eligible claimants (96%). The Agency will be making contact shortly with claimants who are not due a payment, for example because they no longer have entitlements. For the remaining 3,500 or so farmers, the focus continues to be on validating claims and making related payments as soon as possible. Where that has not been possible by the end of March, RPA will contact those affected to explain the position on their claim, including any corrective work and payment adjustments related to previous scheme years. That work is important to ensure legacy issues are addressed and so help provide the platform for further improvements in payment performance for the 2012 scheme.
NHS Pension Scheme
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The National Health Service Pension Scheme and Injury Benefits (Amendment) Regulations 2012, laid on 5 March 2012, bring into force increases to contribution rates for members of the NHS Pension Scheme for England and Wales. The increases apply to service from 1 April 2012 and continue throughout the financial year.
At the spending review 2010, the Government announced increases to member contribution rates in public service pension schemes saving £2.8 billion a year by 2014-15, to be phased in from 1 April 2012. The contributions are to be increased progressively with protection for the lower paid and to minimise instances where members choose to opt out of the scheme.
Last year the Department consulted on a structure of tiered contribution rates that meet these requirements. The consultation opened on 28 July 2011 and closed on 21 October 2011, and nearly 9,000 responses were received. The Department revised the original consultation proposal so that a greater number of lower and middle earners are protected from an increase in 2012-13.
The Government remain committed to securing in full the spending review savings in 2013-14 and 2014-15 by further increasing member contributions in public service pension schemes in addition to the 2012-13 rises. The Department will consult formally on proposals in due course.
These regulations also introduce new administration requirements to support implementation of taxation provisions within the Finance Act 2011. Further, the regulations alter scheme transfer rules in order to exclude the Isle of Man Unified Public Service Pension Scheme from 1 April 2012, as this new scheme will be incompatible with the terms of the Public Sector Transfer Club.
Police and Crime Commissioners (Pay)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On 3 November 2011, I placed a copy of the Senior Salary’s Review Body (SSRB) report and recommendations on police and crime commissioners pay in the House Library. On that day, I undertook to give the report and the recommendations thorough consideration and report my final decision in good time to allow potential PCC candidates to be clear on what they can expect their salary to be.
I would like to thank the SSRB for its work. I believe that the report sets out clearly the justification for its proposals and I intend to accept all but one of the recommendations made by the SSRB.
Recommendation 1 on PCC pay structure has taken into account the issues I consider to be important and, overall, I believe a sensible and appropriate approach has been taken. With regard to the salary range which is the subject of recommendation 2, the report has made the case for a proposed PCC salary range of £65,000—£100,000. While salary itself should not be a key motivational factor for these important new roles, the SSRB has agreed that these are important new posts. I believe their salary range ensures the right balance in terms of attracting suitable candidates while at the same time addressing the fact that public funding is constrained.
Recommendation 3 relates to the issue of performance-related pay and I agree with the SSRB’s recommendation that it would not be appropriate for PCCs to receive performance-related pay. The performance of PCCs should be judged solely by the electorate.
Recommendation 4 considers the need to reduce the salary of a PCC pro-rata for any PCCs that do not carry out the role on a full-time basis. Having reflected on the advice put forward by the SSRB, I do not propose to accept this recommendation.
We understand the intention behind it, but we believe that the best way forward is for PCCs to be clear with their electorate about what outside interests they have and for the electorate to judge them accordingly. Last year, I laid before Parliament a specified information order 2011 which sets out what information we expect PCCs to publish in order to ensure that they are sufficiently transparent on critical issues. I intend to ensure that a PCC declares any paid and/or unpaid interests that may conflict with their role or affect the amount of time that they will be devoting to it.
I also intend to accept the SSRB’s last two recommendations. Recommendation 5 relates to carrying out an independent annual review of PCC salaries and Recommendation 6 relates to completing a full review of PCC roles and their remuneration in the third year of office in order to make pay recommendations to take effect from the second round of elections in 2016.
By settling the pay structure as early as possible, I hope to ensure that potential candidates have plenty of time to consider their respective positions when deciding whether they should stand.
Justice and Home Affairs Council
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 8 March in Brussels. I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.
The Council will begin in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). There will be presentations by the Commission and Frontex on illegal immigration, continuing the Council discussions on this issue under the previous presidency. The UK supports increased efforts to combat illegal flows across the external border and within the EU, and welcomes proposals for a presidency “roadmap” for a more coherent response to these flows. In particular, the UK believes it is vital that the EU response includes action to tackle fraud and abuse of free movement rights, as well as consolidation of efforts at the Greek-Turkish border, closer partnership working with Turkey, and work further “upstream” in countries of origin and transit using the tools of the EU’s global approach to migration.
The presidency will present its Council conclusions which aim to strengthen political governance over Schengen co-operation through regular political and strategic discussions at ministerial level in mixed committee format. The use of mixed committee format will allow the UK to participate in discussions which affect the control of illegal immigration flows that impact on the UK. The UK supports this proposal and the list of suggested topics for inclusion in the Commission’s periodic reports. The UK will use these debates to call for stronger practical co-operation on measures to protect the external border and prevent illegal immigration.
There will be an update from the presidency on attempts to secure agreement on the date for the removal of controls on Bulgaria and Romania’s sea and air borders with countries in the Schengen area. This issue will also be discussed at the preceding European Council. We do not expect a vote.
Next there will be an update on the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). The UK will continue to reiterate its support for the continuation of the current SIS II project. The Commission has committed to deliver the central element of SIS II in early 2013.
There will also be a presentation by the presidency on the EU conference on innovative border management, which the UK attended in Copenhagen on 2 and 3 February 2012.
There will be a discussion during lunch on combating organised crime through multi-disciplinary and administrative approaches.
The main Council will start with a “state of play” report by the presidency on the Common European Asylum System. This will set out the progress that has been made on the package to date: negotiations continue on the reception conditions directive and the Dublin III Regulation, with the development of a new article to enshrine the “early warning mechanism', which was the subject of discussions in JHA Councils at the end of last year.
The presidency will present draft Council conclusions which set out the outcome of discussions on solidarity and practical co-operation that took place at the informal Council meeting in January. They are intended to provide a framework or “tool box” for practical co-operation within the EU, focusing in large part on maximising the opportunities presented by existing arrangements. This is the first time the Council has been asked to consider the conclusions but there is a high degree of support for the direction they set out. The UK strongly supports the conclusions as currently drafted. They present the right balance on key issues including that the focus of “solidarity” should be practical co-operation between member states based on their individual responsibility to build migration management capacity; strong references to the “early warning mechanism” to be included in the new Dublin regulation in place of a suspension clause; and an explicit confirmation of the lack of support for any mandatory intra-EU relocation of beneficiaries of international protection.
Next there will be a presentation by the Commission, the European Asylum Support Office and Frontex on the Greek action plan (GAP) of August 2010. The GAP outlines Greece’s proposals to build its capability to manage migration, including through the creation of an improved asylum service which complies with EU legislation. Legislation has now been adopted in Greece to provide a new institutional framework by creating three new agencies (Asylum Service, Appeals Authority and Initial Reception Service). However, the implementation of these reforms has been significantly hindered by systemic deficiencies in the Greek Administration and constraints imposed by austerity measures. The UK supports the GAP and has a vested interest in its success, not least because a weak border with Turkey presents a security risk. Up to 80% of illegal migrants enter the EU through Greece, and many of these may travel on to the UK. Without significant improvements to the asylum system, use of the Dublin regulation to return asylum seekers to Greece will remain suspended. But the Government are concerned by the slow progress of reform and the limited evidence of the impact of EU support, including that provided through the European Asylum Support Office. Members of the Council are likely to discuss whether any further support would be appropriate and will push to secure further political will from Greece to bring about meaningful reform.
Under any other business the presidency will provide information on current legislative proposals.
Disability Employment Support
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
Today I am publishing a command paper, “Disability Employment Support: Fulfilling Potential”, which sets out the Government’s strategy for specialist disability employment programmes and includes a summary of the responses to the public consultation on the Sayce review.
Our strategy reaffirms the Government’s commitment to enable disabled people to achieve their full potential and support independent living, something at the heart of UN convention commitments. As a result of its importance and despite severe financial constraints, I have continued to protect spending on specialist disability employment programmes over this spending review, and I am determined to help more disabled people enter and remain in work. Crucially, savings from the policy changes I am announcing today will be used for more effective and proven employment programmes such as Access to Work to benefit many more disabled people. Liz Sayce made a number of recommendations to improve and expand Access to Work. We accept all of Liz Sayce’s recommendations on Access to Work, subject to further co-production with disabled people and employers to ensure that we get these right. I can confirm today that we have already implemented a number of these recommendations, including targeted marketing to small employers and under-represented groups. I can also announce today that we will make an extra £15 million available for Access to Work in this spending review period.
In addition, we will be conducting a further period of co-production with disabled people to identify how best we can support independent living through achieving the full potential of disabled people in the labour market. This will build upon the co-productive approach to developing the disability strategy.
I have agreed that the funding for residential training colleges should be extended until the end of the academic year 2012/13, to allow time to determine and implement future changes. They provide support into employment that is clearly valued, although costly, and we need to take further time to consider options for the future.
I have assessed very carefully the needs of the Remploy workers, as well as the needs of the 6.9 million disabled people of working age in Great Britain—who are, of course, the vast majority—who could benefit from greater specialist employment support to find and retain work.
The responses to the consultation on the Sayce review strongly endorsed the idea that money to support disabled people into employment should follow individuals not institutions and that Remploy factories should be set free from Government control.
They also supported the view the Government-funded segregated employment is not consistent with an objective of disability equality.
This is about equality and fairness for disabled people. Roughly 2,200 disabled people are supported by Remploy’s enterprise businesses, at a cost each year of around a fifth of the total budget for specialist disability employment programmes. Despite significant investment in Remploy enterprise businesses the cost of each employment place remains at £25,000 per year, compared with an average Access to Work award of £2,900. The Sayce review did acknowledge the valuable work undertaken by Remploy’s employment services in supporting tens of thousands of disabled people into work. Given the significant additional number of unemployed disabled people who could be supported to access the mainstream labour market, up to 8,000 people in this spending review, I have decided that it is important to accept and implement the Sayce review recommendations on Remploy. This will be done in two stages.
In stage 1, the Government will reduce its current subsidy to Remploy from the beginning of the new financial year so that we cease funding factories which make significant losses year after year and restrict funding to those factories which might have a prospect of a viable future without Government subsidy. Remploy’s board was asked to consider the impact of this decision before it was made.
As a result of the decision to reduce current funding the Remploy board is proposing to close (subject to consultation with their unions) by the end of this year the 36 factory sites (of 54) which it considers are unlikely to be able to achieve independent financial viability. Remploy will shortly begin collective consultation with its trade unions and the management forums on the proposed closure of these factories and on the potential compulsory redundancy of all the 1,752 people, including 1,518 disabled people, at these sites and associated with them.
Some factory sites, the CCTV business and Remploy employment services appear to be more likely to be able to continue to operate free from government subsidy as advocated by Sayce. In stage 2, the Department for Work and Pensions will work with the Remploy board to identify whether these potentially viable Remploy businesses can be freed from Government control, including by way of employee-led commercial exit and/or open market sales, and how this might be achieved.
I recognise that this announcement will be difficult news for the staff in Remploy factories and understand that they have will have concerns about the future. As part of collective consultation, the Remploy board will consider all proposals to avoid compulsory redundancy.
We are absolutely committed to supporting Remploy employees with an £8 million comprehensive personalised package of support for all those who are affected by these proposals. Any disabled member of staff who is made redundant will receive an offer of individualised support for up to 18 months to help with the transition from Government-funded sheltered employment to mainstream employment. This support will also include access to a personal budget to aid that transition. We will also be working with employers and the Employers Forum on Disability to look to offer targeted work opportunities for displaced staff. We will also establish a community support fund to provide grants to local disability organisations to support Remploy employees to make the transition from sheltered to mainstream employment.
If, after reform of Remploy is complete, it leaves Government, I anticipate that the Remploy pension scheme will run on as a closed scheme. The accrued benefits of members will be fully protected.
The Government’s commitment is to support many more disabled people into work, in line with their aspirations, at a time of severe financial restraint. The changes I am announcing today will enable us to support thousands more disabled people into work, including through significant improvements to the successful Access to Work programme. I believe that this strategy better fits the needs and aspirations of the 21st century—and a world where disabled people participate fully in the mainstream not in Government-funded segregated jobs.
I will place a list of the factories that will be the subject of consultation in the Library of the House.
House of Lords
Media: Plurality
Lord Fowler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have for ensuring media plurality in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the Government will outline high-level thinking on media ownership and plurality in the forthcoming communications Green Paper and have commissioned a report from Ofcom on these matters to be delivered in June 2012. As noble Lords will be aware, the Leveson inquiry will also report on matters related to media plurality and any recommendations will be considered as part of the communications review.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, should we not remember that last July we were only days away from News Corp’s bid for BSkyB being waved through? Against that background, would my noble friend not agree that our aim should be to have safeguards that prevent any one organisation owning a disproportionate share of the British media and that final decisions on media mergers and takeovers should be taken independently, not by Ministers?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My noble friend makes very valid points on this. On his second point, the Secretary of State has indeed questioned whether it is appropriate for politicians to have the final say on plurality issues. In competition cases, Ministers are removed from the decision-making process, and that would also be applied to media plurality. We will be seeking views on that in the Green Paper. On his other point, these topics will be discussed in great depth by the communications Green Paper and by Leveson.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, given that each day sees the catalogue of News International’s misdeeds spreading more widely, and given the dominance of the parent company throughout the UK media, should the Government not now be taking urgent action to strengthen Ofcom’s powers to intervene where it has doubts about whether UK broadcasting licence holders are fit and proper persons? It is a matter of urgency now.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I hear what the noble Baroness says. There is already a requirement on Ofcom to ensure that any person holding a broadcasting licence is and remains a fit and proper person. That is an ongoing requirement. It is not limited to merger situations. Ofcom is in contact with the relevant authorities and has asked to be kept informed of anything that may assist it in assessing whether BSkyB is and remains fit and proper to continue to hold its broadcast licences. Clearly, Ofcom cannot and should not act while allegations are unsubstantiated. If it found evidence that persons were unfit to hold a licence, it could act ahead of the conclusion of a criminal investigation.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, do the Government have plans for what they might do in the event that Mr James Murdoch or, indeed, News International, decides to dispose of further UK newspaper titles? Would they be content should the new ownership be, for example, Chinese or Qatari adding to our wealth of overseas newspaper owners who do not pay taxes in this country but lead the debate on taxation?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Baroness raises a very important matter. Of course, there are competing views on this issue, which will be discussed in great depth. I apologise if that is my answer to a number of questions today. We have ongoing investigations and we really cannot pre-empt the decisions on those, but that question will undoubtedly be addressed in much greater detail.
Lord Soley
I agree very strongly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. Does the noble Baroness agree that there would actually be more media diversity now if, instead of closing down the News of the World, News International had taken responsibility and those responsible for the actions there had either resigned or been sacked?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
That might indeed have been the case but we are where we are. The News of the World has closed and of course we now have the new Sun on Sunday, which is a sort of replacement for it. Yes, those actions might have resulted in a different outcome; we cannot know.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that another important and necessary element of media plurality is the types of journalism practised, and that continued investment in investigative and foreign journalism, as practised by my much mourned friend Marie Colvin, is absolutely essential, and that the BBC, recipient of the licence fee, has a major part to play in this area?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Yes, indeed, and I join my noble friend in paying tribute to reporters, journalists and photographers who put themselves in dangerous and difficult situations in order to relay important news stories to the outside world. It is always a matter of very deep regret when any of them pays the ultimate price. That is an aspect of the media that deserves our admiration and gratitude, and indeed the role of investigative journalism continues to be of vital importance.
Lord Inglewood
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that a useful background paper to this discussion is the document produced by the House of Lords Communications Committee some years ago, The Ownership of the News, under the chairmanship of no less a personage than my noble friend Lord Fowler?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
How could I not agree with my noble friend? Yes, indeed, and of course the Communications Committee continues to produce very well-respected and in-depth reports for your Lordships’ consideration.
Viscount Colville of Culross
My Lords, surely the battle is now on for control of access to the digital media. Ofcom took three years to review pay TV, which is dominated by BSkyB. Does the Minister feel that the media regulatory framework is nimble enough to respond to a fast-changing media marketplace?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Viscount makes a very valid point and we are hoping that it will be nimbler, with the reviews that are under way at the moment. We are not intending to delay any recommendations that come out of the Leveson inquiry, or any recommendations from Ofcom. As the noble Viscount rightly says, it is a very fast-moving world.
Lord Peston
My Lords, will the forthcoming Green Paper take into account the owners of the media that we are talking about, who seem to be largely people who neither live in this country nor pay taxes in this country? In addition, having become totally addicted to the Leveson inquiry myself, does the Minister agree that the biggest danger to freedom of the press in this country is the people who are appointed at senior levels in our newspapers, who seem to have no idea of the difference between truth and falsity?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Lord’s initial point is similar to the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about overseas ownership of our media. All I can say is that the Government take these matters very seriously. We are looking very closely at all the practices of the media and we are not intending to let these matters just drift on.
Death Penalty
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sheldon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to the relevant Governments to secure the abolition of the death penalty in China and in other countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, the Government regularly urge the Chinese authorities to cease the use of the death penalty. Our most recent representations to the Chinese Government were made in China in January of this year during the 20th round of the UK-China human rights dialogue. We will continue to raise our concerns with the Chinese authorities at every appropriate opportunity, just as we do with the Governments of other countries who apply the death penalty, in line with our published strategy on abolition.
Lord Sheldon
My Lords, the noble Lord has given a very useful reply. It has been estimated that capital punishment in China amounts to 5,000 executions, covering a wide range of crimes including tax evasion and drug trafficking. It has had more executions than all other nations combined. What action should other nations consider?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is right that the number of executions in China is, to us, unpleasant, and we have campaigned constantly against the level. There are some signs of a positive response to our efforts and those of many other countries: China has reduced the number of crimes that carry the death penalty, from 68 to 55; and the supreme court has ordered lower courts to suspend death sentences on a number of occasions. We are urging China to set a timetable for ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There is some anecdotal evidence—indeed, even visible evidence—that important policy-makers in China are beginning to push forward strong advice that standards in China should move towards those of the rest of the responsible civilised world.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the courtesy of the House is that no more than one Peer is on their feet at the same time, so perhaps I may be that Peer for the moment. We have just heard from the Labour Benches; might we hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and then perhaps from the Cross Benches, before returning to Labour?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is the custom that when a Labour person has asked the Question we then give other Benches an opportunity. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was not trying to be difficult.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, what can we say to countries that prescribe the death penalty for offences such as adultery or apostasy? My noble friend will have noted the unlawful deportation by Malaysia of the writer Hamza Kashgari to Saudi Arabia, where he faces execution for something that he said on Twitter. Will the Government propose to the UN that states which execute people for apostasy should be made ineligible for membership of the Human Rights Council?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We most certainly do not accept that apostasy should be criminalised let alone that it should attract the death penalty. We will certainly make appropriate representations both to the country concerned and in the right fora of the UN. Our efforts to restrict the use of the death penalty apply universally, regardless of the crime for which it is imposed. That includes imposing the death penalty only for the most serious offences—if it must be imposed at all—such as murder. Freedom of religious belief, and certainly apostasy, should not in our view in any way attract the death penalty.
Baroness Stern
My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister about the situation in the Commonwealth, and I should declare an interest as I chair the All-Party Group for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Twenty-one of the 54 Commonwealth countries still retain the death penalty. In view of the disappointing outcome at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October last year on human rights, can the Minister tell the House what new strategy has been developed to deal with abolition in Commonwealth countries?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Like the noble Baroness, I certainly declare an interest in the Commonwealth. She is quite right. The figures that I have show that 36 of the Commonwealth countries retain the death penalty in statute, but of those, 15 are in effect abolitionists and have not used it in practice. Eleven countries have carried through executions since 2000, and that is not satisfactory. It is certainly one of the values of the Commonwealth system that we are in a position to press very hard on those countries to see whether they will move towards abolition more quickly. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary called for the abolition of the death penalty when he addressed the Commonwealth People’s Forum in Perth last October. So the pressure is on, and we will certainly continue. However, I emphasise that the very existence of the Commonwealth enables us to increase that pressure and focus it effectively.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, does the Minister accept that in arguing against the death penalty, in line with our Government’s policy, the difficulty is that the countries concerned can then say, “Yes—what about the United States?”. What representations do we make to the United States? It represents the weakest point in the argument against the death penalty.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I would not myself put it in the way that the noble Lord has. The United States is one of our priority countries, and we regularly make our views known to the US authorities bilaterally through the European Union and in any other way that we can. We are particularly concerned about individual cases of British nationals facing the death penalty in the USA. It is undeniably a problem, but I do not think that it weakens the argumentation that can be put forward in other countries—where, here and there, there are some definite signs of progress. I remind the noble Lord that, for instance, in 2009 Barbados announced its intention to abolish the death penalty. There is a UN General Assembly resolution coming up on this whole area which we are strongly supporting.
Lord Dykes
Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, does my noble friend agree that the United States is a particular problem because there are well over 4,000 people on death row, many of whom have been there for many years? That must amount to cruel and inhuman punishment. Some of those are mentally retarded people. Will the Government make real efforts to persuade the United States and the federal government to drop capital punishment?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking over the abhorrent policies in some countries to exact the death penalty on young people under the age of 18?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I suspect that the noble Baroness is referring particularly to some of the horrific stories from Iran. We regard those with horror, and we continue to press extremely hard, in line with our general desire to see the abolition of the death penalty worldwide, where those kinds of particularly repulsive and ugly penalties are inflicted.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, following the position on the US, when we make our welcome representations to the Chinese authorities, do they in fact say, “Well, how do you deal with the US?”. Does it in fact blunt our own representations that the US does have the death penalty in so many states?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I cannot answer precisely having not been personally involved in all these bilateral negotiations, but my impression is that it does not. My impression is that countries either say, “We listen politely to your views”—as, for instance, in the case of Japan—or, “We recognise that we must move forward”, in some other cases; or some of them give us a rather dustier answer and say, “These are internal matters for us. Please go away”.
Schools: Dyslexia
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that there is adequate diagnostic testing for children with dyslexia in primary schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, early identification of literacy difficulties, including dyslexia, relies on the regular monitoring of children’s progress. We are investing in specialist dyslexia support for teachers, including initial teacher training, to help identify dyslexic pupils earlier. The new year one phonics screening check to be introduced this June will identify children who have not acquired phonic skills to the expected standard and help flag up those who may have additional needs, including dyslexia, and who would benefit from further support.
Lord Storey
I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. As he rightly says, early identification of children with dyslexia is hugely important. However, he will be equally aware that very few primary teachers are qualified to carry out diagnostic testing, so that when referrals take place, they take a long time to sort out. Will he consider including as part of initial primary training a unit of training that is linked to the diagnostic assessment of dyslexia?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with my noble friend about the importance of teacher training in order to address these issues and he is quite right to say that we need to make sure that there are teachers with those skills in primary schools. The new standards we are setting for QTS include an emphasis on the ability to teach a range of special needs not specifically around dyslexia. I understand the particular point he makes, but so far we have opted to take a broader approach and then support teachers with improved materials and networks of either teaching schools or charities. However, I take his point about the importance of making sure that primary schools have the skills that they need.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
Is the Minister aware that, in order to diagnose dyslexia, very often parents are asked to pay privately for that diagnostic testing to take place at a cost of £500? That is way beyond the means of many individual parents. We are therefore creating a two-tier system for those people who are able to afford that diagnostic testing and go privately, because it is not being done in many of our primary schools at the moment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
One of the issues that underlies this is the question of what diagnostic test is appropriate. One point that came out of the Rose review is that it did not recommend a specific diagnostic text because there are differences of opinion about which is the most effective. In terms of the support that is available, that review talked about a tiered approach to identify children with dyslexia and give them the support they need—through the SENCO and then other support that might be possible. I understand the noble Baroness’s basic point about funding. The funding that we have put into special needs and central support through local authorities is still in place, but I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, does the Minister agree that dyslexia is just one of a group of specific learning difficulties which include, for example, dyspraxia, which is loosely defined as very serious clumsiness, and dyscalculia, which is difficulty in calculating? These are often misconstrued by teachers as representing global handicap whereas the individuals in question are often in other respects highly intelligent. What is the availability now of people with adequate qualifications in educational psychology who are likely to help in identifying early the affected individuals so that appropriate remedial measures can be adopted?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with the noble Lord that there is a range of conditions, and he listed some. The basic approach in trying to identify them early and put support in place applies to those as it does to dyslexia. The Government have put funding in place to recruit and train 120 additional educational psychologists, which I think is the number that local authorities recognised that they needed as things stand. I hope that that is part of an answer, but I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that the training talked about by my noble friend Lord Storey and early identification extends to all those specific learning difficulties.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
Is my noble friend aware that this is a very serious problem that arose more than 30 years ago as reported in the Law Reports? It has been raised in this House on more than one occasion over those 30 years and nothing has been done about it by any Government.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with my noble friend that this is an important issue that goes back a long way, but I have to disagree with him that no Governments have ever done anything. Recent figures that I have seen show that the improvement in educational attainment between 2006 and 2011 for children with specific learning difficulties, while much lower than we would like, doubled over that five-year period. Therefore, I do not think it is fair to say that previous Governments have not done anything. It is also fair to say that this Government share the determination of the previous Government to try to do whatever we can to address this issue.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, many local authorities, as the Minister will know, have also taken the initiative and promoted dyslexia specialist primary schools in their areas as a base for teacher training and to disseminate best practice in other schools. But the Government are now forcing hundreds of primary schools to become academies, independent of the local authority and separate from other local schools. Does the Minister really think that that is compatible with the kind of local co-operation that we have all agreed here today is necessary to improve provision for young children with dyslexia and other special educational needs?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I certainly agree with that last point about the need for co-operation. Where I probably take issue with the noble Baroness is around her premise that academies working together in chains are not able to work together and share in a collegiate way just as all other schools have been doing for a long time. We are seeing that kind of working together emerging through academy chains and clusters and through teaching schools. That is the way forward.
Agriculture: Schmallenberg Virus
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to counter the spread of Schmallenberg virus in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, 121 farms in England are affected by the Schmallenberg virus. They indicate the extent of a late summer 2011 infection. All of them are within the at-risk regions for midge incursion during 2011 from continental Europe. We understand the anxiety of farmers as they get into the lambing season. We will continue to monitor and test for disease across the UK to determine the spread of disease during that time. Meanwhile we are working closely with our European neighbours to find out more about the disease.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, while recognising that farmers, vets and Defra are working very closely, are research establishments across the UK fully engaged in finding a remedy? Are all research programmes in the many European countries affected being co-ordinated with our own in the United Kingdom?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, good collaborative networks operate in Europe with our European colleagues. We are working with them and the Commission to develop an investigatory research programme to answer questions as to the disease’s origin, transmission and future prognosis. We have strength in depth in vector research at Pirbright and virus characteristics at the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory Agency at Weybridge, which will play a key role in this.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, has the Minister received any assessment—
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, sorry, am I competing with somebody else? Forgive my ignorance but I do not know how this virus gets around. Is it through biting the animals, laying eggs or what? Families are involved in the birth of lambs. Are they—particularly the young women of the families—at risk of catching this terrible bug?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, I can reassure my noble friend that the family of viruses from which this infection comes poses no direct threat to human health. As for how the infection occurs, it is midge-transmitted: the midge infects the sheep or cattle. We know now that that occurred in the summer or early autumn of last year. Indeed, we know that the last possible date on which it might have occurred was 13 November. We know that from the weather prediction and patterns that we have studied to find out more about how this infection arrived in the country.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, I know when to be gallant. In view of the Minister’s assurance that there does not appear to be any risk to human health, and in view of experiences over recent decades, will he ask the Food Standards Agency and the Health Protection Agency to monitor the disease particularly closely?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can assure the noble Lord that we have already done that. We have had risk assessments by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the UK Health Protection Agency, both concluding that there is a very low likelihood of any risk from this disease to human health.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
I declare an interest as I have three flocks of sheep and we are coming up to lambing. What progress is being made on a serological blood test?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is exactly what is being investigated at the moment. We do not have a blood test at present, but it is clearly going to be very important. This is a very new virus, and we know relatively little about it except the background from which it comes. We have very strong indications as to how it has come here. The work is ongoing, but I assure the noble Baroness that we are working hard to get a blood test.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, the spread of this virus is clearly of concern to farmers in this country, and I welcome the update that we have had from the Minister. Does he agree that the department’s risk assessment on climate change suggests that this sort of disease, borne by midges, will become more common, and that how it is handled now will set a pattern for the future? On the basis of openness and transparency, will he agree a simple request that the Chief Veterinary Officer urgently provides a briefing to interested Peers so that the House can be updated regularly?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am most happy to do so. I welcomed this Question because I was aware that this matter must be of concern to a number of Peers. This is an opportunity to inform the House on the subject, and I give the assurance that a “Dear colleague” letter goes to all interested Peers on this matter.
The Duke of Montrose
I declare an interest as president of the National Sheep Association. Will all the reported cases be required to have laboratory confirmation of the disease? Are the laboratories able to cope with that, and does the Government’s scenario predict a seasonal peak in the next few months?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have already indicated to the House that there is a season for the initial infection and therefore the consequent impact on young lambs and calves. There will be a seasonal pattern. I agree that we may have to deal with similar infections in future, so it is important to have proper precautions in place.
Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 2012
Baroness Garden of Frognal
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 30 January and 1 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 40th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 27 February
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:07 - Division on Amendment 11. - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 198 - Amendment 11 agreed.
18:21 - Division on Amendment 12. - Ayes: 222 / Noes: 194 - Amendment 12 agreed.
20:10 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 178 / Noes: 172 - Amendment 13 agreed.
20:23 - Division on Amendment 15 - Ayes: 168 / Noes: 175 - Amendment 15 disagreed.
Baroness Doocey
“Social welfare law (1) Civil legal services provided in respect of a social welfare decision relating to a benefit, allowance, payment, credit or pension under—
(a) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;(b) the Jobseekers Act 1995;(c) the State Pension Credit Act 2002;(d) the Tax Credits Act 2002;(e) the Welfare Reform Act 2007;(f) the Welfare Reform Act 2012; or(g) any other enactment relating to social security.(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), “civil legal services” includes independent advice and assistance for a review, or appeal to a first-tier tribunal, of such a decision.”
Baroness Doocey
This amendment is almost identical in scope to the one moved in the other place by the right honourable Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who is also chair of the Liberal Democrat policy committee on justice. It concerns the proposals in the Bill to remove legal aid for appeals against official decisions—
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I apologise to my noble friend but it is very difficult to hear what she is saying. I invite noble Lords to leave the Chamber quietly and not to walk in front of Members as they speak.
Baroness Doocey
The amendment concerns the proposals in the Bill to remove legal aid for appeals against official decisions about entitlement to welfare benefit. These proposals will seriously inhibit claimants’ access to justice, will not deliver the savings that the Government hope for and will create very serious problems for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The amendment is more modest in scope than the one that I proposed in Committee. It would retain legal aid only for people with complex welfare benefit issues, to help them to challenge government decisions by appeal to a First-tier Tribunal. It would not retain the provision for legal aid to help with more general tasks such as form-filling, nor would it go beyond what is currently available.
Nearly six out of every 10 cases which currently receive legal aid for welfare benefit issues involve either disabled people or families with seriously ill or disabled children. The Government consider that these cases have a low priority when compared to safety, liberty and homelessness, but some disability benefits provide or protect liberty, particularly in relation to mobility and maintaining independence, which are so important. These benefits are crucial to many disabled people; they provide just enough money for those people to avoid poverty and to make some small contribution to the additional costs resulting from their disability.
The importance of maintaining legal aid for claimants can be judged by the fact that in six out of every 10 successful appeals against employment support allowance decisions, the claimants were originally deemed to have no factors affecting their ability to work. The Government’s own equality impact assessment acknowledges that disabled people and individuals with specific disabilities are likely to experience a greater impact under some of these changes. The decision to press ahead with the proposals despite that assessment sends a very confused message to the disabled people that the Government have promised to protect.
Legal aid for welfare benefits costs about £25 million a year. Limiting advice to reviews and appeals, as proposed in the amendment, would save £8.5 million, which would reduce the total cost to £16.5 million a year, which is less than 1 per cent of the legal aid budget—but, crucially, it would help 100,000 people. If claimants are denied legal aid to appeal against wrong decisions, their situation will get worse, intervention at a later stage will cost much more and there will be a knock-on cost for other public services.
We are also likely to see a much greater backlog of tribunal cases because panels will be faced with clients who are unable to put together a coherent case because of their lack of welfare benefit knowledge. Tribunals were designed to be informal, inexpensive and accessible but for large numbers of people the very thought of attending a tribunal can be very intimidating. How can the Government seriously expect people with no legal knowledge to be able to negotiate the complex nature of welfare benefit law and to have the expertise needed to be able to decipher more than 9,000 pages of advice from the Department for Work and Pensions? These people are going to have major problems mounting an appeal because they will have no idea what to appeal against. As Judge Robert Martin said:
“If the tribunal is not supplied with the best evidence, the quality of justice is likely to suffer”.
To make matters worse, the Bill is being proposed at a time when the Government are carrying out one of the most substantial reforms of the welfare system in a generation. This will almost certainly result in a huge number of mistakes and a similar increase in the need for appeals.
Surely our overriding duty in this House is to protect those people who are unable to protect themselves. The consequences of wrong decisions for disability benefit claimants can be catastrophic. This amendment would allow some of the most vulnerable people in our society to fight for the benefits to which they are entitled. I commend it to the House, and I beg to move.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, my name is to the amendment, along with those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Bach. I intervene at this early stage partly for that reason and partly to support many of the points that my noble friend made without reiterating them.
We need to bear in mind that this proposed change to legal aid does not take place in a vacuum. It takes place at a time of great actual or potential turbulence—or at least change—in the benefits system, arising to some small extent in respect of housing from the Localism Act, and to a much greater extent from the Welfare Reform Bill. I do not want anyone to think that I am opposed to the Welfare Reform Bill. I had some reservations about parts of it but, like every other group in the House, I support its basic thrust. However, we ought to be absolutely clear that you cannot have change on that scale in the social security system without a lot of gainers, a lot of losers and a lot of people who will want to test, question and seek advice on the changes that affect them if they feel aggrieved.
There are many such changes. There is the housing benefit cap. There is the benefit cap, which is probably less serious in this context because fewer people are supposed to be affected. A huge number of disabled people and carers will be affected. In the area of housing benefit, many tenants will be affected by what is known as the spare-bedroom tax. These are not trivial numbers. The DWP’s estimate, given to me by the Minister, of the number of people affected by the housing benefit cap—the bedroom tax, if I may use a tendentious phrase—is 670,000. The number of people potentially affected by changes to the disability and carer allowances in the Welfare Reform Bill is of the same order if the figures I remember being given in Committee are right. Therefore, we are talking about potentially well over a million people.
If I was still an MP, I would be a bit worried. That is an average of around 2,000 people per constituency. They will all have relatives, some of whom will be affected and many others of whom will be upset by what is happening or could happen to their relatives. They will not all have a great grievance but there will enough of them who do. They will be bewildered and in some cases frightened, as we know from the e-mails we all received over the Welfare Reform Bill. They will not know where to turn but they will know that they need advice and help from somewhere. Let us not underestimate the scale of the impact of this change.
My second point, in what I hope will not be too long a speech, is: does it matter? There has been something of a flavour to Ministers’ comments that the only things that matter enough in this area to warrant a continuation of legal aid are those that threaten life or liberty—for example, orders under the Mental Health Act—or highly specialised areas such as children’s special educational needs and several other children’s issues. I pay tribute to the Government for the fact that they have recognised some of those points. However, there has been a slight flavour that welfare rights and welfare benefits generally did not quite rank in this league. There has been a sort of flavour that it is only a bit of money after all, although I do not think that anybody has actually said it. However, no one who has been Secretary of State for Social Security would harbour the illusion that the £10 or £20 a week that people could lose—for example, under the housing benefit cap if they have a spare room and do not move—is a trivial sum. It may not be a great amount to all of us in this House, but there are a lot of people in this country to whom £10 or £20 a week makes a great difference to whether they can heat or whether they can eat. I do not want to exaggerate this matter or get emotional about it, but some people will be frightened at being hit by some aspects of these changes and they will need somewhere to turn to.
I wish to quote a couple of points from the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, wrote on behalf of all four of us. I stress that the letter was written on behalf of all four of us. I had agreed it; I just was not present to sign it. It states:
“81% of all cases heard in the First Tier Tribunals relating to benefits are for benefits relating to disability … in 2009/10 an appellant at the First Tier Tribunal that received advice before going to the Tribunal was 78% more likely to win their appeal than an unadvised appellant”.
Then there is another point to which I may come back in a moment: namely, that nobody believes that the savings the Government have claimed for these proposals will actually be realised. The CABs, the Law Society and the report produced by King’s College all reckon that a lot of theses savings are illusory and that the knock-on effects on other government departments will be substantial but have so far been completely unquantified.
My third main point is about the effect of all this on the places where people can and do turn for both direct and indirect help: namely, the citizens advice bureaux, which are universally admired and supported, and are valued in this House and the other place, and a whole variety of law centres and other big society advisory services throughout the country. The CABs have just published a report which I hope everyone will read. I do not wish to quote the whole of it, just a bit from the introduction and the conclusion. In between there are a lot of case studies. The introduction states:
“Specialist advice has become a core part of the CAB service. Our frontline caseworkers and managers have told us that the impact of the proposed changes to legal aid on specialist services will be devastating. The overwhelming majority say that it will be impossible to provide a specialist service, whilst over half say that it may be impossible to continue providing any advice service at all … And it's not just the Citizens Advice service that will be affected - law centres, independent advice agencies and some solicitors' firms will find it difficult to continue to operate”.
After mentioning various cases, the conclusion states that if these cases,
“could be empowered to help themselves without specialist advice, casework and support from legal aid, then every CAB would rejoice, but that is not the reality. It will be a massive failure in the justice system if they are abandoned”.
I shall conclude quickly, but I should like to make just one other point. The Government have, in a way, acknowledged that there may be a need to support other advice services, but we still have no real idea how that is to be done. We have had a promise of a one-off £20 million, which is not a lot in this context. A review is going on which has not yet been completed and whose results we do not know. We have no serious commitment from the Government as to what they will do when they have the results. The nearest we have to that is a comment on the King’s College study to which I referred, which states:
“We are committed to the not for profit sector and have committed £20m this year to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of advice services, but this does not mean that the Government will meet all demand in the future”.
I would not want to back off from supporting the amendment on the basis of a vague promise that something along those lines might be done. It is a classic case where we are entitled to ask another place to take another look, and that is what I hope we will do.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, in the background to the undoubted need to cut legal aid for economic reasons, it is undoubtedly fair to take as a starting point the Government’s realistic decision to continue to fund judicial review for welfare benefit decisions. In their 2010 Green Paper, the Government gave examples of where judicial review would be used, and is used, for benefit cases. I quote:
“As with other areas of law, funding for judicial review will continue to be available for benefits cases. Such cases are likely to occur where there are delays in making decisions on applications for benefits, or delays in making payments, or whether there has been suspension of benefits by authorities pending investigation”.
None of those examples of judicial review is based on the merits of the case in question; and the problem with judicial review is just that. Where legal aid is available for judicial review in benefits cases, it will not avail a single potential litigant when the decision taken is simply wrong, the evidence has been mis-analysed and misapplied, and the factual decision is unsustainable. That is not what judicial review is for.
Bearing that in mind, I have had to think hard about the balance between wishing to help the Government to fulfil their aims to cut legal aid in a realistic way and those determinations of principle and conscience that some of us have held to for quite a long time. I applaud the measured and economical way in which my noble friend Lady Doocey moved the amendment. She has great experience in dealing with these issues and enormous knowledge of them. Over decades, she and I, and a number of others on these Benches, have attended debate after debate within our party in which the sort of principles that she espoused have been affirmed, reaffirmed and re-reaffirmed.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, we have heard admirable and powerful speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, said that he was not going to get emotional, but his speech was moving as well as entirely persuasive.
Aside from the constitutional case, the moral and practical cases for keeping welfare benefits within scope of legal aid are overwhelming. We are moving into a period of major change in the social security system. A situation in which errors in the administration of the benefits system are likely to increase and, at the same time, the possibility of redress is to be reduced cannot be one that we can look forward to with any satisfaction or confidence. It is liable to create confusion, misery, damage, alienation and additional cost. There are going to be severe reductions in benefits and at the same time there will be the move towards the introduction and implementation of universal credit, which Ministers have been pleased to tell us represents the greatest transformation in the welfare system since Beveridge. I have seen very varying estimates of the number of people who may be affected by this between 2013 and 2017 but it could, I am told, be up 19 million.
The CPAG handbook, which sets out the regulations and the case law, consists of 1,620 pages and is going to have to be almost entirely rewritten. It will be a period in which there will be immense pressures on people in need and on decision-takers. Those decision-takers will typically be junior officials, and it is no particular criticism of them to anticipate that the error rate in their decision-taking will rise. It always has risen with significant changes in the benefits system. Therefore, the need for advice, assistance and representation is going to be acute. It will be a period of turmoil in which the rules will be almost continuously changing. For example, in the case of housing benefit, there are the present rules but there is to be a new set of rules that will come in in March 2013, and then there may very well be revisions to follow in 2014 or 2015 following the review that the Government have agreed to undertake.
Very sensitive and very controversial decisions are going to be taken as a new body of case law is developed. Let us consider the situation of disabled children. A child who is categorised as disabled will see their weekly benefit fall from £56 to £27 a week. On the other hand, a child who is categorised as severely disabled will see a modest increase in their benefit from £74 to £76 a week. Depending on which side of that definitional line the child falls, there will be a difference of £49 a week in household income, and that is an enormously important difference. There are going to be numerous households and families who are bitterly disappointed and, indeed, desperate in consequence of decisions that are taken in this regard. The tribunals will make these decisions, but surely it is wrong for parents not to have legal advice to enable them to decide whether they ought to challenge such decisions.
Alternatively, let us take the case of jobseekers. A new rule is to be introduced that if a jobseeker fails “for no good reason” to apply for or accept a particular placement, he or she may be sanctioned by the loss of universal credit for up to three years. That is a draconian sanction. In such a circumstance, the decision-maker and the claimant may have very different views about whether the reason the placement was declined was good or not. Can it be right to deny people three years-worth of benefit and, at the same time, deny them legal advice to enable them to judge whether they should contest that decision? There are other instances that I could give arising out of the prospective changes but I want to be brief.
I think that withdrawing legal aid from people in such situations is excessively harsh; indeed, it is reckless. A better thrust of reform would be to improve the quality of decision-taking. I just point out that the availability of legal aid enables well founded challenges to be made where there may be systemic flaws in the system, and it is for the benefit of the Government and of the administration of the system that people should be able to make these claims.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is a good one, I think, but I prefer the amendment that I look forward to my noble friend Lord Bach moving, which would take things rather further. I do not know whether Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will be moved, but I do not support it. It would allow the Ministry of Justice to provide discretionary funding here and there. I think that amendment is unnecessary because, as I understand it, the department already has such discretion, and, secondly, it is insufficient because we simply cannot rely on the use of such discretionary funding to ensure that people have the help that they should have.
I very much look forward to the speech of my noble friend Lord Bach and I hope that the House will approve Amendment 12. I also hope that it will approve Amendment 11.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 12. I am very happy to support the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and I support what the amendment says about extending this to the Second-tier Tribunals as well as the First-tier Tribunals, which are mentioned in the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We have known each other longer than either of us would care to recall. I know that this is not some passing fancy on her part. She has had a lifelong devotion to the cause of disabled people. She spoke with great eloquence and conviction in Committee and she has been courageously persistent in our proceedings to raise this matter today. In the long and distant past, I worked for five years with children with special needs. Many of us in the House—the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is one—have had personal experience of people with disability and know, as one noble Lord said earlier, some of the most vulnerable people in society. Surely how we protect and treat them is a test of how civilised we are as people.
Four out of five cases heard in the First-tier Tribunals relate to people who are disabled. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, he is right to say that disabled people are as capable as anyone else in dealing with their own affairs, but 78 per cent of those receiving advice before going to a tribunal were more likely to win their appeal than those who did not. Clearly, having professional, legal advice pays off. Who would we take that advice away from; who would we take this professional care and help away from? Disabled people will be left to their own devices. Inevitably, that will lead to more social exclusion and innumerable negative results.
Secondly, we have been told again and again that we have to do these things for economic reasons, but I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the so-called economic savings that might be brought about by these measures. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has told us in his remarks, it is highly questionable. There is empirical research—an academic study—by King’s College. In its report, United Consequences, it flatly repudiates and rejects the idea that savings will be made. Citizens Advice says that every pound spent on welfare benefits potentially saves the state £8.80. I certainly would want to hear from the Minister that he repudiates those findings before the House reaches a conclusion on these questions; what analysis he has made of those reports; and how, therefore, we can justify doing this on purely economic, austerity measure-based arguments of the kind that we have heard so much about during our proceedings.
The third point, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and to which others have referred, is about who will pick up the pieces subsequently. Many of us have received a copy of the Citizens Advice report, Out of Scope, Out of Mind—Who Really Loses from Legal Aid Reform. That states:
“When Government consulted on the proposed changes to the scope of civil legal aid, 95 per cent of respondents did not agree with the proposals”.
It goes on to say:
“Official data shows that 80 per cent of social welfare cases achieve positive outcomes for clients, which can involve savings for other services”.
That backs up the point I made a moment ago. The report concludes:
“However, it is also clear that they would not have achieved these positive outcomes on their own. If they could be empowered to help themselves without specialist advice, casework and support from legal aid, then every CAB would rejoice, but that is not the reality. It will be a massive failure in the justice system if they are abandoned”.
It will be a massive failure in the justice system if they are abandoned. That is what we are being asked to vote on today and I hope that the House will support the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when we decide on these matters.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I agree with other speakers that during the passage of the Bill we have heard many heart-warming speeches on the importance and the practical benefits of helping people with a disability. I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and others said in this debate. The Bill will lead to something like 75,000 children and young people aged under 25—it is the raising of the age level that my amendment addresses—losing access to legal aid each year.
Research by JustRights shows that as many as 80 per cent of these young people, as well as being vulnerable on account of their age, fall into one or more additional categories of vulnerability, such as being a lone parent, a victim of crime, or having a disability or mental health problem. How are these young people expected to cope when they have problems if they cannot obtain legal aid? They will not have families to back them up and give them advice, which other youngsters at least may have.
Amendment 21 has modest aims. It seeks to protect legal aid only for the most vulnerable of these young people, including those with a disability, those who have been in care and those who have been victims of trafficking—which, alas, is a growing trade. It is hard to think of groups of people who are more vulnerable than they. Of course, I wish we could retain legal aid for all young people. Youngsters are rarely equipped with the knowledge, skills and legal capacity to resolve their problems without expert advice. Therefore, it will be important that we do our best for this group. This applies particularly to vulnerable young people who are more prone to experiencing multiple and severe problems and who are therefore far more likely to require specialist legal intervention to prevent their situation escalating and spiralling out of control.
It is vital that all vulnerable groups listed in the amendment are protected. However, I will say a few words about young people with a disability. Amendment 21 would protect young people with a physical or mental health impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. We know that disabled young people are more likely than other young people to experience very complex legal problems, and are also more likely than older people with disabilities to experience them. There are significant precedents for extending additional protection to this group, in recognition of the fact that they may need this help. For example, the Connexions service, which was set up to provide help and advice to young people aged 13 to 19, extended this help to young people up to the age of 24 who had a disability or learning difficulty. It did so because it saw that it was practically needed.
JustRights gave me a case study about which I will tell noble Lords. Chantelle was 18 when she came to a law centre for help. She had been born with cerebral palsy and had great difficulty walking. Her parents had to drive her to college. They were worried that they could not afford to buy her a car and that she would be unable to attend university. They had applied for disability living allowance for Chantelle, but that had been refused. The law centre helped Chantelle to appeal, gathering evidence from her school and her hospital specialist and representing her at the benefit tribunal hearing. Chantelle was successful in her appeal and was awarded lower rate care and higher rate mobility for DLA. She swapped her mobility payment for a Motability car and passed her driving test. She now has a place at university and will be able to drive herself there each day. That will make a huge difference to her independence and quality of life, but think also of the extra sum of money it will save the rest of us if she is able to qualify and earn her own living.
What will the consequences be for these young people if they cannot get advice? Research by Youth Access has shown that vulnerable youngsters are significantly more likely than the population as a whole to experience stress, violence and homelessness if they do not manage to get good legal advice at an early stage. It has calculated that each year 750,000 young people aged between 16 and 24 become mentally or physically ill as a result of their unresolved social welfare problems. That is costing the NHS at least £250 million a year, much of which could be avoided if they had received better support.
It cannot make any sense to deny vulnerable young people access to the legal advice they desperately need to resolve their problems and turn their lives around, so I very much hope that everyone will support my amendment, Amendment 21, when we come to it, and the other amendments in this group, all of which make very important points. Above all, I hope the Minister and the Government will have listened and will take action as a result.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 46, which would maintain legal aid for all children. I thank the other noble Lords on all sides of the House for putting their names to this amendment. I have also put my name to Amendment 21, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who has spoken eloquently and passionately, as always.
To illustrate the reasons why I have put my name to these amendments, I shall give three stories, which are supported by the Children’s Society, that were told by young people about their experiences of attending court. They are about migrant children who had to go through immigration cases.
“I felt very scared, terrified in fact. It was such an official atmosphere, and I felt small and vulnerable. You know that decisions that affect the rest of your life are made in this one morning, and I just felt so scared knowing that”.
“I had a solicitor and she had explained what was going to happen before we went, but even that could not have really prepared me. I was lucky because I had a solicitor. I had a barrister at court who was able to argue for me. Without him I don’t know how I would have coped”.
“The Home Office person made me feel scared and the whole time kept on saying I was lying and that I should return home; this made me feel upset and angry as I knew that I was telling the truth. My barrister was great though and kept on arguing back about my case”.
This convinces me that a different approach is needed when it comes to children because children are fundamentally different from adults. They generally have a lesser capacity to make complex decisions that will affect their future and will not always be able to understand the full consequences of their decisions and actions. Equally they do not have the capacity to represent themselves effectively in legal proceedings or to engage in detailed evidence gathering to support their case.
The Children’s Commissioner for England, Dr Maggie Atkinson, has said:
“Children, by virtue of their age and capacity, will not be able to present their case effectively in the majority of proceedings. Failure to afford children effective access to justice in cases engaging their civil rights and obligations will be in violation of Article 6 ECHR. It will also—even in immigration cases that do not benefit from the protections of Article 6—prevent them from being afforded their substantive rights and an effective domestic remedy for breaches of those rights”.
The Government have recognised that children need special consideration. As my noble friend Lord McNally said in response to a Question on legal aid:
“As far as possible, our intention is that, where children are involved, legal aid will still be provided”.—[Official Report, 7/7/11; col. 343.]
However, in reality the Bill will remove legal aid from 6,000 civil justice cases in children’s names each year, compared with provision in 2009-10. In a letter to the Times, the top six UK children’s charities pleaded with the Government not to abandon these 6,000 children, who will have no other choice but to represent themselves in court, with no one to protect them and manoeuvre them through the legal system. The Government have not explained why legal aid is being kept for 35,000 children a year but is being withdrawn from the equivalent of 6,000 children a year.
While there is provision in the Bill for,
“Children who are parties to family proceedings”,
and cases involving the,
“Unlawful removal of children from the United Kingdom”,
by their parents and, most recently, for some clinical negligence cases, legal aid is not to be provided if they are party to legal proceedings generally: for example, in immigration, welfare, housing, education and the majority of clinical negligence cases. Surely in our society it is unacceptable that a child involved in legal proceedings, who will have no financial resources to pay for their legal advice and representation, will be expected to present their own case in an adult legal system as a litigant in person—something many adults would struggle to do effectively.
It is also worth highlighting that legal aid is already restricted to those who cannot pay for legal assistance by any other means and therefore provides a safety net to ensure protection and equality for the vulnerable and disadvantaged. Ending legal aid for whole areas of law will affect the poorest and most vulnerable and marginalised families. Many children are likely to suffer as a knock-on effect of limited access to justice for their parents and carers. This will be particularly important in areas such as housing, welfare, immigration and debt, where children are affected by their parents’ lack of financial resources and ability to navigate the legal system, which may be hindered by a number of factors, such as parental disability, language barriers, poverty and mental health issues.
The Justice Minister has stated that there will be a safety net in the form of the exceptional funding scheme. This would come into play; if not, giving legal aid would breach individual rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 or European Union law. However, the Government have not published details of the full scope of the new scheme or how it will function. I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us as to how this will work, to put our minds at rest.
The impact assessment states that the Government anticipate that only 5 per cent of excluded cases for education will gain exceptional funding, and no cases for immigration will. The Children’s Society has estimated that just over 4,000 cases involving under-18s will be excluded from scope and will not receive exceptional funding. If the Government intend to process significant numbers of cases through the exceptional funding route, new arrangements are urgently needed to ensure that this does not result in a slower or more costly process or, worse still, that these cases will simply not receive legal aid funding. This would be detrimental to children and young people.
The Minister stated very strongly that in civil cases claims brought in the name of a child are usually conducted by their parents acting as the child’s litigation friend rather than by the child themselves. He said:
“The civil justice system as a whole does not generally require children to act on their own behalf”.—[Official Report, 16/1/12; col. 447.]
However, here are some very clear illustrations of how that is not always the case. For example, a young person—let us call her B—was sent to the UK when she was 12 years old to stay with her uncle. Almost as soon as she had arrived, the uncle sexually abused her, which continued until she ran away from home when she was still a teenager. During this time she attended school and achieved good GCSE results. After running away, she reported her uncle to the police and he was arrested. He was convicted on several counts of rape and sentenced to five years.
Baroness Verma
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that we are at Report stage. Points should be quite short and directed to the amendment. I should like just to indulge the House with that request.
Baroness Benjamin
I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister the following questions. Why is legal aid being withdrawn for advice in cases covering 6,000 children a year who would qualify under the current rules? Will he explain why legal aid is being kept for 35,000 children a year but is being withdrawn from the equivalent of 6,000 children a year? And how, when and where will professional legal provision, not just advice from social workers or the use of community legal advice helplines, be made to ensure that vulnerable children and young people are not left to suffer even more, though no fault of their own? If my noble friend does not have the answers to my questions now, will he have them before Third Reading? Can he give me an assurance that we will have a meeting to discuss what the Government have in mind to replace the protection that will be given to these children? Also, will he undertake a series of meetings to keep myself and those interested informed? Will he agree to make sure that this is a live issue that is retuned to at Third Reading? Finally, will he give us a timeframe and report back to us on when all this will happen?
We cannot abandon children who are in need. It cannot be morally right for us to neglect any child who cries out to us in need. I urge my noble friend to consider the content of these amendments and to respond favourably.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am not sure why we are discussing all these amendments in the same group as they seem to deal with rather different issues. I should like to take the House back to Amendments 11 and 12 which were introduced at the beginning of the debate. I am sorry that I was not able to take part in the Committee stage of the Bill, but I want to give my support to Amendments 11 and 12, which deal with the removal of welfare benefit cases from the scope of legal aid. Amendment 11 deals with advice and assistance for reviews and appeals to the First-tier Tribunal and Amendment 12 deals with advice and assistance at Second-tier Tribunals in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, plus representation. I will do so briefly as we have already heard from a heavyweight team of speakers who between them have deployed all the main arguments in favour of the amendments with as much passion, power and eloquence as one could expect. However, there are one or two additional points that I should like to make.
The proposal to remove legal aid for welfare benefit cases represents a triple whammy for disabled people. I do not wish to be unduly disabled-centric about this. The proposal to withdraw legal aid for challenges to welfare benefit decisions affects benefit claimants and recipients generally, but as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, mentioned when quoting from the letter of my noble friend Lord Pannick, some 81 per cent of all benefit cases heard in the First-tier Tribunal are for benefits related to disability, so your Lordships can see why this matter is of such concern to disabled people.
This represents a triple whammy for the following reasons, and noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that there are three of them. First, disabled people are disproportionately out of work. The gap between disabled and non-disabled people’s employment rates has shrunk over the past 10 years or so, but disabled people are still some 60 per cent less likely to be in work than non-disabled people. Secondly, benefits for disabled people are set to be reduced, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, told us, on a dramatic scale as a result of the Welfare Reform Act. Disability Rights UK puts the figure at at least £3.5 billion. The Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report, published last Thursday on the right of disabled people to independent living, in the context of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities found that reforms to benefits and services risk leaving disabled people without the support that they need to live independently and that restrictions in local authority eligibility criteria for social care support, the replacement of DLA with personal independence payment, the closure of the independent living fund and changes to housing benefit risk interacting in a particularly harmful way for disabled people. So there is less work, much less benefit support and now no legal aid to challenge the mistakes that are bound to be made in such a colossal re-engineering of the benefits system. There is little wonder that it is described as a triple whammy.
People fear that the cumulative impact of these changes will force them out of their homes and local communities and into residential care. In the Government’s legal aid consultation paper, which prefigured this legislation, they stated that legal help for community care should be retained on the ground that,
“the issues at stake in these cases are very important because they can substantially affect the individual's ability to live an independent and fulfilled life”.
Surely, that rationale applies with equal force to disability benefits. The Joint Committee concluded that there is a risk of retrogression in respect of the UK’s obligations under Article 19 of the UN convention—the article on independent living—as a result of the cumulative impact of spending cuts and reforms. It argued that this risks breach of Article 19. If the Government do not look out, with these provisions on legal aid they also risk breaching Article 13 on access to justice, which requires that:
“States Parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others”.
Disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to live in poverty. Welfare law is incredibly complex, as your Lordships know. Few of us could credibly claim to understand it. There is no hope of people on benefit, who would count as socially excluded by many measures, being able to cope with such cases without assistance. Someone came to brief us yesterday from Citizens Advice who illustrated just what those cases can involve by holding up a lever arch file stuffed full of case papers. That was only one of three files and by no means untypical.
The views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and its international obligations should give the Government pause in going down this track of withdrawing legal aid from those in need of taking up welfare benefit cases.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I strongly support Amendments 21 and 46, which have been eloquently spoken to, particularly with regard to children in immigration cases. I would refer to the very moving briefing that I quoted in Committee from Refugee Youth. I shall focus my brief remarks now, however, on Amendments 11 and 12.
Based on the powerful speeches from other noble Lords, on my own experience over many years in the Child Poverty Action Group, and on the case made to us by a range of voluntary organisations, I can only concur with Citizens Advice when it says that the Government's approach will leave benefit claimants out to dry when they challenge decisions over correct entitlement. The consequences of wrong decisions, especially for disability benefit claimants, can be devastating.
The Minister said in Committee that his best point was that welfare benefits are being reformed to be simpler. Simplification has long been the holy grail of the social security system, and I hope that we get slightly closer to that holy grail this time. However, we cannot leave benefit claimants out to dry while we wait to find out whether we have succeeded. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, pulled the rug from under the Minister’s feet when he pointed out how important legal aid will be during the transition period.
I will not say everything that I planned to say but move straight to Amendment 12, and I ask for the Minister’s patience. In Committee, I asked him a question which he did not answer, so on the basis of better luck this time, I shall ask it again. I said:
“Given that an appeal to the Upper Tribunal has to be on a point of law; given the complexities of that law and how much is at stake in terms of the livelihoods of some of the most disadvantaged members of our society; given that, as Justice points out, even if the Supreme Court had agreed to a case because of its complexity and its importance, legal aid would not be available because the Government say that it is not complex or important enough; and given that the savings are so minuscule that the Ministry of Justice does not even normally record them”—
I remind noble Lords that the Minister told us that the savings would be £1 million, which in public spending terms is less than peanuts—
“can the Minister explain … why the Government are withdrawing legal aid from this small yet important category of cases, and can he please justify this to the Committee?”.—[Official Report, 16/1/12; col. 396.]
The Minister did not justify it to the Committee—I suspect because he cannot justify it. If he can, will he please try to do so today? Otherwise, I hope that noble Lords will support Amendment 12 as well as Amendment 11.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 46. As noble Lords know, this amendment seeks to protect access to legal advice, and when necessary to legal representation at tribunals and in court for all children under the age of 18. It seeks to maintain the system as it is at present, working reasonably well at low cost and protecting the rights of the most vulnerable children in the land. I strongly support the Government’s determination to drive down the deficit and attack waste in public expenditure wherever it is found. However, I also strongly support policies that do not create mountains of red tape and do not push unbudgeted costs on to local authorities.
It is because we must do everything possible to reduce the deficit that I cannot support the proposals to remove legal aid from 6,000 children every year, as would happen if the Bill passed without amendment. That would cause enormous knock-on costs to the public purse that will far outweigh the £6 million to £7 million that the Ministry of Justice believes it can save from its legal aid budget. As a matter of principle and conscience, I cannot support a proposal that will see a child go into the courtroom alone to argue his or her case against a barrister paid for by the taxpayer. This is what will happen in hundreds of cases every year where children find that they must contest decisions about their lives taken by the Home Office, education authorities and social housing providers.
By removing legal aid for welfare benefits advice to children in their own names, the Ministry of Justice believes that it will save £260,000 a year. This is at a time when there has been a complete failure to collect £1.5 billion in fines to be paid by criminals.
There can be no doubt that if a child has suffered harm because of a decision made by a public authority, and if the child is unable to challenge that decision, there will be consequences and damage to that child’s life which the rest of society and the taxpayer will ultimately pay for. We will reap what we sow.
We should remember that the ministry’s own impact assessments, published in support of the Bill, admitted that it created a risk of “increased criminality” and increased costs to other government departments and local authorities. When the Justice Select Committee in the other place asked the ministry to quantify these unintended costs it received a reply that should give us all pause for thought. The ministry’s response to the consultation on the Bill says:
“The lack of a robust evidence base means that we are unable to draw conclusions as to whether wider economic and social costs are likely to result from the programme of reform or to estimate their size”,
and that it is,
“not possible to quantify accurately these wider costs”.
In other words, we are flying blind.
The Bill asks us to support spending reductions that even its authors cannot say will ever be achieved. The legal aid budget reductions have the extremely unusual distinction of making some of the most hardened supporters of spending cuts feel very uneasy. I put myself in that category. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, says he fears the cuts to legal aid for children in medical negligence cases go too far. The chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, Mr Matthew Elliot, says:
“Almost everyone who has looked at these particular cuts thinks that too many of them will end up costing taxpayers more than they save”.
We must listen to the people and organisations who are going to be left to pick up the pieces if children cannot get help with their legal problems.
I would like to tell noble Lords about some of the detail as it will affect local authorities and children in immigration cases. Last year there were 2,490 immigration cases involving children in their own right. These will mainly be children who are not living with their parents, sometimes after escaping difficult family circumstances, or having been victims of trafficking. On Report in the other place, the Justice Minister said:
“Unaccompanied children with an asylum or immigration issue would have a social worker assigned to them, whose role would include helping the child to gain access to the same advice and support as a child who was permanently settled in the UK. They could also offer assistance with filling in forms and explaining terms, and give emotional support”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/10/11; col. 689.]
So here we have a knock-on cost of the kind the ministry says that it cannot quantify accurately.
The Local Government Association, of which I am a vice-president, says:
“Transferring responsibility to councils in this manner, without consideration of the funding implications and at a time when they are already processing reductions in funding for children's services, will place resources under considerable pressure. This will have a particularly detrimental impact on the most vulnerable children who make up the largest portion of children placed in emergency or short-term care”.
The example which the Local Government Association gives of children who will be affected in this way are children who have been trafficked into the UK from other EU states, who cannot claim asylum. It is hard to think of a more desperate or vulnerable group of children. The Department for Communities and Local Government knows very well that there will be extra costs to local authority social services departments if legal aid is withdrawn from these children.
I would like to ask the Minister this evening to inform the House about the precise level of costs that will be borne by local authority social services departments, which they will then claim back from his department via the DCLG in a tangle of expensive, time-consuming and wholly avoidable red tape.
My question to the Minister and noble Lords on all sides is: how is it that we are keeping legal aid for about 35,000 cases every year involving children in their own right, but withdrawing it from 6,000 children with civil justice problems? They will all be very similar children—trusting, scared, brave and deserving of our protection. The Government have gone a long way towards maintaining civil legal aid for most children; they need move only a few steps further to protect legal aid for all of them.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I speak as the father of a daughter with Down’s syndrome, who over the years has had to face complex welfare benefit issues. My own experience has taught me that it is not only the severely disabled for whom welfare support is complex—it can be even more so for those who suffer from a range of disabilities, each of which may in itself be classed as mild. There have been times when my daughter has been let down by the system and then, being extremely vulnerable, she has needed those able to act as advocates on her behalf.
My daughter, though, is one of the fortunate ones. She comes from a supportive family, has reasonably articulate parents and a mother who has used both her personal and professional expertise to support advocacy networks and provide advocacy support for others. What of those who do not have such resources available to them? Many of them depend for legal and procedural advice on not-for-profit agencies such as Citizens Advice. Such organisations provide essential help to ensure that disabled people have access to the benefits and support to which they are entitled, but these agencies also need support in the vital work that they do.
What Amendments 11 and 12 seek to achieve is important in providing the safety net that will enable such access and support to continue. If either were to be accepted, it would offer provisions much narrower in scope than those in existing legislation but would ensure that the resources were there for those who face both disability and, additionally, the kind of complex welfare benefits issues that arise from their disability, in order to be able to challenge decisions that adversely affected them through review, supersession or appeal.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has pointed out, we are at a time of unprecedented upheaval in the welfare system; I see that day to day for myself. I do not criticise that; in fact I am in favour of much of that change and I understand it. Amid such wholesale change, though, with its attendant impact on the lives of some of the most vulnerable in our society, safeguarding the minimal access to legal aid in these circumstances is more important and necessary, rather than less.
I turn to Amendments 21 and 46, both of which I support. I do not add much to the weight of words that we have already heard in support of them, but I want to return to the Minister’s assurance, which has already been quoted, that as far as possible the intention of the Government is that where children are involved, legal aid will still be provided. We have also heard that on the basis of the Legal Services Commission’s data for 2009-10, around 6,000 children under 18 will no longer receive legal aid, including cases regarding immigration, welfare and education.
In that context, I return to the assurance offered by the Government that, for cases that would be excluded from the scope of legal aid, there would be a safety net in the form of the exceptional funding scheme. However, that in itself raises a number of questions. How adequately will “exceptional” be defined? Will it be driven by need or by available funding? Will there be rights of appeal? What will its real impact be?
We have heard how the Children’s Society estimates that just over 4,000 cases for under-18s will be excluded from scope and not receive exceptional funding, yet, according to the Government’s own estimates, ensuring that all children under 18 had access to legal help and, crucially, representation would cost just £10 million—a relatively small cost for a very great gain. However, if legal aid is not to be available in these circumstances, where exactly are alternative sources of funding to come from?
Lord Wigley
My Lords, in Committee many speeches stressed the importance of securing accessibility to our justice system for everyone. However, the Bill, as it still stands, would effectively abandon many vulnerable individuals to go it alone without the support that is surely the hallmark of a decent society.
I support Amendment 21, outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, which would bring civil legal services for vulnerable young people back within the scope of legal aid. These vulnerable young people would include those younger than 25 years of age who are disabled, those who were formerly in care and those who are victims of trafficking. It would retain support for those who have suffered neglect or trauma and for the most disadvantaged. The amendment would also bring private family proceedings back within the scope of legal aid, as well as proceedings relating to Section 140 of Learning and Skills Act, which concerns assessments of learning difficulties—something of importance to me as patron of Mencap Wales.
I also support Amendment 11, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, which would retain legal aid for social welfare cases. I thank the noble Baroness for her perseverance in this matter. I hope she will get the support that she deserves. Organisations such as Scope have drawn attention to the fact that the proposed cuts to legal aid will have a disproportionately negative impact on disabled people, since they will find it most difficult to challenge the decisions that affect them. It is frankly perverse to expect individuals with an impairment or disability to be litigants in person or to navigate courts and tribunals without much needed support and expert assistance. These are the people whom the system should pull out all the stops to support. Apart from increasing the timescale of cases and putting further pressure on the already overloaded justice system—there will inevitably be an increase in litigants in person—the reforms will disadvantage those who are already in need of extra care and support. Amendment 11 would retain legal aid for people with the most complex welfare and benefit issues, such as in cases where individuals challenge government decisions via appeals or reviews.
May I suggest that it is, to say the least, a highly unfortunate coincidence that legal aid should be withdrawn from welfare and benefit cases at the very time when the Government are overhauling the benefit system to introduce universal credit? Denying disabled people the expert advice necessary to help them in challenging inaccurate decisions, which might be made when they are reassessed, is particularly unacceptable. According to the Government’s impact assessment, the proposals to remove legal aid from welfare and benefit cases will affect roughly 78,000 disabled people. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, mentioned a moment ago, current DWP guidance for this area covers 8,690 pages. It is simply unpalatable for people with disabilities to be left to steer their own way in such an intimidating and overwhelming area. I strongly urge the Minister to have regard to the issues that have been discussed today, and to respond positively to the amendments.
Viscount Slim
My Lords, one word has been left out of our discussions—“veteran”. I refer to veterans of all ages. I respectfully remind the Minister that there are still disabled veterans from World War 2 and from right the way through until today’s campaigns and those that will come. The military covenant lays down that a veteran—man or woman—must be cared for. The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence has to make a public report nationally at given times. I see nowhere that legal aid or legal advice is automatically offered or given to a disabled veteran in need. Has the noble Lord’s department discussed with the Ministry of Defence how they will handle this and make legal aid and legal advice available to veterans, as required by the military covenant? Is the noble Lord hearing me?
Viscount Slim
Thank you. My question is simply: have there been discussions between the Ministry of Justice and the MoD and a methodology put forward to ensure that free legal aid and advice will be given to disabled veterans where necessary?
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 101. As we have heard, this group of amendments relates to two matters: first, ensuring equal access to justice for those who are vulnerable or on low incomes; and, secondly, dealing with the impact of the very fundamental changes made by the Welfare Reform Bill, which will inevitably increase substantially the number of people who need help and who are unable to represent themselves.
Quite separately from these two issues, the cuts already made to CAB budgets and to third-sector advice bodies as a whole have been very high and have caused significant dislocation to their services. The consequence of all this is that, as things stand, there will not be equal access to justice, and yet, for a comparatively small sum in the context of the legal aid bill as a whole, many of the problems could be dealt with. It does not help, of course, that relevant funding streams lie across several Whitehall departments, so I still hope that cross-Whitehall discussions might enable solutions to be found to the serious loss of resource faced by the sector, amounting to three-quarters of the legal aid funding currently received, all of which impacts on the estimated 650,000 people who currently secure early and preventive help.
I spoke on this issue in Committee. The danger is that the exclusion of benefits work from legal aid will tie the hands of advisers who are trying to prevent homelessness, for example, for which legal aid may apply, leading to many more unresolved cases filling the courts. The courts will then have more adjourned hearings and will ultimately have to make more possession orders because there is no one to resolve the benefits issue. This will result in higher costs to the taxpayer. The Bill proposes that all benefits work is to be removed from the scope of legal aid except for cases that go to judicial review, yet early intervention to resolve benefits issues often prevents these situations escalating into more serious proceedings, with all the costs involved in that.
Amendment 11, moved by my noble friend Lady Doocey, seeks to retain legal aid help for those facing welfare benefits reviews and appeals at the First-tier Tribunal. It is a relatively low-cost amendment that would address the problem whereby the removal of social welfare advice from the scope of legal aid will have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable people, particularly disabled people.
My Amendment 101 also relates to funding advice and representation, and seeks a solution by giving a power to the Lord Chancellor to add new civil legal services to the scope of the Bill and to make funding available on a permanent basis through the provision of grant in aid, where doing so would reduce knock-on costs or secure equal access to justice.
My primary concern relates to ensuring that there is long-term funding for CABs, law centres and third-sector housing advice centres to help vulnerable clients. Earlier this week, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that there would be additional funding in the current spending period and that details would be announced in the Budget. It is essential that advice services are made sustainable in the long term, and I am grateful to the Minister for understanding the financial problems that face the sector and for being willing to seek solutions to the funding issue. We await the outcome, but it should come before we return to the Bill at Third Reading. For those of us who have supported the work of the advice sector and CABs in particular, I hope the Minister will be able in his reply to set our minds at rest regarding securing the necessary resources to finance the sector adequately and maintaining the principle of equal access to justice.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of Amendment 11 because I covered the appeal process extensively during our debates on the Welfare Reform Bill. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, who is absolutely right to say that the current proposals will represent the most major and life-changing reform to the welfare system. Her amendment offers some protection to ensure that the right people are supported. Both inside and outside your Lordships’ Chamber, we hear an awful lot about how we want to help and support disabled people. If we want to do so, this is our chance to prove it. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I raised in Committee the issue of the advice sector and advice agencies, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has spoken. If one takes stock of where we have got to in this debate, in which there have been many speakers, one sees that everyone from every Bench has said that the Bill will not do and does not provide necessary support in the welfare area. I do not for a moment want to repeat the powerful speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, or others. The question is not, “Does the Bill need to be amended to deal with welfare benefit in some way?”; the question is, “How should it be amended?”.
I therefore want to speak to Amendment 101, which was seductively spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the exceptional funds that we have been told about and, no doubt, will be told about. The fact in relation to the advice agencies—and I have explained my connection with them—is, as the Minister helpfully told me in a letter that is now in the Library, that the funding given to the not-for-profit sector will be cut by 77 per cent. That represents more than twice—nearly three times—the £20 million that the noble Lord talked about as an addition. The Advice Services Alliance estimates that 800 specialist advisers will be lost from the advice sector as a result. As many noble Lords have said—and from my experience as a lawyer it is true—it is important to bear in mind that the welfare benefit side requires an expertise that most lawyers do not have. It is also another reason why the argument sometimes put forward for the Bill—that it will reduce the fat cats—is completely lost. No cat gets fat on welfare law.
The questions are on whether the vague and hedged promises of some money are sufficient, and whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is enough. For three reasons, I respectfully say that it is not. First, it is rather confusing. It divides into two parts. Proposed new subsection (1) mentions the Lord Chancellor having a power, as the noble Lord said. He may make funding available. That is a discretion. As we discussed in Committee, you cannot enforce a discretion; what the Lord Chancellor—or, as I rather mischievously suggested, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—decides to do determines what happens under that subsection. We have a new subsection proposed which states:
“The Lord Chancellor must make permanent arrangements for such purposes”,
and then specifies certain things. There are two problems with that. First, it appears to conflict with the first subsection, which identifies a discretion. Indeed, if you have to identify the hierarchy of the subsections, the first appears to be the most important, because proposed new subsection (2) says that the Lord Chancellor must make permanent arrangements “for such purposes”. “Such purposes” is a reference back to proposed new subsection (1), which is discretionary. So my first concern is that that does not impose a duty on anybody.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I invite the House's attention to Amendment 45, which is rather oddly placed in this group and which, I suggest, stands separate. It relates to family proceedings in which, I remind the House, the welfare of children is paramount under Section 1 of the Children Act. I have identified a very limited and specific issue, where the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm. The purpose of the phrase “significant harm” is that it relates to that part of legislation covering children which deals with care proceedings. There are circumstances where the serious risk to a child does not emerge with the social worker but in private law proceedings.
Under the Bill, all private law cases, other than domestic violence, are expected to go before a mediator to try to settle a very large number of them, as I sincerely hope will happen, but not all cases are susceptible of mediation. Among those not susceptible of mediation are cases where the mediator finds there is a serious risk to the child. That may be because issues have arisen more than 12 months ago, so that legal aid will not be available. Trained mediators may pick up a situation where one of the parents has a major personality problem or suffers from mental health issues. Unless there is a decision by a court, there will almost certainly not be legal aid. The amendment asks that the mediator can alert the appropriate authorities to grant legal aid where the child is at significant risk. Otherwise, there may be no opportunity for legal aid to be granted. The two parents will battle their way, floundering in the Family Court, while the child remains at significant risk until a judge or magistrates are able to pick up the case at a very much later stage. I must warn your Lordships that the courts will be utterly clogged by litigants in person. It will probably be many months before this sort of case is heard by a judge or magistrates as a private law case. It will not have been picked up by social workers at all, and the child will remain at risk.
I have had discussions with the Lord Chancellor about this matter and I know that his people have been looking at it. They do not see it as a serious a risk as I am afraid I do, and I very much hope that in due time your Lordships will support the amendment.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I do not suppose that a single Member of this House would dissent from the proposition that the hallmark and guarantor of a free society is the rule of law. The theme that has run through this debate in many powerful and some exceptionally moving speeches has been simply that you cannot have the rule of law if access to the law is denied to some of the weakest in our society. That is the theme of this debate and it has come out time and time again. I was deeply moved by the very brave—I use that word deliberately—speech of my noble friend Lord Newton, but others have emphasised the point and added further to it.
If, when the Minister replies, he cannot give us a totally satisfactory answer, I very much hope that he will at least say that he will return to this matter at Third Reading, having had conversations with some of those who have made such valid and pertinent points. I do not include myself among them; I do not begin to compare in expertise with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, or others. I hope that when it comes to Third Reading we shall have a measure that shows that the weakest have not been neglected or denied that access to the law which is their right as much as it is ours.
Lord Judd
My Lords, further to that very important point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, perhaps I may make one observation on which I hope the Minister will be able to give a convincing reply when he responds to this debate. Government have frequently been caught up in discussions about the legal implications of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Invariably Ministers have, without any equivocation, said that central to the Government’s position is the principle that the rights of the child must come first. Can the Minister please explain to the House how the provisions of this proposed legislation further that objective?
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Slim, I have one question to ask the Minister. I know that we discussed impact assessments in our debate on Amendment 6, which was moved and withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, but when the Minister responds can he confirm or deny whether those responsible for drafting the Bill and drawing up its impact assessment discussed the impact of this clause with those who were responsible for drawing up the impact assessments on the Welfare Reform Bill and the Health and Social Care Bill?
Lord Neill of Bladen
My Lords, perhaps I may add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said. It seemed to me that he put his finger absolutely on the point. We are faced with a decision on whether the rule of law is being complied with in the proceedings on this amendment. It seems to me—and I have heard it from every speaker—that it is an indefensible provision. It is bound to have a terrible effect on a small group of disadvantaged people. They are required to build a case in this difficult area of welfare and social security law. Anyone who has had any personal experience of advising a litigant who is unaided and comes in saying, “Could you please advise me about this problem?”, does not need to look at the problem for more than five minutes before realising the difficulty in finding out what the law is. You have to find out the current state of the statute or the statutory instrument on which you seek to rely, which is quite a difficult area in itself with the rate of amendments that take place. Then there is the current state of case law or the latest court ruling in the relevant area, which could be almost inaccessible nowadays to ordinary people who have to have a lawyer. I am convinced by what I have heard that to segregate a group and say, “Legal aid and advice of any sort will not come to you from any public fund”, is something to which this House ought not, for one moment, lend its support.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as regards delegating to the mediator whether a person should be eligible for legal aid. I speak from my interest as a practising lawyer in this area. By delegating to the mediator, the lawyer cannot possibly be encouraged to take on work which would otherwise not be fit for purpose and it will simply be too late unless someone responsible can take the case on and protect the child in question.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, there is very little to add in what has been a remarkably unanimous debate—“Sit down”, says one voice. It is extraordinary that not a single dissentient voice has been heard in an hour and 48 minutes. I hope that the Minister, who has the unenviable task of summing up this group of amendments, will take on board the passion with which the House has spoken. Nearly everyone has been saying, in one way or another, that for us as a Parliament to legislate benefits for the most needy, the poorest, the least articulate and the most vulnerable and then to deny them the means of accessing those rights is not right. That will undermine a society which is already in tension. We live in difficult times. I put it to my noble friend, who I know would agree with what I have said, and to the Lord Chancellor, that for a Government to cut the lifeline—for that is what it is—of millions of our fellow citizens in getting the modest help that the state has provided for them must be the most bizarre form of saving.
Perhaps I can add a word about the advice centres. Not enough has been said today about the 60-odd law centres and the 100-odd independent legal advice centres. Together with the 200 CABs that have a specialist adviser, they deliver value for money which I suspect you could not find in virtually any other part of our nation state. That is because not only do they do that work for rates of pay that those of us in the private profession would spurn, but they are backed by an army of volunteers. The CAB movement has hundreds of thousands of people who turn out to give generalist advice which, frankly, does not achieve its purpose without the specialist trained advisers at their backs, who currently are getting contracts from the legal aid scheme. I realise the problem for the Government in trying to match the need for cuts with what society needs and I realise that my noble friend has already conceded the amendment which we put forward to allow the Lord Chancellor to bring back into scope legal aid areas that will be cut out by this Bill, but the profoundest issue here is the nature of the society to which we want to belong. Is it still to be a welfare state, or is it not? Is it right that a couple of years ago two bankers whom I can think of earned more than the entire sum that is being spent on legal aid for all the law centres and CABs? Is that the society that we want to be part of? No, say I; and no, I suspect, say all of us.
As a signatory to Amendment 101, I hope that, with all the difficulties, my noble friend will make some solid commitments that enable those advice centres to continue doing their phenomenal job—the CABs alone deal with more than 100,000 tribunal cases—because, frankly, if they cannot, I fear for the consequences.
Lord Bach
I rise to give my support, and that of my party, to Amendment 11, moved so brilliantly by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, now some time ago. My Amendment 88 is consequential on that amendment and deals with the other side of the coin. For me, Amendment 11 is the most important amendment in the entire Bill, and I shall try to explain shortly why I believe that. I want to speak also to my own Amendment 12, which is not an alternative in any sense to Amendment 11, but refers to the appeals process as opposed to the earlier process. Perhaps I may also briefly say how much we support the other amendments that have been spoken to in this debate, namely Amendments 21, 45 and 46.
We pride ourselves that our legal system is among the best in the world. We encourage rich foreign litigants to try their legal disputes in English courts and say that our system is fair, is not corrupt and has a very high class of judges and advocates. All that is true, but what underpins and guarantees our system is that there is access to justice for everyone. The law is there to help everyone, including the poor, the disabled and the marginalised, and we have a system of helping the poor that is both practical and principled—it is not perfect, but it works. If that system is decimated, as I fear the Bill as it is presently constituted will do, then as many as 650,000 people who have access to justice now will no longer have it. That fact alone should make us pause for thought. It is as serious, stark and uncomfortable, I am afraid, as that.
We all know that citizens with legal problems in the complex fields of welfare benefits, debt, employment and housing—which often involve the organs of the state, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, emphasised—can at present obtain expert legal advice, and “advice” is the key word here, so that those problems can be resolved. Legal advice of this kind helps people keep away from the courts and the tribunals; it does not urge them towards the courts. One of the myths that I am afraid has been rather put about by the Government in this Bill is that doing away with legal aid for social welfare law will reduce the number of cases going to the courts. However, the exact opposite is true. It is the availability of early advice that keeps the numbers down for our tribunals and courts. The people who use these services are not those whom the Daily Mail might choose to call scroungers or the work-shy; these are ordinary people who lead good lives and come up against the complexity of the modern state. They may have served in the Armed Forces; they may have been in all sorts of professions; they may not have led particularly successful professional lives. However, they are our fellow citizens, and if a system of law is to have any justice at all, it must look after them as much as it looks after us. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made this point a few minutes ago.
This is not an expensive type of law. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith made it clear that no cat gets fat on welfare legal aid. Also, it works. If early advice is not available, we all know what the other side of the coin will be; things will get worse; a welfare problem will become a debt problem, then a housing problem; people will become homeless and unemployed; families will break down; and some people will fall into criminality. This should be a no-brainer. The changes will cost so much more than they will save. We have all seen studies that tell us that. Alas, the Government have not seen fit to contradict the statistics. They will not give us any figures—and I doubt that they could—to counter those arguments.
The consequences will not just be that many clients will not get access to justice; there will be a knock-on effect of making it impossible for CABs and law centres to continue to function in the way that they do now. They depend on legal aid money to attract other funds to do other work. If the legal aid money dries up, so may other sources—and then we will be deprived of them in our country.
Amendment 101—rather aptly named, if I may say so—is a brave attempt, but only an attempt, to try to move us away from what we as a House must come to grips with today. We must quite legitimately put pressure on the Government and say to them: “Look, you should not be withdrawing legal aid in this field. Just think again about this”. This is the attitude taken by Citizens Advice, for which the House has a huge feeling of respect. In its briefing, it states clearly:
“We therefore strongly support Baroness Doocey’s amendment that legal aid for casework advice on review and appeals should be retained within scope”.
It could not be clearer.
I will say a brief word about Amendment 12 because I will not have another opportunity to speak to it. It follows Amendment 11 and concerns appeals. The matter should be one of common sense. Very few of these cases—involving very little taxpayers’ money—get to the upper-tier tribunal, where at the moment there is no representation, only advice and assistance. Although I think that there should be representation, I am not asking for it in Amendment 12 because I do not want to add to existing costs. However, of course representation in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court should be granted through legal aid because it is quite ridiculous to suggest that claimants should get to that stage, in matters that are about law only, and have to argue their case. It would be impossible and would not help the court in any way. It is common sense that we should ask the Government to say that those matters should be legally aided. That is what Amendment 12 is about. It is quite separate from Amendment 11, which is about advice at a much earlier stage.
I have a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. On the matter that Clause 12 deals with, he said:
“Seriously, however, it is not reasonable to demand a citizen even to decide whether he or she has a point of law which can be taken before a tribunal. It is simply unrealistic. One could almost say it is cruel to pretend that we are creating rights for those citizens most in need when they cannot even get advice and representation on points of law at appeals”.—[Official Report, 20/12/11; col. 1725.]
Precisely; that is exactly the point, and I hope that the House will support Amendment 12.
I return briefly to Amendment 11. The proposal to take legal aid out of scope is wrong in three ways. First, it is wrong because it picks on those least able to defend themselves, and not on others whose opposition would be much more powerful. Secondly, it verges on the unconstitutional because it directly attacks access to justice for a large number of people. Finally, and this is one of the crucial points, the cost of not providing advice will be outweighed by the cost down the line. That point has been made by many noble Lords on all sides. We have heard that the House has a tradition of protecting the interests of the poor and the powerless in our society. If we decline to do so on this occasion, we will be diminishing our legal system and making our country a less civilised place. I very much hope that the House will support the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
Lord McNally
My Lords, if we have a debate about how we help the poor then it is bound to be emotive and emotional. We have had such a debate, and it has been emotive and emotional. If we have a debate about the rule of law, and we had such a debate on Monday, then it will certainly be high minded—although even on Monday I thought that the line was blurred between access to justice as a basic right. a right with a long history in our country, and access to justice funded by the taxpayer, where there have always been limitations and where lines have always had to be drawn. By all means we can have the broad-based debate, and I understand the motives and emotion behind a lot of what we have heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that this is the most important amendment in the Bill and he is right. I make no complaint—it is nothing to do with me anyway—but those who grouped these amendments together did so very sensibly, because these amendments, separately and collectively, tear out the heart of the rationale of the Bill. Be under no dubiety about it—that is what this collection of amendments does.
Let me, in making my case, go back to the beginning, as it were. One of the few advantages of being around a long time is that you remember things. I was a junior official in the Labour Party in 1976 when the then Labour Government had to devalue the pound. A great deal of pain and anguish followed as various departments had to undertake cuts. I was actually in Downing Street—in the Cabinet Room, with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—when the pound went from $1.95 to $1.47 in a single afternoon, and we sent for the Governor of the Bank of England and then for the IMF. Painful cuts followed. I can see sitting round this Chamber people who had ministerial responsibility or senior Civil Service responsibility. They know that even the most high-minded and principled Government sometimes have to face difficult decisions and make difficult choices and cannot simply rely on the emotion of the moment.
When we came into office we inherited an economy that was out of balance and faced a historically large public deficit. In more prosaic language, that meant that we were all a lot poorer than we thought we were. As a result, across government, we have had to take some very tough decisions on public expenditure. As I have said before, my department had to make cuts of £2 billion out of a total budget of £10 billion. It is easy to say—I have heard it today—that £1 million, £10 million or even £16 million is not so much. Of course, the House has got used to dealing in the rather larger sums of the Welfare Reform Bill. But for a smallish department with a small budget, and with a very restricted number of areas where cuts can be made, that involves taking tough decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has indicated that he is going to divide the House. I hope that those who are going to go into the Lobby—many of whom have had to take responsibility for budgets, for making cuts and drawing lines—will not do so simply in the cavalier view that this will send a message to the Government.
Lord McNally
And I have heard a lot. The House has to move on. We want to get through Schedule 1.
This is not a debate about who cares most; it is about whether this House is willing to take the tough decisions that our economic situation requires, or whether it is simply going to push the problem down the corridor for the other place to take those decisions. That is it, because the other place will have to take those decisions whether we do so or not.
I believe that these amendments dismantle the central architecture of the Bill and our reform programme. As a result, as I have said many times, it will come as no surprise to the House that we have had to make these difficult choices about legal aid, as we have done with every aspect of MoJ expenditure. I know that we are debating issues about which noble Lords care deeply; I do not think there is any monopoly on that. There will be noble Lords who will follow me into the Lobby tonight who have just the same—if I may use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—“determinations of principle and conscience” as those who will not.
I remind noble Lords that the reform programme is specifically aimed at protecting the most vulnerable. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, talked about the social welfare programme being “decimated”. We will still be spending an estimated £120 million a year on funding for private family law; £50 million on categories of social welfare law; an extra £10 million a year on mediation; £6 million on clinical negligence; and £2 million on education.
We are keeping legal aid for child parties in family proceedings. We have retained legal aid for child protection cases, civil cases concerning the abuse of a child, and for cases concerning special educational needs assistance. We are keeping legal aid for people with mental health problems or who lack capacity for cases that determine their vital interests, and for advocacy in front of mental health tribunals. Legal aid will be retained for judicial review of welfare benefit decisions, and for claims about welfare benefits relating to contraventions of the Equality Act 2010. We will agree to extend funding to victims of human trafficking and domestic child abduction—something I know that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is interested in.
Our reforms have been deliberately designed with these cases in mind. Crucially, as I said in the House on Monday, we will amend the Bill to enable the Lord Chancellor to bring areas of law back into the scope of legal aid. When the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rose, everyone groaned that there was nothing more that could be said. But I congratulate him on being the first to mention what was a very significant concession by the Government, in that what was a ratchet in the Bill is now a regulator. If some of the doom and gloom is proved to be true, the scope is there to respond to those facts.
While we are clear that our reforms are the right ones, we believe that this is an important amendment. As has also been said, the Treasury has announced that additional funding in this spending period will be available for the not-for-profit sector. As noble Lords know, we believe that in many social welfare cases it is not legal advice that people want; it is simply advice. We will support the advice sector to do just that. While we appreciate that many people rely on welfare benefits, these decisions are made in a tribunal, which is a court especially designed to ensure that claimants do not require legal representation. They are also primarily about financial entitlement and do not raise such fundamental issues as cases concerning liberty or safety.
As I have mentioned, the Government are committed to ensuring that not-for-profit advice, as well as other forms of welfare benefit advice, remains to ensure that claimants are clear about what they are entitled to claim and how they can seek redress. However, as those colleagues who have sat in another place and have advised constituents in these areas can testify, legal advice is not required in all these cases. That said, legal aid will be retained for the judicial review of welfare benefit decisions and for claims about welfare benefits relating to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010.
Amendments 21 and 46 concern legal aid for children and vulnerable young people but, as I have already said, it is simply not true to suggest that there will be no funding for cases involving children and young people. These amendments seek to bring into scope certain civil legal services for any person aged 24 or under who has a disability, is a former care leaver or a victim of trafficking, or has other vulnerabilities as prescribed in regulation. I should at this point tell the House that the Government intend to table an amendment at Third Reading on legal aid for victims of trafficking and claims for compensation.
The Bill also has important safeguards for children and adults who lack capacity or require treatment for mental health issues. Paragraph 5 provides for advocacy before the Court of Protection where there is to be an oral hearing and the case will determine the vital interests of the individual: that is, medical treatment including psychological treatment, life, liberty, physical safety, the capacity to marry or enter into a civil partnership, the capacity to enter into sexual relations or the right to family life.
Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 provides that legal aid may be made available for cases arising under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including cases concerning the medical treatment of patients or those who lack capacity. Paragraphs 9 and 15 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 provide for legal aid for advocacy for mental health cases before the mental health tribunal. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 provide legal aid for advocacy for any onward appeals to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on a mental health or capacity issue that is within scope. The exceptional funding scheme will ensure the protection of an individual’s rights to legal aid under the European Convention on Human Rights as well as rights to legal aid that are directly enforceable under European Union law.
On Amendment 46, about children, we are already keeping legal aid for child parties in family proceedings. Therefore, part of this amendment is superfluous. The rest of the amendment seeks to keep funding across the board for children in all civil disputes without regard to their relative priority or alternative methods of resolving them. I have already mentioned that the Government recognise the importance of funding in a range of cases where children’s interests are key. That is evidenced in how we have proposed to allocate legal aid funding by protecting funding in those areas that specifically involve children.
I am very willing to meet my noble friends and others who have asked to meet me between now and Third Reading, but I cannot make promises or give guarantees. We have retained legal aid for child protection cases and civil cases concerning the abuse of a child, as well as for cases concerning special educational needs assistance. We have also made special provision so that legal aid is available for children who are made parties to private family proceedings. In civil cases, claims brought in the name of a child are usually conducted by their parents acting as the child’s “litigation friend” rather than the child themselves. This is a normal part of the rules on civil litigation; the civil justice system as a whole does not generally require children to act on their own behalf.
We have also made it clear that one of the key criteria for the exceptional funding scheme is the ability to represent yourself. This will obviously be relevant where a child is bringing an action without a litigation friend. We must also ensure that we do not create a loophole in the system through which lawyers might encourage parents to attempt to bring civil litigation in their children’s name purely to secure funding that is otherwise outside the scope of this area of the law.
Amendment 45 seeks to make legal aid available for private family law cases where, in the course of mediation, the mediator has identified issues pointing to potential child abuse, a point addressed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Legal aid will remain available on a means and merits free basis for public family law proceedings where a local authority seeks to take a child into care, at a cost of around £300 million a year. Legal aid would also be available in private family law proceedings where a child was at risk if those proceedings were an alternative to public law proceedings. An example of this would be legal aid for a special guardianship order for grandparents where the local authority had decided that this would be a preferable solution to taking a child into care. We have also expanded our original proposals on providing legal aid for private family cases where domestic violence is present to include evidence of child abuse.
The child-specific evidence here is the fact of a child protection plan as put in place by a local authority, although other types of evidence relevant in domestic violence cases would also apply. This is particularly relevant in respect of Amendment 45, which would use the evidence of a mediator to qualify someone for legal aid. It is of course important that a mediator reports any suspected child abuse to the local authority, and mediators are obliged to do so under their code of conduct. The local authority would then investigate, and if the mediator’s suspicions were confirmed, where relevant it would put a child protection plan in place. Alternatively, the authority may start immediate public law proceedings. Either way, legal aid would then be available either for private or public proceedings. Such a system ensures the well-being of the child, which must be the priority, but it would seem slightly strange to pre-empt the results of a local authority investigation by granting legal aid for a private family matter. Of course, if there was an emergency and the local authority for whatever reason was not taking action, legal aid would be available, with the benefit of a financial eligibility limit waiver, for someone to take out a protective injunction. Legal aid would also be available where a subsequent local authority investigation found that the issues were substantiated and a child protection plan put in place. The safeguards in the Bill are sufficient to secure the safety of children, and legal aid where it is needed.
Amendment 101—I see the humour in the number—seeks to include a power in the Bill to fund the not-for -profit sector to do work that is outside the proposed scope of the civil legal aid scheme. I can assure the House that we have been listening to the concerns raised about the sustainability of the not-for-profit sector, and we agree with many of them. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I recalled one of the advantages of a long life. One of the few successful things I did when I was in the House of Commons was something that I think cost the then Tory Minister, Gerard Vaughan, his job. He tried to cut CAB funding. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was a member of the Government who sought to cut CAB funding at the time, but it just goes to show that what goes around, comes around. The Ministry of Justice already has the power to provide grants to not-for-profit organisations. For example, we are already funding the Money Advice Trust, a not-for-profit sector organisation that is responsible for running National Debtline.
Lord McNally
Oh look, they are all waiting. It is the responsibility of Cross-Benchers, who supposedly, I am readily assured, are deciding individually to consider, as I am sure they do, whether their experience of having to take tough decisions in tough times merits filleting this Bill, as this series of amendments would do. What I have said in this speech makes a mockery of the idea that we are decimating—
Lord McNally
No, I will not give way. Noble Lords have had a very good time. I have a right to point out that the attack that we have decimated social welfare law does not stand up. So much has been said in this debate, but it has been a matter of presenting doomsday scenarios and making predictions that may or may not come back. We have made many concessions, which makes this a better Bill, and I thank the House for that, but I hope that the House will not be lulled into taking a decision that will take the tougher responsibilities —the Budget responsibility and the public spending responsibility—down the Corridor. We should have the courage to make those decisions here and now.
Lord Laming
The House will realise that I rarely intervene in matters of this kind. In fact, I would go as far as to say that this is the first time that I have intervened. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, will withdraw any suggestion that if members of the Cross-Bench group go through the Lobby supporting these amendments, they are behaving irresponsibly.
Lord McNally
Cross-Benchers are individuals who make up their own minds. I am entirely right to say that decisions that we have taken in the context of this Bill relate to public expenditure and the need to bring this economy under control. I will also say this, because we have had enough examples in Europe in the past year: if you lose control of your economy you go into another round of public expenditure cuts. Part of the reason why we have been able to have this debate today is the success of the Government in stabilising the economy.
What we have never heard—and I hope that the Cross-Benchers will also put this into their minds when they make their decision—is that members of the party opposite were committed to making a similar round of public expenditure cuts. That is their right in opposition, but they did not have to spell out where or how or when. That is very comfortable in opposition, but I am proud that we in the Government have taken those decisions. I hope that those who are willing to accept that we have taken tough decisions will give us their support in the Lobby tonight.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords from every section of this House for their superb contributions tonight. I feel totally inadequate to sum up, but nevertheless I shall try.
It is very welcome that the Government are going to make additional funding available for the not-for-profit sector. However, noble Lords should take note that the loss of legal aid will mean that the not-for-profit sector will lose £51 million per year. Of that, the CAB’s element would be £20 million a year. I find it difficult to believe that whatever the Government can do to ease that burden it will be anything like adequate in order to make up the shortfall.
I paint a scenario. If, for example, the citizens advice bureaux were to get about half the funding that they are getting at the moment from legal aid, what would they do when people come in, desperate for help and advice? Do they say, “We put your name in a hat”, “We have a lottery”, or, “Only every second person who comes in can get legal advice.”? Frankly, it just will not work.
I am very concerned that my noble friend the Minister has not given me any hope at all on any of these issues. He said that the amendment would dismantle the central architecture of the Bill. I must tell noble Lords that, if that is the case, that is what should happen because the Bill will seriously inhibits claimants’ access to justice.
I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response. Like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I am sure everyone else, I would love the other place to think again about these issues, and I feel that I have absolutely no choice but to test the opinion of the House.
“Social welfare law (No. 2)(1) Civil legal services provided in respect of a social welfare decision relating to a benefit, allowance, payment, credit or pension under—
(a) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;(b) the Jobseekers Act 1995;(c) the State Pension Credit Act 2002;(d) the Tax Credits Act 2002;(e) the Welfare Reform Act 2007;(f) the Welfare Reform Act 2012; or(g) any other enactment relating to social security.(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), “civil legal services” includes—
(a) independent advice or assistance for an appeal to a second-tier tribunal; and(b) independent advice, assistance and representation at a higher court of such a decision.”
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
“Clinical negligence(1) Civil legal services provided in relation to the obtaining of one or more expert reports in clinical negligence proceedings.
(2) In this paragraph—
“clinical negligence proceedings” means proceedings which include a claim for damages in respect of clinical negligence;
“clinical negligence” means breach of a duty of care or trespass to the person committed in the course of the provision of clinical or medical services (including dental or nursing services);
“expert report” means a report by a person qualified to give expert advice on all or most of the matters that are the subject of the report;
“proceedings” includes any sort of proceedings for resolving disputes (and not just proceedings in court), whether commenced or contemplated.”
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, we come to the first of a group of amendments dealing with clinical negligence. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has asked that his Amendment 101A be degrouped, and I ask the same in respect of my Amendment 137. Amendment 15, in the name of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, should cover clinical negligence as a whole. My amendment covers only the cost of expert reports, which, as one noble Lord said in Committee, is the very least that should be covered by legal aid. If my amendment succeeds, it will not in any way pre-empt Amendment 15. If that amendment then succeeds, as I hope it will, then my amendment will lapse at Third Reading.
The difference between this amendment and many that have been debated in Committee—and, indeed, so far on Report—is that it will actually save money. The question is this: what is the best way of funding expert reports in clinical negligence cases? Unlike the previous amendment, that question is not likely to give rise to any great emotion. The method proposed by the Government in Clause 45 would cost between £16.8 million and £25 million. The cost of doing exactly the same under legal aid would be between £6.3 million and £6.9 million. If those figures are correct, as I believe them to be, that in itself should be enough to commend the amendment to the Minister.
I will come back to justify those figures a little later, but first I need to say a little about the background. As I am sure noble Lords know, clinical negligence claims are funded in two ways: legal aid or conditional fee agreements supplemented, in a majority of cases, by “after the event” insurance, the purpose of such insurance being to protect the plaintiff against an adverse order for costs. Under the current law, the premium charged by ATE insurers is recoverable from the defendants, usually the National Health Service, even if the plaintiff loses. That system was introduced by Section 29 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
The Government then listened to concerns. It is perhaps best that I should describe those concerns in the words of Mr Jonathan Djanogly in the other place. Referring to expert reports, he said:
“Such reports, which can be expensive, are often necessary in establishing whether there is a case for commencing proceedings, which raises particular issues if recoverability of ATE insurance is abolished. In responding to these concerns, clause 43”—
as it then was—
“provides, by way of exception, for the recoverability of premiums in respect of ATE insurance taken out to cover the cost of expert reports in clinical negligence cases”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/11; col. 1027.]
If we will not cover clinical negligence as a whole, as my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson would wish, we all agree that at the very least we should cover in one way or another the cost of expert reports. To that extent, Mr Djanogly was absolutely right. The trouble is that he has chosen the wrong way to set about it.
Lord Justice Jackson, in his lecture in Cambridge in September 2011, described the Government’s proposals in Clause 45 as,
“the most expensive and inefficient mechanism which it could be possible to devise in order to achieve”,
the Government’s objective. It is easy to see why he used such language. One has only to look at new subsections (2) to (4) in Clause 45. They require yet more regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor, at the very time when we are trying to reduce the burden of regulations in civil litigation. The regulations are bound to be complex. If the maximum of the relevant part of the premium, as it is called, is too high, the regulations will not achieve their objective. On the other hand, if it is set too low the insurers are sure to find one way or another around it. It is surely much better, and certainly much simpler, to cover the cost of expert reports by the well worn path of legal aid.
I find it difficult to see why the Government have chosen not only the most complicated way of achieving their objective but the most expensive, which brings me back to the figures. In Committee, I put forward a simple calculation on instructions, as lawyers say. I took £5,000 as the average cost of reports in clinical negligence cases. If you assume that the plaintiff has a 50:50 chance of success, the insurer must charge at least £5,000 if he is to break even. To that he must add something to cover his overheads and profit. The figure that is usually taken for that purpose is 25 per cent, so the premium will not be less than £6,250. If you then assume that ATE insurance was used in half the cases settled by the National Health Service in 2010-11, you simply multiply £6,250 by 2,700 and get a figure of £16.9 million paid out by the NHS. It is as simple as that. Compare that to the £6.3 million to £6.9 million spent on achieving the same result by legal aid.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 15, which is in my name and in the names of the Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. As my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd said, this amendment seeks to retain clinical negligence cases within the scope of legal aid. It is completely non-discriminatory, is not based on age or condition and saves money.
The Government have so far argued vigorously that many cases would be funded by the proposed exceptional funding mechanism and that it was not necessary to guarantee this by retaining them in scope. While it is an improvement to have the situation clarified and legal aid guaranteed for at least this small band of cases, that is, in effect, all that the Government have provided—clarification and a guarantee of what was already on the table.
I am pleased that the Government have moved forward on the retention of obstetric cases in scope, as opposed to relying on the exceptional funding route. This is very positive. In its statement announcing the change of approach, the Ministry of Justice said:
“We also agree that clinical negligence claims in obstetrics cases which result in severe disability must receive legal aid”.
It went on to say:
“A safety net will continue to exist for other more serious and complex clinical negligence cases where there is a human rights issue”.
This safety net is the same one that we were told meant that there was no need to retain even the obstetric cases in scope for legal aid because exceptional funding would take care of them. It is perhaps logical to conclude that exceptional funding is no more of an adequate safety net for other highly complex and deserving cases than it was for obstetric cases. Just about every clinical negligence case is complex, which is why, over time, successive Governments have agreed that clinical negligence needs to be kept in scope for legal aid. Not only would taking most clinical negligence cases out of scope result in higher costs to the taxpayer overall, but those costs will still be there but pushed somewhere else. Even more worrying, many people will be denied access to justice.
The independent report by King’s College London identified that the unintended consequences of taking clinical negligence out of scope for legal aid would be almost three times the projected saving for the Ministry of Justice budget—costs of £28.5 million set against a “saving” of £10.5 million. These clinical negligence cases which are not in scope for legal aid will in future be able to take their cases forward either through no-win no-fee agreements or with the benefit of exceptional funding. Under the new system, even if an expert report deems a claim to be valid, there is no guarantee that the claimant will receive representation under a conditional fee arrangement. “After the event” insurance is expensive, if, indeed, it is possible to obtain it. I do not believe that exceptional funding is a sufficient safeguard.
If the Minister revisits the responses to the consultation on legal aid, he will find that the vast majority of lawyers involved in clinical negligence cases say that they will not be able to take on many of these cases under the new arrangements. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, cited Lord Justice Jackson, who said that the most expensive and inefficient mechanism that it is possible to devise is being put forward to achieve this policy objective. I agree with that comment. Solicitors will be forced to cherry pick only the most obvious cases of negligence, with others being left with no way of moving forward. I do not believe that this is acceptable in our society.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords I ask noble Lords to support Amendment 31, which stands in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lord Newton and Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.
Amendment 31 would allow legal aid for all children who are victims of clinical negligence and not just some children, which, unfortunately, is the current position of my Government. I have both personal and professional experience of these cases as a mother and a former leader of a metropolitan district council. I would like to tell noble Lords something of my experiences. When my eight year-old boy was diagnosed with a psychosomatic illness, my husband and I went through the worst time trying to persuade doctors that something was seriously wrong. Eventually, the diagnosis was found to be faulty and we discovered that our son was in fact suffering from a very virulent form of bone and tissue cancer. Even though we had a very strong clinical negligence case, my husband and I decided not to pursue it because it would be too stressful and we had the resources to support my son. However, not every family is in this privileged position, and I met many through those dark times, and since, who needed to make a claim so that their families could survive.
I have seen at first hand how compensation for medical negligence allows parents to continue to care for their children in their own homes. It does not make it easy but it does make it possible. I have also seen what happens to parents who do not receive financial compensation. Caring for a child who has been the victim of a medical accident and is severely disabled, sick or injured normally gets progressively more difficult and can frequently result in separation and divorce and depression and other mental health disorders in parents. It can also result in an inability to care for other children in the household and parents losing their jobs, becoming homeless and having to be rehoused in social housing, and with the victim having to be cared for in residential homes away from their family. In other words, everyone ends up suffering—a child who is the victim, the parents and the wider family and the taxpayer. As a councillor, I know that all too frequently the local authority has to pick up the pieces and the financial cost.
The proposals in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill can only make a bad situation worse. The concession proposed by the Government allows legal aid where a baby is the victim of clinical negligence from the period of conception through to eight weeks after his or her due date in the case of neurological injury only. It relates only to babies who have suffered damage to their brain. As I understand it, children with physical disabilities resulting from clinical negligence at birth are not covered, and conditions such as Erb’s palsy would not fall into the category of receiving aid. This means that if a full-term baby is the victim of clinical negligence when it is 73 days old, he or she will be ineligible for medical negligence. However, if he or she suffers neurological damage two days earlier at 71 days, they can be granted legal aid. This seems a rather arbitrary and upsetting situation. I ask noble Lords to try to imagine how they would explain to their friends, family and neighbours why a baby who suffered neurological injury at birth could have legal aid but a baby blinded at birth, say by a forceps delivery, could not. Last year, £4.6 million was spent on legal aid for children who were victims of clinical negligence. The majority—estimated to be around £3 million—went on legal aid for babies who suffered neurological damage. As I say, this group has been conceded by the Government, so in reality we are arguing about a further £1.6 million or so to cover all remaining children.
I wish to tell noble Lords about Sophie Tyler from Newport. When Sophie was 14 years old, she went into her local hospital for a routine bladder operation. She underwent an epidural, which, sadly, went very wrong. Sophie is now paralysed from the waist down and will always be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. Sophie is now 17 years old. She took action with the help of legal aid, and three years on she has received a medical insurance payout. This compensation will never make amends for what has happened to Sophie, but it will make it possible for her to live independently with support. In the cases of children, compensation pays for extensions to be built downstairs with bathrooms and bedrooms so that children do not have to be carried upstairs, which is more difficult when they become adults. Compensation pays for the widening of doors to allow wheelchair access and for hoists, electric wheelchairs and other specialist equipment not available on the NHS. It pays for occasional night-time and holiday respite care so that parents can get some much needed sleep and it pays, where possible, for extra tutoring to make up for lost schooling along with additional physiotherapy and holidays. Above all, compensation allows parents to carry on in the knowledge that there is someone who will take care of their child after they themselves die. Believe me, this is what worries parents more than anything else.
I therefore ask noble Lords to support children like Sophie next year and the year after—children who, through no fault of their own, become the victims of medical negligence and need legal aid to pursue their cases. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will concede legal aid for all children and recognise that although the concession proposed by the Government supports children with neurological injury, it does not address the needs of the remaining children who suffer hugely as a result of medical negligence and accident.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, with temerity, as she has made a remarkable speech based on her personal knowledge. I thank her for what she has said.
I also speak with experience of clinical negligence cases. I practised as a solicitor for some 50 years and on many occasions during that time came across cases which involved clinical negligence. The Government appear to be suggesting that clinical negligence claims should proceed by way of joint expert reports. I think that that is pretty impractical. Medical and other experts often disagree, and to embark on a joint report is often totally impractical.
Legal aid should be available in all cases of clinical negligence where it appears to the Law Society, or whoever is arbitrating on the issue, to be practical and necessary. The ability to go to joint experts, where it is proved to be absolutely essential, should remain part of our legal process, and lawyers ought to be given the opportunity to do precisely that. It would save rather than expend more money if we were able to embark on such a policy, and that has been proved in practice time and time again. Why are we embarking now upon the totally impractical idea of a single expert?
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. We entered another place on the same day in 1970; we have been friends ever since; and I have admired the way in which he has fought against real difficulties and played such a part in your Lordships’ House.
I was glad to add my name to the amendment that was so movingly spoken to by my noble friend Lady Eaton. Unlike her and, I suppose, most of your Lordships here, I have not had that personal experience involving a child in my own family. When I heard what she had to say, I felt all the more thankful that my children and grandchildren did not face those problems. However, as a constituency Member of Parliament for 40 years, I came across many sad cases that were similar to her own. They were dissimilar in only one respect, and that the one to which she referred—almost always the parents did not have the means to deal with the problem on their own.
No compensation ever adequately compensates for loss of limb or for any other severe disability. However, when one is dealing with clinical negligence, it is crucial that we treat all children, whatever the problem, in a similar way. My noble friend Lady Eaton made that point with quiet passion, and it was all the more effective for that.
I have a great respect and affection for my noble and learned friend the Minister who will reply to this debate. After the histrionics of the previous debate, I say to him that there cannot be a Member in your Lordships’ House who does not have sympathy with a Government who are faced with a pretty dire financial situation and looking carefully to see where they can make savings and cut costs. We all appreciate that and do not need to be lectured on the subject. Equally, however, we in this House all have a duty to try to look at things with a degree of objectivity which is devoid of the acerbity of party politics which so often dominates debates in another place.
In my 15 months in this House the two things that have endeared it to me more than any other place are its collegiate atmosphere and the way that we genuinely respect each others’ differences of opinion, even though we may all have deeply held personal political opinions and prejudices. However, we have before us an essentially modest amendment. I know not whether the amendments which the House has just been passed will drive a coach and horses through the Bill. I suspect that they will not and that we will have a chance to deliberate on these matters on another day. This amendment certainly does not do that, nor does it pile any degree of extra expenditure on government.
I take no delight in not supporting my Government. I was not able to support them on the previous two amendments, and I should very much like a response from my noble and learned friend that will enable me, with a tolerably light heart, to go into the Lobby with him if a Division is called. I very much hope that one will not be called. I hope that he will be able to accept the spirit of Amendment 31, even if he cannot accept the precise wording.
Those of us who have served in politics for a long time—and I saw the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who I deliberately call my friend, nodding a moment ago—know that it is difficult for Back-Benchers in another place or Peers in this place to devise an amendment that will be absolutely acceptable in the precise terms in which it appears on the Marshalled List. However, I hope that we will have from my noble and learned friend a response that accepts the spirit of this amendment, and the amendments spoken to earlier, so that we can move on without clash and division and underline the fact that all of us are keen that there should be equality and fairness of treatment to everyone in this country. Although this Government, and every Government, have to act within severe constraints—there is nothing new in that—let us hope that we can recognise the Government’s dilemma while asking them in turn to recognise that there is within this amendment, so splendidly spoken to by my noble friend Lady Eaton, a real point of principle that deserves a most sympathetic response.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, when the Bill was first published it led to a great deal of correspondence from all sorts of quarters, including the Bar Council and many other bodies that were deeply involved, because the Government proposed to remove clinical negligence in its entirety from the scope of legal aid. They asserted, as I understand it, that most claimants would receive representation under a conditional fee agreement—that is, from a no-win no-fee lawyer. However, if implemented as drafted, the Government’s proposed reforms to civil litigation funding laid out in Part 2 will deny access to justice to all but those with the most clear-cut cases.
Clinical negligence claims raise complex issues of liability. The risks of taking on such cases on a no-win no-fee basis can therefore seem very high indeed, so claimants will find it difficult to find representation. I therefore support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, had to say in support of his amendment, because it provides for obtaining the expert reports that would of course be necessary and says that they should retain legal aid. But, on the other hand, I find myself more in support of the next amendment in the group, Amendment 15, which would provide the cost of legal proceedings in relation to clinical negligence. That is important, and we have heard why from a number of contributions to the debate. I therefore hope that we can persuade the Government that what we are saying in Amendment 15 is sensible and that they will accept it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I want to give my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General a brief moment of ministerial bliss during this debate—there have not been many so far. I speak to government Amendment 68. My noble friend Lord Faulks and I and others have argued that clinical negligence should be available for severely disabled infants—at least for those who suffered neurological damage, which may of course result in physical damage, and often does, either before birth, at birth or shortly after. It is a great pleasure to see Amendment 68. It has been the result of some negotiation, but I should say that the Government have been very willing negotiators at all times on this issue.
I recognise that there will be understandable disappointment if legal aid is not extended in the same way to all clinical negligence relating to infants, even that which does not involve neurological damage, and disappointment that legal aid is not being automatically scoped into all clinical negligence. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am old enough to have been involved in clinical negligence cases and seen the advantage of legal aid, particularly for those of poor means.
I raise one issue with my noble and learned friend on which I would be very grateful for a specific response. It is about other clinical negligence and exceptionality. Many of us have pored over Clause 9, entitled “Exceptional cases”, although if one reads the text of Clause 9, it is ambiguous whether it applies only to exceptional cases or, potentially, to a largish cohort of cases that fall within Clause 9(3)(b)—that it is appropriate to grant legal aid,
“in the particular circumstances of the case, having regard to any risk that failure to do so would be”,
a breach of convention or enforceable EU rights. I have in mind where there may be a number of claims of a similar nature—for example, a group of 100 claims arising from the negligent use of a particular drug. One has only to say the word thalidomide to understand how that can arise. I believe that a similar situation could arise in our age, just as it did then.
I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that, were such a cohort of cases to exist, it would not be excluded from exceptionality by reason of being a cohort or group. If one looks at the decided cases in which the word exceptional or exceptionality has been interpreted by the senior courts, it is generally understood to refer to singular cases. We can envisage a plurality of cases of the kind I described, which may give rise to a risk of a breach of convention or other EU rights.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I, too, welcome the concession that the Government propose in Amendment 68, in so far as it goes, to allow legal aid to be available in cases where infants have suffered perinatal injury. As the parent of a child who suffered perinatal injury, I can only welcome it. I simply ask the Minister on what argument of principle he extends legal aid to that group of people but not to others whose lives may be ruined through the experience of clinical negligence.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment 13, proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, both of which would go some way to bring civil legal proceedings relating to clinical negligence back within the scope of the Bill. I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord—my friend, outside the political arena—Lord Cormack and by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on the cases that he has been following up. I shall be very interested to hear the replies to them.
Having campaigned with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, on the question of thalidomide, many years ago, those comments ring bells. We must ensure that, in drawing up a strict structure which is meant to avoid exceptions, other than those provided for specifically, we do not lose the possibility to secure justice for people who may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly said, in the same position in this day and age.
Baroness Mallalieu
My Lords, I intervene very briefly to go back to the first of the speeches on this group, which have contained a number of powerful offerings, the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. He was kind enough to write to me and others setting out the figures that he gave in his speech. I found what he had to say deeply disturbing and something that I hope that the Minister will be able to help us with. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is right, it appears that the Government did not do their figures correctly when the measures were introduced. These cuts, which are clearly very painful, are being advertised to the public and to this House as ones which will save money, but it is abundantly clear that when the figures are done properly—there has been no suggestion yet from the Government that the noble and learned Lord’s figures are incorrect—the proposals in Clause 45 will cost the country money. That is the basis on which we are going through this very painful exercise. I want to hear from the Minister how the Government can possibly justify taking that step.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, in supporting the amendments, I just want to say that clinical negligence is such an important matter. I am told that one in 10 people can have a problem with clinical negligence. That should not happen. Much more care should be taken in patient safety. If there are cases of negligence, the health authorities have their own lawyers. If there is no legal aid for the patient, it means that there is not a level playing field. After all, it is all taxpayers’ money.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I sense that the House is getting to the point where this debate needs to draw to a close, so I will not go over the points that I was going to make at length, except to point out that there is a moral case and a financial case for both the first two amendments in the group. The moral case is that people are particularly vulnerable when they are in the hands of clinicians, their vulnerability being the reason that they need a clinical intervention. Therefore, closing down access to justice or compensation when things go awry seems particularly wrong.
I have a further point to make on allowing clinical negligence to come back into scope. The financial arguments, as already laid out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and in the report of King’s College London, indicate that on financial grounds alone both these amendments make sense. To repeat the figures given by my noble friend Lord Wigley, the cost to the public purse is estimated to be £28.5 million, as opposed to the £10.5 million that the Ministry of Justice hopes to save by this measure. We have heard a lot about the need to save money.
There could be unintended consequences from this calculation of increased, not decreased, expenditure. The intention behind the Government’s amendments is to be welcomed but I fear that there will be complications in, for example, trying to work out the dates of a pregnancy if a scan is not done in the first trimester. Women’s periods are notoriously unreliable as a method of establishing dates in a pregnancy, and arguments about whether it is one day or another will make life extremely difficult.
I end by pointing out that in his report Lord Justice Jackson said that of all the proposed cutbacks in legal aid, the removal of legal aid in relation to clinical negligence was the most unfortunate. He went on to state that if—in his view, wrongly—legal aid for clinical negligence was cut, then removing legal aid for expert reports would not make sound sense.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I wonder whether I might be allowed to intervene from this Front Bench position without people feeling that I have fallen victim to delusions of grandeur of one kind or another.
I wish to make three points. First, I support the general thrust of the arguments that have been put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Eaton. I shall not elaborate but I think that they have made excellent points which need to be considered.
The second is to build on what was said by my noble friend Lord Cormack and, even more so, by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, about one striking aspect of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and indeed the note he had sent me. Had I had the temerity to intervene in the winding-up of the previous debate or had I wished to elongate my speech in that debate, I would have said that those of us who were supporting it were not hell-bent on increasing the deficit and raising the debt. The key point is that we just do not believe the Government’s figures. No one outside the Government believes that savings are going to be made on the scale that the Government claim, and in many cases we think that the deficit is going to be increased. We now have this concrete example of where the figures are wrong, and I hope that the House will bear that in mind.
Finally, one thing that sticks in my mind from this whole exercise is a seminar at which we heard from someone who had been severely damaged by clinical negligence, along with his wife. Victory in that case had enabled the wife to go on looking after the man and for him to go on having as normal a life as possible in a severely disabled state. I just ask myself how much the state saved in that one case, where the husband and wife would not otherwise have been able to go on in those circumstances. How much had been saved in terms of many years of residential care or much more extensive support from the social services department? In my view, these are the things that have not been factored into some of these calculations, and there are many others. Although not strictly related to this amendment, every child taken into care costs £36,000 a year. These are the costs that have not been factored in. I think that we are owed some better answers than we have had so far, and I hope, without much expectation, that we will get some better answers tonight.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I take note of the indication from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the House may have heard enough but I hope that noble Lords will bear with me for a little while. I spoke on this subject at Second Reading and on a previous occasion and I should remind the House that I have spent much of the past quarter of a century working on these clinical negligence cases. I remind myself of that also, lest I should be guilty of any lack of detachment on these difficult issues.
I remain enthusiastic about legal aid. A well organised legal aid scheme with proper controls over funding, franchising of solicitors to ensure relevant expertise and a rigorous approach to the funding of individual cases is a highly worthwhile aspiration. Unfortunately, we have rarely had a scheme like that. In saying this, I do not wish in any way to denigrate the contribution of the many public-spirited lawyers who practise in the field, but too much has been spent on cases which have failed or were not really worth while even had they succeeded. It is perhaps something of an irony that clinical negligence—latterly, at least—has been a far more effectively funded area of the law than ever before. By “effectively”, I do not just mean in terms of the size of the funding; I simply mean the efficiency in the way that specialist lawyers conduct this litigation.
Not all claims have been funded by legal aid. In some there are difficulties of eligibility, and others have preferred to go the route of CFAs. These provide greater flexibility and, of course, greater profit. On the previous occasion, the Minister pointed out that more than 80 per cent of clinical negligence cases are taken under CFAs, so this remains, at least in theory, an option for the future. However, it is of course a much less attractive option. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, pointed out, there is no ATE insurance and success fees are limited to 25 per cent of past losses and general damages. This is particularly so with complex cases, where investigative costs are particularly expensive and may ultimately prove irrecoverable if the case fails to get off the ground or fails in the end.
I have not been, as a number of noble Lords will be aware, entirely uncritical of this Bill. In particular, I was anxious to ensure that there was a reiteration in Clause 1 of the fundamental principle of access to justice, and I was concerned that there should be additional steps to underline the independence of the director of legal aid casework. Unfortunately, my views did not coincide with the views of the Government. One reason I felt able to support those amendments was that they did not involve any government expenditure but reflected what I thought were important principles about the justice system.
However, with this group of amendments we are now concerned with areas that involve government expenditure, although quite how much, I accept, is very much open to debate. The financial situation requires there to be cuts and the Government have taken the perfectly reasonable view that the legal aid budget must bear its fair share. I remain somewhat unconvinced by the stance taken by the party opposite, which seems to be that civil legal aid would have been left entirely alone by it and, for the most part, CFAs as they currently are represent a satisfactory situation.
The Government have had to take some hard decisions in cutting back on expenditure on legal aid. Surely we are acknowledging that and are engaged in scrutinising this Bill in an attempt to limit the damage rather than simply pretending that there are limitless funds available for legal aid. Perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and congratulate the Minister and his officials on their response to the concerns that I and other noble Lords expressed about the position of brain-damaged babies. The Government have put down this most welcome amendment. I genuinely believe that this is a thoughtful and appropriate concession and an indication that the Government are trying to address some of the very difficult situations which this legislation throws up.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will appreciate the importance of the concessions which the Liberal Democrats have negotiated—namely, that there should be a power in the Lord Chancellor to put areas of law back into scope because they may very well be right. It may be that these alterations will be more expensive than the Government think at this time. I very much welcome Amendment 68 which keeps birth injuries within the scope of legal aid. The reason for being concerned about cases claiming damages for personal injury arising out of medical negligence is that they currently receive legal aid as an exception to the previous Government’s removal of legal aid in personal injury cases.
Of course, four out of five claims fail or are withdrawn. Unlike a car accident or a factory accident, it is very difficult to appreciate negligence where negligence happens without the highly specialised and expensive investigation to which my noble friend Lord Faulks has referred. Although I have some experience of medical negligence cases, I defer to his very great experience and expertise. He raises the question, which I think is on everyone's mind: if you make an exception for birth injuries, what about the rest? It does not mean that claimants will be denied access to justice. If at the moment 80 per cent of clinical negligence cases are handled by conditional fee agreements, a greater proportion of these cases will simply be added to that route for funding.
In the course of the reforms that are set out in this Bill, it is essential that one-way cost shifting occurs in relation to cases that are brought under conditional fee agreements. That means that, win or lose, the defendant insurers will pay their own costs. The reason for the huge rise in insurance premiums, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred, is the huge increase in the costs of the defendants. If four out of five claims fail, a claimant is very much without insurance; after-the-event insurance is very much at risk of being ruined by bringing an action. If, as the Government propose, one-way cost shifting is applied in this area, the unsuccessful claimant will have to carry only the costs of the disbursements. In medical negligence cases, as has been pointed out, such costs can be very high. It was for that reason that, in the Commons, the Government, recognising the problem, amended the Bill so that the cost of the premium of ensuring the disbursements, the costs of the medical expert reports, will be passed over to an unsuccessful defendant and will be absorbed, in the usual way, by the insurance company if the claim does not succeed. The insurance premium, instead of being at the dramatic size that it is at the moment, will be very much reduced and the risks under conditional fee agreements of unsuccessful claimants paying a great deal of money will be very much reduced.
The whole area of medical negligence needs to be looked at. Although we have been talking about high-cost cases, in fact the majority of these cases attract damages of less than £20,000. They are for negligent treatment for minor injuries perhaps. We are not always talking about catastrophic injuries in relation to medical negligence. Therefore, I have been arguing for an NHS redress scheme, such as that which was introduced in Wales within the past two years. The Government have said that they regard that scheme, which deals with cases up to a value of £20,000, as a pilot and, depending on how the scheme goes, will consider introducing it into England.
But the power already exists. The previous Government passed the NHS Redress Act in 2006 and Wales grasped the opportunity, as did Scotland. They grasped the opportunity of introducing a scheme with fixed fees for lawyers and fixed fees for expert reports to satisfy the problem that exists with low-value medical negligence cases. If we could progress that a little further in England, it would do a great deal to relieve the concerns that have been expressed here today.
I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace will be able to make some favourable noises in relation to an NHS redress scheme. The Opposition could not object: they brought in the Act in 2006, though they never thought that the people of England deserved it being implemented. On the other hand, the people of Wales took a different view. All reports so far on how its scheme is going suggest that it works well, reduces legal fees and provides solutions for people who have been injured. I hope that the Minister will tell us that something along those lines will be considered in this very difficult area.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, perhaps I may ask a short supplementary question following the queries made by my noble friend Lord Carlile about Clause 9. I was intending to raise it on a later amendment but will do so now if my noble friend is going to deal with it.
The natural meaning of “exceptional cases” suggests to me something very unusual about either the claim or the claimant. I am troubled that claimants might fall foul by virtue of being part of a cohort. Can the Minister help me with what is meant by “enforceable EU rights”, which, along with convention rights, bring one within the exceptional determination provision?
Lord Beecham
My Lords, before I address the amendments, I must correct something that I said in Committee. I unfortunately misrepresented the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as saying that 10 per cent of National Health Service patients suffered clinical negligence. I rather conflated different figures. He referred to the fact that a million of what are described in somewhat Orwellian language as “adverse incidents” take place in the health service, of which only 10,000 give rise to claims, which represents only 1 per cent of those adverse incidents.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has in the previous debate, and indeed in virtually every debate, prayed in aid as a rationale for government policy the question of costs. It is not unreasonable that costs and public expenditure should form part of these discussions, but, as we have heard today from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others, the argument in this case runs the other way. What the Government are proposing would cost the Exchequer, rather than the converse. In any case, we are speaking only of some £10 million, which would have been the saving under the Government’s original policy. I welcome so far as it goes the amendment that the Government are proposing. As they are now going some way—though not far enough—towards meeting the case for extending legal aid, that amount of saving would be reduced in any event.
However, it is not just those of us who support the amendments of the noble and learned Lord and of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Eaton, who take the point about the cost and the way in which the system would work. No less an authority than the National Health Service Litigation Authority has expressed its considerable reservations about the Government’s approach, saying:
“We have serious concerns over the proposal to withdraw legal aid from clinical negligence claims. Whilst we have seen an upsurge of claims brought under Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) in recent years, we question whether CFAs are likely to be readily available to fund many of the more serious claims currently brought via legal aid”.
That view is at odds with that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Given that the litigation authority is at the receiving end of these claims, I am inclined to give rather more weight to its views.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Although the organisation questions, it is hardly saying something that is contrary to what I have said. I have said that if everything went wrong and worst-case scenarios arose, the amendment accepted by the Government, which would permit bringing these matters back into scope, would be extremely important.
Lord Beecham
It would be extremely important if the Government acted on it. We do not know that they will. While the noble Lord claims credit for the amendment, he was not quite so enthusiastic when it was being debated in Committee at the instigation of this side, but that is a little beside the point. The litigation authority states clearly:
“Overall, we are strongly in favour of retaining legal aid for clinical negligence cases using current eligibility criteria”.
In that phraseology, it echoes the words of Lord Justice Jackson.
Welcome as the government amendment is, they anticipated some discussion about it because they also questioned whether the scheme would cover only cases of the most severe brain damage or whether it would extend also to claims for moderate brain damage and shoulder dystocia, or to children whose mental faculties are spared but who have serious physical disabilities. We know that we are dealing only with a limited number of perinatal cases, as movingly explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. Again, it would seem that, on balance, the litigation authority, although it welcomes no doubt the progress made so far, would not be content with leaving the situation as it stands.
Of course, the case of Sophie Tyler was very moving. It is interesting that her solicitor said:
“This is an important case which has allowed our client to access justice and secure the lifetime of future care she needs but it would not have been possible without the support of legal aid”.
That is a very important observation. However, there are many other kinds of claim which arise out of different types of clinical negligence and with different effects. While the number of adverse incidents has now risen to 1.15 million, there are some 2,500 clinical negligence claims in what is a called a “serious category”. Of those, 12.5 per cent result in death; 17 per cent lead to unnecessary operations or amputations; 8 per cent lead to damages to nerves or senses; and 2.9 per cent lead to cancer. So 50 per cent of six major categories overall are not of the kind that would be covered by the government amendment.
In these circumstances, it is quite clear that a substantial number of people will not be able to access legal aid. Despite the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, it must be questioned whether the conditional fee system would be an answer to that and, in particular, whether that would not in itself increase the costs to the National Health Service.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, and my noble friend the Minister will confirm this, that I raised the issue of increasing the powers of the Lord Chancellor before Second Reading. If he would like to consult the record, he will see that my amendment, to bring areas back into scope, was tabled on the very first day that amendments could be put down. The amendments put down by the Labour Party were many days after that.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, some nerve damage is being sustained by the noble Lord. Let us, however, concentrate on the issue, which is rather more important than claiming credit for amendments; namely, the future of patients who undergo clinical negligence and who have claims. We have heard much talk about equality of arms in litigation. I fear that what the Sophies of this world may face is more akin to a farewell to arms. That is the danger we face if legal aid is not extended.
There is a hierarchy of amendments before us tonight. Of course I endorse the Government’s amendment, as far as it goes. Equally, we support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. However, for us the best amendment—because it effectively embraces both the others—is that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. We wish her well should she decide to test the opinion of the House at an appropriate moment.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I think that it is evident to the House that we have had a very important, serious-minded and sensitive debate. I listened to many of the speeches at Second Reading when many of these points were aired, not least on perinatal and neonatal injury. I also responded to the debate in Committee when, again, passion and concern was expressed in all parts of the House.
The debate benefited from noble Lords’ experience. My noble friend Lady Eaton referred to her personal and professional experience. My noble friends Lord Faulks and Lord Carlile have professional experience in the legal sphere, as has the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. While I anticipate that I am not going to be able to bring succour to all those who spoke, I hope that in responding to the debate I may indicate that this is an issue that the Government have treated seriously, and on which they have sought to respond to many concerns expressed in earlier debates. We believe that the provisions that we are putting in place provide a proper means of addressing these important issues.
Concerns were expressed at Second Reading and in Committee about the serious and complex cases involving brain-damaged babies for whom a conditional fee agreement might not be able to be secured, and thus they would need to rely on exceptional funding under Clause 9, which could leave their families in an uncertain position. For that reason, the Government brought forward Amendment 68. I welcome the fact that it was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the opposition Front Bench, and by my noble friends Lord Faulks and Lord Thomas of Gresford. My noble friend Lord Carlile said that it was a moment—perhaps a very rare moment—of ministerial bliss this evening; and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, accepted that it was a significant concession. As I indicated, it was brought forward in recognition of the concerns raised, and to put beyond doubt that legal aid will remain available for babies who suffer brain injury at birth that will lead to a lifetime of care needs.
We recognise that in these cases there are difficulties in obtaining funding through CFAs because of the extent and expense of the investigations required. We stated that we expected to spend about £6 million on legal representation in clinical negligence cases that merited exceptional funding through Clause 9; and we said that we expected a significant proportion of the £6 million to be spent on serious infant brain-damage cases. Given that fact, we decided that it would be appropriate to bring these cases back in scope. We hope that this will provide certainty to families and make the application process more straightforward.
The amendment provides funding for claims for medical negligence causes of brain injury as a result of which a child is severely disabled. I listened to, and understood, the inevitable concerns expressed about where one should draw a line, and I will say something about that. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, spoke very briefly but with a weight of personal experience, and asked whether we could identify the issues of principle that underpinned the amendment. Our intention is to cover cases of medical negligence where the child is most vulnerable: during its time in the womb, during delivery and immediately afterwards. For that reason, the amendment provides for funding in cases where negligence occurs in the period beginning with the mother’s pregnancy and continuing until eight weeks after birth. We recognise that premature babies are in a particularly vulnerable situation. That is why the amendment also provides that where a baby is born prematurely, the eight-week period will be taken to start from the point at which the mother would otherwise have begun her 37th week of pregnancy.
Because our intention is to cover birth and pregnancy-related negligence, we have had to draw the line at some point after birth. The amendment refers to the eight-week period because it is in the first few weeks of life that a child is at their most vulnerable. This period is also one in which postnatal medical care is expected to take place. It is also provided for in the guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence entitled Routine Postnatal Care of Women and their Babies. In cases where negligence occurs beyond the eight-week point, there will remain a safety net in the form of the exceptional funding scheme under Clause 9. I will say more about that when I address the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Eaton and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I will address the question of whether the failure to fund would amount to a breach of the individual’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is important to stress that exceptional funding decisions will necessarily be taken by the director on a case-by-case basis. My noble friend Lord Carlile asked if there could be a multi-party action to satisfy the Clause 9 criteria. He will be among the first to recognise that it is difficult and possibly unwise to speculate about hypothetical cases. However, in principle it would be possible. Each application would be assessed against the criteria, and it may well be appropriate to fund the lead case in a claim if there is a requirement for it to be funded under, for example, Article 6 considerations. It may be the case that other claims could then progress on a CFA basis. The question would turn on the individual case, but there could be a lead case where failure to fund it would amount to a breach.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked what was meant by enforceable European Union rights. They are rights to legal aid which might have direct effect in domestic law. An example would be rights enshrined under Article 47 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, which provides the equivalent of Article 6 protection in cases falling within the scope of European Union law.
Amendment 13, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, seeks to bring into scope civil legal services for obtaining multiple expert reports in medical negligence cases. He indicated that government Amendment 68 would provide legal aid for cases where the most expensive and extensive medical reports would be required, and that his amendment would cater for the remainder. However, we believe that it would not be limited to the remainder of those cases that are presently funded by legal aid. Solicitors currently have to choose whether to use a legal aid route or a CFA route to fund a case. Only 18 per cent of cases where the funding method is known use legal aid. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford indicated, some 82 per cent of cases proceed down a conditional fee agreement route.
The amendment would open up legal aid to many cases that are funded by way of CFA, and could mean that lawyers who currently have to carry the no-win no-fee risk to get their success fee could apply for legal aid to cover the expert report in every case where their client is financially eligible, and still get their no-win no-fee success fee in respect of their other legal costs. This is not a fair balance for the taxpayer. It could also result in a significant expansion of the legal aid scheme. The taxpayer should not be required to pay where these cases have already been taken forward and paid for by alternative means. The position would also be limited to those who are financially eligible for legal aid. That would mean that those who are outside that eligibility—which could be many people—would have no assistance in funding expert reports in criminal negligence cases.
I recall that in Committee the noble and learned Lord presented a torrent of figures, and I indicated that we would look at them. I encouraged officials to look at them and I know that there was some engagement, that he met my noble friend Lord McNally and that there were exchanges on these figures. In this situation, we must agree to differ. The Ministry of Justice analysts carefully reviewed the calculations. We sought to explain the Ministry of Justice’s calculations. The matter is very technical; I have tried to get my head round both sets of figures.
Lord Clinton-Davis
If there is no consensus between the experts, what happens then?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
It is very evident. We want to encourage joint expert reports, but clearly there will be cases when that is not possible because there is a division of opinion. In our debates on Monday evening, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, indicated some of the very conflicting expert reports in cases she had heard about shaken baby syndrome. That is not clinical negligence, but it is clearly an example of conflicting reports. Nevertheless, where it is possible to go towards joint expert reports, it should be encouraged.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford also quite properly drew attention to the fact that while we have quite rightly focused on some of the very serious cases and consequences of clinical negligence, in many cases of clinical negligence the damages could be under £20,000. Your Lordships may be aware that the Government have recently announced the extension of the low-value claims process for personal injury claims. We are working closely with the National Health Service Litigation Authority and claimant lawyer representatives to set up a pilot for dealing with low-value clinical negligence cases. These discussions are ongoing. They will be a valuable way of trying to identify ways in which some of the lower value cases can be dealt with.
My noble friend drew the attention of your Lordships’ House to the scheme in Wales under the NHS Redress Act 2006. Clearly that is something we would look at, although I note that it is tied in with a complaints and concerns regime and does not necessarily replace the existing judicial system. Claimants are still free to pursue a claim. I have always thought that it is one of the strengths of devolution that different ways are found in different parts of our United Kingdom to address issues such as this. It is only right that we look at the experience in different parts of the United Kingdom, and if there is something to learn we should be willing to learn it.
I am obliged to refer to government Amendments 26 to 30 and 58 to 67. They are technical in nature. My noble friend Lord McNally has written to all Peers describing their detail, so I do not propose to detain the House further.
We have listened to very strong representations in earlier debates about clinical negligence in the context of perinatal and neonatal cases. We have sought to address it through conditional fee agreements, which are increasingly part of the way in which clinical negligence cases are dealt with, and through the exceptional funding. We are ensuring that there is provision in other cases. As I have indicated, I regret that we have not been able to have a meeting of minds with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I will place the Ministry of Justice’s calculations in the Library of your Lordships’ House. When those who wish to look at them have done the calculations and wish to come back to us, we will seek to give them a response. In these circumstances, I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I address only my own amendment. It is very limited in scope and is designed to save money. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Newton and Lord Faulks, the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Finlay, and other noble Lords. It seems to me that they have demonstrated conclusively that the financial argument in favour of this amendment is irresistible. It is simply not good enough for the Minister to say by way of answer that we must agree to differ on the figures. The figures supporting the case that I have put forward were put before the Government on 2 March. Indeed, they have had similar figures since we were in Committee, but they have not answered these and it is now 7 March.
If the Government are as serious as they keep on saying they are about saving money, they ought to accept this amendment. Even on their own figures, they would save £6.2 million. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“Clinical negligence (No. 2)(1) Civil legal services provided in relation to clinical negligence proceedings.
(2) In this paragraph—
“clinical negligence” means breach of a duty of care or trespass to the person committed in the course of the provision of clinical or medical services (including dental or nursing services);
“clinical negligence proceedings” means proceedings which include a claim for damages in respect of clinical negligence.”
Baroness Grey-Thompson
I am very conscious of the late hour so I do not wish to delay your Lordships’ House too much longer. I thank the Minister for his answer but, unfortunately, I am not satisfied with it. I believe that a huge number of disabled people and people in general will be discriminated against. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Roads: Motorists and Cyclists
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Glentoran
Lord Glentoran
My Lords, bicycles and those who ride them have been making the headlines for a few weeks since the Times newspaper started a campaign after one of its employees was badly injured in an accident involving a lorry. I am not out to knock bicycles today—quite the reverse. I believe that they are practical vehicles and the exercise they provide should help to contain obesity, which at home in my province is the most serious medical problem, especially among young people. In short, I support encouraging the use of bicycles.
I want to quote from a brief I received from the mayor’s office today:
“The Mayor of London is committed to turning London into a ‘cyclised’ city where people see cycling as one of the best ways to get about. Cycling, with all its social, environmental, health and financial benefits, has an important role to play in the future of the capital, and the Mayor is working with TfL to deliver a 400% increase in cycling by 2026, compared to 2001 levels, while making cycling safer, more attractive and more convenient … In conjunction with this growth the Mayor has prioritised improving cyclist safety. In March 2010 TfL published the Cycle Safety Action Plan designed to help reduce the number of collisions on London’s roads involving cyclists, which has led to numerous successful initiatives which continue to be rolled out across the city … The Mayor is now calling on the Government to take forward new nationwide policies, including changes to vehicle regulations and changes to driving tests, to help improve the safety of cyclists across the country … TfL supports the London boroughs in providing cycle training to people who live, work or study in their borough. In 2010/11, 8,350 individuals were trained, which represents a 42% increase on 2008/09 … TfL funds the Met police Cycle Task Force, a team of 30 police officers who patrol London on bikes, engaging and educating all road users and taking action against irresponsible behaviour. In 2010, a six-week operation resulted in more than 900 Fixed Penalty Notices being issued to drivers and motorcyclists in relation to responsible and safer driving”.
Most of the media coverage recently has been aimed at motorists and those responsible for road safety. There are undoubtedly issues here, but there are also issues for the cyclists themselves. If bicyclists choose to use the Queen's highway, I suggest that they must learn the rules of the road and obey them. They should familiarise themselves with the Highway Code and obey it. How often do we see bicycles on the pavement, shooting traffic lights and riding too close to lorries and cars?
We need a change of culture among cyclists. We need them to have some form of third-party insurance so that when they run into a pedestrian—me crossing the road from Westminster to the cathedral on my way home—there will be some form of recompense. It should be compulsory by traffic law and health and safety regulations for bicycle riders to wear a minimum of protective clothing such as helmets and an orange or yellow top. They should carry lights and ideally at night wear reflective armbands, helmets and gloves. How many times at night have we been walking in London and not seen a bicycle until it has practically hit us—no protective cover, no fluorescent clothing, no lights, and probably going at 30 or 40 mph?
It will be of little value bringing in the changes that I have suggested and many more if they are not well publicised, understood and most important of all, enforced by the authorities. I ask Parliament and the media to assist in bringing this culture change to the cycling community in the hope that when it is paired up with the capital expenditure proposed by the mayor and the Government it will mean safer roads, safer pavements and a safer time in the city for pedestrians as well as bicyclists.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, told us, the way to encourage cycling is to make it safer. One way of making it safer is to provide separate road space for motorists and cyclists. Frequently, however, that is impossible. Cyclists and motorists have to share the road. Certainly the Highway Code should apply to all road users, but in practice that does not always happen. When I was knocked off my bike by a car turning left from the outside lane, the driver's explanation was simply that cars have priority over bikes. That attitude simply discourages cycling by making it less safe.
When I ride on the continent, in any country apart from Portugal and the Republic of Ireland, I feel safer. In all those countries the presumption in law is that if there is a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, the driver of the motor vehicle is at fault. That makes sense because figures from the TRL indicate that in serious and slight crashes that injure cyclists over the age of 25, drivers are far more likely to be deemed solely liable than the cyclists. This is simply a measure to protect the more vulnerable road user and make the road users who are protected more aware of the dangers that they pose to cyclists. As a letter in Saturday’s Guardian from Dr KJ Eames pointed out, this is fair as a presumption can have its validity tested against evidence if it should be necessary. There is no doubt that this simple measure would improve the rate of cycling here.
Urban design can also change the balance of responsibilities. Have noble Lords been to Exhibition Road in South Kensington recently? It has been converted into a shared walking, cycling and driving area. There is a 20 miles per hour speed limit, and although walkers and cyclists must still give way to motorists, it has become a far more pleasant area, with more space because there is no car parking, there are no traffic islands and traffic is much reduced. I am sure that many people will want their suburban areas changed to shared-use zones of this kind, where the traffic is more strictly controlled, cyclists and pedestrians have more freedom and there is more open space.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right: there is a lot of work to be done in rebalancing the legal responsibility of motorists and cyclists on the roads, but all as part of an effort to encourage cycling. What will the Government do about that?
Lord Taverne
My Lords, my preferred forms of transport are sail, bicycles, foot, rail, buses and—lastly— cars. Living in central London, I gave up my car in 1974. We then established our family motto: two wheels good, four wheels bad. That has proved an act of liberation. The advantages are obvious.
First, there is fitness and health, as was pointed out by a number of people in the House of Commons debate, as well as by speakers here tonight. Studies show that regular cyclists live some two years longer than those who do not cycle—that is quite an advantage. Secondly, there is the convenience: you arrive at your destination at a time that you can judge accurately. That is a great advantage. Thirdly, parking—the curse of the motorist—is much easier. I sympathise with Woody Allen, who said, “It is all very well talking about the expanding universe but, if the universe is expanding, why can I never find a parking place?”. It is a question, too, of being able to live more freely. There is no question of having to abstain if one goes out to dinner or of making the invidious choice as to whether you or your spouse should cease to imbibe. There is no perpetual worry about cars getting scratched.
Of course it would be a great advantage to life in cities if there were more bicycles. The bicycle is a very green form of transport. It was described by one person as a form of transport that has a built-in gym and can be fuelled on tea and cakes. But it is not only that: one has a different attitude to travelling in London, because bicycling is a very sociable activity. At traffic lights you talk to people. I quite often talk to policemen. On one occasion I stopped at a traffic light and the police were extremely friendly. One said, “I didn’t know cyclists stopped at traffic lights”. On another occasion there was no traffic about and I moved off. I had not realised that there was a policeman nearby. At the next traffic light he came up beside me and said, “Sir, I would have thought that someone of your maturity would pay more attention to traffic signals”. They are an extremely friendly lot. Bus drivers are extraordinarily considerate to cyclists and bus lanes are a great convenience. For every possible reason, cycling is to be encouraged.
Is there any danger? There is the suggestion that all sorts of action should be taken to lessen the risk to cyclists. Many people are put off by that risk but, in fact, it is greatly exaggerated. In terms of benefits versus of risks, a study by the BMA way back in 1992 showed that for one life-year lost through accidents, 20 life-years are gained through greater fitness. I am not exactly sure what that means but it is impressive. Of course the position is much better now because the more cyclists there are, the lower the proportion of people who are injured. Some calculations show that if cyclists double in numbers, the accident rate per cyclist is reduced by about one-third. In Amsterdam there are no accidents. People do not wear helmets because there is such a large number of cyclists that nobody gets injured. Indeed, they have a rather draconian law that if there is an accident and a motor car, the motor car is to blame under all circumstances.
It is really a case of promoting cycling by every means we can. Cyclists of the world unite—we have nothing to lose but our chains.
Viscount Craigavon
My Lords, I speak as a frequent cyclist, and my views are well balanced by also being a motorcyclist and a motorist. I am also a member, and was a long-time officer, of the All-Party Cycling Group, which was largely instrumental in the lobbying and recent debate in Westminster Hall, assisted by the campaign in the Times. I would like to follow rather randomly some of the themes in that debate.
After reading his winding-up speech for the Government in that debate, I believe that we are extremely fortunate to have a Minister such as Mr Norman Baker who is so sympathetic to the cause, as well as his colleague Mr Mike Penning. I hope that he can drag his department some way along the path of enlightenment, as I have always felt that one of the main obstacles from the past in all this has been the ingrained anti-cyclist mindset of the department. We are also extremely fortunate in having the enthusiastic and balanced support of the cyclist Sir George Young as the Leader of another place.
In addressing the balance mentioned in the Question before us, I will not be entirely on one side of the argument, and in my opinion the Question’s wording has ignored motorcyclists, who should be near the centre of any balance. As many have said, including the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, a key change required is in the attitude to cyclists of other road users. I can share and appreciate the visionary mentions of that in relation to Denmark and Holland, where cyclists are normally treated with great consideration and respect. I am less certain of being able to realise here the vision of developing similar separate and purpose-built cycle paths that are so admired in those countries. I believe that we should be realistic and practical and accept that our cities are never going to be able to be converted to the ideal for cyclists. I do not know what the effect is of the recent blue lanes for cyclists in London, but I am hoping that they will be deemed successful.
Improvements can indeed be made, and the Times manifesto is a good example of practical measures that can very usefully be taken. Almost all the eight points of the manifesto seemed to be supported as far as he could by the Minister Mr Norman Baker in the debate in another place. But on item six of that manifesto, I am more than hesitant. If we want the respect and co-operation of the motorist for cycling, I believe that too wide an introduction of 20 mph zones would be counterproductive, by inducing genuine frustration in law-abiding motorists, especially if too widely introduced. The official campaign is asking for that in all residential areas which do not have cycle lanes. The Government have rightly reduced the bureaucracy and cost of creating such 20 mph zones in the right places; it will be decided more locally. But to advocate their use too widely would be unwise. The proliferation and uncertainty about advance stop lines at traffic lights also sends mixed messages, and causes some frustration. I would hope that the type that one sometimes sees, covering only one of two lanes going in the same direction, could become more common.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, praised the Mayor of London. We should be grateful for the impetus that Boris bikes have given to more widespread use of cycles. I hope that the overall cost can be manageable for the scheme to be maintained over the longer period, and the area in which they are available widened, as originally intended. The Times manifesto encourages copying such a scheme to other places. I hope that such schemes, after initial investment and enthusiasm, can eventually become self-financing.
We at this end of this building seem to be very fortunate to have a new row of such cycles being installed on Abingdon Green, which is where outside broadcasts are often made, showing Big Ben in the background. I hope that encourages more of our colleagues to join the scheme, as it is particularly convenient to our House.
As a motorcyclist, I think that we should also be grateful to the Mayor of London for experimenting with motorcyclists sharing bus lanes. I understand that there has been no detriment to cyclists. The only uncertainty for motorcyclists is that such use of bus lanes is not uniform all over London; that final step has still to be taken.
I hope that the Minister can emulate his colleagues, not only in his reply today but in his department.
Baroness Sharples
Thanks to my noble friend, this is an extremely timely debate. As the mayor has announced, there are going to be many more cycle stations in London.
In the 1950s and 1960s I had a Moulton cycle with such small wheels that I could ride on the pavement. No one ever stopped me, anyway. The explosion in the number of cyclists in London inevitably results in problems for all concerned. I agree with my noble friend that they should have insurance. Licences, obviously, are not feasible, and helmets would be difficult for those who ride only very occasionally.
Good manners and patience are required by all. Having experienced nearly being run down by a cyclist on the pedestrian crossing outside here with the light in my favour, I now always thank cyclists when they stop.
This debate speaks only of motorists and cyclists; there is no mention of pedestrians. Pedestrians may not have legal responsibilities but they are equally affected by all types of transport. As I am 99 per cent a pedestrian, I feel strongly about good manners by all road users. What happens if a pedestrian knocks a cyclist over on a crossing? Does he or she get prosecuted?
Lord Wills
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on securing this debate on a matter of great concern to millions of people in this country. I echo much of what noble Lords have already said. Rebalancing the responsibilities of road users is clearly important, as noble Lords have argued. We are reminded daily by personal tragedies all over the country of just how vulnerable cyclists are to motorists, and how careless motorists can be of their responsibilities to other road users. I support noble Lords who have called for action in that respect, although as someone who gave up driving in London many years ago I should add that those cyclists who treat roads as their personal property—weaving in between traffic with no regard for queues, ignoring traffic signals and threatening the safety of other road users—make a powerful case for tightening the regulation and penalties for cyclists, alongside the case for protecting them better against motorists.
However, I shall focus on another area, which other noble Lords have mentioned, where rebalancing is necessary: the responsibility of cyclists to pedestrians. To adapt the phrase adapted by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, “Four wheels bad, two wheels good, two feet better”. When I represented North Swindon in the other place, one of the issues raised most frequently in the open meetings that I held regularly was the selfish and reckless behaviour of cyclists towards pedestrians, particularly when they cycled on pavements. The elderly, the disabled and parents of very young children felt particularly vulnerable to such behaviour, and were outraged by the contempt shown to them by those who cycle on pavements meant for pedestrians. This is a growing problem. In the last five years for which figures are available, the number of pedestrians who have been killed or injured by cyclists has increased by two-thirds. Although the overall numbers are not large, the trend is clear. As the Department for Transport has said in answer to a Question that I asked:
“These statistics are based on personal injury road accidents that are reported to the police. It is known that a considerable number of personal injury road accidents are unreported; in particular it is known that less serious accidents involving pedal cycles are particularly liable to underreporting”.—[Official Report, 1/12/11; col. WA 90.]
We need to deal with this problem. The fact that cyclists are so often treated with discourtesy and contempt for their safety by motorists is no justification for them to cycle on pavements and treat pedestrians with the same discourtesy and contempt for safety. However, some cyclists, usually younger men—the so-called lycra louts—in my anecdotal experience, seem to believe that the risks they run on the road entitle them to risk the safety of pedestrians on pavements. There is no excuse for this. It is illegal and there is no reason why cyclists who need to cross a pedestrian space should not get off their bikes and wheel them across it.
In response, the Minister may well suggest, as Ministers often do, that this is a matter for the police and local authorities, and so it is. They can be diligent and constructive in addressing this problem and trying to find solutions. In this respect, I pay tribute to Camden councillor Tom Simon and Sergeant Ian Gilks for their efforts in my neighbourhood in London. However, it should not be left to the police and local authorities alone. Central Governments need to ensure that they have the tools they need to do their job.
There is action that the Government can take to mitigate the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, gave some very useful pointers in this direction. I hope that the Government will take advantage of his recommendations and take action on them. Also, increasing penalties for cycling on a footway would send a powerful signal, making it clear that space used primarily by pedestrians is not to be treated as a space shared with cyclists. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether officials will explore these options.
Finally and most importantly, training for young people who will shortly become road users, whether as cyclists, motorists or motorcyclists, to make them aware of their responsibilities to all other road users, including pedestrians, would help tackle cycling on pavements and all the wider problems on the roads. Fatalities and serious injuries are caused predominantly by young people, mainly young men. Appropriate early training could help prevent thousands of personal tragedies every year and save the public purse millions of pounds. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to ask officials to explore with colleagues in other departments how such a training scheme could be developed.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate that has been secured by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I have to say that I am in substantial disagreement with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills.
I start by declaring my interest in and knowledge of bicycling in London. I began working in London in the early 1960s. I used to travel in by train from north Buckinghamshire, have a good journey to Euston and then struggle from Euston to Lincoln’s Inn, by either Tube or bus, each of which was unpleasant and took much longer than it should. Therefore, I began using a bicycle and have used one ever since for the purpose of getting around London. That is now a period of nearly 50 years. On a couple of occasions I have been knocked off my bicycle by cars, although not seriously. The drivers of the cars were enthusiastically remorseful and we parted on good terms. I have never seen a cyclist bang into a pedestrian or a vehicle, and I have never had a cyclist bang into me.
The question for the Government, posed by the noble Lord, relates to the responsibilities of cyclists and motorists. Both have responsibilities in private and public law. The private law responsibilities are that cyclists and motorists alike—and, for that matter, pedestrians—owe a duty of care to all other users of the road that they are using. If there is any breach or alleged breach of that duty by a cyclist, or by a motorist or pedestrian, it is a matter for a judge to resolve. The judge can decide whether the duty of care has been broken and, if so, deal with any damages claim that has arisen from the accident. The law does not need rebalancing; it works perfectly well as it is—so much for private law.
There is also public law, which must be observed by motorists and cyclists. There is, I am afraid, no public law that has to be observed by pedestrians in London, although in some cities abroad pedestrians are required not to cross the road except when the light is green in their favour. As far as I know, there is no such law in this country. However, the law applies to motorists and cyclists alike. They must stop at traffic lights, not go up one-way streets or ride on the pavement, and they must obey speed limits, not that a cyclist is in much of a position to break the speed limit, although many may try. The laws apply to them as they do to motorists.
In my opinion the overriding obligations that cyclists owe to everyone else on the roads are twofold. First, cyclists must do their very best never to bump into a car or be bumped by a car. That means keeping eyes and ears open at all times. Secondly, they must get out of the way of pedestrians wherever the pedestrians may be. Whether the pedestrians are legitimately crossing a road or cyclists are on the pavement with the pedestrians, they must get out of the pedestrians’ way. Those are the two essentials for cyclists in my opinion. If those two essentials are observed, there ought to be no problem and no rebalancing needed.
The enforcement of the public law is, of course, a matter primarily for the police. The police are very sensible about this. As most of them have ridden bicycles themselves in London in their training periods, they know that there are two particular dangers for cyclists. One is at red lights when the cyclist stops as near to the pavement as may be, a vehicle then draws up next to the cyclist, the light turns green and both cyclists and motorists start off at the same time. As I get older I am becoming more aware of the fact that it is almost impossible to start off from a stationary position without some degree of wobble. That is why cyclists try to get ahead of the line of vehicles which have stopped at the red light. They want to start first so that the motorists can see them. I always do that. It means going a few yards ahead of the red light, but no policeman has been silly enough to object to that practice as it is obviously conducive to safety and the avoidance of accidents.
The other danger with which cyclists are presented occurs during the tourist season. Given their experience abroad, foreign tourists naturally expect the traffic to be flowing in the opposite direction from that which applies in this country. Therefore, they step into the road looking to their left for any traffic that is coming instead of looking to their right. If they do that while a cyclist is riding along with a car coming up on one side as well, the cyclist is in a very difficult position. You have to keep your wits about you to avoid banging into these foreign tourists or being banged by the car coming up on your side.
Over the years I have found cycling to and from work in London very enjoyable. One is free of the nuisances of tubes and of buses caught in traffic jams and one is in control of one’s own situation. One arrives at work or at home, depending on the direction in which one is going, a little bit sweaty. That is probably a good thing although one needs to put on a clean shirt when arriving at one’s destination. I would not like to see any government interference with cycling as it operates at the moment. I see plenty of cyclists every day as I go to and fro from my flat in Camden to, formerly, the Royal Courts of Justice and now to this House. Some cyclists go faster than I would go, and I always rather envy them. However, I deprecate the fact that a number of cyclists now ride their bicycles while wearing ear plugs, which enables them to listen to their choice of music. The two things you need when you are on a bicycle are your sight and your ears, so that you can hear what is coming up behind you and you can see what is in front of you. Ear plugs stop you hearing what is coming up behind you. If there was to be any government interference—
Lord Shutt of Greetland
The noble and learned Lord has been speaking for seven minutes. Speeches are time limited to four minutes.
Lord Scott of Foscote
It has just this moment turned five. I will now sit down. However, I hope to be able to continue cycling, as I have done for the past 40 to 50 years.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for an opportunity to participate in this debate. I am not a traffic expert, or knowledgeable about the legal side. What interests me is the wider perspective of the quality of public urban space. The behaviour of and interaction between all road users ought to be a significant aspect of that quality.
If we were to be concerned foremost with how we conceive the urban environment—and we have always had some idea of what that is—it could be argued that the responsibilities of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians might sit very differently according to what the conception is. Our response as a society to road users will carry a tone inevitably based on their current modes of behaviour. I say that because there is mounting evidence that the shared-space schemes being introduced across the world, for many years now in Europe—particularly in Holland; and several in Britain, including the recent Exhibition Road scheme in the heart of London, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the Seven Dials modification that has worked so well for more than 20 years—change people’s behaviour.
I first came across the work of the Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman a couple of years ago in Tom Vanderbilt’s very readable book, Traffic. Sadly, Monderman died in 2008, but he and others such as Ben Hamilton-Baillie in Britain have been keen to remove the hegemony that motorists still largely occupy within the urban space. Monderman indeed called motorists “guests” within what he termed “the social world”, as opposed to the “traffic world” of the motorway. The shared-space movement wishes not only to reduce the level of accidents, but to achieve, as a goal in itself, a closer and more equal relationship between road users by levelling the road surface, including pavements, and removing road markings and signs. Monderman wanted to take out all traffic lights so that all road users could freely negotiate with each other, and so that—this is the important point in terms of this debate—that negotiation becomes the prime responsibility, rather than the need to obey a multitude of externally imposed rules. There are several films on YouTube demonstrating these schemes, including in Drachten in Holland, and Berne in Switzerland. The latter is fascinating to watch because on an urban street with more than 20,000 vehicles a day it is the motorists who give way to the pedestrians.
There have been criticisms of shared space, many of which come from the most vulnerable in society and therefore need to be listened to. However, I agree with those who say that there should be more explanation of the concept itself when schemes are introduced. Shared space is still fundamentally radical. It is against segregation of road users as much as possible, against control, and against aggressive lobbying by all user groups. Apparently, to illustrate his schemes, Hans Monderman would walk backwards into the traffic with his eyes closed—vehicles calmly going around him.
On a serious note concerning the incident in Bristol last year between a bus driver and a cyclist, Veronica Pollard from Life Cycle UK said that motorists and cyclists should,
“be more courteous to each other”.
I agree. Monderman talks about “negotiation” and Ben Hamilton-Baillie about “civility”, but I think that people will not become courteous simply because they are told to do so. Importantly, people cannot be forced to do so through the courts. It is worth contrasting the fast, heavily signed, overdirected and, in fact, normal urban space around the huge Stokes Croft roundabout in Bristol with any of the new schemes. I think that if that district were to be converted into a shared-space environment, such incidents would not occur. One of the things that the shared-space movement is doing is to highlight the particularity of the conventional traditional method of treating urban space, and showing it up as being simply not good enough.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on securing this debate and on introducing it in such a clear way. He is of course right to say there are mutual responsibilities because a cyclist and a motorist share some rare space. Transport makes enormous demands upon space in this crowded island, and we all know that our roads are increasingly crowded, particularly in our great cities. Inevitably, a great deal of this debate has reflected the problems of London in particular.
We should therefore appreciate that cyclists of course have obligations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, indicated their legal obligations that we all know well. He also said that he shaded a little on legal obligations regarding the red light—and I understand the particular demands of two-wheeled traffic. In fact, one of the problems that cyclists face is that far too few motorists have experienced using two wheels and the difficulty there is in balancing a bike and manoeuvring it in limited space.
Cyclists clearly have obligations, certainly when it comes to pedestrians. They need to take the same care with regard to pedestrians crossing roads as those driving motor vehicles are expected to do. Where cyclists break the law by going on pavements, they have a real obligation. It is better that they do not break the law, but we all know the temptation when the so-called cycle lane seems rather more hazardous than normal road space. That can be the case when sunken drains are in the cycle lane and all sorts of other dangers occur, so cyclists are tempted to go on pavements. Their social obligation there is clear, but cyclists cause a very small percentage of accidents.
This debate should highlight public concern about the number of serious accidents to cyclists in recent months. I do not want to exaggerate the matter. We should recognise that our road safety record compares well with other countries, but we should also recognise incipient dangers. Several of them are clear.
One is that large heavy goods vehicles have caused death to our fellow citizens in recent months because the drivers of those vehicles were unaware of the cyclist on their nearside. We need to address that issue. It can be solved by better mirrors for drivers, so that they are more acutely aware of what is on their nearside. It can also be helped by guard rails, which prevent the cyclist, if knocked off the bike by the vehicle, from falling under the wheels, where death or serious injury is almost certain. Is the Minister considering legislation for heavy goods vehicles in view of the recent tragedies from collisions with cyclists?
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, raised his problem with traffic lights. We probably need extra consideration for cyclists at traffic lights. We do that for pedestrians, as we need to in crowded circumstances, where we have crossing lights for pedestrians. We probably need a signal which gives cyclists a pre-emptive start on the rest of the traffic to give them the opportunity to move safely. I know that that will not be universally popular, because we all know that traffic lights slow down traffic, and London traffic is still not going much more quickly than it did a century ago. Nevertheless, safety is important.
I should like the Minister to respond to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Haskel and the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. It shadows what happens at sea, where responsibility is placed on power to take care of sail. In the same way, it seems to me, motor vehicles ought to take greater responsibility than people who are pedalling cycles. If an accident occurs, there should be a presumption that it is for the motorist to be answerable.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Glentoran for introducing this important subject for debate and for the clear way in which he did so. There are two camps in this debate; however, there is no doubt that all noble Lords are concerned about the safety of all vulnerable road users, so that cyclists are safe and that they do not endanger others.
The commendable Cities Fit for Cycling campaign has been spearheaded by the Times newspaper. Its campaign is in response to the tragic accident involving Mary Bowers. I understand that not only was she such a good reporter that she was on the staff of the Times but that she has undertaken highly commendable aid work in Africa. I am sure that we all hope and pray that she can make a recovery.
My noble friend referred to the mayor’s cycling strategy, which is entirely consistent with the coalition Government’s policies. All road accidents are tragedies that strike hard and without warning, so the Government, like our predecessor, are working hard to make highways safer for everyone. In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, since at least 1997 the UK Government have been strongly pro-cycling. For instance, many cyclist fatalities involve large vehicles, so to make cycling safer in our cities and towns we have recently given councils in England the power to install Trixi mirrors at junctions so that HGV drivers can see more at blind spots.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, raised the issue of visibility and sensors. We are leading discussions at a European level to further improve standards for HGVs to help to reduce accidents caused by poor visibility. We also welcome initiatives such as the Exchanging Places events, at which you can sit in a lorry cab and watch for a police cyclist riding up on the left of the vehicle. This gives you an idea of what the lorry driver can see.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, also asked about side guards on HGVs. Most HGVs already have to have side guards, but the noble Lord will be aware that there are some exemptions, particularly construction vehicles, and they have been disproportionately involved in these tragic accidents. Over time, we should see fewer new vehicles without side guards. New European rules that are currently being phased in are stricter than existing GB rules and should reduce the current fairly long list of exemptions from the fitment of side guards, as well as limit exemptions to vehicles where fitting side guards is difficult or impossible.
We are also considering how to make motorists more aware of the needs of cyclists and are looking at how to incorporate more cyclist awareness in the driver certificate of professional competence for drivers of large vehicles.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, advised caution on 20 mile per hour speed limits. Reducing traffic speeds can make our roads safer for everyone and make streets more pleasant places for both cyclists and pedestrians. We are supportive of local authorities adopting a 20 mile per hour speed limit, particularly in residential areas, and have relaxed regulations to enable these to be introduced with less bureaucracy. It is for local authorities to determine their suitability for introduction.
We have also committed £11 million per year for the remainder of this Parliament for Bikeability training to help a new generation of cyclists to gain the skills they need to cycle safely. Bikeability is not just for children; it is for adults too, and some local authorities provide free or subsidised training.
My noble friend Lord Glentoran talked about driver testing. We are committed to further improving the safety of young drivers. Young people ought to learn how to handle risks before taking the driving test. We want a driver training and testing system that ensures that learner drivers have the knowledge, skills and, most importantly, the attitude to be safe and responsible on our roads before a full licence is granted and that encourages continued training afterwards.
I am also well aware that your Lordships are very concerned that all users of the highway should abide by traffic laws. Indeed, I have recently answered Oral Questions about cyclists riding on pavements and going through red lights. Cyclists injure other road users less frequently than do motorists. However, it is important for cyclists to comply with road traffic laws for their own and others’ safety and to help to build respect between the different groups of people using our roads. I fully understand the points made by my noble friend Lady Sharples and the noble Lord, Lord Wills. The noble Lord talked about the problem of the underreporting of accidents. It can be difficult to measure cycling accidents, particularly cyclist-only accidents.
The offences of careless and dangerous driving are applicable to drivers of motor vehicles. For cyclists, there is a similar legal framework, including offences of dangerous cycling, careless and inconsiderate cycling, and cycling under the influence of drink or drugs. Noble Lords will be aware that enforcement in relation to cycling offences is an operational matter for the police. They have at their disposal a variety of sanctions, including the use of fixed penalty notices for some offences, such as cycling on the pavement. Fixed penalty notices can be issued to people aged over 16. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, the most effective deterrent is the probability of sanctions being applied rather than their levels. There is also the problem of some cyclists being ignorant of the law.
The police acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on some roads. This is one reason why, at times, they use their discretion and enforce the offence of cycling on the pavement using verbal warnings. Police and crime commissioners, being elected later this year, will set the strategic direction and accountability for local policing. They can represent public concerns, for example about roads policing, and instigate change locally.
Cycling has many benefits, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Taverne and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. Research suggests that for each life lost through a cycling accident, approximately 20 lives will be extended by the health benefits of cycling. As well as the health benefits, cyclists offer other benefits when they replace vehicle trips, and these include reducing carbon emissions, improving air quality, and reducing congestion. My noble friend Lord Taverne has done the House a great service by explaining the benefits so well.
Last September, my colleague Norman Baker chaired the inaugural Cycling Stakeholder Forum. The forum was set up to gather together expert stakeholders who share our goal of increasing cycling. The group is currently looking at the links with health and how to tackle both the real and perceived risks of cycling. I believe that the next meeting is due on 20 March.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, talked about shared spaces. New guidance to help local authorities to design high-quality shared space schemes was published by the Transport Minister Norman Baker last year. The local transport note on shared space has been developed to assist local authorities that want to put in place well designed shared space schemes. The guidance places particular emphasis on engagement with the local community and on inclusive design, where the needs of a diverse range of people, including people with disabilities, are properly considered at all stages of the development process.
On top of the integrated transport block funding, we are also providing £560 million to local authorities through the local sustainable transport fund to support packages of measures that deliver economic growth and cut carbon: 38 out of the 39 successful bids announced last July included a cycling element. The Government will announce decisions on tranche 2 and large project bids later this year. Last month the Government announced a further £15 million of funding for new cycle infrastructure: £7 million will go to improving facilities at stations for cyclists and £8 million will go to Sustrans to provide better local links by creating new off-road cycle paths or shared-use paths.
My noble friend Lord Glentoran talked about insurance, as did my noble friend Lady Sharples. The Government have no plans to make insurance compulsory for cyclists. We encourage all cyclists to take out some form of insurance, and many do through cycling organisations, such as CTC, which provide it with membership, or through their household insurance. The absence of insurance does not prevent a cyclist from being liable for their actions. The police, and ultimately the courts, will take into account all the circumstances of any incident and judge accordingly.
My noble friend Lord Glentoran mentioned the need for high-visibility clothing. We want to encourage all cyclists to wear high-visibility clothing to help them to stay safe while riding and to make them more conspicuous to other road users. However, to make it a legal requirement would, in certain circumstances, discourage cyclists and many noble Lords have recognised the dangers.
My noble friend Lady Sharples talked about helmets. We want to encourage cyclists, especially children, to wear helmets to protect them if they have a collision. However, we believe that it should be a matter of individual choice, rather than a matter of imposing additional regulations that will be difficult to enforce and, again, could discourage cycling.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and others raised the issue of strict liability. In English civil law, the principle of civil liability in motor insurance is predicated on the establishment of fault. In order to prove fault, it is necessary to prove that the defendant’s actions caused the accident and were either negligent or intentional. We have had the benefit of advice from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, which has saved me the effort of straying outside my area of expertise.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene, because I realise the constraints of time. He will know that in Holland and Denmark, which have been cited in this debate, the presumption of responsibility for the accident lies with the powered vehicle. That issue was raised by several noble Lords and I sought to emphasise it, too. Have the Government considered that matter?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we have considered it, but it would be a little odd to have a completely different legal system just for cycles. There are serious complexities here that in my opinion are insurmountable.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, talked about advanced stop lines. There appears to be some misunderstanding about the law. It is essential that all motorists read the Highway Code to avoid inadvertently committing an offence and therefore being prosecuted by the police.
If I have missed any vital point, I will of course write to noble Lords. In conclusion, I can assure the House that we are committed both to promoting cycling and to improving road safety for all road users, including cyclists.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that there have been discussions between the usual channels since last we considered the Bill earlier this evening, as a result of which I understand that, when Amendments 16, 17 and 18 are called, it may be that they will not be moved, but that is of course a decision for the noble Lords concerned. The first substantive amendment may therefore be Amendment 19. The House will then by agreement rise after it has considered government Amendment 73.
Lord Beecham
“Consumer(1) Civil legal services provided in respect of consumer law disputes.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), civil legal services includes advice and assistance at all stages.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the amendment would bring consumer law back into scope. Consumer law does not simply cover small issues that perhaps citizens advice bureaux or other organisations could speedily resolve. It can relate to much more significant claims: for example, professional negligence claims against members of my profession, against the professions of other noble Lords in the Chamber at the moment—heaven forfend—or against those who have custody of their clients’ money in investment funds. I refer to people like Michael Brown, the well known donor to the Liberal Democrats, who managed to make off with £2.5 million of other people’s money. There is a range of cases for which legal advice and assistance is clearly very important.
In consulting on these matters, the Government made the obvious point that these cases are not of the same gravity as—to use a term that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, used earlier—issues of safety and liberty. That of course is true but does not take us very far. They can certainly affect people’s lives as well as their fortunes very substantially. A range of claims might be brought that would be entirely out of scope and where, even if conditional fee agreements were obtainable —as they might be—questions would then arise about success fees, premiums and the like.
It is incumbent on the Government to look again at the issue and acknowledge that, while generally these are not matters that threaten life and liberty, they can make a significant difference to a great many people in our society, and that there will often—though not always—be a requirement for legal advice and representation. In Committee, much was made of the funding that the Government had already announced, which was again foreshadowed tonight with reference to possible similar sums over the next two or three years. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith mentioned, many organisations are already facing significant cuts in their funding—particularly Citizens Advice, law centres and the like—at a time when demand for their services, even before the changes in the legal aid system come in, is already rising.
I therefore hope that the Minister will feel able to indicate a reconsideration of the position as of tonight or, failing that, will agree to take this away and bring it back at Third Reading in the hope that we can accommodate the very real needs of many people who face considerable financial and, potentially, other losses as a result of failure on the part of those with whom they contract to deliver what is expected of them. I beg to move.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has moved his amendment to make civil legal services available for consumer disputes. It will come as no surprise to him that in response to a similar amendment in Committee we explained, and I do not apologise for repeating it because it is at the core of the architecture of the Bill, that in developing our reforms we have focused legal aid on those who need it most and for the most serious cases in which it is justified.
I recognise that there will be some difficult cases—for example, consumer matters that are concerned with financial matters—but we nevertheless consider that their relative importance is lower compared with, for example, issues of safety and liberty. Issues of safety and liberty are of the highest importance. That is why, in having to make these kinds of decisions, we have removed legal aid from consumer disputes. Moreover, we also note that, particularly in this sphere, there are other sources of advice; for example, trading standards and Consumer Direct. There may be alternative non-court-based solutions in some cases through regulators and ombudsmen. I do not think they can be as lightly dismissed as sometimes they are. Any consumer matter that concerns alleged contravention of the Equality Act 2010 will be within scope.
As was indicated in an earlier debate, the Government will provide additional funding to the not-for-profit sector in the Budget, and it is often a sector that has a role to play in areas such as this. It will be made available within the current spending review period. I understand that the Cabinet Office review is expected to conclude shortly and will provide recommendations on proposals to secure the long-term sustainability of the sector. I hope that the House will allow this important work to reach its conclusion.
There is consistency in our responses. When lines have to be drawn and decisions taken about what should or should not be within scope, we believe that higher priority should be given to some of the areas I have indicated. In these circumstances, consumer matters do not fall within the area we believe should be within scope. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I remain disappointed in that response. There is potentially a huge range of claims that might be made. Some of them are minimal and perfectly capable of being disposed of in the way the noble and learned Lord referred to. Other are clearly of a different order altogether. Negligence advice from a solicitor, accountant, architect or other professional person can be very costly to individuals who may not be able to afford litigation. Even if they recover using CFAs, they will potentially lose a significant slice of the amount they have already lost. I do not think that is just, and it again reinforces the impression that the Government are giving that they are content with, effectively, a two-tier system of justice from which many people will be excluded. It is most unfortunate, but clearly in the circumstances and in the light of the time, there is not much point in seeking to test the opinion of the House. Accordingly, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Before the noble Lord sits down, I may say that he is developing a very fine line in insulting jibes. I did not hear any mention of Brown in anything that he said in presenting his submission or in his reply.
Lord Beecham
I do not quite understand the relevance of that observation. I mentioned Brown. I am sorry if it offended the noble Lord. Mr Brown has offended a great many people.
Lord Beecham
“Education(1) Civil legal services provided in respect of education law disputes.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), civil legal services includes advice and assistance at all stages.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment deals with education. It is right to say that, having consulted—although perhaps not initially—the Department for Education, the Government have amended their original proposals to bring special educational needs within scope. I very much welcome that.
However, there are significant problems in the education world that require assistance. These include school exclusions, admissions issues and bullying. In fact, at the moment there is a significant workload that potentially falls within scope. If the Government do not move their position, some 2,800 fewer clients will be given advice on educational law matters, and a small number—only 70 but for them it is important—would fail to obtain representation on such matters.
Clearly there are potentially significant issues around admissions which affect different categories of children disproportionately; for example, refugee and asylum-seeker children, for whom there is often a difficulty in obtaining places. Sometimes by definition these children arrive mid-year; they do not always arrive at convenient times for the academic year. Sometimes schools may have difficulty in admitting pupils with perhaps little educational experience or poor language skills. Equally, some of these children are more susceptible to bullying and racism than perhaps would normally be the case.
In any event, bullying is not confined to that group. It is common, unfortunately, in many schools. Some years ago, Bullying UK discovered that 87 per cent of parents sampled reported that children had been bullied. Of course, these will not all be serious matters but there will be cases where sometimes it is necessary for people to seek assistance and redress for incidents of that kind.
The Government consulted on all these matters publicly. They restricted their changes to the proposals to special educational needs. However, given that there is not a vast number of cases, where there are difficulties of this kind it seems proper that legal advice—and, if necessary, in a very small number of cases, representation —should be available. Again, we are talking about children. They have cropped up regularly this evening and in earlier debates as a group that we have to have special regard for.
Again, I hope that the Government will consider building on their welcome amendment on special educational needs to afford the possibility of advice and representation to these other categories. That would be welcome to those who suffer from bullying and would assist the education system in dealing with what can be very difficult problems. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, perhaps I might intervene briefly on this matter. I have experienced quite a number of cases involving educational law and I notice that this amendment is very widely drawn, potentially embracing all sorts of disputes.
It has to be said that the support of legal aid for educational law disputes has not been the finest hour of the LSC. In particular, I can speak from experience of three cases in the Supreme Court and a whole rash of cases alleging educational negligence, almost none of which were successful, which cost the taxpayer an enormous amount of money. Although well intentioned on the part of the claimants, these cases turned out to be expensive, unsuccessful and, quite frankly, misconceived.
I am very concerned about the width of this amendment, notwithstanding the fact that there are some areas, which I think are covered by the government amendment, where it is plainly appropriate that there should be support.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, Amendment 20 would bring back into scope all education matters not already covered by Schedule 1. We have retained legal aid for any educational case that involves a contravention of the Equality Act 2010, such as cases concerning disability discrimination. We have also retained current legal aid funding for appeals on special educational needs matters and for educational judicial reviews. In practice, this amendment would retain legal aid for all education matters. The judgment we have made in prioritising funding is that SEN, discrimination and judicial review are of the highest priority and that advice on such matters as exclusions and damages claims are not.
Where parents are not satisfied with an admissions refusal, they can appeal to an independent panel. This requires them to set out in writing why they disagree with the admissions decision and why they think that the admissions arrangements have not been followed correctly. These are not usually legal arguments. Parents who wish to challenge a temporary or permanent exclusion may do so by writing a letter to the school governors setting out their reasons for challenging the exclusion. If parents are unhappy with the decision to permanently exclude their child, they will be able to appeal.
From September 2012, such an appeal will be to the independent review panel. The Department for Education will fund the children’s legal centre to provide advice to parents on appeals to the independent review panel both online and through a telephone advice line. Parents can also appeal to the First-tier Tribunal if the appeal concerns disability discrimination and legal aid is being retained for advice and assistance in such cases.
Advice is also available on admission and exclusion matters from the Advisory Centre for Education and the Children’s Legal Centre. Education negligence claims have been excluded from scope, along with most other damages claims, because we do not consider that claims for money will generally be of the highest priority. We have therefore focused legal aid on only those money claims which concern a significant breach of human rights, an abuse of a position of power by a public authority, an abuse of a child or vulnerable adult, or sexual assault. The vast majority of education negligence claims will not fall under one of these three headings. For many meritorious cases, a conditional fee agreement will provide a suitable alternative funding arrangement. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that we have focused resources on education cases of the highest priority and that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
The two technical government amendments in this group fulfil the promise we made in Committee concerning SEN provisions. These amendments ensure that SEN matters are fully within the scope of the Bill and, specifically, that learning difficulty assessments are captured by our provisions on scope. As we stated in Committee, the Government accept that the existing wording in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 does not cover the provision of advice and assistance in relation to the making of learning difficulty assessments under the Learning and Skills Act 2000 for 16 to 25 year-olds. These amendments ensure that these services are brought within the Bill’s scope.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has made a valid point about education negligence cases. I think the consultation revealed that some respondents were quite supportive of excluding that, which I quite accept would be a sensible measure. The Government’s report on the key issues raised referred to suggestions by others that often difficult admission cases arose where clients were, for example, Travellers. The exclusion of education admission matters could prevent discrimination claims from being brought because it would take legal advice to identify that the clients had grounds for discrimination claims. Equally, lack of early advice could ultimately lead to the more expensive procedures of judicial review.
It is unfortunate that the Government do not at this stage wish to move. I clearly will not press the matter and hope that it can be kept under review perhaps, more particularly, in conjunction with the department rather than simply by the Ministry of Justice. As I understand it, there has been a little disconnection between the two on these issues thus far. For the future, I hope that that is something that could be repaired. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
“Vulnerable young people1 (1) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings under this paragraph where the applicant or respondent is aged twenty four or under, and—
(a) has a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010;(b) is a former relevant child care leaver by reference to the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000;(c) is a victim of trafficking; or(d) is a vulnerable person as specified by regulations; or(e) otherwise falls within the categories of vulnerable young people which the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations.(2) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to private family law,
(3) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to any benefit, allowance, payment, credit or pension under—
(a) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;(b) the Jobseekers Act 1995;(c) the State Pension Credit Act 2002;(d) the Tax Credits Act 2002;(e) the Welfare Reform Act 2007;(f) the Welfare Reform Act 2012; or(g) any other enactment relating to social security.(4) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to section 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (assessments relating to learning difficulties) and all areas of education law not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(5) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of employment law not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(6) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of housing law not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(7) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of law related to personal debt not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(8) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of immigration and asylum law not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(9) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of clinical negligence law not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(10) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of consumer law not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(11) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to appeals to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
(12) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to a review or appeal under sections 11 or 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
(13) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to an appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I wish to move the amendment so that I can make a brief statement on the subject.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes)
If the noble Baroness has started to speak to her amendment, she must move it.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
What I wanted to say is that I am of course sad that this amendment cannot be debated tomorrow or on the next day of the Report stage because it is the sort of amendment that would have had the kind of support that was given to amendments taken earlier today. It has a modest aim to help those with a disability, those who have been in care, young people who are victims of trafficking and, above all, young people aged between 18 and 24. That group needs special help to get them through to adult life as more satisfied people in themselves and at less of a cost to the community. However, I accept that the usual channels have not arrived at such an agreement, so I apologise to the many groups who support this amendment—including the Children’s Commissioner for England. It is strange that one is not able to satisfy their desire as I would have wished by testing the opinion of the House, but I accept that now is not the time to do that.
I would like the opportunity to discuss this issue further with the Minister. He seems very happy to see people even though he is not that keen on giving assurances that things will change as a result, but I would still like that opportunity.
The Deputy Speaker
Having spoken to her amendment, does the noble Baroness wish to move it? That will give noble Lords a chance to reply.
Lord McNally
I am always delighted to see the noble Baroness and I will certainly meet her to discuss this further, but with the rather grim caveats that I gave when we considered it earlier. In the circumstances, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“Social entitlement(1) Civil legal services and advocacy in appeals from the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court where the relevant court or tribunal certifies that—
(a) the appeal raises a complex issue of law or of fact (in which case the certificate must identify the issue),(b) the matter is one of significant wider public interest (in which case the certificate must identify that interest), or(c) there is some other compelling reason why the proper conduct of the appeal requires the provision of civil legal services (in which case the certificate must set out the reason).(2) Rules of procedure applicable to the relevant court or tribunal may make provision about certificates under this paragraph.”
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, Amendment 22 and Amendment 78 are concerned with appeals in social welfare and immigration cases. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for paving the way to this earlier today. They seek to secure legal aid for appeals in welfare cases from the Social Entitlement Chamber and the Immigration Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. By Clause 9 of the Bill, civil legal services other than Part 1 services are made available where the Director of Legal Aid Casework has made an exceptional case determination and, of course, an individual’s means qualify. The tests of exceptionality as we have known them in the law, and as have previously been applied by the Legal Services Commission and indeed by the then Minister, Lord Bach, in person as he did from time to time, are no longer relevant. That is because an exceptional case determination is precisely defined in Clause 9(3). Exceptionality is directly linked to any case where the failure to provide civil legal services would be a breach of the European covenant rights—EU rights—or where there is a risk of such a breach.
I seek to persuade your Lordships that there can be no clearer case of a breach, or at least the risk of a breach of Article 6 rights, than in appeals from the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal or beyond if the litigant in person is opposed at the hearing by a government legal team of counsel and/or solicitors. This is particularly so since appeals are permitted only on a point of law and the litigant in person will be required to argue legal points for which he is by no means qualified. No appeal can be brought to the Upper Tribunal without the leave of the First-tier Tribunal, nor can appeals be brought to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court without leave. At each stage, leave has to be obtained. The mechanism is already in place for the judges who tried the case and heard all the facts to determine not just whether there is sufficient merit in the appeal on a point of law to go forward but to determine whether the issues are complex. Who better to judge whether a matter is complex than the judge who has tried the case? It is a small step to amend the rules to require them to certify whether or not the issues are complex.
Lord Bach
Very briefly, we agree in principle with the noble Lord and his amendments. After today, the Bill will have Amendment 12 in it. That deals with welfare benefit appeals and is phrased in a rather different way from Amendments 22 and 78, although Amendment 22 is on the social entitlement chamber and talks about the same sort of appeals as the House passed in Amendment 12. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say on that position and the points that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has made.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford would seek to provide legal aid for all onward appeals on issues arising from a social entitlement chamber. My understanding is that that would be advice on matters of asylum support, criminal injuries compensation and welfare benefit. I am not able to judge offhand whether it covers the whole extent of what was passed earlier this evening by your Lordships but we are in the same area.
My first point is that the amendment would go beyond the existing scope of civil legal aid to the extent that it would allow legal aid for advocacy in the Upper Tribunal on welfare benefit, asylum support and criminal injury matters. We are restricting legal aid and I ask my noble friend to bear that in mind. It is the case that legal aid for legal representation has never been routinely available for the Upper Tribunal for matters of welfare benefit, asylum support or criminal injuries compensation. An estimate has been made that to do so could cost up to £7 million per year.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Is that on the basis of an assessment of how many cases a judge would declare complex? I propose a filter for these cases; only those that are complex should go there.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is the point I was about to make. It is possibly based on the majority of cases currently going to the Upper Tribunal. As my noble friend rightly points out, we perhaps do not know how many cases would be certified as complex. That is an unknown unknown. I think my noble friend gets the point I am trying to make: we do not know that.
My noble friend makes an important point that the complexity of those cases arising out of the social entitlement chamber would be one factor that could engage Article 6 and lead into the exceptional funding in Clause 9. That exceptional funding is intended to take account of Article 6 issues. As he indicated in moving his amendment, that would require taking into consideration the complexity of each individual case considered under Clause 9. He indicated that that could lead to a waste of resources and he asked what was lost were a judge to make the determination rather than a legal aid director. One possible response is that the director’s determination under Clause 9 is whether the case is such that the refusal of legal aid would be a breach. Clearly, each case would have to be determined on its individual merits.
We move on to bringing into scope cases which are certified to be of significant wider public interest. Under the current legal aid scheme, there is a rule that allows any excluded case other than a business case to be brought back into scope if it is of significant wider public interest. As I have indicated previously, the Government do not intend to include such a rule in the civil legal aid scheme created by the Bill.
My noble friend also made a point that I wish to reflect on. I think he referred to the Cart case in terms of judicial review. If one were to go down that route, where legal aid would be available, the balance would be in terms of costs as opposed to what he proposes, where there would be a possibility of certification of a case in the significant wider public interest.
Without being in a position to make any commitment as to the outcome, on the point that the noble Lord raised—as well as the point that he made that not all cases would necessarily qualify that went to the Upper Tribunal or beyond—I have discussed the issue with my noble friend Lord McNally and we would be willing to consider this further if the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment. However, I make it clear that I cannot guarantee that he will necessarily ultimately get the result that he wants. But he has raised matters that I want to reflect on and pursue further. I include the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in that. There are important legal issues at stake.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I ask him to add this point to his deliberation. If the judge who has tried the case and knows all the facts and circumstances certifies that it is complex, the case can go forward on its merits to the Upper Tribunal under what I am suggesting. If the judicial review procedure is followed, an application for leave will be made to the Upper Tribunal, so that whoever sits in the Upper Tribunal has to determine first of all whether leave can be granted in this particular case. It happens in criminal courts all the time that cases go forward on the basis of a certificate from the judge, from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court in particular. The particular judge is in so much better a position to decide whether this is a case that merits a certificate and whether the merits of the case are such that it should be given permission to go up. That is a far better situation than the one whereby the defeated applicant applies for leave for judicial review to a judge in the Upper Tribunal who has to spend his time considering the papers put in front of him. If the noble and learned Lord has any contact with members of the judiciary, he will know that one thing that they do not like doing is to wade through piles of applications for judicial review from scratch to try to determine whether there is a point worth arguing in the administrative court. So there is a practical side to it that I suggest he should take into consideration. I am grateful to him for his response and on that basis hope to have further discussion and, perhaps, return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
(a) ”
“(b) assessments relating to learning difficulties under sections 139A and 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000.”
(a) ”
(b) ”
“( ) The services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include services provided in relation to clinical negligence.”
Lord McNally
“(ja) section 2 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (services for carers);”
Lord McNally
My Lords, stakeholders have drawn it to our attention that the definition of community care service in the Bill is incomplete. We are expanding it to ensure that currently funded legal services in relation to community care remain eligible for funding under the new regime. These amendments will bring within the scope of civil legal aid services provided in relation to Section 2 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which covers community care services to carers, and Part 1 of the Housing Grants, Constructions and Regeneration Act 1996, which covers facilities grants to enable disabled people to live independently in their homes. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we welcome the Minister’s amendments and are glad that an error has been repaired.
Lord McNally
“Facilities for disabled persons6A (1) Civil legal services provided in relation to grants under Part 1 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 for the provision of facilities for disabled persons.
Exclusions(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Parts 2 and 3 of this Schedule.
Definitions(3) In this paragraph “disabled person” has the meaning given in section 100 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, there are three amendments here that relate to internal child abduction. Noble Lords may well know that international child abduction is governed by the Hague convention, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. There is a well established procedure for dealing with a child wrongfully removed from any part of the UK to a foreign country. There are emergency hearings before a High Court judge and the attempt at recovery process then takes over. That process is well known and well established.
There is no such procedure for internal child abduction within the UK, although we operate three separate legal processes in the three jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A child may be taken wrongfully from Exeter to Belfast, Glasgow or even Carlisle, which may be just as upsetting or traumatic as abduction to France or Sweden. Removal from home, school, friends and security, and fleeing with a parent who is often acting irresponsibly and removing the child wrongfully, is certainly not in the best interests of the child. It is also traumatic for the left-behind parent, who has no idea what happened to the child or even whether he or she will ever see that child again. The decision for a child’s future should be made sensibly and responsibly.
Where there are two parents, each with parental responsibility, one parent cannot up and go with the child to live elsewhere without the consent of the other parent—I do not think that all parents know that—and even more so when the parents are separated and one parent has a residence or custody order. Under the Bill’s proposals, though, there is no provision for legal aid for the left-behind parent to find out where the child has gone, whether the child is safe and how to put into effect a process similar to that employed if the child has gone abroad. Quite simply, I am asking that there should be exactly the same process internally within the United Kingdom as there is externally for abduction to a foreign country.
I am extremely grateful to the Lord Chancellor, who asked to see me on this issue, and to the Minister for seeing the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, and the chairman of the Family Law Bar Association. As I understand it, the Government recognise the problem and that it requires a solution. I suspect that the only issue between us is how far they will go, because there are two aspects to the issue of internal child abduction: one is the recovery of the child but the other is the prevention of the removal of the child. Consequently, one needs both the prohibited steps order or a specific issue order and the location order, sometimes called “seek and find”, or a recovery order involving the tipstaff and the police—the police will not act unless there is an order—asking various agencies for addresses and going through the well known process that happens internationally but not nationally.
There is no reason why the international system should not apply internally, and I understand that the Government accept that. It is important that the whole process should be applied. I make it clear that it is intended only to stop the child being removed, to get the child back or at least to know that they are safe and properly cared for. It is not intended to be a backdoor entry into private-law family cases. Everyone understands that in a situation in which it is known where the child is—perhaps a social worker in the area finds the child with grandparents and says that the child is perfectly safe—the legal aid will drop at that moment. It would be the responsibility of the left-behind parent or the parent who has wrongfully removed the child to go to court. They would then be on their own, like any other couple in dispute over their children.
The process for which I seek legal aid is purely and simply connected to potential or actual abduction. I repeat without apology that I am asking for the process for abduction throughout the United Kingdom to be exactly as the same as the international process under the Hague convention. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment gives me a sense of déjà vu. More than 30 years ago, I acted for a father whose three children were in effect abducted by his wife and removed to Scandinavia in flagrant breach of undertakings and a court order. The case was tried by a Mr Justice Faulks. I do not know whether he was any relation of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who is not now in his place. It was a tragic case; the father lost virtually all contact with his two daughters, although his son eventually returned of his own volition. It exemplifies the kind of family tragedy that can occur when one party flouts all legal responsibilities.
I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness on bringing these amendments forward. Since there is a sympathetic reaction from the Government, I hope that the Minister will undertake to bring this back at Third Reading to resolve the matter satisfactorily. It seems axiomatic that the same procedure should, as the noble and learned Baroness suggests, apply whether the abduction is outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts or within one of the three jurisdictions that obtain. It looks as though the Government are minded to accede to that. I very much hope that an indication can be given that this will be resolved at Third Reading.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as she has indicated, the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, concern legal aid for measures to prevent the unlawful removal of a child within the United Kingdom and for taking steps to remedy such a removal. They would add to similar existing legal provisions for legal aid to prevent and remedy the unlawful removal of children from the United Kingdom. It is important to stress that unauthorised removal from the United Kingdom is a crime, whereas, as has been acknowledged in this debate, one parent taking a child to another part of the United Kingdom without consent is not. Trying to navigate a foreign jurisdiction in a foreign language without a lawyer would also be considerably more difficult than trying to do something similar in the United Kingdom.
That said, the noble and learned Baroness has, as ever, made a powerful and persuasive case. We have indicated that in future people should, subject to various important exceptions, be able to deal with their family matters themselves, without the benefit of taxpayer-funded legal aid. However, I certainly recognise that if you cannot even find your child because they are in the hands of an ex-husband, ex-wife or estranged partner, it may seem impossible even to begin that process. The emotional stress on people in such situations can be immense. Therefore, we are sympathetic to the concerns of the noble and learned Baroness, particularly the proposals to make legal aid available for Section 33 and Section 34 orders under the Family Law Act 1986 —that is, the seek and find orders and the recovery orders.
Seek and find orders allow a court to compel someone who might reasonably know where a child is to tell the court. The court will then judge whether this information should be passed on to the left-behind parent. Obviously, if there are safety issues it might not be advisable to do so. Refusal to impart that information is treated as contempt. Thankfully, Section 34 orders are somewhat rarer, but they give the police powers to recover a child forcibly in emergency situations. As the noble and learned Baroness identified, we are not yet convinced that the associated prohibited steps and specific issue orders require funding. The same applies to registering an order made in one part of the United Kingdom in another part.
I fully accept that the noble and learned Baroness is not trying to find a backdoor entry into private law matters. However, our concern, and the reason we are not yet convinced about this, is that these orders get us much more into funding a family case as a whole, including by preventing relocation. The issue here is that many cases involving children are in fact arguments about where a parent with residence might reasonably live and the effect that will have on contact for the other parent. Therefore, when we talk about prevention in this context, that is the kind of situation we are talking about. I know that the noble and learned Baroness, from her vast experience, would see it as that. However, sometimes when members of the public talk about prevention orders, they have an image of stopping a child being bundled into the back of a car. That is sometimes the description conjured up by “domestic child abduction”.
If the noble and learned Baroness is willing to withdraw this amendment, the Government will table at Third Reading a similar amendment that covers Section 33 and Section 34 orders, for international abduction as well as domestic. I am happy for officials in the Ministry of Justice to continue discussions with the noble and learned Baroness, which I know have been ongoing, as she acknowledged, on the exact drafting of that amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I am very grateful to the Minister for what he has said, although it does not go quite as far as those who undertake these cases nowadays feel is necessary. I have had extensive experience of these cases as only High Court judges tried them in the past. I think that only High Court judges or deputy High Court judges try the international ones nowadays. That is an indication of the importance that is attached to these cases.
Given where the noble and learned Lord comes from, I have to say that in the past there have been real problems in getting a child back from Scotland who has been removed by a parent without the consent of the other parent. The process is not simple. I have not had a similar experience with Northern Ireland, but I am sure that these cases must arise there occasionally. As noble Lords know, those are different jurisdictions; that is the problem. I am very happy with where we have got so far, but I would like to get a little further. I am grateful for the opportunity to continue to discuss this matter not only with the noble and learned Lord but with his officials. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
(a) there has been, or is a risk of, domestic violence between A and B, and(b) A was, or is at risk of being, the victim of that domestic violence.”
Lord McNally
Baroness Butler-Sloss
““abuse” means any incident or repeated incidents of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional, and including acts of neglect, maltreatment, exploitation or acts of omission) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality;”
Lord McNally
““domestic violence” means threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between individuals who are associated with each other;”
Baroness Butler-Sloss
“( ) For the purposes of this paragraph, evidence that abuse has occurred may consist of one or more of the following (without limitation)—
(a) a relevant court conviction or police caution;(b) a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders), including a non-molestation undertaking or order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction; (c) evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic violence;(d) evidence that a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference, as a high risk victim of domestic violence, and a plan has been put in place to protect that victim from violence by the other party;(e) a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic violence by the other party giving rise to the risk of harm to the victim;(f) a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming that the applicant has injuries or a condition consistent with being a victim of domestic violence;(g) a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she has examined the applicant and is satisfied that the applicant had injuries or a condition consistent with those of a victim of domestic violence; (h) an undertaking given to a court by the alleged perpetrator of the abuse that he or she will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse;(i) a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in providing services to the applicant in respect of allegations of domestic violence;(j) a letter of support or a report from a domestic violence support organisation; or(k) other well-founded documentary evidence of abuse, such as from a counsellor, midwife, school or witness.”
“( ) For the avoidance of doubt, no time limit shall operate in relation to any evidence supporting an application for civil legal services under paragraphs 10 and 11.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss
“Exceptional family proceedings(1) Civil legal services provided in relation to a family dispute with respect to the upbringing of a child, including orders mentioned in section 8(1) of the Children Act 1989 (residence, contact and other orders) and special guardianship orders under that Act, where an assessor for mediation (competent to carry out publicly funded assessment) certifies that the case is unsuitable for mediation having regard to any significant harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering; and in this paragraph “family dispute” has the same meaning as in paragraph 12.
Exclusions
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Parts 2 and 3 of this Schedule.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, which, as I said, was rather oddly included in the first group of amendments. I am not entirely sure what the Minister was offering. I would therefore like to read Hansard rather carefully to find out what he was offering and, if necessary, bring the amendment back at Third Reading if I am not happy with his comments, as I fear I may not be. For the moment, however, I shall not press the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“Best interests of patients16A Civil legal services provided in relation to any question whether particular medical treatment is in the best interests of a person who is incapable of giving or withholding consent to such treatment.
Exclusions16B Paragraph 16A is subject to the exclusions in Parts 2 and 3 of this Schedule.
Definitions16C For the purposes of this paragraph “medical treatment” has the same meaning as in the Mental Health Act 1983.”
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I moved this amendment in Committee. It is concerned with people who tragically are in a vegetative state and require an application to the court for the withholding of nutrition and/or treatment. I said everything that I needed to say in Committee and I wait to hear what further thoughts the Minister may have had. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I congratulated the noble Lord on moving this important amendment in Committee, where he raised a particularly moving case. I congratulate him on raising the matter again on Report. I hope that the Minister will produce a satisfactory answer.
In Committee I raised a different point—perhaps not as clearly as I might have done—based on advice that MIND provides for patients. The point was not in relation to treatment for a mental health disorder, which of course would be covered by the Mental Health Acts and which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out would remain within scope. However, there may be a question regarding someone who suffers from a mental health disorder but whose treatment is for a physical problem, not for that disorder. The MIND briefing to patients states:
“Specifically, the laws in Part IV of the MHA on treating people without consent, only apply to treatment for mental disorder. They do not apply to the treatment of physical disorders unless it can reasonably be said that the physical disorder is a symptom or underlying cause of a mental disorder”.
A situation may be arising there in which the provision of legal advice would not be within scope because it is not for treating the mental health disorder.
I appreciate that an off-the-cuff answer might not be immediately available on that point, and I may have got it entirely wrong. However, such a situation strikes me as a possibility emerging from this briefing. So while I would certainly encourage the Minister to endorse the amendment of his noble friend, I would also ask him to undertake to look at the point that I have raised and, if necessary, to bring something back at Third Reading.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in Committee, and I do so again now. As I said then, I had experience, at one time, of trying the majority of permanent vegetative state cases. I fear that there will be a small number of cases that are extraordinarily difficult to decide, where the families are placed in an agonising position. They really ought to have the opportunity to be heard in the court and to deal with this matter. Such cases are rare but very important. I very much support the proposal that something should be done about this.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the amendment seeks to insert a paragraph to provide legal aid for cases concerning whether medical treatment is in the best interests of those incapable of giving or withholding consent. As my noble friend Lord Thomas explained, he also tabled this amendment in Committee, where I think it was established that the matters envisaged by the amendment would in fact already fall within the scope of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1.
However, my noble friend also took the opportunity to speak about the wider issues and asked that I consider the observations made by the judge in the case of W against M and others—in particular, whether an exception could be made to provide free legal aid for mental incapacity cases which concerned the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from a family member. Although it would not be right to comment on the specifics of any particular case, I understand the concern that such a case can raise. However, we do not plan to abolish means-testing for cases involving the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. The means test for legal aid is intended to focus our limited resources on those who need them most and takes into account the applicant’s income and any capital they may hold. Those who fall outside the financial eligibility limits are expected to rely on their resources to fund their case. However, if an applicant's circumstances change, they can apply for legal aid funding. I therefore urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
On the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, if he would like to send me the briefing that he has received, I will certainly check on it, write to him and put the letter in the Library of the House.
In the mean time, although I know that my noble friend will be disappointed by my reply, means-testing for legal aid is intended to focus our limited resources on those who need them most.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I am indeed disappointed by the Minister’s response, but it seems to me that he has accepted that applications of this sort fall within paragraph 5, and that is on the record. I am disappointed that means tests come into a case of this nature; it seems to me utterly heartless that it should be like that, particularly when the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has pointed out how difficult those cases are. They are heart-rending for the people concerned and for the judge who has to try such issues, not to mention all those who are involved in presenting evidence.
I shall not press the matter, but I register my view that the Government ought to have taken a more generous view on this small number of cases.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as has been said several times, the Government’s intention is to retain legal aid for most judicial review cases, given the important role of this procedure in holding public authorities to account. Responding to concerns raised in Committee, not least by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, Amendment 48 puts beyond doubt that legal aid will be available for any judicial review concerning death, personal injury, damage to property and Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority payments.
Secondly, the amendment disapplies exclusions which prevent tort claims generally being funded under the Bill, so that where a claim for damages is made in the context of a judicial review, the grant of legal aid would cover the work associated with the damages aspect of the claim. Where a damages claim is brought separately from judicial review proceedings, legal aid would not be available unless the claim concerned abuse of a child or vulnerable adult, an abuse of a position of power, a significant human rights breach by a public authority or a sexual assault. That is again in accordance with our intention to focus limited resources on the highest priority cases.
Amendments 81 to 85 make it clear that the exclusions in paragraphs 2 to 5 and 8 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 are intended to exclude a claim in tort in respect of the matters set out in those paragraphs. I hope that that clarifies the position. There was a lack of clarity before, and I hope that the amendments address that. I beg to move.
“(5) The services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include services provided in relation to judicial review in respect of an issue relating to immigration where—
(a) the same issue, or substantially the same issue, was the subject of a previous judicial review or an appeal to a court or tribunal,(b) on the determination of the previous judicial review or appeal (or, if there was more than one, the latest one), the court, tribunal or other person hearing the case found against the applicant or appellant on that issue, and(c) the services in relation to the new judicial review are provided before the end of the period of 1 year beginning with the day of that determination.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, my noble friend Lord McNally has sent your Lordships details of a group of minor and technical amendments which the Government have tabled to Part 1 of the Bill. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Library for the convenience of the House. Amendments 49 to 57 are in that group. I beg to move.
“(7A) Sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) do not exclude services provided in relation to judicial review of removal directions in respect of an individual where prescribed conditions relating to either or both of the following are met—
(a) the period between the individual being given notice of the removal directions and the proposed time for his or her removal;(b) the reasons for proposing that period.”
““an issue relating to immigration” includes an issue relating to rights described in paragraph 26 of this Part of this Schedule;”
(a) ”
(b) ”
“Specific exclusion( ) The services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include services provided in relation to clinical negligence.”
(a) ”
(b) ”
“Specific exclusion( ) The services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include services provided in relation to clinical negligence.”
“Clinical negligence and severely disabled infants20A (1) Civil legal services provided in relation to a claim for damages in respect of clinical negligence which caused a neurological injury to an individual (“V”) as a result of which V is severely disabled, but only where the first and second conditions are met.
(2) The first condition is that the clinical negligence occurred—
(a) while V was in his or her mother’s womb, or(b) during or after V’s birth but before the end of the following period—(i) if V was born before the beginning of the 37th week of pregnancy, the period of 8 weeks beginning with the first day of what would have been that week;(ii) if V was born during or after the 37th week of pregnancy, the period of 8 weeks beginning with the day of V’s birth.(3) The second condition is that—
(a) the services are provided to V, or(b) V has died and the services are provided to V’s personal representative.General exclusions (4) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to—
(a) the exclusions in Part 2 of this Schedule, with the exception of paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 8, and(b) the exclusion in Part 3 of this Schedule.Definitions(5) In this paragraph—
“birth” means the moment when an individual first has a life separate from his or her mother and references to an individual being born are to be interpreted accordingly;
“clinical negligence” means breach of a duty of care or trespass to the person committed in the course of the provision of clinical or medical services (including dental or nursing services);
“disabled” means physically or mentally disabled;
“personal representative”, in relation to an individual who has died, means—
(a) a person responsible for administering the individual’s estate under the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, or(b) a person who, under the law of another country or territory, has functions equivalent to those of administering the individual’s estate.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss
“Victim of trafficking of people for exploitation(1) Civil legal services provided to a victim of trafficking of people for exploitation for—
(a) a claim for compensation in the Employment Tribunal, or(b) a claim for personal damages relating to being trafficked for exploitation.(2) In this paragraph “victim of trafficking of people for exploitation” means a person who has been identified as a victim of—
(a) an offence under section 59A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (trafficking people for sexual exploitation); or(b) an offence under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (trafficking people for labour and other exploitation).”
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chairman of the human trafficking parliamentary group and as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation. This is a very specific and limited amendment, which seeks to help the victims of human trafficking who have escaped.
We have two groups in mind. The first is those who manage to get away from domestic slavery. Quite often somebody from the Indian sub-continent, further east or the Middle East comes to this country thinking that they are going to work in an ordinary way. However, they find that they become a slave, working seven days a week for no pay and sleeping on the floor, and they are unable to leave the house. When they eventually escape—a certain number of these cases come up from time to time but not very many—some of them manage with the help of a law centre to get to an employment tribunal, where there are pro bono lawyers who sometimes achieve quite large sums for them by way of compensation. If the legal aid sought here, which is for legal advice and assistance to reach the door of the court, is taken away from the law centre on behalf of the individual who is exploited for domestic or labour reasons, then that individual will not get that advice. They will be foreigners, they will have no idea how to get to the employment tribunal and, quite simply, their rights will have been totally overlooked.
The second group, where cases arise perhaps less often, concerns those who are exploited for sexual reasons—generally prostitution—and who are generally but not always women. They escape and sometimes manage to find the person who has trafficked them for sexual exploitation. They manage to get to the county court or occasionally the High Court—again, with the help of a law centre, which puts the case together—and at court they will find a pro bono lawyer.
Therefore, it is advice and assistance that the amendment specifically seeks. I recognise that there is a difficulty in how best to identify a victim of human trafficking or a,
“victim of trafficking of people for exploitation”,
the phrase used in the amendment. I had originally thought of referring to someone who had been identified by the national referral mechanism, but I was then warned that that mechanism was not an identifiable entity from the point of view of legislation. That is why I have used the wording as it appears in the amendment.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister and particularly to those behind him, who have indicated to me that the Government are sympathetic to this issue, but the question remains—and I understand it entirely—of how best to identify victims. However, I understand that what I am asking for is, at the moment at least, being sympathetically considered by the Government.
Baroness Hamwee
My name is to this amendment. The Minister in Committee referred to Clause 9 on exceptional case determination and said that guidance would make it clear that victims of trafficking would, or should, be able to benefit from those provisions. Tonight, we have heard that the Government will bring claims by victims of trafficking within scope, I assume, at Third Reading. We have not seen the detail and, like the noble and learned Baroness, I have been wondering about the issue of evidence about an individual being a victim of trafficking. I was very pleased about that—I suppose it is a provisional pleasure until one has seen the detail—although it raises the question of whether the government amendment is necessary, given Clause 9, and given what was said at the previous stage. I hope that does not sound ungrateful. If it is necessary, what about problems that we have not yet unpacked on Clause 9?
Amendment 69, as the noble and learned Baroness said, is relatively limited in its ambition. That is not a criticism at all. However, it made me start to think about the problems faced by trafficked people. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to children in schools from a particular background having problems. I have written down: education issues around childcare; benefits, obviously; immigration other than asylum; the associated costs; expert reports; interpretation; and the disbursements paid by a solicitor such as these. I know that the Minister may think that I am pushing my luck but, as I have said before, this country finds itself as the involuntary host to a number of people who have been trafficked and it has very particular responsibilities. Perhaps after tonight it might be possible to explore what the Government have in mind in this connection and how far assistance can be provided. I pray in aid the Government’s strategy which makes it entirely clear that improved victim identification and care is at the heart of our response to trafficking. I am very pleased to be able to support the amendment. I look forward to what may come at the next stage.
Lord Bach
My Lords, we continue to support this theme of amendments. There were two in Committee moved by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. We supported them then and described them as powerful amendments. Amendment 69 remains a powerful amendment. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. We hope and expect him to be sympathetic.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, Amendment 69 intends to bring into the scope of legal aid damages and compensation claims made by victims of human trafficking in either the civil courts or employment tribunals. Echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I have noted the powerful arguments put forward that exceptional funding was not sufficient to provide for legal aid in this area. It goes without saying that we are all agreed that trafficking is a heinous, cynical crime. The ability to bring damages claims against former so-called employers is an important tool to secure reparations for victims and to punish their exploiters. As has been said tonight, and as was highlighted in our debates on similar amendments in Committee, it also helps to discourage those who seek to exploit people for financial gain. We had always anticipated that legal aid would have been available under the exceptional funding scheme for these damages claims, as was indicated by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, where such cases met the test for exceptional funding under Clause 9 of the Bill.
On reflection, we recognise the risk that in some cases this will not be sufficient. My colleagues and I are very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for her constructive discussions with the Lord Chancellor, in which she pointed out that what is typically required in these cases is advice and assistance in making the claim. Therefore, we agree in substance with the amendment and accept it in principle. However, as I think is anticipated by the noble and learned Baroness, for drafting reasons—not least around definitions—we cannot accept it verbatim. If the noble and learned Baroness withdraws the amendment, I can assure her that we will come back at Third Reading with a finalised amendment.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked whether victims of trafficking would get legal advice for other matters as well as for damages. For non-damages cases, they would have to apply for exceptional funding if legal aid was not available. However, the amendment that we discussed earlier this evening would cover legal help for trafficked victims in bringing damages claims in the employment tribunal, and both legal help and advocacy for damages claims in other civil courts where they relate to the experience of being trafficked.
It is important that we have addressed these matters. I thank the noble and learned Baroness for bringing them back to the House. I hope that, with my assurance, she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his very constructive and heart-warming words. It is only right that I should congratulate the Government on their strategy. The only point about strategy is its implementation, so I warn the noble and learned Lord that I shall continue to battle to implement the strategy, which is excellent in outline. However, this is a very good step forward. I look forward to further discussions with the noble and learned Lord and his team. In the mean time, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
““domestic violence” means threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between individuals who are associated with each other (within the meaning of section 62 of the Family Law Act 1996);”
“Immigration: victims of domestic violence and residence cards25A (1) Civil legal services provided to an individual (“I”) in relation to a residence card application where I—
(a) has ceased to be a family member of a qualified person on the termination of the marriage or civil partnership of the qualified person,(b) is a family member who has retained the right of residence by virtue of satisfying the conditions in regulation 10(5) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/1003) (“the 2006 Regulations”), and(c) has satisfied the condition in regulation 10(5)(d)(iv) of the 2006 Regulations on the ground that I or a family member of I was the victim of domestic violence while the marriage or civil partnership of the qualified person was subsisting.General exclusions(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Parts 2 and 3 of this Schedule.
Specific exclusion(3) The services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include attendance at an interview conducted on behalf of the Secretary of State with a view to reaching a decision on an application.
Definitions(4) In this paragraph—
“domestic violence” means threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between individuals who are associated with each other (within the meaning of section 62 of the Family Law Act 1996);
“family member” has the same meaning as in the 2006 Regulations (see regulations 7 and 9);
“family member who has retained the right of residence” has the same meaning as in the 2006 Regulations (see regulation 10);
“qualified person” has the same meaning as in the 2006 Regulations (see regulation 6);
“residence card application” means—
(a) an application for a residence card under regulation 17 of the 2006 Regulations, or (b) an application for a permanent residence card under regulation 18(2) of the 2006 Regulations.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 92. This is another group of amendments on which my noble friend Lord McNally wrote to your Lordships. They are amendments of a minor and technical nature which the Government have tabled to Part 1 of the Bill. As I indicated when addressing earlier amendments, a copy of my noble friend’s letter has been placed in the Library of the House for the convenience of noble Lords. I beg to move.