House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
address to her majesty (diamond jubilee)
Mr Speaker
I must report that the House this day attended Her Majesty in Westminster Hall, with an Address on the occasion of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee; in reply to which Her Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech.
I will ensure that my words in presenting the Address, and Her Majesty's reply, are entered in the Journals of the House.
Mr. Speaker presented the Address to Her Majesty in the following words:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We Your faithful Commons are honoured to be here to commemorate and celebrate the sixty years of Your reign. We too are pleased to have contributed to the Jubilee Window to be revealed shortly and which will mark this occasion permanently. Time is better preserved in this historic place than in fallible human memory.
Time also tells its own story. Sixty years ago, rationing meant rather more than a short wait before the arrival of the latest electronic item. Sixty years ago, Britain had just emerged from a war of an intensity never seen before or since and had slipped into the shadow of the Korean conflict. Sixty years ago, a new “Elizabethan Era” was awaited with enthusiasm tinged with uncertainty about the challenges ahead for the country.
If, as Gandhi asserted, “the best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others”, then Your Majesty must have found Yourself countless times over the past six decades. You have dedicated Your life to others. The daily example that You set, mirrored by our courageous armed forces of which You are Commander-in-Chief, is extraordinary. Yet perhaps Your Majesty’s most profound contribution has been to the continuity that has made change manageable.
For transformation is inevitably turbulent. It has been Your singular accomplishment, Your unique capacity, to hold together that which could have been torn asunder. You have moved with the times and allowed the times to move around the rest of society.
This is a different Britain from 1952 but not one detached from then. We are in so many ways a much bigger, brighter and better United Kingdom. This is a land where men and women today are equal under the law and where Your people are respected, regardless of how they live, how they look or how they love. This is a nation of many races, faiths and customs, now beginning to be reflected in Parliament. All this progress has occurred during Your reign. You have become, to many of us, a kaleidoscope Queen of a kaleidoscope country in a kaleidoscope Commonwealth.
This gathering is one of many diverse events across these islands in tribute to You and this great anniversary. Our affection as a nation will rightly embrace the Duke of Edinburgh and other members of Your family. These will be moments striking for the sincerity expressed as much as for the scenery encountered. Sixty years of stability. Sixty years of security. Sixty years of certainty. Sixty years of sacrifice. Sixty years of service.
Gandhi also observed that “in a gentle way, you can shake the world”. Your Majesty, in a gentle way You have shaken this United Kingdom and the world for six decades. On behalf of all the members of the House of Commons, may I thank You wholeheartedly for all that You have done, are doing and will do for the good of our country.
Her Majesty's Reply
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
1. What recent progress he has made on proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
We set out our initial proposals on 20 January. We are undertaking a wide-ranging consultation exercise. I have appeared at a number of meetings and will do so again. We will listen to everything that people have said and in due course we will lay out our proposals for legislation.
Mr Spencer
I have had a number of meetings with the voluntary sector over the past six months. Can the Minister reassure the House that the changes to the lobbying system that we may introduce will not bar small charities from making contact with their Members of Parliament?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Nothing that we intend to do is intended to stop people legitimately lobbying their Members of Parliament. Indeed, we have set out that lobbying is a good thing to make sure we are aware of the impact of our legislation. The important thing is that it is carried out transparently, and that is what we are aiming to achieve.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what arrangements he has put in place to define lobbying?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman may ask me, as I am answering the question. We are carrying out a consultation exercise, listening to the industry, to the public and to organisations campaigning for transparency. When we have done that, we will weigh up everything that has been said. We will then publish draft legislation for full pre-legislative scrutiny.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The most recently published information describes all but two of the Chancellor’s meetings with external organisations as being for the purpose of general discussion. The other two are described as social. Does the Minister agree that for proper disclosure of lobbying activity, any register will need to go further than such broad descriptions?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly support the idea of a statutory register of lobbyists, but surely it must include the full-time people who do it on behalf of their companies in-house. If we do not know whether the head of lobbying for BP, Shell or whoever else is coming in to see a Minister, we have not really brought about transparency, have we?
Mr Harper
The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about those who lobby for the companies they work for, as opposed to third parties, has been made by others and we will weigh that up. If a person from an individual company comes to see a Minister and the Minister discloses that they have had that meeting, as they do, it is clear on whose behalf they are lobbying. The situation that we are trying to deal with is one where we do not know on whose behalf someone is lobbying. That is the reason for our initial proposals.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
2. What steps he is taking to extend the powers of enforcement of electoral registration officers.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
Electoral registration officers have the power to require any person to provide information about any aspect of a person’s eligibility to register. It is currently not an offence not to be registered to vote, but it is an offence not to provide information to an ERO when required to do so. Under our plans for individual electoral registration, we do not intend to criminalise people who fail to register when invited to do so. However, we are considering the merits of introducing a civil penalty for a non-response to an invitation to register, and will announce our decision when we bring forward the legislation.
Yvonne Fovargue
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that leaving electoral registration officers without the power to criminalise those who refuse to register to vote will effectively tie one of their hands behind their back?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not think that many electoral registration officers feel that it is necessary to put a new criminal offence on the statute book to deal with that issue, which is why we have been quite open about the fact that we want to keep the existing offences on the statute book but are considering a civil offence to ensure that the right information is provided to electoral registration officers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Ian White and Heather Jackson at the electoral registration department of Kettering borough council, of which I am a proud member, do a superb job in registering local people on the electoral register. What can the Deputy Prime Minister do to encourage the dissemination of best practice, because clearly some electoral registration officers are not up to the job?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That is an excellent idea, and it is exactly one of the tasks of the Electoral Commission to find out where EROs are most effective and then ensure that their colleagues in other parts of the country are aware of best practice.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
3. What recent representations he has received on reform of the House of Lords.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Government have received more than 250 representations since the publication of the White Paper and the draft House of Lords Reform Bill in May last year.
Mr Ruffley
Many of us are of the view that many Members of an elected upper House, elected by proportional representation, will be tempted to claim a mandate equal to that of hon. Members in this place. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister think that his rather squalid Bill will not undermine the primacy of this Chamber?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not think that anything in our plans would change the primacy of this Chamber or that there is an automatic link between changing the composition of the other place and changing the balance of power between the two Chambers. There are many bicameral systems around the world where both Chambers are either wholly or fully elected but there is a clear division of labour between them. The hon. Gentleman calls this a squalid proposal; it is a proposal to introduce a smidgen of democracy in the other place, which has been around for about 100 years, and I think that we should now get on with it.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
On 21 April 2010 the Deputy Prime Minister described the House of Lords as being
“stuffed full of people who have basically done favours to other politicians.”
Is that how he would describe those Lib Dems who have been sent to the Lords since the general election?
The Deputy Prime Minister
For anyone who wants to defend the status quo, and it is unclear whether the hon. Lady does—the Labour party used to campaign proudly for reform of the bastion of privilege and inherited power but seems to have lost its historical vocation as a progressive force for political reform—I ask them to reflect on the fact that over 70% of all the people in the other place are there because of an act of political patronage. Is that really sustainable in the 21st century? I do not think so.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
14. Has the Deputy Prime Minister received many representations from those who appear to believe that the way to uphold the supremacy of the elected House is to defy the supremacy of the elected House, which has already said that it wants to introduce some democracy to the other Chamber?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. There is an odd sort of circularity in the argument that, notwithstanding the fact that this House has voted clearly in favour of either a wholly or largely elected Chamber, somehow to preserve the primacy of this House we should not allow any legitimacy into the other place. That seems to me to be a somewhat self-serving argument.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Major constitutional change that is successful is best done by parties trying to work together and then putting the case to the country via a referendum. We have seen devolution to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and London done in that way, and on 3 May we will see cities across the country choosing via referendums whether they should have elected mayors. Will the Deputy Prime Minister work with those of us who want to see the second Chamber reformed and then trust the British public on this major constitutional change via a referendum?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because he himself joined in the discussions, we had months and months of painstaking cross-party discussions about the content of the draft Bill, precisely because, as he quite rightly says, it is best to proceed with these important matters on a cross-party basis. All three parties, again as he knows, had in various shapes or sizes a commitment to a reformed House of Lords. It is something we have been discussing for a very long time as a country—close to a century.
There is an open debate to be had about when something is presented to the people via a referendum—or not. The Lords Committee that recently looked at the issue very clearly said that there should be a referendum if there is a proposal to abolish the House of Lords. That of course is not what we are proposing, because we are proposing to reform the composition of the House of Lords, so I do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that a referendum is justified in the way he describes, although I acknowledge that it was in his party’s manifesto at the last general election.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
4. What assessment he has made of the likely effect of bringing forward the annual canvass on levels of electoral fraud.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
The Government take combating electoral fraud very seriously. Following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission, I directed that this year’s annual canvass should be started and completed earlier so that the register to be used for police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales outside London is the most accurate and up-to-date register possible.
John Woodcock
I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he believe it right that the nominations for police and crime commissioners and their subsequent elections should take place using different electoral registers?
Mr Harper
I think, in this particular case, that is perfectly fine. It does not deal with the hon. Gentleman’s question, however, which was about electoral fraud. The reason for bringing forward the canvass was to ensure that we were not using a register that was right at the end of its useful life, with significant numbers of people not being at the addresses on the register. That would have provided an opportunity for fraud, and we wanted to reduce that to the minimum.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Is the Minister aware that there are concerns from cities such as mine, which have a large number of students, about the impact of moving the dates forward, that students who have arrived will not be put on the register and students who have left will still be on the register for far too long? Will he look at ways of avoiding that problem?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. One reason for issuing the direction to registration officers as early as possible was so that, in each area, they could think through the consequences for their particular registration and the challenges that they face, and then put in place procedures to ensure that the register used for police and crime commissioner elections is the most accurate and complete register necessary. If he has any specific concerns, I shall be very happy to discuss them with him.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
5. What recent progress the Government have made on devolution; and if he will make a statement.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Scotland Bill is completing its passage through Parliament, implementing most of the recommendations of the Calman commission and resulting in the most significant transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament since its establishment. We have also established the Silk commission on devolution in Wales and initiated the McKay commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons. We have also devolved powers directly from Whitehall to local communities through the Localism Act 2011, providing for referendums on directly elected mayors in 10 cities on 3 May and for local referendums on a range of issues, and giving local authorities a general power of competence.
Sir Robert Smith
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. Does he recognise that devolution is an ongoing process, whereas separation is a once-and-for-all decision? Does he agree that we need a single question on independence in the proposed referendum if we are to have a clear and decisive result from it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree, as I suspect do many Members on both sides of the House. It would be wrong to play cat and mouse with the Scottish people by confusing two entirely different issues: one is whether Scotland should leave the United Kingdom; the other is on the process by which we might provide greater devolved powers to Scotland. We cannot really address the second without first knowing whether the United Kingdom is going to remain intact, and that is why it is important to give a simple, clear question to the Scottish people to decide—through one question in the referendum.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister will note that the Scottish National party Bench is bare this afternoon. Will he confirm that the West Lothian commission will include not only Scotland, but Wales, Northern Ireland and London?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It will consider in the round all the issues about how we manage business in this House in a more devolved United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the McKay commission will report in the next parliamentary Session.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and I are already, in a sense, married politically—and very happily, at that—but as we have so much to do together on devolution, House of Lords reform and the Health and Social Care Bill, can we just leave it at that: as a partnership?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that our in-tray is full, but, as I said before, I think it is a good thing that this partnership and this coalition is being as ambitious as we are.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
6. What recent discussions he has had on political donations arising from the proceeds of crime as part of his proposals for the reform of party funding.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Government are committed to reform of party funding and believe that this is best achieved, where possible, through consensus. I recently wrote to party leaders asking them to nominate representatives for cross-party discussions. Arrangements for those discussions are being finalised, and I hope that they will commence shortly.
Diana Johnson
I am very pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister has answered this question. I want to ask him about the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which allows for the recovery of money from crime. Money stolen by fraudsters such as Michael Brown is surely tainted within the spirit of the Act, and as such it should be recovered, as I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister agrees. Will he apply the principles of the Act to his party funding reforms?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, the Electoral Commission looked in great depth at the donation made by Mr Brown five, six or seven years ago and concluded, as the watchdog that oversees these things, that the money was taken in good faith by the Liberal Democrats and all the reasonable checks were made by the party at the time.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
If we are going to talk about party donations being tainted, is it not important that we ensure that tax avoiders and non-domiciles who supported the Labour party are also dealt with?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is quite gutsy of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) to raise this when prominent members of her own party such as Ken Livingstone seem to have very exotic tax arrangements, and when the Labour party now relies for 90% of its funding on trade unions that then write the parliamentary questions that Labour Members read out in this Chamber.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
7. What recent representations he has received on individual electoral registration.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
We have received a number of representations on our proposals for individual electoral registration, including an excellent report from the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, to which we have responded.
Mr Betts
I am sure that the Minister agrees that if we are to avoid the prospect of many people leaving the electoral register when IER is introduced, we need a significant and robust system of data swapping. If that cannot be achieved in time for the date when the Government plan to introduce IER, will the Minister delay that date or run the risk of millions of people falling off the electoral register?
Mr Harper
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied our response to the Select Committee’s report, so he will know that one of the things that arose from our data-matching pilots was that there is a good opportunity to use a pre-verification process to ensure that we, in effect, put a floor under electoral registers to reduce the risk of people falling off the register. We will test that further and no doubt debate it when the proposed legislation is going through the House. That can give us a great deal of confidence that we will not see the problems the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
9. Does the Minister agree that all rights should be exercised with responsibility and that where people have the right to vote they should exercise their personal responsibility of registering to vote, and thus, through the Minister’s introduction of individual electoral registration, the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register will be improved?
Mr Harper
I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who is a prominent member of the Select Committee that looked at this in great detail. I absolutely agree with her. Registering to vote and voting is an act of personal responsibility, but we are also looking to make sure that we reduce the risk of people falling off the register and increase the tools at the disposal of registration officers to ensure that the register is complete.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my concern that the Electoral Commission said that its main conclusion about the Government’s data-matching pilot schemes is that they
“do not provide sufficient evidence to judge the effectiveness of data matching as a method for improving the accuracy and completeness of the electoral registers”?
If he shares my concern, what action will he take?
Mr Harper
Part of the reason for having the pilots was to learn some information. One thing that we found was that the data-matching pilots were less successful at improving completeness and accuracy, but very good at pre-verification, as I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) will know that we plan to have further data-matching pilots, subject of course to parliamentary approval of the appropriate orders. That will build up further evidence, which will show Members that this system will be robust in improving the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for the Parliament Acts of his proposals for House of Lords reform.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Government’s proposals will maintain the primacy of the House of Commons and the Parliament Acts will continue to apply.
Mr Slaughter
It is easy to see why the Deputy Prime Minister is hooked on the Parliament Acts and on financial privilege, when the House of Lords has so far inflicted nine defeats on his Government on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill alone. Will he explain why every Lib Dem peer voted to cut social welfare legal aid the day after his conference voted for the
“protection of fair and equal access to justice”?
The Deputy Prime Minister
If my understanding is right, the hon. Gentleman campaigned at the last general election on a commitment in his manifesto to reform legal aid. There have been countless reviews—[Interruption.]
The Deputy Prime Minister
Countless reviews have been conducted on legal aid funding, which has ballooned out of all recognition in recent years. As on so many other issues, the Government have the guts to confront the difficult decisions that Labour ducked for 13 years.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on the full range of Government policies and initiatives. I take special responsibility for the Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.
Andrew Jones
There are reports in the media today of plans to publish tax statements, which will give people a detailed breakdown of how the Government spend their money. I welcome that proposal, which treats people with much more respect and makes government more open. The reports suggest that the scheme may start in 2014. As it is such a good idea, can it be brought forward to 2013?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I, too, think it is an excellent idea. It will provide citizens of this country with far greater transparency on how the money that they provide to those of us in government is spent. That goes to the heart of greater accountability in government. It will empower citizens to know where their money is spent. I am sure that the Chancellor will consider any opportunity to bring this good initiative forward, where it is feasible.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Last November, when talking about the top rate of tax on income over £150,000, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“I do not believe that the priority…is to give a tax cut to a tiny, tiny number of people who are much, much better off than anyone else.”
If the Chancellor announces any cut in the top rate of tax, Opposition Members will vote against it: will he?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Lady will have to wait until the Chancellor announces his Budget tomorrow. The priority for me and for the whole coalition Government is to provide real help to people on middle and low incomes, who have faced higher prices and great difficulties because of the economic implosion that she and her colleagues presided over in government. Whatever changes there are to this bit of the tax system or that bit of the tax system, Government Members believe that the wealthy should pay more, because the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden.
Ms Harman
We will see about that. Next month, low-income families will be hit by a massive cut to their tax credits, which the Lib Dems voted for. It is now clear that they will go along with a cut in the top rate of tax. I suppose that we should not be surprised after what they have done on VAT, the police and tuition fees. By signing up to cutting the top rate of tax, the Deputy Prime Minister is giving thousands of pounds to the very rich, while cutting tax credits for people who are struggling to make ends meet. Surely, even by Lib Dem standards, that is a step too far.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Next month, this Government will take more than 1 million people on low pay out of paying income tax altogether. Next month, we will deliver the largest cash increase in the state pension ever. There will be no more of Labour’s 75p pension insults. Next month, thousands of children from disadvantaged backgrounds will receive an uplift in the pupil premium to give them the head start in life that they never got under Labour. That is a record that I am proud of.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
T2. The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that many small businesses are struggling to gain access to credit, which is why I am delighted that the national loan guarantee scheme was introduced today. However, what can the Deputy Prime Minister do to ensure that small businesses with a turnover of less than £5 million can access the scheme?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The banks that are participating in the NLGS—the announcement on that has now been made—must use all their branches, and all their contacts with small and micro businesses in each area where they have branches, to make this new credit-easing facility available to the largest number of small businesses, for whom it has been very difficult to access credit on reasonable terms in recent times.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
T3. Deputy Prime Minister, in 2008, when you used to visit Liverpool, you categorically said:“Will I ever join a Conservative Government? No. I will never allow the Liberal Democrats to be a mere annex to another party’s agenda.”What do you regret the most: your betrayal on the 3,000 extra police you promised, your broken tuition fees pledge, your party’s support for the destruction of the NHS, or becoming a Tory?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should exclude me from that list of charges?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am proud of the fact that we have stepped up to the plate to clean up the mess the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and his party colleagues left behind after 13 years in office. It is convenient for him to airbrush out of history the fact that when his party was in government it went on bended knee to Rupert Murdoch, yet now it will not even talk to his newspapers. It also let the banks get away with blue murder, but it now wants to tax them to the hilt. The country will not forget the mess it left the rest of us to clear up.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
T6. I recently visited the Yorkshire College of Beauty Therapy, alas not for treatment—I feared there would not be enough time for that—but to see how successful its apprenticeship scheme has been. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about youth unemployment, so what are the Government doing to encourage employers to take on more young apprentices?
The Deputy Prime Minister
In the earlier list of proud achievements that I gave, I forgot to mention the fact that we are delivering more apprenticeships than have ever been delivered in recent times in this country. We are delivering 250,000 more apprenticeships during this Parliament than would have been delivered by a Labour Administration. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the whole apprenticeship programme depends very heavily on companies and employers participating in the scheme and giving young people the opportunity to take up apprenticeship places. That is why in the youth contract, which will start in a matter of weeks, we are providing a £1,500 incentive to employers to take on young apprentices.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
T4. On the emerging proposals for the reform of party finance, does the Deputy Prime Minister favour a £10,000 cap on contributions from wealthy donors, as proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, or no cap at all, as proposed by the Prime Minister?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly support a cap. We need to put a limit on the arms race in party funding. That, of course, must include a cap on donations. There is a range of opinions on where that cap should lie, and I think it should lie as low as possible. This issue is best addressed on a cross-party basis, which is why I hope the cross-party talks I have called for will now proceed in earnest.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
T7. Being stalked must be a terrible experience, and it is calculated that there are about 120,000 such cases each year. I am delighted that the Government are going to make it a criminal offence. The people of Broxtowe—and no doubt those throughout the rest of the country —want to know when legislation will be introduced.
The Deputy Prime Minister
We will, of course, look for the earliest possible opportunity, to ensure—[Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House reminds me that that happened yesterday, so the offence is being put on to the statute book as quickly as possible, precisely because, as my hon. Friend says, it is incredibly unsettling for victims of stalking, and it is high time it was made a criminal offence.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
T5. Last year the NewsThump website awarded the Deputy Prime Minister the parliamentary April fools’ day prize for convincing a number of MPs that he intended to keep one of his pre-election promises. With April fools’ day 2012 fast approaching, will he confirm that he is a contender again, with the claim that tomorrow’s Budget will help those who are struggling?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My own view is that the tax proposal that I have championed for many years—that everyone who earns in this country should earn the first £10,000 entirely free of income tax—is one of the most radical tax policies to have been promoted in British politics for many, many years and would make a dramatic difference for people on middle and low incomes, who were abandoned by the Labour party and its punitive approach to tax. As I have said, from next month, with the steps that we have already announced, we will already be taking more than 1 million people on low pay out of paying any income tax whatever.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
T9. In 2010-11 the average public spending purse per person in Wales was £9,947, and for the west midlands it was only £8,679. In the light of the fact that Welsh MPs can vote on matters that affect my constituents, how can I justify that discrepancy to the people of Redditch?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know that this is a sensitive issue, but I do not think that at a time like this, when we are seeking to fill the black hole in the public finances, reopening the mind-numbingly complex issue of the Barnett formula should be our No. 1 priority. That does not mean that we cannot make progress on how fiscal devolution could proceed in the United Kingdom, which is why the Silk commission has been established to look, for instance, at the new fiscal powers that could possibly be devolved to Wales in the future.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
T8. This Government put back Labour’s universal broadband pledge by three years, with the result that we now have more than 2 million people without access to decent broadband. Now, the Deputy Prime Minister has decided that for the police commissioner elections, people will need decent broadband to know who to vote for. How can he possibly justify turning the digital divide that he created into a democratic deficit?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have committed hundreds of millions of pounds to investment in superfast broadband. She also knows that the Chancellor is due to make an announcement tomorrow on the 10 cities that will receive further support for improved broadband speeds, which of course are important not just for democratic participation but for a range of services that we want our citizens to be able to access.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
T10. Has my right hon. Friend assessed the possibility that Orkney and Shetland could opt to remain part of the United Kingdom if the rest of Scotland voted for a separation?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That would be a popular proposal in the Liberal Democrat Whips Office, but I fervently hope that the issue will never arise, because I very much hope that the Scottish people will agree with the biggest body of opinion here and elsewhere, which is that we are stronger, safer and more prosperous as a United Kingdom.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
T11. Last week the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that it was possible for a Government to do more than one thing at once. That was in relation to House of Lords reform. Does he agree, then, that it is possible to retain the 50p tax rate and introduce a tougher tax avoidance regime at the same time?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said, for me, the principles are very clear. First, the priority should be providing tax relief to people on middle and low incomes at a time when many people are feeling the pinch and struggling to make ends meet. Secondly, we should ensure that there is a progressive shift in the tax system, so that there is less tax on work, effort and enterprise, and more tax on wealth and the wealthy.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
T15. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to attend the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development later this year. Will he inform the House on which priorities he personally intends to lead during those vital discussions on the future well-being of our planet?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is very important that this country continues to take a lead in the international discussions, not only so that we can confront together the overarching threat of climate change, which is such a potent threat to everybody across the globe, but so that we can work together to compare notes on how we can green our economies, which will be the specific focus of the Rio+20 summit. I think everybody now agrees that sustainable prosperous growth in the future has to be green as well.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
T12. The president of the Liberal Democrats has said that in his opinion, the Health and Social Care Bill has gone from being “appalling” to being “pointless” over the past 12 months. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that over the same period, the Liberal Democrats have gone from being pointless to being appalling?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The only thing that is appalling is the Christmas cracker lines that Opposition Members dutifully read out. I really hope the hon. Lady will do a little better next time.
The Government are confronting a dilemma in our health care system that every Government in every developed economy and society must face. We have an increasing and ageing population, with an increasingly large number of people with long-term chronic conditions, who spend much more time in hospital than has ever been the case. That is why it is right to give people such as doctors and nurses, who know patients best, greater authority regarding how our health care system works. That remains the key reform in the Bill.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Going back, if I may, to the topical issue of House of Lords reform, may I check with the Deputy Prime Minister whether he believes a 15-year senator who is unable to stand for re-election is more or less accountable than a current Member of the other place?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The key ambition of that reform is to ensure that the House of Lords is more legitimate. The simple principle that those who make the laws of the land should be elected by the people who have to obey the laws of the land is not an unfamiliar one across the democratic world. Of course, there is a legitimate debate on the length of the mandate for elected Members of the House of Lords, but the reason why we have opted for non-renewable terms—as in previous proposals, by the way—is precisely to enshrine the contrast between this Chamber and a reformed House of Lords.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
T13. Many will echo the Deputy Prime Minister’s earlier statement on House of Lords of reform—“Let’s get on with it.” After 100 years of waiting for reform, and after it was in all three party manifestos—although people would not know that from listening to some Members on the Government Benches—when will we have a Bill before the House? Sooner or later?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Joint Committee that is examining our draft Bill is in the final stages of completing its work, and I hope it will publish its report shortly. The Government will then move as soon as we can to present a final draft Bill to the House.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It has taken 100 years to get Lords reform. It is an important matter and the Deputy Prime Minister is a great democrat. Will he give the House the assurance that this legislation for constitutional change will not be timetabled, but will go through the House at the appropriate pace?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is a relief to be asked a question by my hon. Friend that is, for once, not related to the demise of his party leader. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the Bill, given its importance, should be given adequate time. That is precisely what we will provide for it.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
T14. The Deputy Prime Minister is clearly at the heart of Government. Has he seen a copy of the legal advice on whether competition law applies to the Health and Social Care Bill, and the transition risk register, and will he publish it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The reasons why we are withholding publication of the risk register are precisely the same as the reasons why the Labour Government withheld their consent for publication on three occasions—[Hon. Members: “Have you seen it?”] Yes, I have seen the risk register. As the hon. Lady knows, it is a very important tool to allow civil servants to give frank and fearless advice to Ministers. As champions of freedom of information such as The Guardian and The Independent have said, publishing the register would inhibit civil servants from providing such frank and fearless advice to Ministers in future.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Yesterday the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs published a report recommending the devolution of the Crown Estate, sea bed and foreshore rights in Scotland to local communities as far as possible. That would be a massive transfer of power from Whitehall to communities in the highlands and islands, exactly in line with the big society agenda. I hope that the Government support the recommendation.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I understand that those proposals were published just yesterday, so the Government have not had a great deal of time to consider them, but we will do so carefully.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House, and my constituents, what the Government will do to help hard-pressed, hard-working, ordinary people throughout the United Kingdom facing exorbitant rises in fuel prices?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My own view is that the best way to help many, many families and the more than 20 million basic rate taxpayers in this country is to let them keep more of the money they earn. That is why the centrepiece tax policy in the coalition agreement is to lift the point at which people pay income tax to £10,000, so that everybody in the country receives a sizeable tax cut—because they will keep more of the money they earn.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what progress he and the cities Minister—the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark)—have made in negotiating the city deals with the eight largest cities outside London?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend and I have made significant progress on those city deals, and I am pleased to announce this afternoon that the negotiation with Greater Manchester has now been concluded. This deal is a huge step forward in our devolution-rebalancing agenda, and signals the Government’s genuine commitment to unlocking the great potential of our cities. It will enable Greater Manchester to shape its own future, including through an innovative approach to economic investment—the so-called “earn back” model—that has the potential to transform how cities are incentivised to drive growth. According to people in Manchester, this deal will create 6,000 new apprenticeships, strengthen Greater Manchester’s business growth hub, creating 3,800 new jobs, and commit us to a package of transport measures. Good news for Manchester.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
May I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that it was in fact a Labour Government who removed the large majority of hereditary peers from the House of Lords? Is it not quite obvious that there will be no progress on House of Lords reform, given the intense hostility from Conservative Members sitting behind him, unless the Parliament Act is used? I previously challenged him to a bet that there would not be such a change in this Parliament. Is he willing to take that bet?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My job is to deliver House of Lords reform, and to do so in as consensual a manner as possible. After all, all three main parties in the House committed themselves, in their manifestos, to reforming the House of Lords. Some say that this should not be a priority. I care about many things a whole lot more—such as a fairer tax system, the pupil premium and apprenticeships for young people. People defending the status quo should not elevate this issue to a status that it does not deserve. It has been debated for 100 years. Now let us get on with it.
Mr Speaker
Order. As usual, demand has exceeded supply. I apologise to colleagues who could not be accommodated, but we must now move on.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the Serious Fraud Office.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
There has not been a recent independent assessment of the performance of the Serious Fraud Office, and for that reason, in consultation with the SFO director, I have requested Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate to carry out an inspection. It is intended that the inspection should assist the incoming director, and is timed accordingly. Furthermore, the SFO will continue to publish its annual performance information in its annual report.
Nick Smith
A KPMG report suggests that fraud is on the rise and estimates that more than £1 billion of Government money was stolen by fraudsters in 2011 alone. This financial year the SFO’s budget was a little over £30 million. Does the Attorney-General agree that that smacks of a false economy?
The Attorney-General
I have absolutely no doubt that if there is more money to spend, one may get greater results—but it is also worth pointing out that since the 2008 de Grazia review the SFO has been transformed. Investigation times have been significantly reduced, conviction rates remain high, and very substantial sums of money are being recovered from the proceeds of crime. From that point of view, the SFO is well fulfilling the mandate it has been set. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point: it is always possible to argue that priorities in government should be substantially altered, but if that is to be done, far more funds will have to be found.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
9. The Attorney-General will be aware that the Department for International Development’s annual review states that the Government’s record on investigating international corruption suffers from incoherent strategic direction. Can he tell the House how he will improve that record and increase the number of prosecutions?
The Attorney-General
It is worth bearing in mind that, so far as international corruption is concerned, the benchmark legislation is the legislation passed in 2011. As the hon. Lady will appreciate, for reasons that are obvious, that legislation is not retrospective. Therefore, although investigations are now under way into offences that have taken place from that time on, not many cases—or no cases—will have come to court. It is therefore a bit difficult at the moment to make an assessment of how successful this work will be. What I can tell the hon. Lady, however, is that between 40% and 50% of the Serious Fraud Office’s investigatory case load relates to bribery and corruption.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
2. What assessment the Crown Prosecution Service has made of the effect of its Transforming through Technology programme on small firms of solicitors.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)
The impact on defence firms of working digitally is discussed every fortnight when the chief executive of the Crown Prosecution Service, Mr Peter Lewis, meets the Law Society and other defence representatives to discuss progress on the programme.
Chris Evans
The criminal justice system goes digital next week. However, with less than half of publicly funded criminal defence firms able to receive CPS e-mails, with defence firms having no money to print evidence, and with the Government not even knowing how many sockets there are in courts to plug in the computers, is the Minister fearful that some problems may develop in the system?
The Solicitor-General
The hon. Gentleman paints a pretty gloomy picture—but then, he is in opposition, so I can fully understand it. The short point is that this is a rolling programme: it will be introduced incrementally. I can assure him that defence firms in his constituency and mine will come to terms with it and meet the challenges that they need to face.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
3. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on reform of the UK’s extradition arrangements.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I meet the Home Secretary regularly to discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest. I know that my right hon. Friend is giving careful consideration to the recommendations in Sir Scott Baker’s review of extradition, and will make a further statement to Parliament detailing what action the Government propose to take as soon as is practicable.
Julie Hilling
As the Attorney-General has told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that he is not sure that changing the test applied in UK and US extradition cases would make any difference, does he regret his previous statement that our extradition laws are “one-sided” and should be rewritten?
The Attorney-General
It is worth bearing in mind that part of the problem for the first three years was that the last Government decided to implement the extradition treaty on a one-sided basis, so that we extradited to the US under the terms of our treaty at a time when the US would not carry out such extraditions. I think the hon. Lady will find that one of the reasons why I made that comment was that at the time of that debate, which took place in 2006, the United States had still not ratified the treaty. There are undoubtedly differences between the way in which the test that is required is applied, but having looked at the matter carefully. I do not think that the treaty as it stands at the moment can be described as one-sided. What can be said is that, as I explained to the Home Affairs Committee, there remain serious issues with public confidence in the way in which the extradition system with the United States operates.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
But is it not important to recognise why there are serious anxieties among the public about the nature of the system for extradition, and does not the question of the different standard of proof on each side of the Atlantic lie right at the very heart of that anxiety? The Attorney-General will be obliged to give legal advice to the Home Secretary. Will he give her advice that points to the fact that the two standards are different, and therefore that the political conclusion that the system is failing is a legitimate one?
The Attorney-General
I have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not think that, in practice, the difference between a test of “probable cause”, which we have to show in the United States, and a test of “reasonable suspicion”, which the United States has to show here, amounts to a very significant difference at all. As I mentioned to the Home Affairs Committee, in any event, the United States usually provides material to its own “probable cause” standard, so I have to say that I may disagree with him on this. Although I accept that there is an argument that this country could seek to move to a “probable cause” basis, to mirror that of the United States, in practice I do not think that that would make a very substantial difference to the way in which the extradition agreement with the US worked.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Attorney-General will know that since his own appearance before the Home Affairs Committee, President Obama and the Prime Minister have announced a joint initiative to look into the operation of the treaty. In the light of that initiative, and the review that is now being conducted by the Home Secretary, does the Attorney-General agree that it would not be in the public interest for any British citizen to be extradited to the United States under the treaty until the review and the initiative have been concluded?
The Attorney-General
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I explained to the Home Affairs Committee, the discretion for the Home Secretary, or any member of the Executive, to prevent an extradition from taking place is extremely limited under the current law. I am afraid that what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for would be impossible, unless Parliament were to enact fresh legislation.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Has the Attorney-General had any discussions about the UK and US team that has been set up? What is its remit? Does it include only implementation, or could it also include issues such as the forum bar?
The Attorney-General
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the matter was discussed by the Prime Minister and President Obama during the Prime Minister’s visit to the United States. The Prime Minister said that they would seek ways in which the treaty could be better operated in practice, and ways in which some of the public concerns could be addressed. At this stage that is probably all that I can reasonably say, but I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that this is a matter that the Government and I take seriously.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Does the Attorney-General think it entirely fair that the European arrest warrant can be used to extradite people from this country with no evidence whatever, and that the Home Secretary, who has absolutely no room for manoeuvre, simply has to hand those people over to other Governments, some of whom have a burden of proof that is quite dubious?
The Attorney-General
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this subject causes disquiet, but it was his Government who enacted the necessary legislation to enable these circumstances to come about. The matter will come up for review, as part of the third pillar arrangements, by 2014.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the effect on prosecutions of the roll-out of the streamlined process in (a) Northamptonshire and (b) England in reducing police paperwork and in summarising key evidence to a high standard. [R]
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
In 2011 the Crown Prosecution Service reviewed about 900 files across all 43 police force areas in England and Wales, including Northamptonshire, to assess compliance with the streamlining process. All CPS areas, and the police, have since been advised of what further work is required of them to reduce paperwork and ensure that key evidence is identified and summarised effectively.
Mr Hollobone
I declare my interest as a special constable with the British Transport police. The aim of the streamlining process is to reduce the police time required to prepare effective prosecution files while reducing the cost to the public purse. What steps can my right hon. and learned Friend take to highlight best practice, in order to encourage the police forces that are falling behind the curve?
The Attorney-General
First, I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he does as a special constable. The idea behind the streamlining process was precisely to achieve better practice. Performance in terms of the way in which the police have responded to it is variable. Some police forces have responded very well indeed, and the reviews suggest that they are applying the measures correctly; others appear to have more difficulty. If they have more difficulty, that means that they are spending unnecessary time over-preparing files. The Crown Prosecution Service is committed to working with every police force to try to ensure that best practice can be rolled out, and we will continue to do that, and to conduct periodic reviews to see how the process is progressing.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
The Attorney-General has mentioned the huge variation between police forces, as did the National Audit Office last year. Is it possible to iron out those differences to ensure a common standard? Is any research being carried out to examine whether the process is leading to different outcomes—for example, in relation to guilty or not guilty pleas, or even to final sentencing?
The Attorney-General
In human affairs, achieving the complete elimination of all disparities might be rather difficult, but more could certainly be done to reduce them, and that is what we are striving to do. I will go away and check whether we can draw any specific conclusions from the process. Clearly, if people overburden themselves it will take up more time, and it could lead to a case not being properly presented, because the amount of material involved could hamper the presentation of the prosecution. I am afraid that I am not in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman whether statistics can show that the problem is leading to cases failing when they might otherwise have succeeded, for example—but it is clearly undesirable, and we must do what we can to help the police to make their lives easier.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
5. What recent progress he has made in increasing the rate of prosecutions for domestic violence.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)
The number of domestic violence prosecutions in England and Wales has increased from 57,361 in 2006-07 to 82,187 in 2010-11. Prosecution in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is, of course, a matter for the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon
Each year, many of those who suffer domestic violence return to the home where it all began. For them, legal aid is vital before a decision is made. Will the Minister urge his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice not to reverse the improvements in protection for victims of domestic violence that the Lords have made to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill?
The Solicitor-General
I will certainly make sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in that Department have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On domestic violence, does the Solicitor-General agree that the programme of having independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers supporting victims has improved conviction rates?
The Solicitor-General
Yes, my hon. Friend may well know that from his own experience as a criminal law practitioner, but it is certainly true for an observant Member of Parliament, too.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Housing authorities in Sheffield have reported to me an increase in domestic violence, given the stress on families resulting from the economic situation. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are finding out about domestic violence generally, as he has reported an increase in prosecutions? Is domestic violence increasing overall, and what work is going on across Government to look at this issue, which still leads, week by week, to women being killed by current or former partners?
The Solicitor-General
My take on the matter is necessarily narrow, as it is to superintend the Crown Prosecution Service and its conduct of such prosecutions. Of course I am generally aware of the matter to which the hon. Lady refers, and it may well affect her constituents more than mine. The short answer is that the Government, and certainly my Department, will bear down on domestic violence—however it is caused or wherever it happens—so that women, in particular, can be protected and those who are guilty of it can be brought to justice.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the role of special domestic violence courts in improving prosecution rates for domestic violence.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)
Evaluations of specialist domestic violence courts, or SDVCs, in 2005 and 2008 clearly demonstrated that they had contributed to improving prosecution rates, as well as safety, for victims of domestic violence. There have been no further formal assessments since 2008.
Mr Harris
In the light of the truly disgraceful comments by the actor Dennis Waterman, does the Minister agree that now might be a good time to reassure the House that the vital services provided by domestic violence courts will be maintained, despite the court closure programme and the plan to close 23 of them? Will those vital services be protected during the transfer of services?
The Solicitor-General
Yes, they will. We need to distinguish between bricks and mortar and the service provided by the specialist courts. There will be a reduction in the court estate, but it is certainly my intention that there should be no reduction in the service provided for victims of domestic violence.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
It is good news all round that stalking has been made a criminal offence, but there are countless examples of victims of stalking having been ignored for years by the authorities, despite the fact that the stalkers are already breaking the law. The law is one issue: enforcement is another. Will the Solicitor-General reassure the House that the new laws will be properly and robustly enforced?
The Solicitor-General
As soon as the new criminal law comes into effect, it will of course be up to the police to provide the Crown Prosecution Service with the evidence upon which prosecutions can be progressed, but my hon. Friend makes a good general point, which will be followed up.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The Crown Prosecution Service operates a robust performance management framework with 10 key performance measures. They address case work outcomes, together with performance relating to finance, efficiency and people. Over the past 12 months, performance has improved according to nine measures and declined according to two.
Geraint Davies
Only one in 10 rapes are reported to the police, and only one in 15 of those reports lead to a conviction. How does the Attorney-General expect a 25% cut in resources for the CPS to increase the number of cases reported, or indeed the number of convictions?
The Attorney-General
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s question, but as I have told the House on numerous occasions, domestic violence and rape matters have remained a top priority for the CPS, and at present I have no reason to believe that the result of any changes in its funding will alter its ability to prosecute people successfully for such offences. If there are instances that the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring to my attention, I shall of course be happy to meet him.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Is my right hon. and learned Friend as concerned as I am about the conclusion of the inspectorate’s report that there is too large a pool of Crown advocates, that they are often under-prepared and that work is poorly allocated, which leads to cracked trials and unchallenged evidence?
The Attorney-General
Yes, I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. When we first came to office I devoted some attention to the issue, and particularly to the balance between work done by Crown advocates within the service and that done by the independent Bar. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there have been some changes in the way in which that work is allocated, and I hope very much that the quality of both the work done by the independent Bar and that done in-house will improve as a result. The Director of Public Prosecutions takes this matter very seriously.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On 6 April it will be four years since the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into force, but although between 250 and 300 people die at work each year—deaths which, according to the Health and Safety Executive, are usually avoidable—only two companies have ever been prosecuted under the Act. Does the Attorney-General know what is wrong, and if not, will he conduct urgent inquiries and make a statement to the House as soon as possible?
The Attorney-General
I shall be extremely happy to go away and seek the detailed views of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and to write to the hon. Lady and place the letter in the Library. I have discussed the matter with the DPP on occasion, particularly in view of my background as a health and safety practitioner.
Corporate manslaughter is the most serious offence for which people can be prosecuted, but prosecutions can sometimes be brought to cover similar sorts of offence within the health and safety laws. I know of no evidence to suggest that the Crown Prosecution Service is not correctly applying its approach to deciding when a prosecution for corporate manslaughter is appropriate, but in order to reassure the hon. Lady in response to what was a very sensible and pertinent question, I will endeavour to provide her with the information.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
8. What recent discussions he has had with the director of the Serious Fraud Office on penalties imposed on BAE Systems following the company’s conviction for offences connected with the sale of a radar system to Tanzania.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)
I have regular meetings with the director of the Serious Fraud Office, and I discussed that issue with him recently. On Thursday 15 March the SFO announced that a memorandum of understanding between the Government of Tanzania, BAE Systems, the SFO and the Department for International Development had been signed, enabling a payment of £29.5 million plus accrued interest to be made to support educational projects in Tanzania.
Hugh Bayley
This is the first time that a British company convicted of financial crimes has been required by our courts to compensate victims in a developing country, but it has taken more than a year for the payment to be made. Do the Government intend to change the law to empower judges to impose penalties of this kind and to enforce quick payment, instead of relying on the voluntary agreement which led to the payment of compensation in this particular case?
The Solicitor-General
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me when, later in the current Parliament, I introduce deferred prosecution agreements to the criminal justice armoury. Such agreements will deal with penalty payments, but also, where appropriate, with the payment of compensation, and the payments will be made as a result of court orders.
Petition
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The petition relates to the Government consultation on the future of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency that commenced in December. The Government are now proposing to close the local network of DVLA offices, with the loss of 1,200 staff and the consequential effects on local economies and the licensing regime itself. The petition was signed by 40,000 people and it states:
The Petition of DVLA staff and service users in numerous constituencies,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the DVLA Office Network is a service which is needed throughout the UK; declares that the Petitioners feel that the decision to close the DVLA Office Network and centralise services is a devastating blow to local communities who rely on the services provided, as well as to the 1200 staff who will lose their jobs; and declares that the Petitioners believe that decision to close the service needs to be addressed so that staff and the public can get some reassurances of job and service security.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consult with staff, users and trade unions further, and to take all possible action to save the DVLA Office Network.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001013]
Use of Powered Wheelchairs (Weight and Age Limit)
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the 150 kg weight limit for class 3 powered wheelchairs used on a public footway to 200 kg; to remove the lower age limit of 14 years on use of class 3 wheelchairs; and for connected purposes.
My Bill would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988. The amendment would remove the 150 kg weight limit and the lower age limit of 14 years on class 3 wheelchairs. That would in effect modernise the 1988 Act to adapt it to modern technology, enabling severely disabled children, including those under the age of 14, to use high-specification powered wheelchairs on a public footway.
I decided to introduce this Bill after learning of a remarkable campaign by an organisation in my constituency, the brilliantly named Newlife Foundation for Disabled Children. Newlife is a combination of charity, social enterprise and business, which exists to help children with disabilities. Founded by Sheila Brown OBE in 1991 as the Birth Defects Foundation, it has helped around 4,000 UK children and spent over £5.5 million on vital equipment such as wheelchairs and child safety seats. It has invested £11.3 million in medical research and runs a nurse helpline, calls to which grew by 300% last year.
Sadly, what Newlife has discovered over recent years is that wheelchair providers, usually primary care trusts or local authorities, have found a loophole in the current law to avoid having to fund high-specification powered wheelchairs, to both adults and children who need them. It is good news that more children today are surviving illnesses and cancers, but the sad news is that one in three will still go on to have a long-term disability as a result. With that increase in service users, eagle-eyed wheelchair managers are regularly refusing to provide a “sit to stand” wheelchair, or vouchers towards that equipment, for a child in their area, because their directors of risk have become aware of legislation that actually makes providing that equipment illegal, even for free through charities. That is then used as an excuse to save money in their budgets; they do not have to provide the expensive equipment needed. At the same time they prevent charities from providing it for free, at no cost to the taxpayer. PCTs are currently not balancing their books on the backs of the poor; they are balancing their books on the backs of the most severely disabled children, which I am sure the whole House would find abhorrent in a developed country such as ours.
Working with local lawyers in Staffordshire, Newlife's excellent campaign director, Susan Woodward, has established that the legislation that needs amending is the Road Traffic Act, or ROTA. In essence what has happened is that modern technology, which has been used to develop better, more appropriate and enabling wheelchairs, has also caused the equipment to increase in weight since ROTA was enacted. I do not believe for a moment that ROTA intended to discriminate against children getting the wheelchairs that they need. However, time and development of equipment have simply moved on and ROTA has not kept up. My Bill is therefore about modernising ROTA to take account of modern, appropriate and enabling wheelchairs and to end the absurd situation where disabled people’s mobility is impaired further. Modern wheelchairs have simply got heavier with adaptations such as motorised seats, communication equipment, more robust tyres, other aids and oxygen cylinders. Meanwhile, the legislation has stood still.
Under ROTA, wheelchairs are classified in three ways: class 1 manual wheelchairs, class 2 powered wheelchairs weighing not more than 113.4 kg or capable of reaching speeds above 4 mph, and class 3 high-specification powered wheelchairs. It is the conditions relevant to class 3 that cause the problem. ROTA states that class 3 wheelchairs must not be used by a person who is under the age of 14; that, when being used on a footway, the “invalid carriage”—the words of the legislation show how old it is—must not be driven at a speed greater than 4 mph; and that the unladen weight must not exceed 150 kg. Other regulations within ROTA include the means of stopping, lighting, speed indicators, horns, vision and rear view mirrors. Essentially what all that means is that several of the high-specification wheelchairs Newlife and other charities would like to provide have become illegal. That is because they would fail to meet the requirements for age, for weight and for certain wheelchair accessories such as lights, horns and rear view mirrors.
In essence, ROTA categorises very technologically advanced wheelchairs heavier than 150 kg as cars, which can be driven legally only by over-17s who hold a driving licence. Therefore, they cannot be provided to children under 17, as they are too young; but nor can they be provided to over-17s, as very few of the powered wheelchairs have lights, horns, rear view mirrors or a speed indicator. They are not cars; they are wheelchairs. The situation is clearly absurd.
I am aware that the Department for Transport recently undertook a consultation on possible reforms of highway mobility scooters and powered wheelchairs. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), whom I am delighted to see in his place, concluded that no changes should be made regarding speed limits, weight limit or the minimum age for using a class 3 vehicle. In a written statement, he said:
“I do not, at this stage, propose that there should be an alternative to the current arrangements for registering class 3 vehicles”.—[Official Report, 1 March 2012; Vol. 541, c. 44WS.]
He did decide, however, that the maximum weight of class 2 powered wheelchairs should be increased to 150 kg —a move welcomed by many disability charities, including Newlife.
I am not clear why the Department stopped short of amending provisions for class 3 wheelchairs, and only increased the weight of class 2 to match that of class 3. Such an approach is illogical: why have different classes if they contain the same weight? If class 2 has increased to 150 kg, surely it is logical that class 3 should increase by a similar amount. The weight restrictions for class 3 wheelchairs were devised more than 20 years ago, when wheelchairs were still called “invalid carriages” and were primitive compared with the designs available today. Modern designs provide for a “sit to stand or lie” facility and have longer battery life. They also provide for wider, more robust tyres that allow users to travel on difficult, uneven terrain. That is why they are heavier: they can do more things and help disabled people more. Nowadays, it is not the equipment that is holding people back, but outdated legislation.
The legislation does not allow any child under the age of 14 to use any mechanically propelled wheelchair over the weight of 150 kg. That is because it is a prescribed condition of class 3 “invalid carriages” that they are not used by people under the age of 14. However, that provision is now having the perverse effect of preventing severely disabled children under 14 from accessing high-specification wheelchairs, which could be of enormous benefit to them. Young kids with degenerative conditions and very complex postural requirements need these heavier and more sophisticated high-spec chairs to help with lung and other organ function. The age restrictions should therefore be removed to allow younger children to benefit from the use of chairs that accurately reflect their needs.
Of course we need to balance the safety of pedestrians and other road users with the mobility needs of users, but it is clear that the current legislation arbitrarily discriminates against children under 14. Why not choose 13 and a half or 14 and one month? This is a civil servant’s arbitrary measure. A much better basis would be a basic assessment of a child’s ability to use the relevant high-spec wheelchair, rather than an arbitrary age limit.
To conclude, the Road Traffic Act 1988 was written when wheelchairs were an aid to mobility. Today, wheelchairs provide disabled children with an aid to life. Children with the most disabling conditions rely on their wheelchair to meet their therapy and personal care needs, to prevent deterioration in their condition or the experiencing of pain, and to provide access to education and family life. For some children, their wheelchair lengthens their lifespan. The Act therefore discriminates against the children who have the greatest need for this equipment.
We all know in this House that ten-minute rule Bills rarely make it on to the statute book. I am already anticipating the cry from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) of “House not sitting” when I read out the date for my Second Reading debate. However, I am honoured that both the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes, and the Minister for disabled people, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), are sat here listening from the Front Bench. I urge them when they leave this Chamber to work together to amend the legislation and use the opportunity to improve the lives of some of the most needy in our society. To disable our disabled community further by legislation is simply nonsensical. We have 21st-century equipment and 1980s law. This is an easy amendment for the Government to make. It will allow charities and statutory services to respond fully to need, instead of having a make-do, lesser alternative. Those are the reasons why we need the Bill, which I commend to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Aidan Burley, Dame Anne Begg, Stephen Gilbert, Keith Vaz, Stephen Lloyd, Jeremy Lefroy, John Glen, Karen Bradley, Priti Patel, David Morris, Christopher Pincher and Mr Robert Buckland present the Bill.
Mr Aidan Burley accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2012 and to be printed (Bill 320).
Health and Social Care Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 328 / Noes: 246 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of whether the House should defer consideration of Lords Amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill until after disclosure of the NHS transitional risk register.
My right hon. Friends and I are grateful for your agreement to give the House this opportunity, Mr Speaker. On this of all days we should be celebrating what a much-valued social institution has done to bind our nation together throughout the 60 years of Her Majesty’s reign. Instead, we gather to dismantle it. A health service that is judged by international experts to be one of, if not the, best health service in the world is about to be inexplicably and unjustifiably broken apart by an ideological Bill ending 63 years of NHS history.
This is a difficult day, but what makes it all the harder to stomach for people watching is the manner in which things are happening. People outside will struggle to understand how Members of this House could make such momentous decisions without having carefully considered all the facts and all the evidence. The truth is that Members will go through the Lobby tonight without knowing the full implications of what it means for the NHS in their constituencies. How do they begin to justify that to their constituents, to patients who depend on the NHS and to staff who devote their lives to it? We have argued from the beginning that the Government’s decision to combine an unprecedented financial challenge in the NHS with the biggest ever top-down reorganisation has exposed the NHS to greater risk, and the truth is that we are beginning to see the effects of that. In our constituencies, they have already dismantled the existing structures of the NHS before the new ones are in place, leading to a loss of grip just when it was most needed. So we are seeing A and E waits getting longer, staff shortages leading towards A and E closures, and patients in our surgeries beginning to complain of treatments being restricted or of longer waits.
We have also heard from the health professions—from GPs, nurses, midwives and physios—who one by one have made clear their considered professional judgment that, on the balance of risks, it would be safer to abandon the Bill than to proceed with the upheaval of reorganisation. Ministers by their actions are putting the NHS at greater risk, but even today this House does not know the assessment that was given to Ministers or the precise nature and scale of those risks.
Andy Burnham
I do not plan to give way because I want other Members to have the chance to contribute to the debate.
Ministers want the House to back the gamble they are taking with the NHS without having the courtesy to tell it the odds. The Information Commissioner thinks we should see the risk register and so does the Information Rights Tribunal, which brought forward its ruling so that it could influence our proceedings. If the NHS starts to struggle because of all the change being thrown at it and if services in some parts of the country start to fail, how will Members of the House respond when people come to our surgeries and ask whether we did everything we could to anticipate the dangers? We will remind them of the truth—that Government Members put politics before the national health service and signed up to a reckless reorganisation without knowing all the facts.
Andy Burnham
I will give way once to the right hon. Gentleman and then I will finish my remarks.
Mr Redwood
I am very grateful. When Labour introduced private contractors to carry out NHS treatments, did that undermine the NHS?
Andy Burnham
No, because we brought down NHS waiting lists to their lowest ever levels and we left patient satisfaction at its highest ever level. Those same waiting lists are going up under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government and he should be ashamed of that. He will not publish the information about the risk to waiting times because he is frightened of putting it before the House and the public, but we will remind them of the truth.
The Government proclaimed that they were going to be the most open and transparent Government in history. Today, it still says on the Treasury website in a statement of the Government’s principles for risk management:
“Government will make available its assessments of risks that affect the public, how it has reached its decisions, and how it will handle the risk. It will also do so where the development of new policies poses a potential risk to the public.”
May I suggest that the Government take down that misleading statement of policy? Their actions have left it in tatters, together with the grand claims of openness and transparency. The tribunal, they will say today, has not given us its reasons. Ministers will try to argue that the public and Parliament’s right to know about the impact of their policy decisions is outweighed by the public interest in the preservation of a safe space for policy advice.
Those arguments were considered, first, by the Information Commissioner, and subsequently by the Information Rights Tribunal. They found the opposite to be the case: that the public interest lay in full disclosure. But it does not matter; Ministers are simply re-running the arguments of a case that they have lost. They have no leave to reopen the substance of that argument, but they are not the only arguments that they have lost.
In an attempt to rescue the Bill last year, the Prime Minister made a number of claims for it. They cover issues that we know are in the local and regional risk registers which have been published. First, he said the Bill was needed as the NHS does not
“deliver the patient-centred, responsive care we all want to see”.
He cited heart services and claimed that someone in this country is twice as likely to die from a heart attack as someone in France. That was before new research in January reported a 50% fall in heart attack deaths in the past decade.
Then the Prime Minister said that cancer services were failing people, compared with other countries. That was before new research in November 2011 which showed that the NHS in the past decade achieved the biggest drop in cancer deaths of any comparable health system in the world. Thirdly, the Prime Minister and all the Ministers on the Government Front Bench have routinely trotted out the same script for years—that NHS productivity has declined in the past decade. That was before new research on NHS productivity from Professor Nick Black published in February in The Lancet showed that, far from falling, NHS productivity increased in the past decade at the same time as the NHS achieved patient satisfaction.
One by one the Government’s arguments for the Bill have fallen apart. They have comprehensively lost the argument. They have convinced nobody and now they are running scared, resorting to the only remaining option of ramming the Bill through Parliament before they are required in law to publish the real assessment of their policies.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am sure my right hon. Friend will join me in wishing well 11-year-old Bailey Stark in my constituency as he and his family cope with his condition that means that he is unable to swallow. His mother is worried sick about the changes in the health service, which might mean that he will not get the treatment he requires in Newcastle. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that risk is all the more reason for publishing all risks, as we should know the truth about what is happening to our NHS? [Interruption.]
Andy Burnham
Members shout “Scaremongering” from the Government Benches, but the Government will not publish the evidence to back up their claims. We have read the local and regional risk registers which warn precisely of the case that my hon. Friend mentions—of damage to the continuity of care, risks to patient safety, longer waits for cancer patients, risks to child safeguarding. Those are the facts in the regional risk registers and they are the facts that Ministers are trying to withhold from the public.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my surprise and sadness that the Liberal Democrats, who were once the defenders of freedom of information, are now trooping through the Lobby in support of a dangerous Bill shrouded and protected by the restriction of information?
Andy Burnham
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point. The Liberal Democrats once derided the Freedom of Information Act as too weak. Today they cower behind it, trying to use any scrap of protection they can find within it to prevent the publication of the information that patients and the public deserve to have. That says everything that people need to know about today’s Liberal Democrat party.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Andy Burnham
I will not give way. I will now bring my remarks to a close.
We are clear that the risks in the Bill arise not just from the organisational turbulence that the Secretary of State is inflicting on the NHS, but from the specific policies in the Bill. Today we table a package of amendments in a last-ditch attempt to provide the necessary safeguards that the Liberal Democrats failed to secure in another place—
Andy Burnham
They are safeguards in light of the huge potential for the conflict of interests in the award of contracts under the “any qualified provider” provisions, which will not be addressed by a simple register of interests, and safeguards on a stronger local HealthWatch—the Government have watered that down since the Bill left this House of Commons. There are safeguards too—
Mr Dorrell
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he just clarify one issue of principle for the House? Are Labour Front Benchers now arguing that every Government Department should publish its strategic risk register? If not, can he justify his proposition that the Department of Health should do so uniquely?
Andy Burnham
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Information Commissioner’s ruling on the decision about a third runway at Heathrow. That is the precedent his Government should be following, but instead they have chosen to defy the commissioner. It was the Labour party that published the decision on a third runway at Heathrow, and I refer him to the ruling from the Information Rights Tribunal, which made a clear distinction between the strategic risk register, which covers all the uncontrollable risks that any Department will face, and the transition risk register, which deals specifically with the effects of Ministers’ decisions, in this case on the NHS. There is a real difference between the two. The tribunal said that the transition register should be published. His Government should respect the law and publish today.
We will table amendments to provide safeguards today, but in future it will not just be the cover-up of the risk register that we will have to worry about—that is just a taste of things to come in the new NHS. Members will have to get used to the words “commercial confidentiality” when inquiring about local services, because that is what they will find in the NHS that Ministers are creating. Let us look at the risks inherent in the proposed relaxation of the private patient income cap. One risk assessment that Ministers have published—the revised impact assessment—states that
“there is a risk that private patients may be prioritised above NHS patients, resulting in a growth in waiting times for NHS patients.”
That is all they have told us, but that alone is reason enough to oppose the Bill.
The only hope I can give people worried about the future of the NHS is that this might be the end of the Bill, but it is just the beginning of our campaign. The NHS will find a way of working around these changes and will not deteriorate overnight. We will be working to mitigate the worst effects of the Bill. This is the eleventh hour; our only hope would be a change of heart from the Liberal Democrats. We will call a vote on this motion and ask people to vote against it to show that we have not had enough time to debate these important issues.
I respect those Liberal Democrat Members who have had the courage to defy their orange book leadership, and I respect their grass-roots members who did the same at their spring conference, but the truth is that from today the Liberal Democrats will be remembered not only for tuition fees, but as the party that stole people’s votes in May 2012 in order to secure jobs for themselves and sell out the national health service. They could have stood up to the Prime Minister and enforced the coalition agreement, but they chose not to do so.
That brings us back to where we started: a Bill that nobody voted for, rammed through this place tonight in the teeth of near-universal professional opposition and in defiance of a major legal ruling; a Bill about which no Member of this House can look their constituents in the eye and say they have a mandate to support. Tonight Government Members will inflict this Bill on the NHS without knowing the potential damage it can do to the health service in their constituencies. They have made their choice; I have made ours. Although on a day like today it is hard for me to give any encouragement to people worried about what the Government are doing, I can at least say this: we will repeal this legislation at the first opportunity and restore the N in NHS. We have given this fight everything that we had. All I can say is that our fight will go on to protect and restore the Labour party’s finest achievement.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State has indicated that he wishes to speak later in the debate—[Interruption.] Order. That is his absolute prerogative. In view of the level of interest in the debate, it will be helpful for the House to know at this point that a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches is to be imposed immediately. I call Dr Daniel Poulter.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
indicated dissent.
Mr Speaker
He was in, on the list and at the top. If he does not wish to speak, so be it.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I start by apologising to the House for making what I suspect may sound like a slightly portentous speech. It is not meant to sound portentous, but if it does I apologise.
Because of the effluxion of time, there are not many former Ministers on the Government Benches are, but there is, irrespective of the topic, an important point that needs to be made in the context of today’s debate. I urge every right hon. and hon. Member, before they vote at the end of this debate, to get a copy of House of Lords Hansard for yesterday’s debate, where this matter was debated. There are, in that Lords Hansard, two speeches that hon. Members would do well to read: those of Lord Wilson of Dinton and Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, both former heads of the civil service.
Lord Wilson was head of the civil service during the time of a Labour Government, and both he and Lord Armstrong made it very clear in their speeches yesterday that to release the risk register would be extremely bad news for the relationship between the civil service and Ministers generally. Irrespective of this issue, irrespective of the topic, if risk registers were to be released, officials would needlessly be politicised and thus be concerned about the advice that they gave to Ministers. Ministers would then find themselves being given verbal advice, fewer people would be involved and that would not help the machinery of government.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tony Baldry
I will give way to the right hon. Lady in a moment.
Lord Wilson made it clear in his comments:
“Every day in government, Ministers consider policy issues and depend on the Civil Service for advice. Anyone who has been a Minister understands the private space in which civil servants give their best advice.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 2012; Vol. 736, c. 643.]
It seems to me that this debate is really very much about a matter of principle: the relationship between civil servants and Ministers.
I understand the Opposition wishing to make some political points, but many of them, including the right hon. Lady to whom I am about to give way, have recently been Ministers, so I am sure they understand that point, and it does not behove the House, in its desire to make a political point, to seek to undermine a long-standing relationship between Ministers and officials.
Dame Joan Ruddock
Why therefore has the strategic health authority in London felt able to publish its risk register? There are 18 areas of risk, and those that were red are, after mitigation factors, still red, so we learn something very important. That is why we should have the risk register under discussion published.
Tony Baldry
I understand that point, but they are very different registers. The register to which the right hon. Lady refers is meant to be publicised. The two are of an entirely different nature, and that point has been explained to the House by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench on a number of occasions.
We are discussing departmental risk registers and the advice that civil servants give to Ministers. All I am saying is that right hon. and hon. colleagues, before they vote, should at least take care to consider the advice of former heads of the civil service on the effect that publication would have on the relationship between civil servants and Ministers.
Tony Baldry
I can assure my hon. Friend that what I am saying is true. All he has to do is walk a few feet to the Vote Office and pick up a copy of Lords Hansard and read for himself the speeches of Lord Wilson of Dinton and Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. All I am saying to my hon. Friend—
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tony Baldry
No.
All I am saying to my hon. Friend is that this is a debate about the relationship between civil servants and Ministers, a relationship that has worked very well and very effectively in this country.
Here we have heads of the civil service advising Parliament that this move, which the Opposition would seek to force upon us, is not in the best interests of the relationship between civil servants and Ministers and is not in the best interests of the good running of government.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
The national health service is probably the most precious institution in this country. It is vital to millions of our fellow citizens—its hospitals treated nearly 10 million people last year—and so no one should take risks with it. The Prime Minister decided to take such risks, he told a private meeting of Conservatives, because the NHS was in an “invisible crisis”. Well, all I can say to the Prime Minister is that it is invisible because there is not one. The NHS is not in crisis; it is doing remarkably well, and it needs to continue to improve. The Prime Minister also said that he was willing to “take a hit” in this regard. No Labour Member cares very much whether he does or not: what we are bothered about is that we do not want the national health service to take a hit; we do not want its precious, hard-working staff to take a hit; and we do not want its patients to take a hit.
Government Members—or those in the majority party—call themselves conservatives, but actually they are a party of chancers. Real conservatives recognise that the outcome of change is unpredictable, that the process of change can be troublesome, and that there are often unexpected consequences of change, and they therefore need convincing that there is a good case for the change. Clearly, the Government have not made such a case.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Frank Dobson
No.
The Government have not made such a case for change. They have not convinced the 1 million-odd people in the national health service that these changes are needed, and if they cannot convince the people on whom the service is going to depend, they are taking a real chance with its future.
The Prime Minister attributes his commitment to competition, including outside competition, to some of the most worthless and shallow research that has ever been conducted at the London School of Economics—and that puts it in a pretty extreme category. The researchers said that they identified that hospitals they claimed competed with one another had achieved a 7% improvement in the period for which patients awaiting an operation had to wait once they got into hospital. A 7% improvement is a period of less than an hour. Then, without any justification whatever, they generalised from the particular and said that the hospitals they claimed competed with one other were 7% more efficient right across the board. It is on that basis that the Prime Minister says that he wants to introduce competition into our national health service.
Frank Dobson
No, I will not give way, even to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has made a very honourable contribution to these debates.
Across the board, we see the Government taking unjustified risks with our national health service. If they are not prepared to disclose to the rest of us what risks they have been advised they are bringing about, they are both cowardly and stupid. I do not think that the people of this country will ever forgive them for their reckless, chancy, dodgy, second-hand-car-salesman approach to the national health service.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
It is a sure sign of a deranged mind when one starts to repeat oneself. I have said previously that the Bill is a huge mistake, that not releasing the risk register merely creates further alarm, and that abandoning the Bill could be the safer option. I have also said that the Secretary of State’s intentions are noble and that the Opposition’s objections are—in part, at any rate—considered and compelling. However, I have clearly failed to persuade many of my parliamentary colleagues to share that point of view, as last night’s voting showed.
Karl Turner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He says that he has been opposed to the Bill from the outset. As he knows, I served on the Public Bill Committee with him. Why did he not vote against it? He had ample opportunity to make the Government drop the Bill.
John Pugh
If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard carefully, he will find that there were occasions when I did. We must all agree, whether sadly or happily, that the vote in the Lords last night was conclusive, even if some, like Baroness Williams, were voting for legislation that they said they did not particularly like. That is in part because of the modifying genius—I put it as strongly as that—of Earl Howe.
There are risks attached to the legislation. The risks that I face are small in comparison with those faced by the Secretary of State. I risk being found out for having fears that are misplaced. I risk having my forebodings exposed. He risks a great deal more than that. The House does not need a risk register to find out what those risks are. If he proceeds rapidly at a time of huge upheaval in the NHS, he will actually promote that upheaval. If he goes ahead, he will be doing so at a time of austerity, in the teeth of wholesale professional opposition and in a climate of genuine legal uncertainty, with legislation that has, in part, been cobbled together. We will soon find out what has been scaremongering and what is plain scary. Crucial to mitigating the risks will be the pace and the extent of enactment and implementation. There will be a mopping-up phase. It will be crucial for the Government to woo back professional opinion. The risk register would have told us, to some extent, how easy or difficult that will be.
Already we hear that the Government are struggling with the central plank of the legislation: GP commissioning. We wait with interest to see the regulations on that. It is hard to see how GPs can commission basic out-of-hospital services in primary care, which is a central thrust of the Government’s legislation, and not be seen, as small businesses or associations of undertakings, to be benefiting themselves with public money. In the legislation, we have made the biggest provider the biggest commissioner as well. GPs will have no problem commissioning hospital services without any legal obstacle, but they will lack the expertise to do so. That is what primary care trusts found when they did the commissioning. The risk is that we will end up with GPs not being able to commission what they do understand, and being asked to commission what they do not understand. We therefore await the regulations with considerable interest.
I suggest that although Cabinet members have been banging the table today, they may well be banging their heads against the wall in the years to come.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
This Standing Order No. 24 debate is an important statement from Parliament to the Government. We expect better from the Executive, and the public demand better, as they have shown in e-mails, surveys and petitions.
This afternoon, the House is being asked to agree to the longest ever NHS legislation and to back the biggest ever reorganisation of the NHS. We are being asked to accept that from Ministers who have lost twice in law and still keep secret the risks that they are running with our NHS. This is a legal and constitutional argument; it is not a political argument. This is not about being in favour of or against the Health and Social Care Bill; it is about the public’s right to know the nature and scale of the risks that the Government are running with their NHS, and it is about their elected Parliament’s right to know about those risks when it is asked to legislate—as we are being asked to do—on their behalf. We are elected to the House to legislate by the people, for the people.
Nothing is more precious to people than our NHS. We all need the NHS. We depend on it utterly when we are at our most vulnerable and fearful. The NHS in England employs more than 1.4 million people, treats 3 million patients each week and provides each of us, throughout our lives, with some of the best health care in the world, free at the point of need. That is why it matters so much, and that is why people mind so much about the plans for the NHS.
The NHS, as an institution, is exceptional, and the public interest in anything that puts it at risk is exceptional, too. The current reform plans are exceptional in their nature, scale, timing and speed, and concern about the risks to the NHS is exceptional. That was expressed by all NHS experts, professional groups and patients in the consultation on the White Paper, and it was expressed by the Health Committee in its reports in December 2010 and January 2011. Risk was, is and will continue to be at the heart of the concerns about the biggest ever internal NHS reorganisation. That is why I made my original FOI request for the transition risk register in November 2010. That is why I refused to accept the Department’s refusal to release it. That is why I went to court this month to help to argue the case against the Government’s appeal.
Good government demands that Ministers get the best and fullest policy advice from officials, and it requires some safe space in which to make major policy decisions, but I am not asking for the release of policy advice. Risk registers are management, not ministerial, documents. They do not contain policy advice or accounts of policy discussions. They derive from major policy decisions, and the White Paper of July 2010 set out the main policy decisions three and a half months before the first transition risk register was compiled.
Nor am I asking for the release of information that will bring to a halt the Government system of risk management. It did not do so in 2008 when we were forced to release the risk register for the runway at Heathrow. Nor am I asking for the routine disclosure of risk registers. I am asking for the non-routine disclosure of this risk register because of the exceptional case and the balance of public interest that is in favour of disclosure and not in favour of withholding, just as the Information Commissioner and now the Information Tribunal—both of whom have had the benefit of having seen this risk register—have decided.
We are at the very end of the eleventh hour of this Bill’s 14-month forced passage through this House. Beyond today, the Government must decide whether they will respect the law and release the risk register. This is part of the reason why the Government have lost the support of NHS staff and lost the confidence of NHS patients, and have now lost the trust of the British public.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
It is a great honour to take part once again in a debate on the Health and Social Care Bill. I first made a contribution to these debates in 2010 and, as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said, since then there have been 14 months of detailed and careful consideration of the Bill’s provisions. That says a lot. There has been criticism both in this debate and previously that the Bill is ill-considered and has been rushed through, but given the consideration of it that there has been over such a long period, and with so much public involvement and comment, that is clearly not the case.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that our NHS is truly a precious institution for each and every one of us—our own family members as well as all our constituents—and I agree. People rely on the health service and hold it very dear, and it is therefore right for passionate feelings to be expressed about its future both in this Chamber and outside. I contend that because we have a changing demographic and magnificent advances in medical technology, the way our national health service is run cannot stay still.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
No one on the Opposition Benches has argued that the NHS does not need to continue to improve. That is not what we are discussing; we are discussing the risk register. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government should abide by the tribunal’s decision, or does he believe they should continue to ignore that lawfully made decision?
Henry Smith
I think the biggest risk to the national health service is if we do not reform it and move it forward. It needs reform to stay relevant to the needs of all our constituents. I find the Opposition’s position strange—I would put it down to political opportunism, but I am happy to take another intervention if Opposition Members want to state their case—given what happened with the three requests made when the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was Secretary of State and under his predecessor.
Andy Burnham
Does the hon. Gentleman understand the difference between a strategic risk register and a transition risk register?
Henry Smith
I believe I do understand the difference between the different types of risk register, but if we simply stand still and have inertia in our health service, it will become less relevant.
The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) accused members of my party of being chancers. I prefer to consider us as reformers, and only if we embrace reform will we be able to provide a better NHS.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
One reform that I imagine the hon. Gentleman will welcome is the Chancellor’s proposal, which we gather we will learn about tomorrow, that every taxpayer can find out where their taxes go. As the taxpayers have paid for the compiling of the risk register, why should they and we not be able to read it?
Henry Smith
I am a great supporter of transparency across all our public services, and the people of this country thirst for transparency about how their hard-earned money is spent.
The Health and Social Care Bill provides for the democratisation of the national health service. The experience of the NHS in my constituency over the past decade was the sad loss of the maternity department at Crawley hospital, followed four years later by the closure of its accident and emergency department. One reason why those two units and others were transferred from my constituents’ local hospital was that decisions about the national health service were made nowhere near where they took effect.
The Bill will allow local clinicians, in conjunction with their patients—and, I might add, with democratically elected local government—to have a much greater say in how the NHS is delivered and greater scrutiny of it. We will have a far more responsive health service. It has been almost decades since health decisions in Crawley were made by clinicians, patients and elected councillors. By repatriating many decisions, we will have a more transparent and responsive health service.
It was a great privilege to be able to open the new digital mammography unit at Crawley hospital a few weeks ago. That is a classic example of a health service that develops in line with technology and with the changing needs of our population. I am confident that the Bill will give local clinicians, patients and democratically elected local representatives the tools to provide a far safer and more relevant national health service to the people of my constituency and constituencies up and down the country.
In conclusion, after 14 months of careful consideration of the Bill, it is time we get on with the reform of the national health service, which goes hand in hand with the increased investment in it that the Government have guaranteed at least to the end of this Parliament. I might add that that is in stark contrast to what is happening in Wales, where Labour is in control of the NHS and where budgets have been cut. The people of Wales are feeling the result. I want to resist that happening to patients in England and therefore believe that it is time to get on and pass this legislation for the good of our NHS.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
This debate is about contempt—for the Information Commissioner, for the tribunal, for the people who signed the e-petition, for the public who have contacted hon. Members in their hundreds of thousands and for the principle of transparency. For years, we had lectures from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats when they were in opposition, when they said that sunlight was the best light.
We should not be surprised, because the whole debate on this Bill has been about contempt, starting with the contempt for democracy. The Government have no mandate, no support and no truth—the Conservatives promised no top-down reorganisation. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were not straight with the people, but why not? I hate to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), but this debate is political. The Conservative party has always opposed the national health service, because it is the living example that collectivism works. Conservatives oppose the NHS because they are against collective provision.
The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who has tried his best to make something out of this mess, was right when he told the Liverpool Daily Post a number of weeks ago:
“If the Conservatives had gone to the country at the last election and said ‘we want a market-based health system’ they would have lost the election badly.”
The Conservatives knew that, which is why they covered it up.
The Government have shown contempt for the House, because even before they reached for the pause button, changes were taking place. Before we have even agreed the Bill, they have all but abolished 151 primary care trusts, with tens of thousands of people being made redundant. They are being replaced by 279 clinical commissioning groups, and strategic health authorities have been set up.
The new national commissioning board, which has not yet been agreed in law, has already got a chief executive, a finance director and seven board members, recruited at salaries of up to £170,000. That is before we have even passed the Bill. If that is not contempt, what is?
Worst of all is the Government’s contempt for the people to whom we look to deliver our services. The Government say, “We know best,” but anybody who was in the Chamber last week to hear the Government’s contempt for the work of Dr Chand, who did his best to ensure that the House looked again at the Bill, will know how the Government feel about health workers in this country.
Who are these people who know so much better than the doctors, nurses, general practitioners, consultants, radiographers, occupational therapists and porters? What is their background? There are researchers, a teacher, and a sales and business manager. In the Lords there are former Army people, journalists, lobbyists, MEPs and researchers, and people who worked at Tory HQ. Do they all know so much better than the people to whom we and the people we represent turn every day of the year to take care of us?
Who is against the Bill? Almost everybody, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Radiologists, the Royal College of Physiotherapists, and the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health, the Faculty of Public Health and the GPs. I could be here all night going through the list, but the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats know it.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
There was one small omission from my hon. Friend’s list of the many opponents of the Bill: the agent of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is also deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. Mr Gary Glover, on his Twitter account, said:
“Lib Dems have accomplished almost nothing on the NHS Bill.”
Surely the truth is that Lib Dems could accomplish rather a lot, because they could help us to defeat the Bill tonight.
Mr Anderson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As an eternal optimist, I continue to hope against hope that the Lib Dems will see the light tonight, but my guess is that they probably will not. They have shown contempt even for the democracy within their own party. They claim to be determined to be bound by the democratic decisions of their own party. They have not been. They have ignored their party. When they came to Gateshead two weeks ago, they said they would stand up to the Bill, but they have not. It is the double-talk and spin that we are all used to.
Two days ago, I visited my general practitioner, and on his practice nurse’s wall was a poem by Michael Rosen, the children’s poet laureate, who, in 2009, wrote a poem called “These Are The Hands”. It read:
“These are the hands
That touch us first
Feel your head
Find the pulse
And make your bed.
These are the hands
That tap your back
Test the skin
Hold your arm
Wheel the bin
Change the bulb
Fix the drip
Pour the jug
Replace your hip.
These are the hands
That fill the bath
Mop the floor
Flick the switch
Soothe the sore
Burn the swabs
Give us a jab
Throw out sharps
Design the lab.
And these are the hands
That stop the leaks
Empty the pan
Wipe the pipes
Carry the can
Clamp the veins
Make the cast
Log the dose
And touch us last.”
These are the people we should have been listening to. These are the people who have been ignored constantly by the Government parties. And these are the people who will never ever forgive them for what they are doing tonight. When the election comes, they will be thrown out where they belong.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker, for what I hope will be a brief intervention prompted by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).
Later this evening, the House will consider—yet again, many of us would say—the Health and Social Care Bill, but the issue for consideration now is whether the Government should publish the transitional risk register on the Bill. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne was explicit that he was not arguing that all strategic risk registers should be published, and acknowledged the argument that there needed to be private space in which civil servants could give advice to Ministers secure in the knowledge that it would remain private, because there was an important interest of good government that that discipline and space should exist. That is an argument that he explicitly accepted and of which I am a strong supporter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury reminded the House that only yesterday two retired former heads of the civil service told peers in the other place of the importance of the principle that Ministers must be able to receive advice from civil servants on policy issues, including the risks associated with them, without that advice later becoming public. The issue that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne did not cover but which is important is that there needs to be confidence within the civil service about which side of the line advice will fall. If civil servants can give advice to Ministers believing that it will remain confidential and if, after the advice is given, the line is moved and the advice falls to be published, we run the risk that across Whitehall the space that he advocates will, in truth, not exist, because there will not be the confidence that the advice will not later fall to be published.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is talking about advice. It has been made clear that this is not advice but a management assessment of risks relating to the Bill and the reorganisation. It is not about policy or advice, which is why it is important that it is released.
Mr Dorrell
It is an interesting debate whether a risk register about a transition related to a policy is advice about policy or advice about management. The issue is that there is doubt. If the Government surrender this line without arguing the case to its conclusion, there is space for doubt about whether these risk registers will remain confidential or whether they will be published. The important principle is certainty.
Mr Dorrell
I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
The important principle—it is always an important principle in the law—is certainty: the certainty that people can be clear whether the advice or the register that is being given to a Minister will remain confidential or whether it will be published. My concern is that this motion is seeking to move that line retrospectively, in a way that two distinguished former heads of the home civil service clearly believe would prejudice the space that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne said was important.
Mr Dorrell
As I have quoted the right hon. Gentleman, I shall give way to him.
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is making an argument for blanket secrecy. However, this is less about his view or even mine; rather, the point is that the Information Commissioner and the judge, along with his two wing members on the tribunal, all of whom have seen and studied the risk register, have determined that, in their legal judgment, the balance of interest lies in publishing and not withholding it. Those are the facts of this case.
Mr Dorrell
The right hon. Gentleman is correct, but he does not go to the end of the process, because the reasons for that decision have not yet been published. The House is therefore being asked to make a decision on the basis of a judgment that has not yet been published, which cannot be right.
Andrew George
My right hon. Friend has argued the case on behalf of retired senior civil servants and Government Front Benchers. However, as the Chair of the Select Committee on Health, and therefore as someone who is deeply interested in effective scrutiny, does he not agree that if the Committee, of which I am a member, wishes properly to understand the potential impact of fragmentation, the conflicted nature of clinical commissioning groups, and so on, we need to find a way of getting behind the declaratory reassurances from the Front Bench?
Mr Dorrell
Of course I agree with the proposition in the way that my hon. Friend puts it. However, the proposition before the House is a rather more precise one: that a register drawn up in the expectation that it would remain private should retrospectively be put into the public space. The proposition that I am advancing to the House is that that is an area where we should proceed with care. We should embrace the principle that when advice is given to Ministers, it should be clear to those giving it whether it is being given confidentially or whether it will later be given over for publication. That is the simple principle that I wanted to set out.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I have got out of my sick bed to be here today, because this is a vital debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in it. I often feel that these debates are a bit like the siege of Stalingrad: we are rolling back the forces of oppression. I content myself, with my cough and sore throat, that at least the red army was victorious on that occasion.
In response to the point that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), who chairs the Health Committee, made about the ruling by the Information Commissioner, I think we should reflect on the fact that it was indeed a ruling. It was not advice that he was giving. Mr Christopher Graham has some expertise in this field, and although the detailed reasons have not been published, the arguments that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the co-applicants from the Evening Standard—that it was in the public interest to publish the risk register—were obviously accepted.
If I may, I would like to remind the House of what the Information Commissioner said, which was upheld on appeal. Mr Graham said:
“Disclosure would significantly aid public understanding of risks related to the proposed reforms and it would also inform participation in the debate about the reforms”.
Earlier on, Government Members were shouting “Frit!” at Labour Members. I really did not understand what that meant—I am just a simple working-class lad from Easington—but I now understand that it means “You’re afraid”. However, if the Government have complete confidence in the direction of their reforms, surely it is they who are afraid, because they should have the confidence to publish the document.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is beyond doubt that the Information Commissioner considered all these matters before reaching his decision. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the risk assessment had supported the Government’s case, the Government would have got it out like a shot? That they have not done so exposes the fact that they are playing fast and loose with one of the nation’s most treasured institutions, and that they are trying to hide that.
Grahame M. Morris
Absolutely; good point, well made. If the Government had nothing to hide and were not concerned, they would have published the contents of the risk register. We have had a flavour of the contents of the other risk registers that have been compiled at strategic and other levels, and I believe that the Government are concerned about them.
We know that the Bill will increase the risks to the national health service. Indeed, the chief executive of the NHS, Sir David Nicholson, told the Health Select Committee, of which I am a member:
“I’ll not sit here and tell you that the risks have not gone up. They have. The risks of delivering the totality of the productivity savings,”—
that is, the Nicholson challenge; the £20 billion—
“the efficiency savings that we need over the next four years have gone up because of the big changes that are going on in the NHS as whole.”
It is clear that local and national risk registers, as well as the strategic risk registers to which we have had access, have highlighted serious concerns with patient safety, increased costs, the break-up of care pathways—which we have seen on Health Select Committee visits—as well as competition harming integration, about which the Committee was very concerned, and the specific risks during the transition stage.
John Healey
Will my hon. Friend also confirm that, in that session on 23 November 2010, Sir David Nicholson stated that the scale of the proposed change was enormous, and that it was beyond anything that anyone in the public or private sector had witnessed? That is why the risks involved in the reorganisation are so great, as is the imperative for the House and the public to know about them.
Grahame M. Morris
Absolutely; I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. These are huge structural changes to a beloved organisation, and it is in the public interest that we know precisely what is in the transition risk register.
A little while ago, I tabled early-day motion 2659, which called on the Health Secretary
“to respect the ruling by the Information Commissioner and to publish the risk register associated with the Health and Social Care Bill reforms in advance of Report Stage in the House of Lords”,
so that we could have proper scrutiny in the Lords and in the House of Commons. We have not seen what is in the transition risk register, but we are aware of the existence of other risk registers. While the Health Secretary has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent the publication of the transition risk register and, in the process, hiding the risks to the NHS in England, other NHS bodies and clinical groups have been compiling their own risk registers into the impact of the Health and Social Care Bill.
One such body is the Faculty of Public Health, the body for specialists in public health, which is a joint faculty of the three Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom. I am grateful to Professor Clare Bambra, from the north-east, and Professor John Ashton, from the north-west, for providing this information. In a letter to The Independent, Professor Lindsey Davies, the president of the Faculty of Public Health, outlined his concerns about the pressure that clinicians were now under from their employers for criticising the Government’s plans to reform the NHS. He wrote:
“Public health professionals have the right and duty to speak out on issues which they perceive as threatening the health of the population they serve”.
The bunker mentality of the Health Secretary, and his determination to silence clinical and public opposition, have astounded the country as a whole.
In response to the Department of Health’s refusal to publish its own strategic risk assessment of the impact of the Bill, the Faculty of Public Health has undertaken its own study, in which it has highlighted a number of significant risks, not least the potential for a postcode lottery. It states:
“Clinical Commissioning Group flexibility to determine services will lead to an increase in geographical variation in service provision.”
It identifies the possibility of costs being pushed up, and states that the
“development of more overt market mechanisms, and the greater role for the independent sector in the provision of healthcare is likely to increase the overall cost of providing healthcare.”
It also raises concerns about issues of quality as a consequence of the reforms. If the transition risk register indicates that, we should know about it.
The delaying tactics employed by the Secretary of State are, to my mind, holding Parliament in contempt. He should publish and employ no further delaying tactics. Reports that Tory-Lib Dem Cabinet members banged their Cabinet table in delight and glee at the prospect of the health Bill finally being rammed through and becoming law at the end of today leave a very sour taste in the mouth. I urge all Members to support this motion and get the risk register published.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that there is a slight discrepancy between the clock time shown on the annunciator screen and that shown on the digital display panels on either side of the Chamber. For the avoidance of doubt, this debate began at 3.44 pm and has to end at or before 5.14 pm. For the purposes of deciding when we reach the end time, the Chair will use the time on the Chamber digital display panels. I hope that that is helpful. Given the level of interest in the debate, the time limit for Back Benchers will be reduced to three minutes with immediate effect.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I have just been reading a kind of risk register—the risk register for Ibuprofen—and I have been reading it in the British National Formulary, which is a kind of recipe book and technical how-to-do manual for doctors and nurses. When I read it, I see that it is scary stuff. If I take this medicine, I might develop a fatal skin reaction, I might bleed to death from a stomach ulcer, I might develop kidney failure, I might collapse with pancreatitis, hepatitis and all sorts of things. Why on earth did I take this medicine—this potentially dangerous Ibuprofen?
Dr Wollaston
Listening to Labour and seeing the extreme shroud waving that has been going on is, frankly, enough to give anyone a headache. I took the Ibuprofen because of what I read in the impact assessment. The impact assessment presents a sensible, balanced portrayal of the realistic risks and benefits, and warns me of many points of which I need to take heed. It is far more likely that I am going to develop indigestion from taking Ibuprofen than that I am going to collapse from a fatal skin reaction.
Dr Wollaston
I am not trying to trivialise the issue; believe me, I understand how vital the NHS is to all our constituents and to patients. My view is that the transition risk register has been elevated to a status far out of proportion to what it merits. I completely understand the points made by Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong—very experienced civil servants who tell us that they would feel constrained in giving full and frank advice. However, we have seen how any detail can be taken out of all proportion in this House; we are all partly responsible for that. As I said, some of the shroud waving over this Bill has been disgraceful, and I know of patients who have been genuinely frightened by it. I would be prepared to see the risk register published, but I accept the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) that it has to be done on the basis of a clear understanding.
Andy Burnham
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. I remember, however, a comment that she made to The Guardian, I believe, at the start of this process, when she said that this Bill was like throwing a hand grenade into the NHS. What has changed?
Dr Wollaston
There we go—a deliberate misrepresentation. After I made those comments, I wrote to senior colleagues and told them that what I had said was completely different. I was deliberately misquoted on that statement and have been consistently misquoted by Labour Members. They should go back and look at the original.
I feel that it would be reasonable to present all the risks, but it would be crucial for Members of all parties to recognise that we are talking about a lasting change. We would also need to see a change in how risks are extrapolated out of all proportion to what they represent and an end to the deliberate frightening of patients into believing that they will have to pay for health care, which has been a consistent feature of how this Bill has been misrepresented by Labour Members.
Grahame M. Morris
In the context of her medicinal anecdote, does the hon. Lady not accept that members of the public at least have the right to read the little inserts in books of pills before they take them? Should we not have the same right to read the risk register?
Dr Wollaston
The equivalent of that is actually the impact assessment. However, as I have said, I would be prepared to allow the publication of the register, because, in this internet age, the misrepresentation of the Bill, and the extrapolation out of all proportion to the risks, has been a complete disgrace.
Dr Wollaston
I believe that by the time of the next election, our patients will still be going to see GPs. They will still be referred to the hospitals of their choice, that referral will still be free at the point of use, and it will still be based on their needs and not on their ability to pay. The only thing that will be missing will be an apology from the Labour party.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for whom I have great respect. I am glad that she recognises that the risk register should be published, and I greatly regret the fact that her Whips did not allow her on to the Bill Committee, where her views might have had more influence. However, I think that the coalition insults those of us who oppose the Bill by suggesting that we would mistake a worst-case scenario for a prediction. I think that opponents of the Bill know what a risk looks like, and I think that we could be trusted with the risk register. We want to be able to study the Bill with the benefit of that information, and to be able to represent our constituents properly on it.
This is a very sad day for our health service. Although the Bill returns to the Commons today following a tangle of more than 1,000 amendments, the Government have done little to alter its direction, which remains fixed on the ideology of driving commercialisation into almost every corner of the NHS. [Hon. Members: “Have you read it?” ] Yes, I have.
The risks were made plain at the weekend. Dramatic warnings by leading doctors featured in an assessment by the Faculty of Public Health, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). It has also read the Bill, and it represents more than 3,000 public health specialists in the NHS as well as local councils and academia. It says that the Bill poses
“significant risks… to patients and the general public”.
It goes on to say that the Bill could well damage people’s health and experience of care—[Interruption.]—and adds:
“It is likely that the most vulnerable who already suffer the worst health outcomes will be disadvantaged as a result of the enactment of the Bill.”
Let me repeat that. Members may not have been able to hear it over all their heckling. The poorest,
“the most vulnerable who already suffer the worst health outcomes will be disadvantaged as a result of the enactment of the Bill.”
That is precisely the point. That is why an extraordinarily wide cross-section of people are deeply concerned about the commercialisation that the Bill brings. Yet despite their concern, and despite two rulings demanding the release of the risk register, the Government maintain their arrogant dismissal and refuse to make the register public. Why? Because they know that were they to make it public, we would know what they already know, which is that it drives a nail into the coffin of the NHS. The Bill is hugely damaging, and that refusal to come clean speaks volumes.
So many parts of the Bill are still hugely flawed. The 49% private income cap and the fact that more and more beds will be used for the private sector will massively undermine our NHS. That is why so many constituents are writing to us: they are deeply concerned. However, this is not the end of the road, because the campaigning will continue throughout the country.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Your generosity of spirit is legendary, Mr Speaker, and you were characteristically generous in accepting the submission of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that there was an emergency warranting this debate. I regret that he has let you down. It turns out there was no emergency, there was no argument, and there was no point.
Ostensibly, the debate is to consider the Department of Health’s transition risk register. The House considered that on 22 February, and by a majority of 53 the House decided that it did not support the publication of the risk register. We further considered that matter in the debate on 13 March. I think that the views of this House should be respected.
Yesterday, in another place, Lord Owen proposed an amendment, the purpose of which was to delay consideration of Third Reading in the House of Lords until the publication of “reasons” by the first-tier tribunal and the Government’s response. That amendment was defeated by a majority of 115. I remind the House that the Government do not command a majority in the House of Lords. That proposal was defeated by a substantial majority on the balance of the argument.
I will not repeat what I said in the debate on 22 February, but let me just add three things. First, as my noble Friend Lord Howe told the House of Lords yesterday, the risks and other impacts of the Bill were fully disclosed, not least in the impact assessments—a 200-page document—published alongside the Bill; in the NHS operating frameworks; in transition letters from the NHS chief executive and others; and in the full description of the risk headings that Lord Howe set out to the House of Lords on 28 November. I regret to say that it sounds to me that no Labour Members—with, I suspect, the exception of the right hon. Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—have taken the trouble to read the debates in the House of Lords.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made clear, Lord Wilson of Dinton, a former Cabinet Secretary, told the House of Lords yesterday that he has deep concerns about the Information Commissioner’s decision and its negative impact on the safe space within which officials give frank advice and act as a “devil’s advocate” to Ministers.
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman argues that one of the principal reasons why the Government have not accepted the decision to disclose the risk register is that information about risks has been disclosed to the public already. The Information Commissioner considered that. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in his legal decision, the Information Commissioner said that he did not accept the argument that the Government advanced, and that he considers that
“disclosure would go somewhat further in helping the public to better understand the risks associated with the modernisation of the NHS than any information that has previously been published”?
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in the debate on 22 February we made it clear that we felt that our appeal to the tribunal was justified, and indeed it was, because we won at appeal on the question of the publication of the strategic risk register. The Government’s objection and my objection to the publication of the risk register is precisely that risk registers are not written for publication. They are written in that safe space within which officials give advice to Ministers.
Mr Lansley
No.
Risk registers do not represent a balanced view. They are not a prediction of the future. They set out a worst-case scenario to challenge decision making. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) captured the understanding of what a risk register is very well. The point is that we have looked precisely at the balanced view in the impact assessment, which captures where the risks and the benefits of the Bill lie. However, publication of the risk register, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) made perfectly clear, would prejudice the frankness and integrity of the decision-making processes of government and the Government are opposed to their publication.
As I mentioned, we won on appeal in relation to the strategic risk register, but not on the transition risk register. In the absence of the reasons for those decisions by the tribunal, and given the nature of the overlap between the strategic risk register and the transition risk register, I cannot comment further on that, or indeed on what our response will be to the tribunal’s decisions.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State consistently makes the distinction between policy development issues and operational matters in respect of risk registers and other plans that have been published. Once this Bill has become law and the NHS becomes engaged in the operational matter of implementing his reforms to the health service, will he then encourage NHS trusts to publish, in due course, the risk mitigation plans that they might have, in order to reassure the communities they serve?
Mr Lansley
As the House has noted, risk registers designed for publication form part of the papers prepared for the boards of trusts. Of course, the legislation further strengthens the openness of foundation trust boards, for example, in respect of meeting in public and publishing their documents. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood rightly pointed out, there is an enormous difference between the frank expression of officials’ worse-case scenarios to Ministers in order to challenge decision making—as I say, it was anticipated that that was not intended for publication—and the preparation of risk registers by NHS bodies and trusts, which are designed for publication. Indeed, the national risk register is also designed for publication on that basis. As I said, those in the House of Lords yesterday agreed, by a substantial majority when voting on an amendment, that not only had the consideration of the Bill received unprecedented scrutiny, but that they also had the information they required.
Thirdly, let me just remind the House that the right hon. Member for Leigh, as a Minister, refused to publish the Department’s risk register. He said:
“Whilst we are conscious that there will be public interest in the contents of the Strategic Risk Register being made freely available, we have also taken into account the public interest in preserving the ability of officials to engage in the discussions of policy options and risks without apprehension that suggested courses of action may be held up to public or media scrutiny before they have been fully developed or evaluated. We also take into account the fact that ministers and their officials need space in which to develop their thinking and explore options, and that this disclosure may deter them from being as candid in the future, which will lead to poorer quality advice and poorer decision-making. Having regard to all these factors, we have determined that the balance of public interest strongly favours withholding the information.”
I could not have put it better myself, because that is precisely the point. He talks about the difference between the strategic risk register and the transition risk register, but the one requested was a risk register at the point at which policy was being formulated, and there is a substantial overlap between the strategic risk register and the transition risk register.
The right hon. Gentleman did one thing when he was a Minister and he argues the opposite now. The same thing seems to be happening in so many other fields. When he was a Minister he said that he was in favour of clinical commissioning, and practice-based commissioning was in the Labour manifesto in 2005. In 2006, he said that his ambition was to introduce
“practice-based commissioning. That change will put power in the hands of local GPs to drive improvements in their area”.—[Official Report, 16 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 861.]
Now he wants to block a Bill whose purpose is to give clinicians—doctors and nurses across the NHS—the power to commission and design services in their area. We just do not know the position. Once more, we heard nothing positive from him about what Labour would offer the health service; all we heard was a denigration of the performance of the NHS and a determination to block the Bill. We are still hearing from him about what Labour Members are opposed to; we just do not hear about anything he is in favour of.
The curious thing is that last Tuesday, on an Opposition day debate, I said, “We are hearing from Labour Members and Labour activists all over the country about their opposition to £20 billion of cuts.” Hon. Members will remember, because this happened only a week ago, that the right hon. Gentleman was shouting at me from the Labour Front Bench, “No, no, no. We are in favour of that.” I said to him, “Look, it is in the manifesto”, because Labour’s manifesto said that
“we will deliver up to £20 billion of efficiencies in the frontline NHS”.
Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman turned up with his hon. Friends at the Department of Health to deliver a petition from Wigan and Leigh. It said:
“We the undersigned are opposed to the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill and £20 billion of ‘unmandated’ cuts in NHS funding”.
He sat there last Tuesday saying, “No, we are in favour of £20 billion of efficiencies”, yet he is wandering all around the country with his hon. Friends saying, “No, it is £20 billion of cuts.” Frankly, Mr Speaker, if I recall correctly, that is what you would have me describe as an erroneous view.
The NHS across the country is a service that not only will use reform positively but is using reform positively now. We are seeing the reforms being implemented. On 1 April, clinical commissioning groups will take responsibility for more than £60 billion-worth of delegated responsibility for commissioning. I am tired of hearing the right hon. Gentleman denigrate NHS performance when what we have, since the election, is the lowest ever number of patients being admitted to mixed-sex wards, with numbers down 95%; the lowest ever number of patients waiting more than six months for treatment, with numbers down from 100,000-plus to 70,000; the lowest ever number of patients waiting more than a year for treatment, with numbers down from more than 18,000 to below 6,000; and the lowest ever number of patients waiting more than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. In May 2010, that figure was 209,000 but the latest figure is down to 182,000. Also, fewer people than ever are acquiring infections in hospital, with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus down 36% and clostridium difficile down 25%.
I have searched in vain for a point to this debate. I think that the only point was so that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends could put out a press release about having 24 hours to save the NHS—I think I have heard that one before. The Labour party is never knowingly over-clichéd. Only the Daily Mirror bothered to notice the press release, putting it on page 6; if it had really thought that this was about saving the NHS, it might at least have put in on page 1. No, the truth is that this is political opportunism dressed up as principle. This is a debate for no purpose and the only effect of this one and a half hour debate is to delay the consideration by this House of the amendments made in another place. Given the full and constructive character of the debate in the Lords over 25 days, I think it is a disservice to the other place that this House’s time has been wasted on having this debate. The Labour party has shown that it is interested not in what is in the Bill, but only in the political opportunity of opposing it. We are interested not only in what is in the Bill but in the opportunity it presents—not for the sake of the Opposition’s politics but for the NHS to improve and strengthen in the future.
Andy Burnham
In the past few minutes, we have seen a perfect demonstration at the Dispatch Box of why the right hon. Gentleman has spent 20 months trying to sell this Bill to the country but has comprehensively failed to do so. He had nothing to say in response to the speeches of Opposition Members and he did not respond with appropriate seriousness to the points that we have put to the House, namely that it should not put through far-reaching changes to this country’s most valued institution without knowing all the facts. Not one Member can go through the Lobby and say that they know all the facts about what this Bill will do. Instead, what we have heard from the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is a rerun of the arguments that were heard in detail by the Information Commissioner and the Information Rights Tribunal. I have news for them all—and, indeed, for the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—they lost. Those arguments have been heard, a ruling has been made and the Government should surely respect the law, and of all people, the hon. Member for Broxtowe should respect the law.
The Secretary of State said there was a very simple point—that the Government have a responsibility to respect the law. They are the Government who told us they would be the most open and transparent Government in history. What total nonsense. Our point is simple: he is passing a Bill with far-reaching implications for the NHS in England in defiance of a legal ruling that he should publish all the information about his Bill. He made three points that were simply wrong. He said that the transition risk register deals with the worst-case scenario. It does not. It deals with the likelihood of a range of events and the impact of those events, and gives a judgment about whether or not they can be mitigated and the likelihood of mitigation. Has he read his own risk register?
The Secretary of State made a point about the strategic and transition risk registers. Has he read the ruling from the Information Commissioner and has he understood the implications of what the Information Rights Tribunal said? They said that the Government should not publish the strategic risk register because it deals with uncontrollable risks that are outside the control of Ministers, but that the Minister should publish the transition risk register because that is what he is inflicting on the national health service.
Let us not forget that the Secretary of State has chosen to inflict the biggest ever top-down reorganisation on the national health service at this moment of greatest financial challenge. That was his decision. His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ruled that out. He said that there would be no top-down reorganisation. The coalition agreement ruled it out, but the Secretary of State brought it forward. It was his decision and if he wants this Parliament to endorse his plan, he should have the courtesy of putting before Members all the information that he has seen, but he is not prepared to do that.
Why will the Secretary of State not publish this information? What has he got to hide? Is it the fact that it would prove that all the people who are lined up in opposition to his Bill are right—the doctors, the nurses, the midwives, the physios? Is it possible that they are right in their judgment that the Bill will cause more harm than good? Would not the pitiful levels of support that he still has for the Bill be wiped out by the publication of the risk register?
The Secretary of State made no argument today at the Dispatch Box. The Government are doing what they are doing in total defiance of the law, in the teeth of professional opposition. They do not have the permission of the people of this country to put the NHS through the biggest ever reorganisation in its history. They promised in their manifesto that they would not do it. The Prime Minister promised us that he would protect the NHS and there would be no top-down reorganisation, but the Government have introduced the biggest ever top-down reorganisation. They are making a catastrophic political mistake by doing so. We will remind them every day of the damage they have done to our national health service.
Question put.
Business without Debate
17:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 246 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords Amendments | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
Nos. 1 to 10, 13 to 42, 54 to 60, 63 to 167, 242, 246, 248, 252, 287, 292 to 326, 328 to 332 and 335 to 365. | 8.00 pm at today’s sitting. |
Nos. 11, 12, 43 to 53, 61, 62, 168 to 241, 243 to 245, 247, 249 to 251, 253 to 286, 288 to 291, 327, 333, 334 and 366 to 374. | 10.00 pm at today’s sitting. |
Health and Social Care Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 233 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 324 / Noes: 236 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 7, 21, 35, 132 to 141, 181, 189, 192, 198, 243, 244, 253, 265, 288, 290, 291, 319, 320 and 366. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Clause 1
Secretary of State’s duty to promote comprehensive health service
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
With this we will consider the following:
Lords amendments 2 to 10 and 13 to 30.
Lords amendment 31, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 32 to 42, 54 to 60, 74, 242, 246, 248, 252, 287, 292 to 294, 299 to 326, 328 to 332 and 335 to 342.
Mr Burns
The aim of this Bill is to secure a national health service that achieves results that are among the best in the world. Through it, the Government reaffirm their commitment to the values and principles of the NHS: a comprehensive service, available to all, free at the point of use and based on need, not ability to pay. However, we have always been prepared to listen and make changes to improve the Bill, and we have continued to do so in another place. The Lords amendments in this group fall within five main areas.
First, we recognised that concerns had been expressed about the Secretary of State’s accountability for the health service. Although it was never our intention in any way to undermine that responsibility, we have worked with Members of another place and the House of Lords Constitution Committee to agree Lords amendments 2 to 5, 17, 18, 24, 39, 40, 74, 246, 287 and 292. Those amendments put beyond doubt ministerial accountability to Parliament for the health service. In addition, they amend the autonomy duties on the Secretary of State and the NHS Commissioning Board, to make it explicit that the interests of the health service must always take priority. They also amend the intervention powers of the Secretary of State and the board, to clarify that they can intervene if they think a body is significantly failing to exercise its functions consistently with the interests of the health service. Finally, a new provision will make it explicit that the Secretary of State must have regard to the NHS constitution in exercising his functions in relation to the health service.
Although clinical commissioning groups will have autonomy in their individual decisions, Lords amendment 9 clarifies that CCGs must commission services consistently with the discharge by the Secretary of State and the board of their duty to promote a comprehensive health service, and with the objectives and requirements in the board’s mandate.
The Government also tabled amendments in response to the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, all of which we have accepted. Amendments 15 and 16 ensure that the requirements set out in the mandate, and any revisions to those requirements, must now be given effect by regulations.
Commissioning will be led by GPs, who know patients best. However, with that responsibility must come accountability. Therefore, further to the amendments made in the House requiring CCGs to have governing bodies, the other place has strengthened requirements in relation to CCGs’ management of conflicts of interest. We recognised how important it is to ensure the highest standards of probity in CCGs and accepted amendments 31, 300, 301 and 302, which were tabled by the noble Baroness Barker, and which require CCGs to make arrangements to ensure that members and employees of CCGs, members of the governing body, and members of their committees and sub-committees, declare their interests in publicly accessible registers.
The amendments also require CCGs to make arrangements for managing conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest in such a way as to ensure that they do not, and do not appear to, affect the integrity of the board’s decision-making processes. The board must issue statutory guidance on conflicts of interest, to which CCGs must have regard.
Taken together, those amendments provide certainty that there will be clear and transparent lines of accountability in the reformed NHS. However, I cannot support Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment 31. The Bill is clear that CCGs must manage conflicts of interest in a way that secures maximum transparency and probity. In most cases, that would mean that a conflicted individual withdraws from the decision-making process, but that might not always be possible, for instance when a CCG is commissioning for local community-based alternatives to hospital services, and determines that the most effective and appropriate way to secure them is to get them from all local GP providers within its geographic area. In that event, it would not be possible for every GP to withdraw from the decision-making process. We cannot, therefore, agree to a blanket ban.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Will the Minister clarify something in view of what he has just said about the conflict that all members of the board and the CCG will have with regard to decisions on the provision of new services? Does he share my fear that the structure of CCGs results in bodies that will continue to be conflicted? Does that continuing conflict not undermine that important structure within the health service?
Mr Burns
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I am afraid I do not share that view. I hope that what I shall go on to say will help to give him additional reassurance on that.
There will be additional safeguards in the Bill to ensure that those processes are transparent, including the regulations that Monitor will enforce on procurement practices and its accompanying guidance. In addition, the board must publish guidance for CCGs on their duties in relation to the management of conflicts of interest. Of course, the CCGs' commissioning intentions will have been set out in its commissioning plan, which is subject to consultation with both the public and the health and wellbeing boards.
The second area in which the other place has strengthened the Bill relates to the duties placed on commissioners to ensure a patient-focused NHS. It has always been the Government’s intention to put in place reforms that support the simple principle, “No decision about me without me.” To achieve that, commissioners will for the first time have a duty in relation to patient involvement in decisions. The House strengthened those duties following the listening exercise, and they were further improved by amendments 19, 32 and 33 in the other place, to make it explicit that the duty means promoting the involvement of patients in decisions relating to their own care or treatment.
Another core principle of the White Paper was the need to eliminate discrimination and reduce inequalities in care. The Bill will for the first time in the history of the NHS place specific duties on the Secretary of State and commissioners to have regard to the need to reduce health inequalities.
To reinforce that further, the other place agreed amendments 22, 23, 36, 37, 38 and 60. These ensure that the Secretary of State, the board and CCGs will be better held to account for the exercise of these duties through their annual reports, the board’s business plan and, in the case of CCGs, their commissioning plans and annual performance assessment by the board. However, improvements in quality, outcomes, and reduced inequalities will not happen unless we better integrate services for patients. That is why we placed duties on commissioners, again for the first time, to promote integration in new sections 13M and 14Y, and made clear, following the listening exercise, that competition will not take priority over integration.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
I met GPs and consultants in Tavistock in west Devon the other day. One of the great concerns that consultants have, particularly in the field of paediatrics, is the integration of children’s services. A great deal of work has gone into that. In dealing with these amendments, what assurance can my right hon. Friend give that the integration of children’s services will be particularly emphasised in these changes?
Mr Burns
I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by two points. First, the Bill contains far greater duties and responsibilities for integration over the whole provision of care within the NHS, and that will obviously include children’s services. Secondly and more precisely on the narrow issue that he raised, the children’s health outcomes strategy, published some time ago, will ensure that commissioners provide services to improve integration and that there is greater working together between the NHS, public health bodies and commissioners in securing an improved pathway of care and greater integration.
Lords amendment 320 ensures that the NHS continues to provide funds to local government for investment in community services at the interface between health and social care.
Thirdly, amendments in the other place have placed a greater emphasis on the duties of the Secretary of State and commissioners with regard to system-wide issues, such as education, training and research. Amendment 7 ensures that the Secretary of State will remain responsible for securing an effective system of education and training. Amendments 21, 26, 35 and 42 will place duties on the board and CCGs to have regard to the need to promote education and training, and the Government supported the noble Lord Patel’s amendment to ensure that providers of health services were required to participate in the planning, commissioning and delivery of education and training.
The Government have also listened further to concerns that the strength of the research duties on the Secretary of State, the board and CCGs did not properly reflect the importance of the NHS as a world leader in supporting research. Amendments 6, 20 and 34 have strengthened these to a more direct duty to promote research.
Fourthly, concerns were expressed in the other place about the treatment of charities, other voluntary sector organisations and social enterprises that provide or want to provide NHS services. We are committed to a fair playing field for all providers of NHS services, regardless of their size or organisational form. We see voluntary organisations and social enterprises as key to this vision. For example, they can play a key role in understanding the needs of local communities and delivering tailored services.
Amendment 8 commits the Secretary of State to undertake a thorough and impartial statutory review of the whole of the fair playing field for NHS-funded services. I can confirm that it will cover all types and sizes of provider, including charities, social enterprises, mutuals and smaller providers. It will consider the full range of issues that can act as barriers for providers, including access to and cost of capital, access to appropriate insurance and indemnity cover, taxation and access to the NHS pension fund. The Secretary of State will be required to keep consideration of these issues under review. As my noble Friend Earl Howe set out in another place, during preparation of the report there will be full engagement with all provider types, commissioners and other interested stakeholders to ensure their concerns are looked at.
Finally, I turn to the amendments relating to mental health services. I would like to thank my noble Friend Lord Mackay for his work in developing amendment 1, which inserts the words “physical and mental” into clause 1 in order to promote “parity of esteem” between physical and mental health services. In response to the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ concerns, I would like to offer the reassurance that the definition of “illness” in section 275 of the National Health Service Act 2006 would continue to apply to section 1, meaning, for example, that learning disabilities, mental disorders and physical disabilities would continue to be covered by the comprehensive health service.
Although our view is that the most important work in achieving genuine parity of esteem will be non-legislative—for example, through our recent mental health strategy, “No Health without Mental Health”—we recognise the symbolic significance of including these words in clause 1. Mental health is a priority for this Government, so I commit to considering further the role that the mandate, the NHS and public health outcomes frameworks can play in driving improvements in mental health services. Similarly, we decided not to oppose amendment 54 by the noble Lord Patel of Bradford relating to mental health aftercare services provided under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and tabled a number of consequential technical amendments.
I am grateful for the scrutiny that the Bill has received in another place. There is no doubt that it has been strengthened and improved as a result. It will help to ensure that the Secretary of State will remain accountable overall for the health service and provide a robust framework for holding commissioners to account. I urge hon. Friends and hon. Members to agree to the Lords amendments in this group, but to reject Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment 31.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
There have been 1,000 Government amendments to this disastrous Health and Social Care Bill—374 in the other place alone—and it is unacceptable that elected Members in this House have been given so little time to debate amendments that will affect patients and the public in every constituency in England.
It is essential that we reach the second group of amendments, on parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, which deal with Monitor, foundation trusts and the Government’s plans to raise to 49% the private patient cap in foundation trusts, but I want to start with the Lords amendments to the Secretary of State’s duty to ensure a comprehensive service in the NHS. I will remind hon. Members where this all began.
On 10 February last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) challenged the Secretary of State, in his evidence to the Commons Bill Committee, over why he was removing the Secretary of State’s responsibility to provide a comprehensive service in the NHS. He said:
“I have not... It is in the original language. It is reproduced the same way.”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2011; c. 166, Q402 and 404.]
On 15 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) challenged the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) about the removal of the Secretary of State’s duty to provide comprehensive NHS services. Again, this was categorically denied. The Minister said:
“Clause 1 retains the overarching…duty which dates from the original 1946 Act”.––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 15 February 2011; c. 178.]
He also said that any amendments to the clause were “unnecessary”. Today the Government are being forced to eat their words.
For the record, it was the determination of Labour Members in the other place, not Liberal Democrat Members, that forced the Government to place the clauses relating to the Secretary of State’ duties on promoting a comprehensive service and on autonomy within the remit of the Lords Constitution Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness Jay of Paddington. The result of the Committee’s deliberations are the amendments before us today. The amendments do not deliver exactly the same duty as the National Health Service Act 2006, but they are a significant improvement. Pressed on this issue by Labour Members in both Houses and at every stage of the Bill, the Government have been forced to concede.
A similar thing has happened on education and training, which is the subject of Lords amendments 7, 21, 26, 35 and 42.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Before my hon. Friend moves on, will she pay tribute to our Labour colleagues in the Lords, who have worked across the House, but who, by dint of the way the House of Lords works, cannot always claim credit for the results they have achieved by working in that way?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely concur with my right hon. Friend. For the record in this House, I pay tribute to our colleagues in the Lords for their achievements and their efforts in securing some of the protections for the NHS that we are debating today.
There was absolutely no mention of education and training in the original Bill, despite the fact that the Bill abolishes strategic health authorities, which play a vital role in education and training—for example, by hosting deaneries. Labour Members raised this issue in the first Commons Committee stage. We also tabled an amendment on Report to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure a comprehensive education and training system for all professions in the NHS, which would have included continuing professional development. Labour Members in the other place then tabled amendments to address the issue. I should note, again for the record, that it was Labour and Cross-Bench Lords, not Liberal Democrat Lords, who argued for those important amendments and who forced the Government to introduce substantive new clauses placing duties in respect of education and training on the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups.
However, the critical issue that I want to focus on is how to deal with conflicts of interest in clinical commissioning groups. Clinical commissioning groups will be responsible for spending around £65 billion of taxpayers’ money. They will be made up of a majority of GPs—professionals who run businesses that are largely, and in many cases wholly, dependent on the NHS for their income. Clinical commissioning groups will commission NHS services, some of which will be provided by GPs who are members of the group, or—as is increasingly envisaged by the Government—by companies in which GP members may have a financial interest. The public must have confidence that clinical commissioning groups are making decisions based on patients’ and taxpayers’ best interests, not the financial interests of GPs.
Liz Kendall
I will finish this point.
However, under the Bill, clinical commissioning groups—the newest bodies in the NHS, and with the least experience—will have the weakest corporate governance of any public body in the country. They are required to have only two lay members. However, there has been no reassurance in this House or another place that those members will be independently appointed. The Government have not even given a reassurance that the chairs of clinical commissioning groups will be lay members. The Government have also failed, at every faltering stage of this Bill, to ensure robust protections against actual or perceived conflicts of interest in clinical commissioning groups.
Liz Kendall
No, I am going to proceed.
Let me remind hon. Members that the Bill started out without any requirement for GP consortia—as they were then called—even to have a board to govern their work, let alone any measures to deal with potential conflicts of interest. On 3 March last year, in the first Commons Committee stage, Labour Members called for effective corporate governance and robust measures to deal with conflicts of interests in clinical commissioning groups.
Liz Kendall
I am going to finish this point.
The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), said that all and any changes to those provisions were “unnecessary”, and denied that there was any lack of effective governance. I would remind Liberal Democrat Members that the Minister argued that putting a board in place or dealing with conflicts of interest would mean that clinical commissioning groups would fail to be “liberated”. Those criticisms were among the many issues that were supposed to be dealt with when the Government embarked on their now infamous “pause” in the Bill’s progress last spring, but they were not. The Government were therefore forced to return to the issue in the other place. However, the amendments before us are still weak, incomplete and ineffective.
The Government say that clinical commissioning groups will have to include in their constitutions how they intend to manage conflicts of interest. However, I am afraid the Government are deluded if they think that the national NHS Commissioning Board will be able adequately to scrutinise whether hundreds of clinical commissioning groups are properly implementing the measures in thousands of contracts, particularly when the board has already taken on so many other huge responsibilities for managing the Government’s new system. Giving Monitor powers to scrutinise clinical commissioning groups is inadequate for the same reason. Saying that Monitor can deem a clinical commissioning group’s contract to be ineffective, if it thinks that conflicts of interest have not been dealt with, will in effect mean closing the stable door once the horse has bolted. Indeed, there could be huge problems on the ground, as a provider may have already started delivering services to NHS patients by the time Monitor takes its decision.
Labour’s Front-Bench team in the other place tabled a comprehensive amendment to deal with conflicts of interest in clinical commissioning groups. It would have ensured a code of conduct for how clinical commissioning groups register, manage and report on conflicts of interests among its members and employees, and imposed a duty on CCG members to abide by the code. The amendment would have ensured that no member of a clinical commissioning group could take part in discussion or decisions concerning any provider of services with which that person had a registrable interest, and allowed the Secretary of State to appoint an adjudicator to investigate complaints about any breaches of the code, with a range of financial and other sanctions available, including the ability to suspend or remove a person from the clinical commissioning group. However, the Government rejected that comprehensive amendment, saying that such sanctions were unnecessary.
The Government have agreed to Lords amendment 31, which at least says that there must be a register of interests for a group, along with its governing body, sub-committee and employees, and that the register must be kept up to date, with information updated within 28 days. That change is welcome, but it does not go anywhere near far enough in ensuring that conflicts of interest are robustly dealt with. That is why our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 31 would ensure that members of a clinical commissioning group would not be able to take part in discussions or decisions about services in which they had declared a registered interest, which is the same format as in local government.
Andrew George
Although we welcome Lords amendment 31, which was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Barker in another place, the hon. Lady’s amendment (a) proposes to go a stage further. I personally welcome that, but did she notice that the Minister, in justifying the Government’s position that it would not practically be applicable, gave the example of a CCG commissioning from all its membership? Does that not fundamentally undermine the argument that clinical commissioning groups cannot be conflicted per se?
Liz Kendall
I am simply arguing in amendment (a) that the same robust mechanisms that exist in local government should apply in this case. The hon. Gentleman will have to have a conversation with his own Ministers about what they have said in response.
The potential for conflicts of interest under the Bill is so great, and the amount of public money being spent by clinical commissioning groups so substantial, that the Government should have put in place far tougher provisions to deal with conflicts of interest. The Deputy Prime Minister has failed to guarantee the integrity of clinical commissioning groups, as he claimed in his joint letter with the noble Baroness Williams to Liberal Democrat Members. The integrity of clinical commissioning groups cannot be guaranteed by having only two lay members who will not even be independently appointed, nor can it be guaranteed through guidance for GPs, which the General Medical Council is currently developing. Indeed, I would argue that the GMC’s role should be to ensure professional integrity in the treatment of individual patients, not with regard to organisational misconduct, which would be a complete change in its current role. Nor can the integrity of clinical commissioning groups be guaranteed by national bodies such as the NHS Commissioning Board and Monitor, which will be too distant, too remote and too busy dealing with the fallout from other aspects of the Government’s Bill to be able effectively to address the potential conflicts of interest that clinical commissioning groups will face every day.
This issue might not have received as much public or media attention as other aspects of the Bill, but it will become significant in future, as patients and taxpayers struggle to determine whether their best interests—not the financial interests of GPs—are at the heart of the NHS. Examples of that have already come to light. In October last year, the Haxby practice in York wrote to its patients to say that a range of minor treatments would no longer be available on the NHS, but that they could be carried out privately at a number of clinics, including one owned by the practice itself. Those treatments included the removal of skin tags, at a cost of £56.30, and the treatment of benign tumours at a charge of £243.20.
Dr Richard Vautrey, of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, has rightly said that
“the direction of travel in NHS policy, particularly combined with the financial situation, does increase the risk of conflicts of interest for GPs which is one of the reasons the BMA is so concerned about the Health and Social Care Bill.”
Similarly, the NHS Confederation and the Royal College of General Practitioners have felt forced to issue guidance to GPs on how they should manage conflicts of interest, because they believe that the arrangements will become more complex under the Government’s plans. The Lords amendments before us are not robust enough to deal with this. It is a real concern for GPs that they will be unable to deal with conflicts of interest. That is what they are saying, and they need to be protected. The Government should support our amendment, because that would enable that to happen.
Andrew George
I congratulate my noble Friends Baroness Jolly, Baroness Barker, Lord Marks, Baroness Williams, Baroness Tyler and Baroness Northover on putting in a tremendous amount of work during the Bill’s various stages to negotiate and table amendments to advance the arguments that my Liberal Democrat Friends and I have expressed concern about. I have already put on record the fact that, although some of those amendments represent important strides towards making the Bill less bad, the changes still do not satisfy me to the extent that I feel that the Bill should be entitled to go forward from this, the elected House, as a piece of legislation. Unfortunately, that is not an argument that I am going to win, but I wanted to put the point on record.
Lords amendment 31 represents an important step forward, but it will merely provide a sticking plaster in what will be a fundamentally challenging scenario. The clinical commissioning groups represent a crumbling pillar in the edifice of the legislation. The big weakness at the centre of the CCGs is the fact that their members will, collectively and individually, be conflicted in almost all circumstances, and they will be unable to escape from that.
The Minister emphasised that point further when he told the House why he could not accept the amendment tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench. He told us that members of a CCG should not take part in certain discussions and decisions, even though they had declared an interest, because the groups would, on occasion, be commissioning for all their members. In those circumstances, a CCG would be incapable of making a decision because none of its board members or general members could be brought in to help because they would all be conflicted. That demonstrates a fundamental weakness in the legislation. My noble Friend Baroness Barker tabled an excellently drafted amendment to deal with that problem, but she was working within very limited parameters. The amendment would simply provide a sticking plaster for a crumbling edifice that will be unable to hold up this policy. I have a fundamental concern about the way in which the legislation will work in this regard.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I want to make a few points on Lords amendment 2, which deals with the Secretary of State’s duties. This has been the subject of one of the most fundamental debates during the course of the Bill. The Lords still have grave concerns about whether the Secretary of State does indeed have a duty to
“provide or secure the effective provision”
of health services in England. In addition, concern remains over exactly what the Secretary of State will remain accountable to the House for.
In Committee, the Lords agreed not to amend clause 1, or clause 4, in regard to the duty to promote a comprehensive health service and the Health Secretary's accountability to Parliament. Instead, they preferred to engage in negotiations with the Minister with a view to bringing back proposals before the Report stage. The Lords Constitution Committee also proposed amendments on ministerial accountability for the NHS. The Committee’s concern was that, even after the months of debate here and in the other place and the amendments that had already been tabled, the Bill still posed an undue risk to maintaining adequate ministerial and legal accountability for the NHS. Given the number of amendments that had been tabled, it was a remarkable achievement still to have such uncertainty.
The wording of amendments remained an issue, and on 2 February 2012, the Government tabled 137 amendments to the Bill covering a range of areas, including changes to clarify the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the health service. There were two key amendments: one sought to ensure that the Secretary of State
“retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England”.
The other sought to place the duty to promote a comprehensive health service and to exercise functions to secure the provision of services above that of promoting autonomy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Member used the term “comprehensive health service”. Does he feel that the changes to the NHS will deliver a comprehensive health service, or does he feel that what we will see is some people being able to access services while others are not? Is that not the sort of health care service that he would be against and to which the people of this country would object?
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful for that intervention and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that this amendment, which deals with the Secretary of State’s powers, and, indeed, the whole thrust of the Bill, are likely to lead to a fragmented service, when what we all want to see is co-operation and integration. I am concerned about the direction of travel in that respect.
The point about autonomy is relevant, because Lords amendment 2 reiterates that
“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of”
health services. Lords amendments 4 and 17 would further amend clauses 4 and 20 in order to downgrade the duty to promote autonomy even more, through the idea that the Secretary of State must only
“have regard to the desirability of securing”
autonomy instead. When it comes to ministerial accountability for the Secretary of State, we have a yearly mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board, which will remove the Secretary of State—and therefore Parliament—from being involved in or interfering in the running of the NHS. In that case, I ask the Minister: what would be the point of Health questions? As private health care interests take over the provision of health services, they will not be subjected to freedom of information requests or other forms of accountability to which NHS providers are subjected.
Grahame M. Morris
I will in a moment, but I want to pose a few questions first. The Secretary of State clearly cannot answer for private companies that are exempt from FOI requests. He cannot answer for GP commissioning groups, which are essentially independent contractors and private bodies. Surely, it is clear that the Secretary of State is handing over a big chunk of the NHS budget to private GP commissioning groups, cutting himself and Parliament out of the loop. I therefore believe that it is a fantasy to say that the Secretary of State will remain accountable.
Mr Burns
There is almost—no, there is—an air of déjà vu to this part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, as there always is. We discussed this in Committee, and I am a bit frustrated that he cannot quite get it. The fact is that at the moment there is virtually no transparency and no real accountability as to what a Secretary of State does with regard to the provision of health services. The fact is that the mandate will be published; it can be debated in this House either on a motion from the Government or from the Opposition; there will still be Question Time at which hon. Members will be able to ask questions; there will still be an opportunity for Adjournment debates, urgent questions and statements. There will be accountability.
Grahame M. Morris
Well, as Aneurin Bevan said, “You give your version of the truth, and I will give mine.” In my assessment, yes, there will certainly be a mandate, but this House’s power to scrutinise and hold Ministers to account will be severely diminished under the new arrangements. Writing down that the Secretary of State has the duty
“to exercise functions to secure the provision of services”
is thus rather perverse—one might even say ridiculous—when the rest of the Bill hands over those duties to other bodies, often private bodies outside the NHS such as the clinical commissioning groups. Indeed, the National Commissioning Board—the world’s biggest quango—will also secure provision through clinical commissioning groups, which will not be done through the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I think the Minister is being extremely disrespectful, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the way he is gesticulating when I am trying to make my points.
In effect, the Secretary of State’s only duty seems to be to pass over the money or the resource and write one letter a year—this mandate—to the National Commissioning Board.
On the issue of the duty to promote a comprehensive health service and secure the provision of services as opposed to any duty to promote autonomy, this surely remains a conundrum, as they are virtually mutually exclusive. How the Secretary of State thought that those two competing principles could sit side by side or that he could balance the two is beyond me. This is the problem with the Bill as a whole. No matter how much tweaking is done to clauses 2, 4 or 20 by these amendments, we cannot escape this dilemma. That brings me back to my key point that this Bill’s driving ideological purpose remains to commercialise and privatise each and every service in the NHS.
Finally, let me return to the definition of autonomy—[Interruption.]—for the information of Conservative Members, who are shouting across the Chamber. According to the dictionary, autonomy means
“the condition of being autonomous; self-government or the right of self-government; independence”.
What we are talking about here is being autonomous or independent of the Secretary of State. My contention is that only central planning can deliver a comprehensive service. Otherwise, we will have postcode lotteries—identified in the risk registers we have discussed, such as the one from the Faculty of Public Health—and unprofitable services being cut back. Once the private sector is too big to control, what then?
Grahame M. Morris
I have concluded my remarks, so perhaps the Minister can address those points in his summing up.
Dr Poulter
I shall make some brief remarks, but I first want to welcome the renewed focus on integrated care, as outlined by the Minister this afternoon. He clearly outlined the importance of mental health services and clarified that the primary duty in commissioning will be to ensure that there is integrated care.
We all know the importance of dealing with the biggest challenge facing the NHS, which is how we are going to look after our ageing population. How are we going to improve the care for the increasing numbers of people living longer, which is a good thing but poses a big financial challenge for the NHS as well as a big human challenge in how to look after them? How are we going to address the challenge of looking after people living at home with diabetes, heart disease and dementia?
This Bill goes a long way towards meeting those challenges, and I believe that the renewed focus on integration is key and vital. It is only by different services and different parts of the NHS working together effectively—with primary care working effectively with hospitals, as well as with social services—that we are going to meet the big financial and human challenge of improving the care of older people. That is why I am reassured—I hope that my Liberal Democrat colleagues will also be reassured—by this renewed focus on integration, which is at the heart of the debate and at the heart of the way in which we will make our NHS meet future challenges.
Let me deal briefly with the Opposition amendment 31, which deals with what they believe is an inherent conflict between people involved in delivering care—health care providers or GPs—and others when it comes to involvement in the clinical commissioning groups. The amendment ignores the fact that, at present, good commissioning involves a partnership with primary care trusts that were set up by Labour when they were in government. GPs who are engaged in the provision of health care in local communities are involved in PCTs and involved in the Government arrangements for PCTs, working in partnership with local managers. So, if it was good enough to have that inherent partnership in the current structures set up by the previous Government, I do not see why, when we all believe that clinical leadership is a good thing in the NHS, a conflict of interest should suddenly be created under the Bill. That does not make sense; it is not intellectually coherent. For that reason, we must oppose the amendment.
We have before us more reassuring amendments to promote integrated care, to focus it on more joined-up thinking between the primary and secondary care sector, and to ensure that we do not have to deal with patients with mental health problems only when they get to the point of crisis. The focus on integrated care will mean that they are better supported in their communities. Opposition amendment 13 is, as I have explained, inconsistent with how they managed the NHS when they were in government.
Liz Kendall
The fundamental difference is that under the Bill only two lay people will be appointed as members of clinical commissioning groups, and no independence will be involved. Under the old system, lay members of primary care trusts were independently appointed. The degree of independence that provided checks and balances has gone.
Dr Poulter
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Minister before I respond to it.
Dr Poulter
I thank my right hon. Friend for that clarification. The Government are clearly committed to the value that lay members bring to commissioning groups, and, as my right hon. Friend has said, two is the minimum. I hope the hon. Lady will accept that it is very disingenuous to suggest that lay members who are appointed to boards of hospitals or primary care trusts, or indeed to commissioning boards, show a lack of genuine care for patients in the way in which they commission services.
Given that the Opposition have tabled a bad amendment, and given the renewed focus on a commitment to integrated care for the benefit of older patients and people with mental health problems, I believe that we should support the Government this evening.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I support the amendment relating to Monitor and NHS foundation trusts. The Government seek to amend the Bill to allow—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that he is referring to the wrong group of amendments. The group that we are discussing is headed “Secretary of State, NHS Commissioning Board and CCGs”. We will be discussing the amendment to which he referred later, and I presume that for that reason he will now resume his seat.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I will speak very briefly. Let me begin by pointing out to the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who said that we did not have enough time to consider all the amendments, that if we had not spent an hour and a half discussing the risk register yet again, we would have had more time to discuss the amendments.
I congratulate the Government on accepting Lords amendment 1, which relates to parity of esteem between physical and mental health. As the Minister said, genuine parity cannot be laid down in legislation, and the mental health framework will be very important to the achievement of it. However, research findings published by the Centre for Mental Health, which I mentioned to the Minister during health questions recently, show the link between physical and mental health conditions. As I am sure we all know from our constituency casework, when someone presents with a physical health condition, it may be clear that there is an underlying mental health condition which has been either undiagnosed or untreated, and which is therefore hampering the person’s physical health recovery.
The Minister spoke of the “symbolic significance” of including a reference to mental health. He is right, but I think that on a day when we have seen Her Majesty the Queen address Parliament, we should recognise that there is sometimes a place for symbolism, particularly when it comes to something that is as cherished on the Government Benches as the NHS. I know that the Opposition claim ownership of the NHS, but in fact it is cherished by all of us, and by our constituents.
I also thank the Government for accepting Lords amendments 19, 32 and 33, which concern the duty of commissioners and commissioning groups to provide patient-focused care—the “No decision about me without me” duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) rightly spoke of the importance of mental health care in that regard. I have certainly found, when listening to patients in the mental health system, that they want their doctors, consultants and everyone else in the system to ensure that they are involved in their own care. I am glad that the clinical commissioning groups will be given guidance on that, but I do not expect the very best CCGs and GPs to need to follow it. They are likely to know that treatment is more likely to succeed if patients are involved in it.
Having spent 10 weeks on the Public Bill Committee, and having been present during all the debates on the Floor of the House, I am especially pleased to be able to welcome the amendments.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Let me begin by paying tribute to my colleagues in the House of Lords, who have improved the Bill significantly.
I want to raise two issues relating to conflicts of interest. Subsection (1) of the new section proposed in the amendment tabled by Baroness Barker states:
“Each clinical commissioning group must maintain one or more registers of the interests of—
(a) the members of the group,
(b) the members of its governing body,
(c) the members of its committees or sub-committees or of committees or sub-committees of its governing body, and
(d) its employees.”
I looked in vain for a paragraph (e) specifying “parties with which it is contracted for commissioning support”. I think that that is a live issue. There will be commissioning support organisations—some of which will be private institutions, and some of which will be allied with organisations that provide the clinical services that are commissioned—and there may be occasions when those advising the commissioners make recommendations that benefit some parties with which they are contracted. That model, involving the influence of the executive, will be fairly familiar to those who have been members of local authorities. Councillors, like doctors, are often very busy. They rely heavily on expert advice provided by officers, and they generally follow it.
The issue was raised in the House of Lords—I believe that it was raised by Lady Barker—but, when I read the report of that debate, I could not help feeling that it had been glossed over. I should welcome any enlightenment from the Minister on how such a quandary can be dealt with. Clearly it must be dealt with, because otherwise it will create general anxiety about how commissioning will proceed.
The second issue is a bigger one. I think that it is of particular interest to us all, because it affects the general position of the commissioning consortia themselves. There is a view that PCTs are more or less in the same legal boat as GP or clinical commissioning consortia would be. I disagree with what the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) said about that. The PCT, as a unit, is not built around general practices, which, as we have said several times in this place, are small businesses. It is possible to view a clinical commissioning consortium as an association of undertakings, which creates serious issues as to how it is able to use public money. If it used public money to benefit itself, that would obviously become a big issue immediately.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This is not just a conversation between the Government Front Bench and its supporters and the hon. Gentleman. If Members want to intervene to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, they should do so, rather than shouting at him while he is speaking.
John Pugh
The Minister could undoubtedly answer my query and deal with my anxiety. A significant regulatory issue is involved in the provision of regulations that will work for commissioners in the Department of Health, and he knows that that is the case. It is not a question of what we intend to do; it is a question of what those in the European legal system will make of the function and the nature of what we have set up. If they interpret it as an association of undertakings, that is exactly how they will treat it, regardless of what the Bill says or of what the Minister says at the Dispatch Box. This is a matter of concern that has been raised by people who are more knowledgeable about such matters than I am, and it genuinely needs to be addressed.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 10 and 13 to 30 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 7 and 21.
Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 3(1)—(Andy Burnham).
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 63.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 64 to 73 and 75 to 147.
Lords amendment 148, and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
Lords amendments 149 to 167, 295 to 298 and 343 to 365.
Paul Burstow
The amendments cover Monitor, the regulation of NHS services and the governance of foundation trusts. Before I deal with them, I would like briefly to address some of the myths that have grown up around part 3 of the Bill. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am having some difficulty hearing his response to these amendments. May I ask Members to leave the Chamber quietly, so that we can continue with this debate and hear his comments?
Paul Burstow
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Part 3 is a key element of the Bill. As the Government have made clear, commissioners will decide whether, when and how to use competition to deliver services for patients. Where they decide to do so, part 3 will ensure that competition is regulated effectively and in the patient’s best interests. Under the Bill, Monitor will, in future, regulate all providers of NHS services, so that all patients are protected, irrespective of who supplies their treatment and care.
In the earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) asked about the applicability of competition law to the function of commissioning. I draw his attention to European case law, which makes it clear that commissioning is not subject to competition law. It is the function that matters when it comes to determining whether this is applicable—
Paul Burstow
I am responding to my hon. Friend and, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am going to carry on doing so.
In addition, the Office of Fair Trading has published guidance that is consistent with the view that the Department has expressed on this matter. I will write to my hon. Friend with the detailed case law, so that I can quote the case reference for him.
Claims have also been made that part 3 does something else. Specifically, it has been suggested that it introduces competition and competition law into the NHS, as if that were the case for the first time. Part 3 does not do that, nor does anything else in the Bill. The NHS will, as a result of the Bill, be better insulated against the inappropriate application of competition law, particularly as it develops more integrated services, which are now embedded throughout this legislation. Without Part 3, the NHS would continue to be exposed to price competition and the preferential treatment of private providers introduced by the previous Labour Government. Indeed, Labour’s 2006 procurement regulations assume that public authorities will be securing services from a market—that will not always be appropriate in the NHS—and so, under the existing regulations from the 2006 legislation, commissioners are placed at greater risk of legal challenge whenever they decide to secure services without competition.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Will the Minister say whether Monitor will keep its role as an independent regulator of foundation trusts?
Paul Burstow
I am coming on to deal with a whole section of amendments that were made in the other House and which this Government have accepted, when I will address that very point. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will get an answer to his question.
Grahame M. Morris
I wish to seek a point of clarification on the Minister’s reference to what Earl Howe said about the Bill providing
“insulation against inappropriate application of competition law”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2012; Vol. 735, c. 1689-90.]
Concerns were raised in the Minister’s own party about American-style private health care interests being able to use these mechanisms to provide health care services. Will he give an example of how this “insulation” would protect an NHS trust from being taken over by a north American private health care company?
Paul Burstow
That shows a fundamental flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument and in his understanding of what the Bill actually does. I commend to him the contribution made by Earl Howe, the Minister in the other place, on 6 March 2012, when he set out in great detail—this can be found in column 1689—all the aspects relevant to how this Bill protects the NHS, creating insulation for it against the application of competition law under the current framework, as provided by the 2006 legislation, which does not offer those protections. It certainly does not give commissioners the ability to exercise their discretion over whether, when and if to use competition. In those circumstances, the measures give for the first time, because of the sector-specific regulator, the ability to decide which services will be exempt from competition altogether—something that does not exist as a result of Labour’s legislation. That is one reason why so many hon. Members in this House are concerned about the impact of competition—because they are seeing the NHS being exposed to competition under the 2006 Act. This Bill will sort those defects out.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Paul Burstow
No, I am going to make some progress and then I will be more than happy to give way. [Interruption.] I am sure there will be more opportunities and I will give way in a moment.
On how Monitor exercises its powers, the Government have supported amendments made in the House of Lords, which were tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Williams, providing that the Secretary of State can give Monitor guidance to help ensure it exercises its functions in a manner consistent with the Secretary of State’s duty to promote a comprehensive health service. The amendments also help to ensure that the Secretary of State can discharge effectively his responsibility for the health service in England and to ensure that Monitor carries out its functions to that end. I therefore commend the amendments to the House. Both this House and the Lords have stressed the need for Monitor to use its powers to support integrated services and co-operation between providers. The Government therefore tabled amendments in the other place to provide express powers for Monitor to set and enforce licence conditions that would enable integration and co-operation between providers.
On the detail of Monitor’s specific regulatory powers, Monitor would have powers to intervene proactively to support commissioners in ensuring continued access to NHS services if a provider became unsustainable. Amendments tabled by the Labour peer Lord Warner, which we agreed in the other place, provide that Monitor will have to identify and publish evidence where it identifies risk that it considers arises from unsustainable service configurations. Those amendments would require commissioners to act on that information where necessary. Hence, they make clear the expectation that commissioners will address problems proactively and ensure that patients continue to have sustainable access to the services they need. These are sensible provisions that had support from all parts of the House of Lords and I hope that this House will also agree to them.
I want to say a bit more about the powers and responsibilities of Monitor, which relate to further amendments made in the other place. The extent of the various matters that Monitor would have to take into account was the subject of considerable debate in this House and the other place. I want to be absolutely clear about where we are regarding the overarching duty that Monitor has to take into account. Monitor will have a single, unequivocal duty—to protect and promote the interests of patients by promoting provision of NHS services that is economic, efficient and effective and that maintains or improves the quality of services. Beyond that overarching duty there is no hierarchy. No preference is given to competition or integration because integration is clearly a responsibility that sits with commissioners and Monitor’s role is to support it.
Peers also raised concerns about proposals for the Competition Commission to undertake seven-yearly reviews of competition in the provision of NHS services. The Government were sympathetic to the arguments and were concerned that it might be taken to suggest that competition was being given a higher status than the interests of patients. In order to avoid that, we accepted an amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones that removed the provision in the Bill for Competition Commission reviews. We also supported other amendments tabled by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones requiring the Office of Fair Trading to seek advice from Monitor whenever it considers mergers or potential mergers involving foundation trusts. The amendments will help to ensure that benefits to patients are evaluated on an informed basis by a sector-specific regulator giving its expert advice to the OFT in the discharge of its responsibilities and as a paramount consideration.
Jim Shannon
Many hon. Members will probably have received correspondence from the Nuffield Trust saying that
“much of the behaviour of providers will in practice be shaped by detailed guidance and the work on pricing conducted by both Monitor and the NHS Commissioning Board. The two organisations have a major task ahead of them to ensure there is the necessary information, data exchange, contracting and payment tools to support patient choice, integrated care, efficiency and quality.”
How would the Minister respond to the Nuffield Trust on that question?
Paul Burstow
What I heard the hon. Gentleman set out was a rehearsal of the interrelationship that exists between the NHS Commissioning Board and Monitor, particularly in the area of setting NHS tariffs and prices. For the first time, as a result of this legislation, there will be greater transparency and requirements about consultation in the design of those tariffs. At the moment, that process is obscured within the bowels of the Department of Health without accountability or public scrutiny. For the first time, this Bill puts that on a footing that ensures that transparency. As a result, it will produce much better tariff design for the future.
On Monitor’s role as the regulator of foundation trusts, it is important to be clear about this important part of the legislation. Foundation trusts will remain the principal providers of NHS services. The Government do not expect that to change. Monitor must therefore be able to continue operating a compliance regime transparently to assess and manage the risks, intervening proactively to address problems where necessary. The Bill is designed to reflect this and for Monitor to protect patients’ interests by regulating foundation trusts so that they continue to be able to provide NHS services in line with their principal purpose. Where Monitor identifies significant risk to a foundation trust’s continued ability to provide NHS services, the Bill provides Monitor with powers to intervene proactively to ensure that the risk is addressed. The Government agreed amendments in the House of Lords to clarify that further. In particular, the amendments clarify that Monitor’s powers to direct foundation trusts to do, or not to do, things to maintain essential standards of governance, or to ensure their continued ability to provide NHS services, will not be transitional powers. We accept that that previously was not as clear as it needed to be and we have made it clear.
We think that the Bill has been improved as a result of the amendments that were made in the House of Lords in that regard. Under clause 94 in the latest version of the Bill, Monitor’s enduring powers will include the power to set and enforce requirements specifically on foundation trusts to ensure that they are well governed. Monitor does that now and those requirements will need to be differentiated for foundation trusts to reflect their unique role and legal status as public benefit corporations financed by the taxpayer with a principal purpose defined in statute as being
“to provide goods and services for the purposes”
of the NHS. Monitor will also have enduring powers to set and enforce requirements on foundation trusts to ensure that they remain financially viable and to protect NHS assets. These measures deal with one of the concerns that has often been rehearsed about the privatisation of the NHS. The Bill does not provide that opportunity, but it provides for the protection of NHS assets. Those are necessary conditions of a foundation trust’s continuing ability to provide NHS services; they are not transitional issues.
Grahame M. Morris
I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification about reports that have been made available as a result of freedom of information requests indicating that senior officials of Monitor have been meeting on a regular basis with representatives of the private health care consultancy, McKinsey. Is the Minister aware of the nature of those discussions and do they have any relevance to the assurances that have been given at the Dispatch Box that there is no conspiracy to privatise the health service?
Paul Burstow
Absolutely not; the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which had a substantial exposé in The Mail on Sunday, really do not bear as close an examination as he would like of them. We know that the relationship that existed in terms of contracting McKinsey to provide services was one that the previous Government engaged in far more freely than the current Administration. The amounts that this Government have contracted and the nature of the relationships that this Government have are far smaller.
Barbara Keeley
I have asked the Secretary of State about McKinsey and Co. in this Chamber and through a written question, but neither he nor anybody in the Department seems able to confirm whether it has access to the risk register. It seems very strange to me that the Department is not able to answer the question of an hon. Member about what access that organisation has to those documents. It is a very strange set-up.
Paul Burstow
The hon. Lady says it is a strange set-up and refers to her endeavours to get an answer to the question. I have not seen details of her exchange with the Secretary of State, but I will look at that and write to her with an answer to the question.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
My hon. Friend is dealing with matters of great concern outside this place, and I am clear that all these amendments are a move in the right direction. Will he put it on the record that as a result of the Bill, first, it will not be possible in future for any hospital to move, as Hinchingbrooke did, from the public sector to the private sector, and, secondly, that the proportion of private sector business cannot be increased up to the 49% that has been mentioned and will be increased only if the hospital decides, according to the amendments, to increase it by the small percentage that the amendments now allow?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his questions. Let me start with the issue of Hinchingbrooke, which is an important one. It is worth remembering that the vast majority of the process that led to that franchise arrangement was completed under the Labour Government, not by the current Administration, and was part of the arrangements put in place by the Labour Health Act 2006 and Health and Social Care Act 2008. The Bill makes sure that in future there can be no scope for sweetheart deals to incentivise new entrants into the NHS, it ensures that there cannot be price competition of the sort that was allowed under the 2006 Act, and it ensures a protection for commissioners to decide when and if it is appropriate to use competition. That is not a protection that they enjoy under the 2006 or the 2008 Acts.
Paul Burstow
I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question. He should read Hansard later.
I was asked, finally, whether there is a cap of 49%. Let us go back to the deliberations in another place before Christmas, when the issue first came up. Our noble Friends were concerned to make sure that we put it beyond doubt that foundation trusts were protected from the full force of competition law and that those organisations would continue to have as their principal purpose their service of NHS patients. That is why we have further amendments, which I shall come to shortly, about how a 5% increase would trigger further consultations and votes by the governors.
Paul Burstow
No. I shall make some progress, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
In addition, Monitor could also, in exceptional circumstances, use the enduring powers that I was describing to direct a foundation trust to remove its directors or governors. In other words, a direct intervention power is preserved by the amendments and changes that we have made.
The Government’s ambition is that eventually foundation trusts should have more responsibility for their governance than they do under the current arrangements. This will depend, in particular, on strengthening the role of foundation trust governors in holding their boards to account. We have listened to the concerns about the pace of change. Hence, we have amended the Bill so that Monitor will also have, on a transitional basis, express powers to remove, suspend or replace directors or governors of a foundation trust directly, without the prospect of an appeal to the first-tier tribunal. We would expect Monitor to use these powers to address failure of governance, which puts the trust at risk of not meeting its licence conditions, such as the requirements that I have already described.
Karl Turner
Is it right that the only provision preventing privatisation is the requirement in clause 161 that foundation trusts must use the NHS more than they use private providers? Is that not, in effect, the 49% cap?
Paul Burstow
No, because the overarching duty is that the service remains free at the point of use. Also, there are protections—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks a question, but when I try to give him an answer, he shouts and screams at me. That does not help the debate. What I wanted to say was that when it comes to mergers and acquisitions, there are clear requirements to protect NHS assets from a transfer out of the NHS and out of the state sector. The powers that I was describing would be retained as long as Parliament considered necessary, and they could not be removed before 2016 at the earliest and would then be subject to criteria that Monitor determines, with the Secretary of State’s approval.
Barbara Keeley
I do not know whether I am alone in this—I do not think so—but the notion of foundation trust governors having to approve an increase in private patient income does not feel like much of a safeguard, especially as the governors are inclined to balance the books. It just means that the proportion of private patient income will slowly grow to 49%, rather than jump to it straight away. While we are thinking about this aspect of clause 163, I understand that the Department of Health still has an explicit target in the operating framework to increase the proportion of non-public sector provision purchased with NHS funding. There are so many pressures and drivers that the denial that it is privatisation and the influx of competition—[Interruption.] It is privatisation that will slowly grow to 49%.
Paul Burstow
Absolute nonsense. That is part of the rhetoric and fantasy that we have heard throughout the Bill’s passage. Let me deal directly with it by reference to examples of current practice. The Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton and Harefield all earn very high levels of private income but are consistently rated highly as providers of NHS services. They use those resources to reinvest in NHS services.
Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that most of the foundation trusts that are interested in raising and removing the cap want to invest the money that they would generate from private income to improve services for NHS patients? [Interruption.]
Paul Burstow
That is exactly the point; those moneys have to be reinvested—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Members will not keep shouting across the Chamber, from either Front Bench or elsewhere.
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend’s point seems to have upset some hon. Members, but it was entirely—
Paul Burstow
Let me at least do my hon. Friend the courtesy of answering his point before taking another intervention.
It is absolutely right to make the point about the use of those resources. Indeed, that has been one of the benefits of the system, as we have seen in the performance that some of the trusts that have had historically high caps have delivered in NHS services. However, it is worth noting that it is not just in relation to foundation trusts that there have been concerns about caps, because NHS trusts have never had caps, and it has been entirely possible for NHS trusts to increase their income without any of the constraints or controls that foundation trusts have found themselves under. The Labour party, in crafting its manifesto, seemed to have understood that, but it has now decided to run away from that in order to paint a picture about privatisation that is not part of this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Minister Burns, I will chair the debate in this Chamber. You will not. Unless you want to sit here and allow me to take—
Paul Burstow
We have also clarified a foundation trust’s principal legal purpose to show that it must continue to earn the majority of its income from NHS activity and that that is its overriding priority. Revenue for treating NHS patients could absolutely not be used to cross-subsidise private care, and we would expect Monitor’s licensing regime to prohibit that categorically. The amendments provide important safeguards, so I urge the House to support them.
Finally, this group contains a number of minor and technical amendments, including those implementing recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that provide for greater consultation and clarify various matters. I urge hon. Members to support the Lords amendments in this group and to reject the Opposition’s amendments to Lords amendment 148.
Andy Burnham
It is important to begin by setting out the background to many of the amendments in this group. Despite the pause that the Government ordered for the Bill, they failed to allay fears about the creation of a market based on a 1980s utility privatisation, with Monitor acting as an economic regulator—a parallel drawn last November not by me, but by the King’s Fund in a report it published. That, more than anything else, has been behind the huge professional disquiet about the Bill that we have seen over recent weeks and months, with respected professional organisations coming out one after another to express their concern about the damage that will be done to the health service if hospital is pitted against hospital, doctor against doctor. That is where we start.
The Minister began his remarks by talking about the myths relating to part 3 of the Bill and objecting to some of the interpretation that I have just given. I do not know who he had in mind when talking about those myths, but it might have been the noble Baroness Williams. I will quote from an article she wrote in The Guardian on Monday 13 February. It is important because it explains the genesis of one of the amendments that the House is considering tonight. She acknowledged that there were:
“fears among the public and within the medical profession that clinical commissioning groups might become dependent on advice from powerful private health companies, and that the imposition of UK and European competition laws, addressed to markets and not to social goals, might destroy the public service principles of the NHS. In plain terms, this is often described as a fear of privatisation. These are issues that must be addressed.”
When the Minister talked disparagingly about myths, did he have the noble Baroness in mind? I think that he must have done, because in the same article she went on to suggest that the answer to the concerns and fears that she had correctly identified was to drop the whole of part 3. She wrote:
“What that would mean for the bill would be dropping the chapter on competition, and retaining Monitor as the regulator of prices and of the foundation trusts.”
I am not privy to the internal machinations of the Liberal Democrats, but I think that there must have been some wrangling and soul searching in the two weeks following the publication of that article, because by 27 February a letter had emerged that was co-signed by the noble Baroness and no less a figure than her party leader, the Deputy Prime Minister. The call to drop part 3 of the Bill, which had been made so eloquently in The Guardian two weeks earlier, had in fact turned into something very different. The letter stated that they needed to go further to amend the Bill in order
“to rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market”.
If what the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box this evening is true and all these fears are myths, why did his party leader and the noble Baroness send that letter? Indeed, why were there even concerns about the threat of a US-style market, which his party leader acknowledged on 27 February? They do not sound like myths to me; it sounds like they were very real threats indeed.
What I want to address this evening is the fact that when the package of amendments that were meant to put the Clegg-Williams package into the Bill finally emerged, they fell considerably short of what was promised in the letter. Indeed, we are dealing with some of those tonight. I will focus on Lords amendment 148 in particular, which deals with the private patient income cap. When the Minister spoke a moment ago, I did not find him reassuring at all. When he spoke about foundation trusts in the future he said that they would of course remain the principal providers of NHS services, but I do not find that at all reassuring. The exchange he had with the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) was very revealing. The right hon. Gentleman made a mistake that the noble Baroness made when she took on Polly Toynbee on the same issue. The right hon. Gentleman, like the noble Baroness, does not seem to understand the effect of the amendments he is agreeing to. He began by asking, “Wasn’t it the case that the 49% figure was now completely ruled out and wasn’t relevant?” No is the answer to that. All that the Minister has offered him is that if the increase is more than 5%, it then has to be passed by a vote. I find it incredible that a Member of his years and standing in this House has just revealed that he does not understand the amendments that have been signed up to in order to deliver the package set out in the Clegg-Williams letter. That is a terrifying state of affairs; I do not know what the Members in his party who voted against that might make of it.
Simon Hughes
I absolutely understand the amendment, as I am sure does the right hon. Gentleman. Given that 1%, 2% or 3% of most hospitals’ activity is private at the moment, as he well knows, it seems to me that it is a much better guarantee that we have a rule that says that no hospital can increase that by more than 5% of what it is now unless there is a decision made locally. That gives much more security than anything else previously in the Bill, and that is why it seems to me to be a very worthwhile amendment.
Andy Burnham
Let me answer that directly. The Financial Times has analysed the latest data on actual NHS income earned through the treatment of private patients and demonstrated that in the last year not a single hospital trust would have been caught by this so-called safeguarding amendment. It used the example of Great Ormond Street, which increased its income from private patients by 19% from 2009-10 to 2010-11, to £25 million. In percentage points, that increase was less than 1%. Given the small numbers in the cap which the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, he is agreeing to trusts being able to increase their income from private patients by multiples of hundreds of percentage points without any reference to their boards of trustees. Frankly, he has not addressed the point that he has failed to understand that the Bill still gives trusts the permission to increase it to 49%. They could go to the trustees and increase it to 49%. He might be reassured by that, but I most certainly am not.
Mark Simmonds
I draw the House’s attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does the shadow Secretary—[Interruption.] Does the shadow Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Does the shadow Secretary of State object to NHS foundation trusts raising money through private income—therefore and thereby spending it on NHS patients?
Andy Burnham
No, I do not, is the answer—[Interruption.] Well, what has that proved? We had trusts earning income, but the foundation trust legislation set a cap: it allowed the principle but tightly controlled it for the vast majority of hospitals. That was its purpose. This Bill removes those tight controls. This Bill, supported all the way on that point by Liberal Democrats, now allows hospitals completely to change character over time. In time they can turn to US-style hospitals and devote half their facilities to the treatment of private patients—
Andy Burnham
It is not rubbish. They can earn 49% of their income, according to this Bill, from the treatment of private patients. That is a fact, and why the hon. Lady shouts “rubbish” I have no idea.
Andy Burnham
Non-foundation trusts were managed by the Department, and the Department’s policy, during our time in government, was to have a tight cap—[Interruption]. There was a tight cap on the income that trusts could earn, so the very fact of foundation trusts’ creation gave rise to the question of whether there should be a cap. The Minister is effectively abolishing that cap with his Bill.
Andy Burnham
I have answered the right hon. Gentleman’s question. It was an entirely different situation altogether.
On the suggestion that we are setting our face against reform, we have not said that, and I as Secretary of State initiated a review of the private patient cap, because the issue came up before the election. I was prepared to allow a modest relaxation of the cap if it could be demonstrated to benefit private patients, but I was talking about single percentage points: 1% or 2% becoming 2% or 3%. I was not in any way conceiving the possibility that 49% of a trust’s income might be made from the treatment of private patients—that half their theatre time, beds and car parking spaces could be turned over to the treatment of private patients.
Dr Poulter
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will concede that those hospital trusts with a private patient cap that is set at perhaps 35%, such as the Royal Marsden hospital, do not necessarily do that much private work. The decision is at the hospital’s discretion, so the idea that raising the cap to 49% will mean that hospital trusts will per se undertake 49% private activity has been proven to be incorrect, on the facts as they stand at the moment in hospital trusts, because those trusts, the doctors and boards work for the benefit of their patients.
Andy Burnham
That is the ideological difference between us. The hon. Gentleman says that the decision should be at the hospital’s discretion, but the Bill essentially sets everybody on their own. Hospitals are being told, “You’re on your own. There’s none of the support from the centre any more, no bail-outs, as the White Paper said. That’s it, you’re out there, you’re competing in a market, and you’ve got to stand on your own two feet.” I differ from that opinion because I want systems regulation and a role for the centre in deciding whether a hospital should greatly increase its treatment of private patients.
This is not just a question of each individual hospital thinking about what it is going to do, because hospitals will have pressure on their bottom lines, as a colleague said earlier. They will be operating in a difficult financial context, and it might have a different effect on their individual interests. It might make sense for hospitals, individually, to increase the number of private patients, but it might not make sense for the NHS patients who live in that area, and that is the entire point: the Government are trading systems regulation for the individual decisions of local organisations, because that fits when we move to a competitive market in which every individual organisation is a competing business.
Dr Poulter
I am struggling to follow the coherence of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. On the one hand he says that it was all right for non-foundation trusts, under the previous Government, to increase massively the amount of private work that they did, as long as the Department agreed with it; on the other hand he argues that it is very important to control the amount by which foundation trusts raise the private patient cap. He cannot have it both ways, and his argument is not intellectually coherent. Is this not about doing things for the benefit of patients and leaving it up to local hospitals to decide?
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman should make a speech if he wants to make interventions of that length. We had a cap to protect the interests of private patients; he is getting rid of the cap, and he is going to have to explain to patients in his constituency, if waiting lists start getting longer, why that is happening. It is as simple as that. We had systems regulation, he is removing that with the Bill and we are moving to a more unregulated market, which is not what we want to see.
Grahame M. Morris
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I might seek your advice in relation to a declaration of interest. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) has made two interventions on the private patient cap and has made a declaration of interest. He is a director of Circle, a private health care company. Is it your ruling that every Member must make such a declaration if they speak during the course of this debate?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is up to each individual Member to make whichever declaration of interest they wish during a debate, but ultimately it is up then to the Member and the Commissioner if the Member wished to take that further.
Andy Burnham
The amendment gives us no protection at all, and it gives us no protection from the NHS cross-subsidising private care. There is nothing in the Bill which says, “The whole costs of the provision of that care have to be reimbursed to the national health service”, as the Financial Times has again demonstrated, and that is why we object to what is happening. We are going back to the old days of the NHS, whereby patients are told, “You can go private or you can go to the back of the queue and wait longer.” That is the choice which we removed from the NHS during our 13 years in government, and we will not accept any return of it.
Simon Hughes
I do not think that I have any more support or encouragement for the private sector in the NHS than the right hon. Gentleman does. May I therefore get him to accept that what Lords amendment 148 does is to limit in relation to each hospital an increase to—
Simon Hughes
No, to 5% of its current figure—not 5% in total, but a 5% proportion. That is what the amendment says, and that gives Guy’s hospital, St Thomas’s hospital and King’s College hospital and patients the reassurance that I think they need. The right hon. Gentleman should read the amendment.
Andy Burnham
I am not going to debate that now. The right hon. Gentleman is going to have to defend himself on whether he has his facts right. I do not think that he has.
We need to put firmly on the record that there are real flaws in the Liberal Democrats’ proposal. They say that it is a safeguard to state, “The governors will decide and it is better done at a local level,” but the governors are going to be under pressure from the management of the hospital because of the pressure on the hospital’s finances. If they make a decision that is in the interests of that hospital, it does not mean that it is in the interests of everybody and of NHS patients.
Paul Burstow
The model that the right hon. Gentleman describes is one that he was only too happy to go through the Lobby and support during the introduction of foundation trusts in the first place. He has omitted to mention Monitor’s role in overseeing the situation through its powers of intervention to ensure the safeguarding of a comprehensive health service, and to mention the guidance that the Secretary of State will give Monitor in order to do just that.
Andy Burnham
I am afraid that I am not at all reassured by that, or in fact by anything the Minister says. The letter that we have from the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of insulating the NHS from European competition law, but I am still waiting to see the amendment that delivers that. As I understand it, one of the Minister’s noble Friends tabled an amendment and then withdrew it, because they did not have the courage to press it to a vote, and accepted a statement on the record instead. This is different from what the Minister keeps saying that we did in government, because he is envisaging a huge expansion of the role of any qualified provider and the putting out to tender of commissioning support units. He has overseen a situation in which three community services have been compulsorily tendered.
The truth is that the Clegg-Williams letter, with the amendments that followed, does not only fail to deliver but sells out the national health service, as does so much of what the Liberal Democrats have agreed to. Our amendments, particularly amendment (b), would provide a measure of systems regulation in the best interests of the NHS, and that is why we will seek to press amendment (b) to a vote.
Dr Poulter
I rise to speak in support of the Government, and of what the previous Government did for the NHS. When the shadow Secretary of State was Secretary of State for Health—the same was the case with many of his predecessors—there was a consistent policy whereby the private sector should be used where it could add value to patient care in the NHS. That was done very effectively by the previous Government to bring down waiting times for operations, but it was not effective when it was not done in an integrated way. Very often, it was done without regard to post-discharge planning for patients but, as we heard earlier, the renewed focus on integration should help to deal with those problems.
We have some of the very best hospitals not only in this country but in the world, including the Royal Marsden and Moorfields eye hospital, where a relatively high proportion of activity is carried out by the private sector. No one doubts those hospitals’ commitment to their NHS patients or that they still provide those patients with the very high standards of care of which health care systems in other countries are very envious. We are very proud of what those hospitals do, and the Government would like to give other hospitals the same opportunity and freedom to follow their example. The Government believe that it is absolutely appropriate that we should use the private sector where it can enhance value to NHS patients. That is absolutely consistent with the previous Government’s policies, for which many Labour Members campaigned at the last general election. This Government are also committed to those policies.
Andrew George
I understand and respect the sincerity of the principle that my hon. Friend is describing, but can he reassure me, particularly given his understanding of the NHS and health systems, that under these proposals it would not be possible for a foundation trust to drive some NHS patients towards the private arm of the activities that they undertake, particularly in the case of procedures that are exactly the same in the private and the public sector?
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and he is right to raise it. That happened in the past when, under the previous Government, private sector providers were paid 11% more for the provision of services than NHS providers, which created an incentive for the private sector to be used ahead of NHS services. This Government are committed to ensuring that that does not happen. My hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister and Member for Cheltenham—[Interruption.] I mean Chelmsford; I apologise, particularly as I get the train through his constituency on the way home every Thursday night. They have clearly stated that the Bill is about making sure that we use the private sector when it adds value for money. The hospital that uses the private sector the most—the Royal Marsden—does not have a two-tier service for NHS patients and private patients. The involvement of the private sector at that hospital greatly enhances the work of the NHS and the quality of service and care available to its NHS patients because of the increased research that is performed, the high quality of care, and the high standard of clinicians who are attracted to work there. That works well for the private sector and for the NHS.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that, where possible, we should be using NHS providers. The Royal Marsden, where there is a high potential cap on private sector involvement, does not use the full capacity of that cap, and there is less private sector activity than it could undertake. That is because the Royal Marsden says, in effect, “Yes, the private sector is good, but it is not only about maximising our cap and maximising our profits but taking into account the best interests of our local patients and striking a balance.” That works very well.
Andrew George
As I understand it, the majority of the private work at the Royal Marsden is in areas such as research and development that are not in any way similar to the services it provides to NHS patients. I asked my hon. Friend whether he agreed that where the private sector and public sector were providing the self-same services for NHS patients, there was a risk that patients might be driven from the NHS towards the private sector.
Dr Poulter
I hope I reassured my hon. Friend with my earlier answer. Yes, he is right that that has happened in the past. However, there is a presumption in the Bill—particularly for rural areas such as Cornwall and in Suffolk, which I represent—that the renewed focus on integrated care that we heard about earlier is the primary focus and purpose of commissioning, over and above the use of any willing provider or private sector providers. That has given me great reassurance regarding our ability to take on and deal with the big demographic challenges of looking after older people better.
I am reassured by what the Minister has said, and I urge Government Members to support the Government.
Alex Cunningham
I rise to support the amendment and to speak against anything that will allow 49% of the capacity of our local hospitals to be used for private patients.
Along with other measures in the Bill, the Government have accepted various amendments that will result in lengthening waiting lists for NHS patients. The Government’s relaxation of NHS waiting times targets means that hospitals are free to devote more theatre time to private patients, and they will have a clear incentive to do so in order to maximise income, given the move towards full financial independence and a “no bail-outs” culture whereby hospitals in financial trouble are allowed to go bust with no help from the Government.
The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 placed a cap on the level of income that a foundation trust could earn from private patients. It was based on the level of a foundation trust’s private income in 2003—the year when foundation trusts first came into being—which was typically about 2%. The Bill in effect sets trusts free to deploy as much as 49% of that capacity to generate income from private patients who can afford the fees to jump the queues, which ordinary hard-working people, and the most vulnerable in our society, cannot do. This is not what patients want, not what the professionals want, and not what the NHS needs.
The Government amendments must be changed to ensure that any increase in the proportion of patient income has the approval of Monitor. Allowing individual trusts to make the decision alone means that there is no strategic overview, which Monitor would offer, and so in theory it would be possible for all the trusts in a locality to make that increase to 49% if their individual boards approved it. I wonder what that would mean on Teesside. We have two major hospitals, so half the capacity for NHS patients could go. Labour’s amendment would set a tougher cap on private patient income. Without the amendment, the NHS will take a huge step towards privatisation and we will fail to put in safeguards to ensure that the needs of the general public are met. Rather than the NHS being free at the point of delivery, more and more people will be pushed towards insurance schemes, thereby putting money in the pockets of the insurance industry and denying the exceptionally important right to have free, high-quality health care when it is needed.
Simon Hughes
I am absolutely clear that I was not sent to this place to force through the privatisation of the NHS, to force people from the public sector into the private sector, or to undermine great hospitals such as Guy’s, St Thomas’s and King’s College or the other hospitals in my constituency and my borough. Like colleagues from all parts of the House, I know what a fantastic service the NHS provides, not as a matter of policy but from personal experience. It saved the life of my younger brother and looked after my mother in her last days in the most fantastic way that anybody could wish for. I am clear about the commitment of the NHS.
I am therefore clear that we have to look at what the Bill says and what it will do. I have had an exchange about that with the shadow Secretary of State for Health. This is a really important issue outside this place. Clause 161 sets out the following principle:
“The principal purpose of an NHS foundation trust is the provision of goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England.”
That was not thought to be enough, so colleagues in the other place said, “Let’s for the first time ever make it clear that private activity can never be more than a minority activity.” That is why the 49% figure appeared.
However, that is not still enough—[Interruption.] Let me deal with this point. That is why Lords amendment 148 is before us. It states that if any foundation trust hospital in England proposes to increase its private income by 5% or more from its current level, which is usually about 2% or 3% of its income, the governors have to agree to the proposal by a majority. There will not be any great vote by the governors of Guy’s and St Thomas’s, King’s College or any other hospital, with the public participation in the debate that there would be, suddenly to increase their private sector activity. That is not the real world, because that is not what the British public want. There are one or two cases—
Simon Hughes
In a second. There are one or two cases, such as the Royal Marsden, which have historically had a higher percentage of private sector activity. Those hospitals have justified doing so, because they are specialist hospitals that have got money in from outside. However, I do not want us to leave this debate letting the public believe that there will now be the opportunity for all the hospitals in England suddenly to move, without any control, towards undertaking huge amounts of private sector activity.
Simon Hughes
I will give way to my hon. Friend and then to the shadow Secretary of State.
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for setting out these issues again so clearly and for putting to rest the myths that are yet again being fanned by Opposition Members. I confirm that the Bill provides two further safeguards. First, Monitor will continue to have a direct oversight role in this regard. It will be able to intervene and use its licensing powers and other powers to deal with concerns if NHS services are put at risk by the decisions of a foundation trust. Secondly, there are the contractual relationships that commissioners have directly with these organisations.
Simon Hughes
I accept that. That is why the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) are not necessary. Monitor already has a control that it can exercise to ensure that what he calls strategic control or central control is retained, as well as local decision making.
I will end this point by saying that although, technically, there could be a vote of the governors of any hospital—in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency or mine—every year to increase private income by more than 5%, that is not the real world. In the real world, the people of this country love their national health service, NHS staff love their national health service, and the governors of the hospitals that I represent love their national health service. Those people are not suddenly going to change their attitude after 60 years of the NHS.
In the post-war Parliament, when the Labour party, supported by the Liberal party, put through the plans drawn up by Beveridge, the Liberal, for the NHS, it accepted from the beginning that there would be some private sector activity. From the beginning, GPs and some dental services were in the private sector, and they have remained there.
I am clear that the Bill does not mean that there will suddenly be a market, a route or a tramway for privatisation. Others say I am wrong—I know that there is a lot of concern—so I am clear that when the Bill becomes an Act, we need to sit down with the health professionals who still have concerns—[Hon. Members: “Too late.”] No, it is not too late if people understand what is really in the Bill, rather than what some people say is in the Bill. It is not too late if people look at the wording of the legislation, and do not just listen to the arguments about it.
I say to the right hon. Member for Leigh, whom I respect in many ways, that he has often distorted what has happened in the past and what will happen now. He has ignored the facts that Labour forced privatisation on the health service in many parts of England and that Labour paid more to the private sector to carry out activities for the NHS. I am here to support these provisions in the Bill because I want to end the incentives for the private sector and to end the enforced privatisation of the health service. I will ensure that there is no chance of any hospital in my part of the world voting significantly to increase private sector activity, because the NHS wants to remain in the public sector and deserves to be supported by us to do so.
I refuse to be misrepresented by Labour colleagues who accuse us of doing something that we are not doing. We have a public national health service, paid for through our taxes. Everybody has an entitlement to the best care in the country. I will not do anything that undermines that. I hope that the right hon. Member for Leigh will not and that Ministers will not. I agree that we have some work to do to reassure people outside this place. I hope that, from today, the right hon. Gentleman will join me in telling the truth about the Bill and not tell untruths.
Lords amendment 63 agreed to.
Lords amendments 64 to 147 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 132 to 141.
Clause 161
Goods and Services
Amendment (b) proposed to Lords amendment 148.—(Andy Burnham.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Burstow
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 11.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this we will consider Lords amendments 12, 43 to 53, 61, 62, 168 to 241, 243 to 245, 247, 249 to 251, 253 to 286, 288 to 291, 327, 333, 334 and 366 to 374.
Paul Burstow
This group encompasses a number of Lords amendments relating to public health, public involvement, local government, the Health and Care Professions Council, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the NHS Information Centre.
We believe that the Bill has been improved as a result of the amendments made in the House of Lords. For example, the Government have directly addressed the concerns raised in this House and elsewhere about the status and security of directors of public health within local authorities. We have also introduced safeguards to ensure that local healthwatch organisations and HealthWatch England can operate effectively within the Care Quality Commission, and that the CQC can have better links with, and transparency to, local healthwatch organisations.
Throughout the Bill, we have emphasised the importance of public health. In particular, local directors of public health will have a leading role within their local authorities in ensuring that public health is a consideration across the full range of local government activity, not just its health responsibilities. For example, they will use their participation in health and wellbeing boards, alongside directors of adult social services, directors of children’s services and clinical commissioning groups, to find innovative solutions to local health needs.
To further strengthen the status of public health in local authorities, amendments tabled by my noble friend Earl Howe establish directors of public health as statutory chief officers of their local authorities. They also give the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance on the role of directors and other public health staff, to which local authorities must have regard. Along with the guarantee of chief officer status and statutory guidance, that is equivalent to the situation that currently applies to directors of children’s services and of adult social services.
Other Lords amendments will enable us to give directors of public health a key new role in considering applications for the licensing of premises for the sale of alcohol, and enable the national child measurement programme to continue once it is transferred to local authorities.
Beyond the provisions of the Bill, we have stated clearly that Public Health England will have a board with an independent, non-executive majority and an independent chair, to provide the chief executive and the Secretary of State with frank and expert challenge. Public Health England’s ability to undertake research and bid for external funding for health protection research in the same way as the Health Protection Agency is also provided for in the Bill as now drafted. Finally on public health, we have announced our intention, subject to consultation, to require the registration of non-medical public health specialists with the Health Professions Council.
We introduced safeguards in the other place to ensure that HealthWatch England could operate effectively within the CQC and have better links with, and transparency to, local healthwatch organisations. That will help to ensure that issues arising between them can be addressed, and local authorities and local healthwatch organisations will have to have regard to similar guidance. HealthWatch England will also exercise additional functions to assist local authorities with the arrangements that they make for local healthwatch. HealthWatch England may make recommendations of a general nature to local authorities about the making of those arrangements. When it is of the opinion that local healthwatch activities are not being properly carried out, it can draw that to the attention of the local authority.
The Lords amendments will ensure that regulations are able to, and in some cases must, make adequate and appropriate provision about HealthWatch England’s membership. That will include specifying that the majority of members must not be members of the CQC board, and setting out the procedures for selecting members or proposing persons for appointment as members. We listened to the concerns on that issue and have now undertaken a public consultation on the proposed regulations. The results are currently being carefully analysed.
A number of the amendments in this group apply to local healthwatch organisations. They will strengthen the statutory powers of those organisations, enabling them to become a powerful champion of patients’ interests locally. As a result of the Bill, they will have stronger and more wide-ranging powers than local involvement networks do under the current arrangements. The Government are ardent proponents of localism and of local authorities being able to take account of local needs and be accountable to their local population for the decisions that they make.
Simon Hughes
One thing that has got lost in all the noise about the Bill is the fact that there will be more opportunity for local authorities and local people in England to be engaged. Will my hon. Friend put on record how an ordinary constituent of his in Sutton, mine in Southwark or anywhere else—not a professional such as a GP or a nurse—will be able to get involved? I think there will be a much better system in future than there has been.
Paul Burstow
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hard-wired throughout the Bill are requirements on patient and public involvement in clinical commissioning groups and health and wellbeing boards. Local healthwatch will provide a vehicle for delivering much wider engagement. One criticism that has often been levelled at past attempts at public and patient engagement has been the absence of hard-to-reach groups, which are seldom heard from in our health system. As a result, their voices have not helped to shape commissioning decisions. We need to ensure that they do, so that CCGs commission effectively for their whole population. That is a key part of what the Bill provides for.
As the Bill makes its way on to the statute book, Members of all parties will need to look closely at the opportunities for far wider public involvement that will result from how it has been improved. We have listened closely to groups such as the Richmond group, which has been a powerful advocate on behalf of a wide range of patients’ groups. It has talked about the importance of involving patients far more in co-production and commissioning decisions. That is an essential component of how we intend the Bill to be given effect in the months to come.
In tabling our amendments in the House of Lords, we wanted to ensure that local authorities had greater flexibility in the organisational form that local healthwatch takes. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions about the right way to commission a local healthwatch service for their area, but they cannot decide not to have a local healthwatch organisation, and we would not allow them to do that. It is essential that the voice of patients and carers is heard loud and clear in the decision-making processes of our NHS and social care services.
Andrew George
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, particularly for his last remark. I know that he will come on to Lords amendment 181, but I could not find anything in the debate in the House of Lords justifying the rationale behind the provisions relating to the establishment of local healthwatch organisations as statutory bodies corporate. I am sure that he is just about to provide that rationale.
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to do just that. First and foremost, I want to be absolutely clear that local authorities are under a statutory duty to ensure that local healthwatch arrangements are put in place. The Lords amendments do not change that one iota, and they do not in any way weaken the statutory functions conferred upon local healthwatch organisations. Nor do they enable local authorities in some way to limit, restrict or censor what local healthwatch organisations can do. Indeed, we tabled amendments to ensure there are better safeguards in relation to how local authorities carry out their role. The Secretary of State will be able to publish guidance relating to potential conflicts of interest between a local authority and its local healthwatch organisation, to which both sides must have regard. We have provided for HealthWatch England to make recommendations in that respect, but to be absolutely clear, local healthwatch has a statutory basis. All that has changed is that we want to enable local decisions about whether it is a social enterprise, a voluntary organisation or another format.
Grahame M. Morris
Will the Minister clarify that point and the issue raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)? One Lords amendment allows a local authority to commission a community interest company, charity or other form of social enterprise that meets the prescribed criteria to be the local healthwatch for its area, and allows local healthwatch to make arrangements with others to carry out its functions—it effectively allows local healthwatch to delegate its functions to a community interest company. How does that address the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman? How would an individual constituent have their interests represented through a local healthwatch if it is no longer a statutory body?
Paul Burstow
The point is that the body will discharge a number of statutory functions. The models that the hon. Gentleman describes—community interest companies and other forms of mutual or social enterprise—are exactly the sort of organisations that are likely to engage more effectively with community interests and bring in a wider range of them. That is why we want that flexibility in the organisational form, against a set of criteria to safeguard the interests of the public. The public can tailor those organisational forms to meet the needs of their local community. That corporate envelope does not guarantee anything; the legislation still provides a statutory basis.
Simon Hughes
One last time—I am grateful to the Minister. Will he put on the record what constituents all over England can do if, for example, they hear that their hospital might want to close a ward for the mentally ill, or close accident and emergency services, or if it realises that there is no day care for people with mental illness? What power do they have to stop or start something?
Paul Burstow
Despite the noises off, the fact is that there is considerable scope for that sort of public shaping.
Let me talk my right hon. Friend through some of those changes. We are establishing local health and wellbeing boards, which are made up of clinical commissioning groups, elected local authority members, the various directors to which I just referred, and, importantly, local healthwatch organisations. They have the statutory responsibility for identifying population need for their area and for then framing the strategy to meet those needs. The local commissioner must evidence that the strategies for delivering that—the local commissioning plans—reflect the commissioning strategy that has been produced by the health and wellbeing board. That is the first opportunity to intervene and to help shape the nature of services that are being commissioned for a local population. Indeed, we made amendments that make it clear that health and wellbeing boards must involve their population in that work.
The next stage when people can be involved is when the clinical commissioning group produces its commissioning intentions and plan. CCGs have obligations to consult on their plans and to involve the public in their formulation. That is a further opportunity, but beyond it there is a role in commissioning decisions, or decisions to change or reconfigure a service, for the local authority’s health and overview scrutiny committee, which we are retaining and enhancing, so that, for the first time, NHS providers in the public sector or private providers providing NHS-contracted services can be held accountable for their decisions. That is a change from the arrangements under the previous Administration.
Those are just a few of the steps, but ultimately we have retained the provisions for a reference by the local authority to the Secretary of State to make decisions regarding major reconfigurations. There are a number of steps. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend and gives the lie to those who suggest that the provisions have been watered down—the contrary is the case.
We have committed to use the Secretary of State’s powers to specify the criteria that local healthwatch organisations must satisfy when it comes to strong involvement by volunteers and lay members, including in their governance and leadership. We want to ensure that local healthwatch organisations break out of existing models and find ways of reaching and involving far wider and more representative populations than hitherto.
I can confirm that there are a number of amendments, the majority of which are technical in nature, relating to the Health and Care Professions Council, NICE, and the NHS Information Centre. Part 7 of the Bill relates to the regulation of health and social care workers. The Government have made a technical alteration to the provisions amending article 12 of the Health Professions Order 2001 to enable the Health Professions Council to recognise training undertaken in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as sufficient for admission to its register as a social worker. The amendments also give the council the power to assess training or professional expertise and experience in social work gained outside England but within the UK.
Part 8 of the Bill establishes the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—I emphasise the word “care”—and extends its remit to adults’ and children’s social care. NICE will play a central role in driving quality improvement through the production of robust, evidence-based quality standards and other guidance across the NHS, social care and public health. That is yet another measure in the Bill that supports and drives greater integration of health and social care than has existed in the past. The Government have made minor and technical amendments to part 8 to avoid the potential for misinterpretation and to ensure that NICE’s functions can be exercised effectively in practice.
It is important that patients continue to have access to NICE-approved drugs and treatments in line with the NHS constitution and accompanying handbook, whether those fall within the future responsibilities of the NHS or of local authorities. We have therefore amended the regulation-making power in clause 234 of part 8 so that the provision in regulations to replicate the effect of the current funding direction for NICE technology appraisal recommendations may also be applied to local authorities in respect of the drugs and treatments that they may prescribe for public health purposes, such as smoking cessation aids.
Part 9 establishes for the first time the NHS Information Centre in primary legislation, setting out its powers in relation to the collection, analysis, publication or dissemination of information. The Government have made a number of amendments—to clauses 255 and 257—and inserted new clauses after clauses 252 and 257 that further strengthen the protection of individuals’ confidential personal information while ensuring that the wider benefits of safely and securely sharing information, which include improvements in the quality of services and treatments, can be realised.
The amendments will, for example, restrict the people who can require the centre to collect confidential, personal, identifiable information; clarify the circumstances in which the centre may require others to provide it with confidential, personal, identifiable information; and require a code of practice to be published, setting out how confidential information must be handled. That provides an essential safe haven that can provide a powerful driver to support research and quality improvement in the NHS.
To support these amendments, we have made a number of minor and technical amendments to part 9 and to schedule 19. Finally, we made a minor and technical amendment in part 11 relating to the transfer scheme, which is set out in clause 294. That provision allows for flexibility in how the Secretary of State holds his shares in any property company. That is normal for company structures and is in a form already used by the Secretary of State with his other companies.
I urge hon. Members to support these amendments, including amendment 181.
Liz Kendall
I start by sharing with hon. Members a letter to the Prime Minister on 13 March from Malcolm Alexander, who is the chair of the National Association of LINks Members, the national body representing 150 statutory independent local involvement networks that promote the public and patient voice in health and social care. The letter is about the amendments to HealthWatch that were made in the other place and are before us now. He wrote to register his
“strong objections to the government’s major policy change on Healthwatch—specifically your decision to abandon plans to establish statutory Local Healthwatch bodies…Instead of creating independent statutory bodies led by local people who can monitor, influence, involve the public, hold the local authority and NHS to account; the government plan to create weak bodies that will not be independent, but will be funded by and accountable to the local authority they are monitoring. There will be no genuine accountability to the public.”
He then makes this rather perceptive comment:
“Plans for a statutory Healthwatch body were probably the only part of the Health and Social Care Bill that had any public support.”
He continues:
“Your government’s ambition”—
not your Government, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the Prime Minister’s—
“to establish independent, statutory Healthwatch organisations that would help achieve equity and empowerment in relation to access to NHS and social care services, has been diminished to such a degree, that Healthwatch will have little impact…The aspiration to achieve equity and excellence in public involvement in health and social care, especially for the most vulnerable people, has been replaced by a model that has lost its central purpose of building effective patient and user led bodies that can influence the planning of health and social care.”
Andrew George
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s arguments about the structure and funding of local healthwatch bodies and HealthWatch England. I ask this question not to be deliberately mischievous, but in view of her comments and criticisms: what is the preferred option of the Labour party for those scrutiny bodies?
Liz Kendall
I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to read the Opposition Front Bench amendment tabled in the House of Lords, which set out how we could have a separate independent, body with clear lines of accountability to local healthwatch organisations. That is the policy of the Opposition. Unfortunately, however, that amendment was not accepted.
National Voices represents 150 patient groups. I was interested that the Minister said that the Richmond Group of charities somehow supported everything that the Government were doing in this area. However, I should remind the House that National Voices includes groups such as Asthma UK, Arthritis Care, the British Heart Foundation, Breast Cancer Care, Carers UK, Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, Dementia UK, Mencap, Mind, Macmillan Cancer Support, Rethink Mental Illness, the Stroke Association and many others. Those groups are saying that the Government are setting HealthWatch up to fail, because it will not provide a strong enough voice for patients and the public.
Interestingly, officials within the Government’s own Department are saying the same thing. Hon. Members will know that the Government have refused to publish the transition risk register, but today I have been passed the risk register from the Department of Health’s programme board for HealthWatch. It is marked “Restricted”, and it sets out clearly what the Department’s officials see as the risks involved in the Government’s proposals on HealthWatch. It deals with high risk in terms of impact, as well as with likelihood, so it does involve prediction.
The risk register says that there is a high risk that
“existing LINks members and volunteers become disenchanted about the new arrangements for local HealthWatch and leave the system”
because of “insufficient consultation”. It goes on to say that there is a high risk that local authorities
“will not invest in establishing effective relationships with existing LINks and other community organisations”
because the process has been poorly managed. It states that there is a high risk that there will be a “narrow engagement group” and that HealthWatch
“doesn’t work effectively with providers and commissioners. HW is not fully representative.”
It identifies the cause for that as the engagement process having been “insufficiently inclusive”. It sees a further high risk in relation to HealthWatch England:
“The establishment of the HWE committee within CQC is either too isolated or too prescribed by DH/CQC plans.”
The cause is identified:
“Early design processes for establishing HWE do not engage broad range of partners resulting to ineffective regulations being laid.”
Those ineffective regulations are being laid by this Government, according to the risk register of the Department of Health’s own HealthWatch programme board.
Some of the Lords amendments in this group would make minor improvements to the Bill in relation to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and to the functioning of the information centre. I want to return to the Minister’s earlier claim that huge improvements would be seen in public health. Some amendments relate to the employment of public health professionals by local authorities. The trouble is that the Faculty of Public Health, the body that represents those people, opposes the Bill and wants it to be dropped. It has stated that the Bill will widen inequalities, increase health care costs and reduce the quality of care. It says that there are significant risks—[Interruption.] If hon. Members are making claims that their Bill will improve public health and that the amendments will improve arrangements for public health professionals, perhaps they should listen to the views of those public health professionals. The Faculty of Public Health has identified
“significant risks associated with the NHS structures, the new health system and environment that the Bill will enact.”
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) was, perhaps courageously, trying to get the Minister to set out what powers local authorities would have under the new system. He will know, however, that health and wellbeing boards will not have the final say over GP commissioning plans. They will not be able to stop them. The only course left to them will be to appeal to the NHS Commissioning Board. I would respectfully point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he thinks that the NHS Commissioning Board will automatically agree to complaints from local authorities, his experience of the NHS is very different from mine. We need to be clear that there will be no sign-off by health and wellbeing boards.
Simon Hughes
These are important issues, but I hope the hon. Lady recognises that on the public health agenda, which Labour Members regularly say is so important, there is now—I think for the first time—written into legislation an obligation on the Secretary of State, and therefore on the NHS, to secure
“continuous improvement in the quality of services provided to individuals for or in connection with…the protection or improvement of public health.”
That must be reflected all the way down the tree; it will not stay only in the Department of Health office.
Liz Kendall
The right hon. Gentleman might think that that on its own will protect the system, but as he well knows, I am pointing out what public health professionals are saying. [Interruption.] What I am saying is that the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the Bill is not shared by those who work in public health who think that there are huge risks in it. I was also making the point that when it comes to the fundamental issue of the control or powers of the health and wellbeing boards, we should be very clear that they do not have sign-off. That was my point.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I was unfairly chuntering from a sedentary position a minute ago, and I thought I would like to place something on the record. The hon. Lady refers to the Faculty of Public Health, and I have obviously heard its public comments about the Bill. However, it is right there in new section 1B in clause 3 that the Secretary of State has a duty “to reduce inequalities”. I heard an Opposition Member chuntering from a sedentary position earlier, too, to the effect that this is a matter of faith and trust, but this House’s job is to scrutinise and enact legislation. There it is in the Bill in black and white—on green —[Interruption.] Yes, for the first time in 13 years, as I do not recall seeing it in any national health Bill before.
Liz Kendall
The point is that the rest of the Bill absolutely trumps that. That is the concern of others—[Interruption.] Conservative Members groan, but people who work in the system say that the Bill—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)has not stumped me. He said that one phrase in a Bill is supposedly going to outweigh the rest of the implications in the Bill, which the Faculty of Public Health says will increase the postcode lottery and widen inequalities, without providing value for money or improving the quality of services. Conservative Members should listen to the concerns of the people who work in the system.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me—
Ms Abbott
She will, you know. Does she agree that it is apparent over the years that it is one thing to see an intention built into a Bill, but quite another to see it implemented on the ground? It is the contention of Opposition Members that, worthwhile as the statements in the Bill are, in the context of this particular car crash of a Bill, some of those intentions around public health will be dead on arrival.
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for her, as always, powerful and eloquent description of the realities of the Bill.
Liz Kendall
No, I am not giving way to the Minister.
Although I have said that a number of amendments in the group make minor improvements regarding NICE and the functioning of the information centre, they are overwhelmingly—
Liz Kendall
I have told the Minister that I am not giving way to him.
These amendments are overwhelmingly outweighed by the huge change put forward by the Government in abolishing an effective statutory model for healthwatch bodies locally, which was supposed to give patients and the public a strong and independent voice in the NHS. Labour Members cannot accept the Government’s removal of that statutory body, which they promised and have now betrayed. The amendments make a mockery of the Deputy Prime Minister’s claim in the letter he wrote with Baroness Williams to Liberal Democrat Members that the Bill will ensure “proper accountability” to the public. It makes a mockery, too, of the claims made by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that this Bill will put real power into the hands of patients and the public, and that there will be “No decision about me without me.” And, as the national body that represents patients and public involvement in the NHS has said, it is
“a betrayal of public trust”.
This is what has happened throughout the proceedings on a Bill for which the Government—Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—have no mandate, and for which they know they have no mandate. They promised that there would be no top-down reorganisation, but did not present any proposals for an independent regulator on the basis of the system that exists in the privatised utilities because they were worried about what people would say. Above all, on this fundamental issue, which concerns the say that the public and patients have in the NHS, the Government have—as the National Association of LINks Members said—betrayed people’s trust in what they promised, and for that reason we will not support the amendments.
Simon Hughes
These amendments—the last group that we shall consider tonight—contain important issues, including that of local community involvement, which was raised by the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall). Like other Members, I have an interest in the subject, and have had throughout my time in politics. I happen to know Malcolm Alexander—who was cited by the hon. Lady—very well, because he was once secretary of Southwark community health council.
Let me present my honest opinion of the Bill to my friends on the Government Front Bench. It is not the Bill that I would have presented to Parliament. I think that it has gone much too far in its efforts to introduce top-down reorganisation, which is not what we told the public we would give them; and although there was a fine balance between the arguments in favour of primary care trusts and those in favour of the new structure that we have created, I believe that by changing what we said we would do we have caused more uncertainty, not least among health professionals.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that the process to which the Bill has been subjected has improved it hugely. I am convinced that a year ago my party colleagues performed a public service by setting out an agenda for change, and that we have helped to persuade the Government to amend the Bill in 2,000 different ways. That is not my figure, but one given by the Library in a note with which it provided us before the debate. Since the Bill returned to Committee about a year ago, 2,000 amendments have been tabled, many of them in the House of Commons after the Future Forum had done its work. Today we are considering—technically—374 amendments, all of which are going in the right direction.
It is interesting to observe that only three Labour amendments have been tabled today to the changes proposed by the House of Lords, and that two of them dealt with the same issue. Effectively, that means that the Labour Front Bench has sought to change only three of the many proposals made by the Lords. Of course the 374 amendments are not all substantive—some are consequential, and some are small—but we should not undermine or understate the substantive changes that have been made since the Bill left this place.
Many outside the House believe that there is an opportunity for Members of Parliament to vote on every Bill at the end of all its proceedings, and to deliver a final yes or no decision. There is not, although I think that there should be. I hope to persuade colleagues that we can change our procedure so that all public legislation, whether it starts in the Lords or the Commons, ends up in the Commons for Third Reading. I think that that would make for more democratically accountable decisions. We could then examine the Bill as amended by the Lords, and take a final view. However, we are not there yet; tonight we are considering all these amendments, and with them I thoroughly concur.
I have listened to the debate about accountability, and I accept that there is real disagreement on whether the new system proposed by the Government, at short notice, is an adequate substitute for the statutory HealthWatch. I remember a time—the hon. Member for Leicester West was not in the House then—when, from the Opposition Benches, I ferociously opposed the Labour Government’s proposal to abolish community health councils. I thought that it was a move in the wrong direction, as did my constituents. I still believe that any measure that does not empower my constituents— and the hon. Lady’s in Leicester—and enable them to become involved in decisions, consultations and processes will not be a good thing.
Ministers have been asked some perfectly proper questions today, and I am not 100% persuaded that their answers suggest that we will have the best possible system. Let me be absolutely honest: I believe that although, by and large, the amendments contain huge improvements, there is a great deal of unfinished business. Some will be dealt with in regulations, which will enable us to return to these matters, while some will be judged on the basis of experience.
I asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to put on record the way in which the public can be more involved, because I am clear that there are significant additional opportunities for the public to become involved. That is why, in those areas, it is a good Bill. I am clear that local councils should have more involvement. He may remember that, as my party’s representative when the Bill setting up the Greater London authority was introduced, I argued that the GLA should have the power of the London strategic health authority, so that there would be a democratically accountable strategic health authority. I have always believed in more accountable local health services and in local councillors and councils having more say.
Liz Kendall
The right hon. Gentleman says that there is more to do and that that can be done in regulations, but that is not the case on the amendment that we are being asked to agree, which will abolish local healthwatch organisations as statutory bodies. That cannot be changed in regulations. Will he vote against that?
Simon Hughes
I understand that. I was not pretending that everything could be dealt with in regulations. I said to the hon. Lady, I hope fairly—I am trying to be fair—that I thought she made a good point that the proposal has come late in the day and does not have the support of the people leading the community involvement at the moment, one of whom she cited and whom I have known for many years. I do not think that the Government have yet given a full explanation of why the new proposals are better than the old ones. I understand why they have suggested that there should not be a one-size-fits-all approach, but I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will explain, because I think that Ministers have a case to answer.
Andrew George
My right hon. Friend will have heard me intervene on my hon. Friend the Minister of State on that issue, seeking the rationale behind the decision to remove the statutory basis for HealthWatch. As I understand it, his response was that there would be a statutory measure to achieve this—healthwatch organisations would be tied in with local authorities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a potential weakness there? If we are seeking to integrate health and social care, a conflict of interest may arise if a body is tied in with the local authority but is also supposed to be scrutinising the activities of that authority.
Simon Hughes
I understand that point and share some of those concerns. I hope that the Minister will explain before the end of the debate why the more variegated model will not carry the risks that were alluded to by the hon. Lady when she read from the document earlier and by my hon. Friend.
I want to flag up two other things in relation to accountability, one of which is to do with the decisions made by the commissioning groups. Like many colleagues, I met a group of my local doctors again the other day. They had two areas of concern. First, they had concerns about the Bill. There is a lot of work to be done by Ministers and by all of us to allay concerns about the Bill when it becomes an Act—that is, on the basis of the facts, not the fiction. There is a huge amount of work to do. I do not think that we should underestimate that. Secondly, they have concerns about the system as it is now, before any measures have become law. I hope that Ministers have heard those concerns, some of which are not of this Government’s making but derive from previous legislation.
There is a concern that there is an excessive interest in some places in looking for private work and private contracts. There is a concern that the middle class and well heeled will speak more loudly and influence the commissioners in their interests, rather than in the interests of the poor and the vulnerable. That is a real issue in a constituency such as mine, where a lot of people are on low incomes and in need of a good public health system.
I want to put on the record that, although I understand the argument about getting rid of tiers of management and giving GPs the power to commission, and that is a good thing, it will not be a good thing if the decisions end up being taken not by GPs and the commissioning groups and the people who are meant to be taking them, but by the people they appoint to do the work for them. They may be private sector companies or somebody else. We have to make sure that it is health service professionals who make the decisions, in an open, accountable and transparent way, not people they employ, who may have a big vested interest in capturing more work for their own commercial gain.
Paul Burstow
Just to be absolutely clear, may I say that clinical commissioning groups cannot subcontract decision making about their commissioning functions—that is crucial to the effective delivery of this. On the issue of the local healthwatch organisations, the Bill makes it clear that local healthwatch has to exist in each locality, and that local authorities have to contract for it to exist and to provide the range of services that the Bill provides for it to undertake.
Simon Hughes
I absolutely understand both those points. I understand that commissioning groups cannot subcontract their decisions, but the point I am making to my hon. Friend and to other Ministers is that we have to ensure that the groups do not end up in the position where, although they retain the decision, they leave lots of the thinking about it to the people they employ to do the work. The decisions have to be made by the health professionals. In reply to the Labour amendment, the Minister rightly said that it is a safeguard that local authorities will have the decision on the local healthwatch. Where a local authority is concerned that it should remain in a particular format, it will be able to do so.
In conclusion, I am clear, as I have said to Labour’s Front-Bench team, to constituents and to my friends on the ministerial team, that our constituents still have a huge amount of concern about this Bill; I am clear that a lot of it has arisen because of misinformation and misrepresentation; and I am clear that this is not a privatisation Bill and not a “carve up the NHS” Bill. However, everyone, including Government Members, will need to continue to be vigilant and to continue to talk to the health professionals. I hope that the Government and the health professionals will start talking again very soon. We will also all need to make sure that we understand their concerns and pass them on. I know what my constituents want at the end of this debate; they do not actually want lots of conversations about structures of the health service.
Andy Burnham
I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said about misrepresentation and I wonder who he had in mind. Did he have in mind the members of his own party who went to Gateshead and asked for the Lords not to support the Third Reading of the Bill, although they did so yesterday? Did he have in mind those people who raised the most serious concerns about this Bill? I am talking about his own party members, who overturned his party’s leadership. I will not sit here and have him suggest that the concerns exist only among those on this Front Bench, because that is not the case; they exist throughout the country, and he needs to acknowledge that.
Simon Hughes
Let me deal with both those points. I acknowledge that absolutely. On past occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has been to our party conference, although I do not think he came to the Gateshead conference. [Interruption.] It appears that one of his colleagues did. There were and are concerns in my party about this. My party wrote the plan for the NHS, which the good Labour post-war Government implemented, so of course we think we are as much the proprietors of the NHS as his party and of course there are concerns. There are many concerns—many colleagues are not happy with the Bill—and I am owning up to that.
I am absolutely clear about that, but do not let the right hon. Gentleman misrepresent what happened at Gateshead. My party is a democratic party. It is more democratic than his, thank God, and much more democratic than the Tory party. Our party voted to commend the Lords for the work they had done, but to suspend judgment on the Bill. My party neither voted to say that the Bill should not go ahead, nor to decide that the Bill should go ahead. That was what the debate, in the end, was about. There was not quite a majority saying, “Stop the Bill”; that was not the view of the conference, although there are many people in our party, as there are in his—this view is also shared by some in the Tory party and elsewhere—who would want the Bill to be stopped.
The Bill is not going to be stopped; it will become law. The Bill contains many good things. My concern now is to reflect what constituents, both health professionals and those who are not health professionals, come to talk to me about. They feel that there is a need to get back to concentrating on the things that really matter, such as making sure the wards are clean; making sure that the staff are of the highest quality; making sure that the waiting times go down; making sure that we can get decent care for the mentally ill; and making sure that our NHS is able to do better on all that it does. That is what the concerns are.
I want to make sure that Ministers understand that once the Bill is on the statute book there should be no cause for rejoicing, because this is not a matter for rejoicing. It is a matter of a challenge for Government to go back in humility to the health professionals and say, “We may not have got it all right—we may have got some of it wrong—but we are willing to listen, to learn and to work with you.” In the end it is collaboration between local authorities, local councillors, local people, Ministers, parliamentarians and those millions of fantastic people who work in the national health service who will make sure that the health service survives. It will survive and prosper in this country as a public health service—thank God—and we must all work together to respond to concerns, alleviate fears and not fan the flames. We must make sure that from now on we work on the basis of facts, not fiction, and that we work with those who have the concern, like we do, that the NHS should survive and prosper.
John Healey
I had not intended to speak in this part of the debate but I was so underwhelmed and unimpressed by the Minister that I felt moved to do so. It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). I think he was offering his support to the Front-Bench team, but often it was not entirely possible to be certain. One thing he talked about was quite telling—the flaws in the systems we as a Government tried to put in place after we did away with community health councils. The Secretary of State and his colleagues were very critical about those arrangements when they sat on the Opposition Benches. One might have hoped that they would make their criticisms and learn the lessons and not repeat some of the mistakes that we certainly made in the arrangements for a strong patient voice and strong patient representation after the community health councils, but this evening’s debate and what we have been presented with in this final stage of the Bill make it quite clear that that is not the case.
At the heart of the proposal in the White Paper, which was co-signed by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in July 2010, was the proposition to put patients at the very heart of the NHS. That was common ground and was supported by many. It was a promise that really went to the heart of the proposition about the NHS changes. Despite that promise, it is clear that patients are not at the heart of the NHS but at the margins. The slogan for patients that there will be no decision about me without me is simply that—a slogan. I remember that early in the autumn of 2010 patient groups who were trying to come to terms with the plans were saying—quietly at first but more loudly later—that the arrangements in the White Paper and then in the Bill when it was first introduced in the House would lead to less involvement of patients in future, not more. Since that point, the Bill has had more than 1,000 amendments—some 374 amendments were made in the other place and we have four hours to consider those amendments tonight—but looking at the Bill now I can see very little difference from the position as it was first expressed almost 18 months ago, when it first caused concern to those patient groups.
In this area of all areas in which party politics should not be part of provision for a strong patient voice, representation and safeguarding, I want to take the Government at their word. They said that they wanted to set up at the heart of the NHS a strong independent voice for patients. The House needs to consider what that means, and to do that we need to go back to first principles.
It seems to me that there are four principles or characteristics which must serve as yardsticks by which to measure whether an organisation can be a strong, effective voice for patients. The first is independence. In order to function as a strong, fearless voice for patients, any organisation that acts on their behalf must be independent of commissioners, independent of providers and independent of regulators because part of its job on behalf of patients may well be to stand up to and criticise the providers, the commissioners or the regulators at some point in fulfilling its duties. The arrangements that the House is asked to approve tonight fail that first basic test of an effective organisation for patients.
The second principle or yardstick is representation. If the organisation is to be an effective representative voice for patients, clearly it must have some representation system and accountability to the people on whose behalf it acts and speaks. Again, on that test, the arrangements that we are asked to approve tonight fail. The third principle or test of an effective patient organisation is whether it is rooted or grounded in good local information and monitoring. Again, nothing in the arrangements and nothing I heard from the Minister, who has now left the Chamber in the middle of the debate that he opened, gave me any reassurance that that third principle or test is met in the arrangements.
The fourth test or principle for an effective, independent organisation surely must be adequate resources. There are serious questions over the nature, the level and the system for the resources that will allow such an organisation to do the job that we in the House are legislating for it to do on behalf of patients.
At a national level first, I say to the Secretary of State as his junior Minister is not present that setting up HealthWatch England as a sub-committee of the Care Quality Commission just does not cut it. It is implausible that a body can act impartially and fearlessly on behalf of patients if it is a sub-committee of the care regulator. How can it be, and equally important, how can it appear to be independent and authoritative, if it is set up within the administrative, organisational and financial embrace of the CQC? The CQC itself is clearly one of those organisations that HealthWatch England and local healthwatch bodies may need to stand up to and criticise.
There was an amendment in the other place to give the Government an opportunity to change their mind and set up HealthWatch England as an independent statutory body. That Labour-led, Labour-moved amendment was defeated in the other place, I am sad to say, by a combination of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers.
Secondly, on the local healthwatch organisations, I think I understood what the Minister said earlier—that the Bill introduces a statutory duty on local authorities to set up a local healthwatch organisation. Placing a statutory duty on a local authority to carry out a particular activity is very different from creating a statutory basis for that organisation to operate in its own right. How will that arrangement at local level ensure independence, representativeness, good local links and resources—the four things that I would argue are the essential elements of an effective organisation on behalf of patients? On the fourth point, which is about resources, I may have missed something in today’s debate or in the debate at the other end of the building, but we still have not had clear answers to the following questions. I would be grateful if the Minister answered these questions when he deigns to return to the Chamber to respond to the debate, unless the Secretary of State will be doing that himself.
First, will local healthwatch organisations be funded directly by the Department of Health? Secondly, if funding will go via local authorities, what will the mechanism be for that funding? Thirdly, will funding for local healthwatch organisations be consistent across local areas so that patients, wherever they live, can be confident that they have a strong local representative organisation working on their behalf? Otherwise, this is legislation for a local lottery in patient representation and the strength of local patient voices.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the many excellent points he is making. Is it his understanding, as it is mine, that all the local healthwatch activities could be carried out by private sector—and therefore, for-profit—bodies? Does he feel that providing the strong, independent, representative voice for local people should be a profitable activity for private sector organisations?
John Healey
My answer to my hon. Friend’s second question is no, and I do not know the answer to her first question, which should really be directed to the Minister. We need an explanation of how the system for setting up, or in effect franchising, local patient organisations will be carried out, what sort of framework that will take place in, and what standards, if any, will be required for the way they are set up and run.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend not find it incredible that after a pause, two Bill Committees and all the debates in this place and the other place, we still do not have answers on a matter that is so important to patients?
John Healey
I find it dismaying, because there are so many people who are committed to the health service, work in the health service or are dependent on the health service, as we all are, and they want answers to that question, but the Government are simply not giving them. To be honest, I think that this stems from the genesis of the legislation, something that was ruled out explicitly in the Conservative party manifesto and the coalition agreement but then sprung in a White Paper less than two months after the general election. That meant that the civil service, the health profession and the NHS were unprepared for this huge reorganisation and this huge Bill, so in many respects, beyond the main decisions set out in the White Paper in July 2010, all the evidence indicates that the Government are making it up as they go along. The fact that we have seen more than 1,000 amendments to the Bill since it was first introduced is a further indication of that.
Is the Minister coming back?
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a very decisive set of points. I would like briefly to draw his attention to the local patient healthwatch group in north Lincolnshire, Who Cares, which has produced some hard-hitting reports on matters such as mental health and discharge from hospital. Does he feel that arrangements are being put in place that will allow that sort of independence of view and those hard-hitting reports that help to improve the quality of care in future?
John Healey
My hon. Friend hits right at the heart of the flaws in the arrangements proposed tonight, which I was going to move on to. I am sure that Who Cares has its ear to the ground, good local connections and strong representation, and I want to see that continue, as I am sure he does. The real question is whether those organisations can go beyond hard-hitting reports, and who then will be accountable for the action that might need to be taken to follow them up. Where are the enforcement powers that could ensure that any problems they identify on behalf of patients are properly dealt with? I will move on to that point in a moment.
In a sense, that links to the point I wish to put to Ministers now. In the arrangements before us it seems that if a local healthwatch organisation is not up to standard, is not doing the job and is somehow failing patients in an area or falling short of what is expected, we will be offered a new provision, a new power introduced by the Government through an amendment in the other place, for HealthWatch England to write a letter to the local authority, telling it that it must do better. Thinking of the two local authority leaders in the area that I am privileged to represent—Steve Houghton, the leader of Barnsley metropolitan borough council, and Roger Stone, the leader of Rotherham metropolitan borough council—I could not use language in this House that is likely to reflect their reaction. If I think of them, as elected local government leaders, receiving a letter from a sub-committee of a national quango responsible for regulating things that their local authorities have little or no responsibility for, telling them that they are not doing their job properly, I can just imagine their reaction. Quite frankly, “You’re having a laugh.” That is simply not a serious power of, or provision for, redress on behalf of patients when a local patients’ representative organisation is failing to do the job properly. So, no enforcement powers and no intervention powers, only the power to write a letter to the local authority.
In the end, that brings us to the point. At this stage, in the final hour, at the end of this extraordinary Bill’s passage through Parliament, we can see very clearly the truths at the heart of it. There is provision for an independent national commissioning board, an independent market regulator and independent hospital foundation trusts, but there is no provision for an independent patients’ organisation.
In this Bill there are powers to ensure strong action to guarantee competition, strong action to guarantee financial efficiency and strong action to guarantee professional concerns, but there are no powers to guarantee any sort of action, let alone strong action, on behalf of patients.
I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who made a very good speech from our Front Bench. When she notes that the representative body, National Voices, says on behalf of patients and interests groups, “You’re setting us up to fail,” and reads the letter from Malcolm Alexander, the chair of the National Association of LINks Members, who says, “You’re creating weak bodies that will not be independent,” I think that we in this House should be worried. Such action is, to borrow a phrase, pennywise, pound foolish. The Government are cutting what to Ministers and civil servants might seem to be small corners, but there could be big consequences for patients.
I see a link—a common characteristic—between this debate and our earlier debate on the risk register. The Government will live to regret at length poor judgments and decisions made in haste and under pressure now. The Secretary of State will face the question of whether to release the transition risk register. If he insists on remaining resolute in refusing to disclose, and if he insists on keeping it secret, patients will ask, “What are they hiding from us?” In the future, in the months ahead, long after the Bill has received Royal Assent and is on the statute book, patients will rightly ask when things go wrong, “Did they know these risks were there, and why didn’t they tell us?”
The same applies to HealthWatch. When things go wrong, patients will find that they do not have the recourse and the representation that they may need to act and intervene on their behalf, and they may well find that the arrangements that we are invited to pass tonight are too weak to help them. I say to the Health Secretary, who is now on his own on the Front Bench, that this is likely to reinforce that lack of confidence and lack of trust in the notion that the Government’s huge upheaval in our NHS, and this huge piece of legislation before the House, really is in the best interests of the NHS and NHS patients.
Liz Kendall
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister who moved these particularly important amendments, which will abolish a statutory organisation, HealthWatch, to be absent from the debate? If it is in order, is it not a huge discourtesy to Members on both sides of the House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. It is in order for the Minister not to be here at this moment in time, and it is up to each Member’s judgment as to what to make of that.
Andrew George
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who has taken us round a number of issues, particularly in relation to the public’s ability to scrutinise, through the proposed healthwatch organisations, the effective delivery of commissioning in their areas.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) suggested, there is a desperate need for provision within our procedures whereby important Bills such as this, which have been significantly altered in another place, can be reviewed on Third Reading. Our earlier debate about the still unpublished transitional risk register was, in a sense, a proxy for that lack of a Third Reading debate.
This debate has placed public health and the role of HealthWatch, particularly local healthwatch, in the context of local health services being placed at risk. We have already discussed how clinical commissioning groups may be fundamentally conflicted. In my contribution to that debate, I posed questions about the conflicts that intrinsically exist within those organisations. I believe that HealthWatch should be there to provide scrutiny of those conflicts. Throughout the debates on the Bill, fundamental concerns have been expressed about the fragmentation of local health services. We need a strong and independent-minded local healthwatch in all our areas to be watching for that and looking out for opportunities to maintain the integration of local services.
I fear that one of the effects of such a major reorganisation of the health service nationally and locally will be to make it more difficult to deliver the £20 billion efficiency gain that the previous Government proposed and that the coalition Government intend should be delivered. That issue needs to be considered at national level, with HealthWatch, and at local level. I believe that we need an independent body that is capable of ensuring that efficiency gains are being achieved at local level and that keeps an eye on the commissioning and delivery of local health services.
The Royal College of Nursing has said today that there is a need to look carefully at staffing levels in front-line health services, including in acute hospitals. There is a debate about whether that should be mandatory. That has long been a concern of mine when looking at the delivery of local health services and it is identified by people when they visit hospitals. There are staff-to-patient ratios that, in my view, are barely tenable and barely safe. Qualified nurses are struggling to provide the support and care that patients require, simply because the staffing ratios are inadequate. The same ratios may have been adequate in the past when the throughput of patients and the acute status of patients were lower, but with the current turnaround of patients and their acute status, it is no surprise that the RCN’s survey has identified the need to review staffing levels in our wards.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
In commenting on the level of nursing staff, will the hon. Gentleman observe that since the election, there has been a 5% improvement in the ratio of nurses to occupied beds in general and acute wards?
Andrew George
I am not in a position to doubt that figure. The question is whether the ratio is sufficient to ensure that there is safe staffing in our hospitals now, as the RCN identified after a recent survey. I understand the argument advanced by Ministers that it comes down to the management and the management of paperwork within hospitals, and is not just about staff-to-patient ratios. I do not want to have a debate just about staff -to-patient ratios, but that issue has been raised today and I believe that it resonates with people out there in the country, who can see that nurses in particular are struggling to provide adequate services within their hospitals. Those ratios have an effect on the level of care that nurses can provide, as has been found by a variety of reports. The problem is not down to the callousness of the nurses or untrained care assistants who provide the services—where that exists, it should clearly be rooted out of the service—but to whether staff resources are sufficient to maintain safe services on our hospital wards. I think the RCN is right to raise that issue.
That concern is relevant to ensuring that we have adequate local healthwatch services because it shows that we need independent scrutiny of the health service by a body that is not in the pocket of anyone, including the local authority, but that is able to scrutinise hospitals and speak out about staffing levels in its area. We cannot be dependent on the RCN reporting such matters to the Department and on there being top-down diktats that impose mandatory staffing levels that apply in all circumstances. Rather, there should be a local healthwatch that looks at the guidance and recommendations of the professional bodies and ensures that the services in its local hospitals are adequate to provide safe nursing and hospital care. That is why it is important to ensure that the local healthwatch bodies are, as far as is possible, independent of any external influences, whether from the Department, the NHS Commissioning Board, clinical commissioning groups or the local authority. That is where I shall take my arguments.
Fiona O'Donnell
I feel as if I have been here before, in that I agree with some of what Government Members are saying. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore vote with us tonight?
Andrew George
I shall sidestep that question at present and return to it later, because I first want to listen to the Minister’s winding-up speech. As I want to ensure that he has adequate time, I shall conclude my remarks as swiftly as possible.
I could, however, initiate a brief yah-boo interlude, such as by saying that the previous Government got rid of community health councils. Many people look back at the era of CHCs as the halcyon days of independent scrutiny of local provision. In creating local healthwatch, we should as far as possible mirror, and learn from, the excellent services provided by the CHCs.
Liz Kendall
On 26 October 2006, when the Secretary of State was the shadow Secretary of State, he set out his policies on HealthWatch. He said:
“I envisage it as an independent body with a separate funding stream and the right to decide its own agenda of work.”
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that has been completely changed under this Bill?
Andrew George
Earlier, I asked a question about the rationale behind the last-minute change from having independent bodies to the situation now, under which, as a result of both a proposal we are debating this evening and an amendment tabled in the Lords, we are allowing local authorities to commission community interest companies or others to provide the healthwatch function in their areas. That ties the local healthwatch into the local authority. I believe we should devolve and localise, and empower local communities as far as possible, but this change does not achieve that. Instead, it empowers the local authority. If there is a genuine intention to ensure that we have integrated health and social care, then there is a problem here. If the local authority provides both the social care and the local scrutiny, I fear we may not have effective scrutiny of the work of the local authority in this regard.
Liberal Democrats in the Lords have done excellent work in advancing a large number of amendments to improve the Bill, and I am perplexed that the proposal before us tonight appears, in effect, to backpedal from that progress made in other areas. That is why I hope the Minister will reassure us on the rationale for this proposal, and assure us that the new body will be genuinely independent and genuinely effective. I shall therefore reserve judgment on the question of which way to vote tonight.
Grahame M. Morris
Although the HealthWatch issue is important, in the brief time available to me I want to talk about Lords amendments 249 to 283, dealing with the health and social care information centre and patient confidentiality. The amendments raise several issues about who would have access on a mandatory basis to the information provided by the centre as well as changes in the terminology used to refer to the persons who would be able to make such requests. There are important issues here about patient confidentiality and protections to ensure that the right checks and balances are in place. I am sure Ministers will be well aware of the arguments made in Committee about the issue, and I wish to seek some assurances and express some concerns. Perhaps the Minister may be able to address some of them.
One issue that was raised in Committee was the power of the Secretary of State to direct the information centre as he wishes. The Opposition think it is a good thing that the Secretary of State should discharge certain powers, particularly when failures happen, and be held to account for them by the House. Naturally, we support the view that people should have greater access to, and control over, their health and social care needs and the care that they receive. I am sure the whole House can subscribe to that idea. However, the opportunity to access health and social care records has to be tempered by protections for patient confidentiality and, equally importantly, protections to prevent the misuse of information by private bodies.
The Opposition have raised the issues of access to patient information and privatisation, and expressed concerns that sensitive information may find its way to organisations that will use it for commercial reasons. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) spoke about the value to patients of anonymised data, which enable them to make relevant choices. It is not a huge leap of faith to imagine that those same data would be commercially valuable to pharmaceutical companies and commercial interests. I am concerned to hear from the Minister that adequate safeguards are in place in the Lords amendments.
Fiona O'Donnell
It is valuable to the debate that my hon. Friend is highlighting his concerns about confidentiality. Does he agree that a theme running through the Bill is that it will undermine the confidence that patients can have in the people who deliver services to them?
Grahame M. Morris
I do agree. Indeed, Professor Steve Field, whom the Government appointed to head up the listening exercise, agreed. He stated:
“Better information systems and the development of more integrated electronic care records will be a major enabling factor.”
Without better information sharing with patients, and between professionals across organisations, it will be quite difficult to provide better co-ordinated and integrated care, which we all want to see. As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, I represent a former coal mining area. One of the slogans on the miners’ banners in Durham is, “Knowledge is Power”. That is a true sentiment that can be applied equally to health policy.
The buck should stop with the Secretary of State. In Committee, we considered the possibility of failure in NHS organisations, and Ministers reassured us that the issue would be effectively addressed in amendments. I would like some reassurance this evening that Ministers can foresee patients gaining greater access to their records, and I would like some detail of how that might be achieved. In view of the current cuts to the service—[Interruption.] Not the new centre that has not been set up, the existing NHS Information Centre. In view of that, is the Minister setting out any red lines for accomplishing the ambitious targets that he has set out in the Bill?
A House of Commons Library briefing note defines the role of the health and social care information centre as a special health authority. It states that the NHS Information Centre will be
“a non-departmental public body. In its role collecting data to support central bodies in discharging their statutory functions, it will have powers to require data to be provided to it when it is working on behalf of the Secretary of State or the NHS Commissioning Board”.
The Minister said that he had not cut funding, but there have been cuts to funding this year to the NHS Information Centre, which is separate from the new body that is being set up by the Bill.
Chi Onwurah
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the important points he is making, particularly his last point on public health. He and I represent constituencies in the north of England that suffer from great health inequalities. Does he agree that knowing and understanding those health inequalities is an essential part of being able to address them?
Grahame M. Morris
I agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful for her intervention. Those points were exercised in a recent debate in Westminster Hall. The basic point that I seek to make—I will finish on this—is that in order to plan effective health interventions, we need an effective and reliable evidence base. I would like assurances from the Minister that the necessary funding will be in place to ensure that that is delivered as a consequence of that measure in the Bill.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
May I trespass upon your good nature, Mr Speaker, to endeavour to speak on behalf of the House to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), who is not well, but who has risen from his sick bed to join us today because this subject is of such importance?
Those of us who stood at the Bar in the other place listening to the debate—[Interruption.] Not that bar. Those of us who stood at the Bar of the other place listening to the debate on the Bill cannot help but to have been massively impressed by the breadth and depth of expertise that was displayed. We had past presidents of royal colleges and consultants, and people from every aspect of our glorious national health service, giving their expertise, passion and analysis.
I come from a slightly different perspective. I spent more than 10 years working in the national health service—this is specifically in relation to the issue of health and wellbeing boards, in case you are worried, Mr Speaker—before community health councils were established in 1974, when, frankly, the NHS was not run for patients, people or the local community, and when there was little or no consultation with democratically elected local authorities, let alone with special interest groups or people representing areas that were ill served by the NHS. Community health councils had not only statutory powers, but a budget. They enabled the voice of the people to be heard in wards, corridors and A and E departments throughout the national health service.
We have heard tonight an extraordinary, agonising attempt on the part of the junior section of the coalition to justify what had been for years their principled support of a public voice within the NHS. The Liberal Democrats say that they will scrutinise the measure having voted to destroy that for which they have stood for so long. It is like somebody setting fire to a house and saying that they will time how long the fire engine takes to get there—and then criticising it. It ill becomes Members to draw attention to the shortcomings of other Members, but one speaker reminded me of those people in Spain who, on Good Friday, flagellate themselves up and down mountains trying to display their agonies. All the time, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) tries to show us that he is not enjoying this—he is in agony but that agony will not deter him, I fear, from voting against the amendments.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend but is not the difference between the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and the flagellants of Spain that they believe they have sins to expiate, whereas he believes that whatever position he adopts today, even if it is the opposite of yesterday’s, is entirely right and proper?
Stephen Pound
I yield to no one in my admiration for my hon. Friend and her knowledge of the slightly occult religious practices of south Spain—and possibly of parts of St Helens for all I know.
But we did not expect the Spanish inquisition. We expected a valid, proper, sensible voice to enable the people to engage with their national health service. The NHS must not be an isolated ivory tower dominated by the old consultant gods who used to run it. It must not be a matter of non-responsible bureaucrats in quangos sending letters of suggestion. The NHS must contain a proper mechanism for the people’s voice to be heard and, above all, for the involvement of the wider community. The NHS cannot be a stand-alone organisation; it has to be involved with local councils and local communities, but everything in the proposals for this mealy-mouthed, milquetoast healthwatch nonsense dilutes and destroys that.
All the proposal does is create a false illusion—a falsity; the suggestion that somehow the voice of the people will be heard through this mere sub-committee of the Care Quality Commission, a committee whose mighty weapons arrayed against the forces of reaction and conservatism consist of the ability to write a letter. Such a letter would have to be vast, powerful and extremely effective, and would have to do what no letter has ever done in the history of epistolatory warfare. It would somehow have to persuade people on this gentle nudge—I appreciate that there are those on the Government Benches much given to the modern, modish philosophy of the nudge, but there is nudging and there is fudging, and what we have heard tonight is a fudge-nudge.
Above all, however, there is a crucially significant and important point here.
Jim Shannon
Do the hon. Gentleman’s exhortations mean that the pen is not mightier than the sword?
Stephen Pound
I am not entirely sure, Mr Speaker, whether you would allow the debate to go down that line, but were anyone in Northern Ireland to suggest a model such as that being proposed tonight, they would get a very dusty answer—it might not be replied to with sword or pen alone, but it would certainly be responded to.
The NHS is not something that we choose to buy into or out of. It is something that we all subscribe to. For many people—I should think everyone in this Chamber except me—it is a part of their birthright. People have been born under the NHS, have lived with the NHS, have funded the NHS and have supported it, and their voices must be heard. What we have tonight does not represent a valid mechanism for people to engage with the NHS. That is the key point. It is simply not good enough to set up a sub-committee of a quango and imagine that it has any force. We must realise that, yes, people may have different political opinions and there might be different priorities, but we do not have differential rates of national insurance. We pay national insurance because it is our national health service, and we have a right to have our voices heard.
Fiona O'Donnell
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that such a complex measure is before the House? The Government’s thinking was not developed in the early stages, and the Conservatives’ coalition partners have contributed nothing throughout our scrutiny in Committee. That is why, at this late stage, the Opposition are still left trying to amend and improve the Bill.
Stephen Pound
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point. In responding to it, I would like to ask the House to cast its mind back to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). He rightly said that this is not an issue of party politics. The fact that we see party politics in its worst form—its most loathsome shape—forming before our very eyes, clouded in some foul, mephitic, stygian Hades, is to be deplored. We should all listen to my right hon. Friend and actually try to admit to ourselves that we do not know everything—that the people’s voice does deserve to be heard and that the national health service is just that: a national health service, for all people. Everybody has that right to have their voice heard.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the deepest problems with this Bill is that the people’s voice has not been heard? These proposals were never put before the people in party manifestos. That is exactly why they feel so very angry.
Stephen Pound
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It is a great sadness and reflects ill on my personal life that I spend many a night browsing through Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifestos. I have searched; I have examined; I have deconstructed; I have applied the principles of Jacques Derrida to those manifestos. Have I found in there any smidgen, any suggestion, any hint or any implication that the NHS was to be fragmented, privatised and ultimately destroyed, and the connection between the people and the NHS to be ripped up, torn into shreds like the integrity of the Liberal Democrats, hurled from the window to flutter in the breeze of history, never, ever to be seen again? Had I found that, I would almost certainly have voted Labour—but as I did so anyway, that is neither here nor there. But the point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right. How can the people, who fund the NHS, who are born in the NHS, who live in the NHS and who will ultimately quit this mortal bourn in the NHS—when they depart this vale of tears, it will be with the comforting arm of the NHS about their shoulders—feel that they are best served by this organisation if their voice is not heard?
Fiona O'Donnell
If it is difficult for those people to imagine how they can rely on the NHS, surely they should take a lead from the Lib Dems at their spring conference and show Liberal Democrat Members that they need to listen to their members and vote with us this evening.
Stephen Pound
My hon. Friend tempts me down a partisan path. I hope she will forgive me if on this occasion I will not follow so closely behind her. All I will say is that Gateshead—that wonderful, glorious city—has been demeaned by the presence of those who spin endlessly before our eyes, desperately trying to justify their own appalling behaviour.
What we have this evening is a Bill that is inchoate in its extremities. There are so many different clauses. I challenge any individual to respond to a question on the total number of amendments that we have had to face before tonight. But above all, leaving aside all the numbers, the clauses, the subsections, there is at the heart of all this one basic irrefragable—
Mr Speaker
Order. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Whatever the views of Members, there is no time for more.
Mr Speaker
We come now to the petition. Before I call the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), may I ask Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly—
Mr Speaker
If Members wish to stay, they should stay. If they wish to leave, perhaps they can do so quickly and quietly, affording the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington the courtesy that they would want to be extended to them in similar circumstances.
DVLA Office Network
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The petition relates to the Government consultation on the future of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency that commenced in December. The Government are now proposing to close the local network of DVLA offices, with the loss of 1,200 staff and the consequential effects on local economies and the licensing regime itself. The petition was signed by 40,000 people and it states:
The Petition of DVLA staff and service users in numerous constituencies,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the DVLA Office Network is a service which is needed throughout the UK; declares that the Petitioners feel that the decision to close the DVLA Office Network and centralise services is a devastating blow to local communities who rely on the services provided, as well as to the 1200 staff who will lose their jobs; and declares that the Petitioners believe that decision to close the service needs to be addressed so that staff and the public can get some reassurances of job and service security.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consult with staff, users and trade unions further, and to take all possible action to save the DVLA Office Network.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001013]
Education Projects (Nigeria)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to initiate this debate.
Last month I had the honour of participating in a visit to Nigeria on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on global education for all. I was accompanied by my hon. Friends the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). I hope that I have pronounced his constituency correctly.
Our visit was aimed at understanding how Nigeria is addressing major educational challenges, specifically in the education of girls and community involvement in education. We also took the opportunity to meet Nigerian politicians as well to see the impact of British involvement on the ground.
Nigeria has a population of about 165 million people and has 10% of the world’s children of primary age who are not in school. Most of those are girls. There are considerable barriers to girls accessing education. This is cultural and physical and both those challenges are being addressed. We also wished to examine the use of Department for International Development funding and to ensure that taxpayers’ money is being used wisely and that value for money results.
Before we went to Nigeria we had the opportunity to meet the Nigerian high commissioner and all of his team. I found that the high commissioner and I had attendance at the university of Liverpool in common, although not at the same time. We uncovered a number of the challenges facing Nigeria, including the problem of corruption, which is well known. Virtually all politicians mention that as endemic in Nigeria.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
In August last year, I was on a delegation that visited Tanzania with Oxfam. One of the things that was most encouraging was the work that DFID is doing to transfer its budget from supporting Government funding towards localised projects that are making a difference, minimising the opportunity for corruption, to which my hon. Friend referred. Did he find that that was the case during his visit to Nigeria, and, if so, does he welcome it?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will allude to what is going on in Nigeria later in my speech. In particular, I will address the changes that have taken place since our coalition Government started running the Department.
The challenge in Nigeria is, of course, to make sure that proper action is being taken to address corruption. An inquiry, chaired by Farouk Muhammad Lawan, is being undertaken into the operation of Nigeria’s oil industry. He is also the chairman of education in the Nigerian House of Representatives. A clear-up of the operation of the petroleum industry should follow, which I trust will include the exposure of any alleged corruption. Transfers of funds from the Federal Government of Nigeria do not always seem to reach the proper destination. That may be a problem of bureaucracy, but it makes the monitoring of DFID funding all the more important.
One of the key barriers to participation in education is that of fees and levies. It is clear that there are mixed messages about whether young people are required to pay fees and what happens if they are unable to afford them. The adequacy of teacher training and the qualifications of teachers are a severe challenge. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion will doubtless refer to that issue later. Girls are particularly challenged, as traditionally they are not educated. They are often forced to marry when very young—even as young as 12. They are seen to be needed in the home or as part of the farming community, so families do not recognise the value of their education. The role of traditional rulers is key in promoting education, particularly that of girls. Where that happens, the results are dramatically improved.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that girls’ clubs, similar to the DFID-funded project we saw at the Yangoji school near Abuja, are key in empowering young women and helping them to deal with many of difficulties that keep them away from school, many of which he has mentioned? The clubs give young women support and encouragement from their peers.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, not only enabling young girls to go into education but supporting them while they are there is crucial. That is one of the key elements of DFID funding that I strongly support and I trust it will continue well into the future.
Most schools do not have proper sanitation or even fresh water, and that is a considerable barrier preventing girls from being educated. DFID funding is being used to provide these basic facilities, and I warmly welcome that. No mention of Nigeria can be complete without referring to the security situation. The attacks orchestrated by Boko Haram have created problems, particularly in the north of Nigeria, and we should all express sincere condolences to the family of Chris McManus who, sadly, was murdered by his kidnappers recently.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue to the House tonight. He has talked about DFID and about all the other groups that are helping. Is he aware of the many churches that do tremendous work in Nigeria through their educational projects? In particular, I am thinking of the Elim missions in my constituency, which, through Kingsway International, run an educational project that provides teachers and teaching, food and meals for the day and the books for the schools. It is not Government-funded; it is done through the churches themselves. Such projects also do tremendously good work in Nigeria, alongside all the other people who do likewise.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly the work of churches, charities, Comic Relief and other organisations is extremely valuable in promoting the educational opportunities that are required in these areas.
On our visit, we had the opportunity to visit schools in Abuja and Lagos. We saw at first hand that DFID funding can make a big difference on providing toilets and new classrooms. In Abuja, we saw a school where thieves had stolen the water pump that provided fresh water for the children. One can imagine spending all day in school without access to fresh water or even basic toilet facilities. In Lagos, we saw a school that had had a new toilet block installed with DFID funding. However, we expressed concern that the cost of that—£37,000—seemed excessive compared with the cost of building generally in Nigeria.
It is important to recognise that the overwhelming majority of the population earn less than a £1 a day. We inquired about that project, particularly the procurement costs and the process that had been followed. We believe that DFID should carefully consider how best to ensure value for money in such a country as Nigeria. The tendering process seems fraught with problems and might not be the best way of obtaining good value for money. Surely we should be negotiating down these prices to make our money go further.
On our school visits we met the school-based management committees, which are equivalent to our school governing bodies. The main problem they face is training members and developing their powers. We heard at first hand how one SBMC had used its power to embarrass local politicians to release much-needed funding for a project. It used Facebook to threaten the governor that it would refuse to support his re-election bid unless funding was released for new classrooms. The governor released the money in a matter of days. DFID money is channelled via the education sector support programme in Nigeria and the girls’ education project. DFID will assist more than 800,000 children to enter education, including 600,000 girls, over the next four years. There can be no doubt that the ministerial team at DFID has ensured that proper targets and value for money are at the heart of the Department’s work. They have truly been the wind of change required for the projects in Africa.
We also had the opportunity to meet many politicians and officials, which helped to promote the relationship between the UK and Nigeria. In my opinion, this type of bilateral relationship is crucial as we increase the UK’s influence in the world. Anyone visiting Nigeria will be shocked at the wide disparity in levels of wealth and income. They will also be surprised, if not frightened, when being driven by car. The normal behaviour of car drivers in Nigeria is to sound their horn and point the car where they want to go irrespective of who or what is in the way. I should also report that my name became the subject of much hilarity for many of the officials I met. I would be a very rich man indeed if I had £1 for every time someone said “Mr Blackman? But you are a white man.”
Nigerians have a great love of the UK. They love premier league football, they universally love the Queen, they are staunch allies of the UK and they are a key member of the Commonwealth. China and other countries have seen the opportunities for investment there and we need to ensure that we retain and improve our relationship with Nigeria. There can be little doubt that Nigeria will become the key economy in Africa very soon, so it is in our vital national interest to continue to invest in infrastructure projects in Nigeria and particularly to invest in education.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate. Harrow is a lot easier to pronounce than Ceredigion, but I thank him for his efforts and for allowing me to make a brief contribution to the debate.
My hon. Friend has covered much of the ground regarding our visit to Nigeria, but I just want to reflect briefly on the position of teachers in Nigeria and particularly on the opportunities for meaningful teacher training. The four schools we visited near Abuja and in Lagos were certainly characterised by enthusiastic young people but also by inadequate resources and old-style “chalk and talk” teaching delivered from the front of overcrowded classrooms rather than through engagement with young people. Despite that, the young people we met seemed captivated by the experience and willing to sit it out to progress and try to advance themselves. I shall not forget being taken to a library in one of the schools we visited and seeing a couple of shelves of books, most of which seemed to be redundant computer manuals relating to four redundant computers—redundant because the school had no electricity supply—in the corner of the room.
In addition to what my hon. Friend said in reporting back our experiences, my hope tonight is that DFID will ensure in its reflections on strategies to support teacher training that teachers have the skills they need to teach in a way that is participatory and responsive to individual young people. In other words, while we remain concerned about the scale of the challenge, with the 800,000 people whom DFID projects are going to help back into classrooms, including 600,000 young girls, I hope that quality will become a feature of the teaching debate, not just quantity.
Mr Williams
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I shall come on to that. In a previous life I used to be a primary school teacher. The prospect of teaching 36 children in a school in the west country or in rural Powys fades into insignificance when compared with the size of the classes that we saw in Nigeria.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East will recall a conversation that he and I had in Abuja with Mrs Ozumba, the federal head of primary education, which revealed the problems that Nigeria clasically faces. She said that Nigeria does not have enough people willing to be teachers, especially in rural areas. The profession is not incentivised. There is minimal job security and there are instances of teachers not being paid at all. There is little focus on technical and vocational areas of the curriculum which could benefit the Nigerian economy. Only pre-service teacher training is available. There is little, if any, in-service teacher training, and there is a need to build and cascade down some semblance of a teacher training structure.
There is, as my hon. Friend mentioned, a severe shortage of female teachers, who are essential as role models for young girls in school, and to encourage girls to stay in school and to be allowed by their parents to remain in school. With reference to the conditions that teachers as well as children face, I also remember the Yangoji junior secondary school near Abuja, where there were 788 children with no water supply whatsoever, the borehole that did not yield any water, and the children sitting in classes of 70. That was an issue for the children, but it was an issue also for the teachers.
Despite all the problems, the scale of the problems, the estimated 8.5 million children out of school, the huge sensitivities in the northern territories, and the gender divide, there is vast potential. That is the word that stays in my mind from my first visit to Africa, to Nigeria—the huge potential for that country. It is being advanced through laudable DFID schemes, the awakening of civic society via the school-based management committees that we heard about this evening, and a healthy questioning of where money is being spent. The press in Nigeria is a free press, challenging politicians to account for the money that is being spent and challenging the federal Government to honour the spending commitments that they have made.
DFID’s work remains essential and is much appreciated. The infrastructure works, and sanitation and building projects are evidently succeeding, but I hope DFID will continue with the third sector and the Nigerian Government to look at the human investment required in education. I end with one harrowing piece of research, commissioned by DFID, which suggested that of 42,000 grade 3 teachers in Kwara state who were given a test that their young students should have passed, only 19 passed. In short, I hope we will continue to emphasise and build upon the quality of education, as well as the quantity.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for calling tonight’s debate. I am grateful to him and his colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for visiting Nigeria last month to see at first hand the challenges in education and the work that the UK is supporting to tackle those challenges.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and his colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group on global education for the insights that they shared with us after their visit to Nigeria. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is at this moment boarding a plane to Nigeria to follow up on these issues.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East learned during his visit, primary education in much of Nigeria is extremely poor. As he said, there are an estimated 8.5 million children out of school in Nigeria. It therefore has more primary-aged children not in school than any other country in the world, and the problem is particularly acute in the north of the country.
Nigeria’s education policies and their implementation are poor, having suffered many years of decline under military dictatorships and mismanaged oil revenues. Financial releases to schools are erratic and education officials and teachers struggle to improve schools. The quality of teaching and learning is also extremely poor. A recent DFID study of primary and junior secondary teachers in government schools, as we have just heard, revealed that only 75 of 19,000 teachers surveyed achieved the minimum standards for teaching core subjects.
As my hon. Friends heard during their visit, there are three major educational challenges. The first challenge is simply to get more children into school. A national education data survey, partly funded by DFID, showed that only 61% of Nigerian children attend school. The situation in the north of the country, the poorest part, is particularly bad. Therefore, DFID’s efforts are focused on 10 of Nigeria’s 36 states, mainly in the north. We are working with the Federal Ministry of Education and state Governments to help address these regional disparities.
The second challenge is to close the gap between girls and boys. In many parts of the country, particularly the north, there are many fewer girls than boys in school. In the northern states, only 35% of girls attend primary school, compared with over 80% in the south of the country. That is of great concern to DFID, and we are working with our partners in the country to help close those geographic and gender gaps.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
As members of the International Development Committee have just seen during a visit to Malawi, one of the main problems for girls is the lack of adequate toilet facilities. Will the Minister outline what the Government, through DFID, are doing in that respect in Nigeria?
Mr Duncan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he is right that we are indeed spending money on sanitation, and I am perturbed to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about the seemingly excessive cost of one particular structure. I can assure him and the House that we will investigate that as a matter of urgency to check that we have genuinely achieved value for money. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) rightly points out, girls are kept away from school if they do not have proper sanitation; they simply do not turn up. Therefore, sanitation is an essential part of making sure that girls have equal access to education.
International evidence from countries such as Malaysia and other Asian countries shows that educating girls is one of the best investments a country can make. Educating more girls improves family and child health and boosts economic growth by making young women more productive. DFID is therefore working with its Nigerian partners to help get more girls into school and improve their quality of education, their health and their economic contribution to society.
Mr Duncan
My hon. Friend, who has so much experience in this area, is absolutely right. One of DFID’s core objectives is to achieve later marriage by educating girls, and one of the most potent influences in achieving effective development is focusing on opportunities for girls in all the countries where we have programmes.
The third challenge, which I think properly addresses the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, is to improve the quality of education. Getting children into school is just the first step; it is no good getting them into school if they do not receive any useful teaching once there. Too many Nigerian children leave school without the necessary knowledge and skills for a healthy and productive life. International research shows that the most effective way to improve the quality of education is to invest in teachers and the quality of teaching. Education systems need to attract good people to become teachers. They then need the right incentives, professional support and teaching materials for their classrooms.
Parents and communities also need support to hold teachers to account for their children’s learning. My hon. Friends heard directly from the DFID team in Nigeria about the projects that UK taxpayers’ money is supporting in order to respond to those education challenges. They heard also about the impressive results being achieved.
DFID has two major projects to increase access to education for Nigerian children, and to improve the quality of education they receive once they are in school. The first project, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East referred, is the education sector support programme in Nigeria, known as ESSPIN. It works with the federal Ministry of Education and six states of the federation to improve the planning, management, funding and provision of basic education. The overarching objective of the project is to ensure that Nigeria’s own public funds are used more effectively to improve education.
The ESSPIN project is managed by a contracted company to provide technical assistance to state education departments. It helps communities organise school-based management committees; it trains head teachers to plan and use their Government funds to improve their schools; and it provides small grants and small-scale infrastructure to upgrade facilities and teaching materials in schools where community-based management committees are working well.
A recent independent review of ESSPIN found that after almost three years the project was indeed making a real difference. The review concluded that the project
“has been effective in establishing a platform for basic education reform in six Nigerian States... Its pilot work in approximately 2000 schools and communities is sound. It is resulting in some early teaching and learning benefits.”
Building on those achievements, ESSPIN is now widening its coverage to approximately 10,500 schools in order to benefit an estimated 4.2 million children over the next three years.
The second project is the girls’ education project, known as GEP, which is funded by DFID and run by UNICEF. The project works with four state governments in the north of Nigeria to help get more girls into school, to encourage them to stay and to improve the quality of education that they receive in their school. The project identifies schools with low levels of enrolment by girls. It helps those schools to identify the local barriers to girls attending, and it supports teachers and communities in addressing those barriers. For example, the lack of women teachers discourages parents from sending their girls to school. The GEP therefore includes a scholarship scheme to help young women to become teachers in their own community. The UK has supported two phases of the girls’ education project since 2004, and we calculate that it has helped to get 423,000 girls into primary schools and helped the transition of 225,000 girls into junior secondary schools.
A new phase of the project is just starting, and as my hon. Friend said it will get an additional 800,000 children, 600,000 of them girls, into school by 2015. The project will expand to a total of six states in the next few years, and in response to the scale of Nigeria’s education challenges DFID is designing two new education projects. The first is looking at how DFID can help to improve the quality of teaching that children receive once they get into school. Teachers need training and support throughout their career, not just at the start. The project will therefore consider targeted support for teacher training colleges and for in-service training schemes.
The second project is looking at how to improve the quality of education in low-cost private schools. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited Nigeria in June last year, he noted that millions of Nigerian children are being educated outside the public sector and visited a community-based private school in the slums of Lagos, where more than 60% of primary children attend such schools. So DFID is looking at how to help those schools without undermining their independence or the strength of accountability between teachers and parents. The UK’s support for education is an important part of the UK’s overall support for Nigeria.
Nigeria matters to the UK and to the rest of the world. The country is an emerging power that is important to the coalition Government’s foreign and domestic policy interests and central to the UK’s prosperity, security and development agendas. Continued poverty, greater domestic conflict or religious radicalisation would damage the UK’s interests; and they could reduce growth and market opportunities, increase illegal migration and crime, and increase the potential for security threats to the UK. The rise of Islamist terrorism in the past year and the tragic hostage events earlier this month are harsh reminders of these threats.
Following the widely acknowledged, credible elections in April 2011, the coalition Government have been developing a more substantive and strategic relationship with Nigeria by stepping up our co-operation on prosperity, security and development. The coalition Government aim to build on the very warm relations established through the Prime Minister’s visit to Nigeria in July 2011 and the two visits by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development last year. Given the challenges that Nigeria faces in securing stability, prosperity and development—not least in providing a better education for its children—I hope that the House will welcome the priority placed on Nigeria’s development by the coalition Government and the significant expansion of the UK’s development programme as a result of the bilateral aid review. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and his colleagues for raising awareness of the critical importance of supporting Nigeria and supporting that country’s education.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Planning (Woodside Close, Walsall)
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Departmental Prosecutions
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I have agreed with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Health arrangements between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Department of Health (DH) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for the conduct of prosecutions.
Currently DWP and DH prosecutions are conducted by in-house prosecutions teams within those Departments. Under the forthcoming change, the conduct of such prosecutions will be assigned by the Attorney-General to the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 3(2)(g) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
The transfer will take place from 1 April 2012.
Transferring these functions will allow DWP and DH to draw directly on the CPS’ expertise and resources and to better accommodate fluctuations in prosecution volumes. Arrangements are in place to ensure partnership and accountability between the three organisations.
National Loan Guarantee Scheme
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
At the autumn statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a package of measures designed to ease the flow of credit to smaller businesses. The national loan guarantee scheme (NLGS) was one of these measures. Under the NLGS, the Government will allow eligible banks to issue limited quantities of Government-guaranteed debt, up to a total of £20 billion. Banks will be required to pass on the resultant reduction in funding cost through a reduction in the interest rate (by 1 percentage point) charged on new loans to small businesses: businesses with turnover of less than £50 million per annum.
The scheme constitutes state aid to participating banks and to small businesses, which the European Commission approved on 14 March 2012; the approval statement can be found by following the web link to this footnote1.
However, the scheme is designed in such a way that banks do not retain any benefit; that means the reduction in the cost of borrowing from the Government-guaranteed debt is either passed on to the small businesses or paid to the Exchequer in the form of a fee. Details on the design of the scheme are published today; please follow this link for further information http://www.hm-treasury. gov.uk/nlgs.
In setting up this guarantee scheme, the Government are relying on their statutory powers derived from Section 228 of the Banking Act 2009. As indicated in the autumn statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the £20 billion would not be an additional contingent liability for HM Treasury, as it was previously recorded when the Bank of England asset purchase facility was set up.
As such, this is an effective transfer from the corporate operations of the asset purchase facility, a subsidiary company of the Bank of England with an explicit guarantee from HM Treasury, to the balance sheet of HM Treasury.
1http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do? reference=IP/12/244&format=HTML&aged=0& language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Unlocking Growth in Cities
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I am delighted today to inform the House that the Government and Manchester have agreed a ‘city deal’ which focuses on a new financial instrument to drive growth based on an ‘earn back’ principle.
In December the Government launched “Unlocking Growth in Cities”, which set out the terms for a programme of city deals—binding agreements that enable cities to negotiate the devolution of the specific powers, resources and responsibilities required to meet locally determined economic and social objectives.
Over recent months, I have undertaken negotiations with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and local enterprise partnership to bring forward radical devolution proposals that will enable them to drive economic growth. At the heart of this ‘deal’ is an intention to create a revolving infrastructure fund, allowing Greater Manchester to ‘earn back’ a portion of the additional tax revenue from the increased gross value added generated by the £1.2 billion it is investing in infrastructure, on a payment-by-results basis. Greater Manchester will reinvest ‘earned back’ funds into further infrastructure projects, prioritised with regard to their ability to drive further economic activity.
This enterprising model is symbolic of the sorts of innovations that I hope will be equalled and surpassed by future ‘city deals’.
Other elements of the deal commit Manchester to:
Establish a Greater Manchester investment framework to align core economic funds from central Government, European funding, and the private sector funding to drive economic growth. Investment will be prioritised on the basis of gross value added and jobs per pound of public funding.
Create a city apprenticeship and skills hub to channel participation funding direct to employers, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises.
Strengthen Greater Manchester’s business growth hub, which includes access to trade, investment and businesses advice, with Government contributing £4.4 million of transitional funding, prior to local funding from enterprise zone revenues coming on-stream from 2015.
Develop Manchester’s role as a beacon for high value inward investment. Greater Manchester and UK Trade and Investment will work jointly to analyse Manchester’s assets and opportunities, and then to pursue the investment pipeline that emerges. This will include analysis of Greater Manchester’s new Graphene Institute and existing links to emerging economies including China and India.
Greater Manchester will establish a low carbon hub, and work with Department of Energy and Climate Change to develop a plan to reduce emissions and UK Green Investments and Greater Manchester plan to establish and fund a 50/50 joint venture company (Greater Manchester Green Developments Ltd) to develop a portfolio of investment propositions (e.g. retrofit housing, retrofit public buildings, heat networks).
Establish a joint homes and communities agency and Greater Manchester housing investment board to set up an investment fund, utilising national investment streams and locally generated resources to develop new housing, both for market sale and affordable access, initially on land in public ownership. It would also identify opportunities to bring additional empty homes back into use.
Commit Government and Greater Manchester to work together towards delivery of a package of transport proposals encompassing devolution of the Northern and possibly the Trans-Pennine Express franchises (working with other authorities including Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear and West Yorkshire); bus improvement measures, including the devolution of central subsidies and smart ticketing; and devolution of local transport majors funding.
This is the second city deal to come forward. Further city deals are being negotiated.
Service Complaints Commissioner
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Complaints Commissioner’s fourth annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
The independent oversight and scrutiny of the system provided by the commissioner continue to help us improve further the manner in which we handle complaints. I and the service chiefs value this contribution and are committed to ensuring we have a complaints system in which service personnel and their families have confidence.
The Ministry of Defence and the services continue to work closely with the commissioner, and I am pleased that this report acknowledges the changes we have made to the system over the last 12 months and the further improvements planned for 2012. We are not complacent and are committed to continuous improvement.
I will provide a formal response to the commissioner once I and the services have had time to consider fully the findings of the report and the recommendations made.
Environment Council (9 March 2012)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and I represented the UK at the Environment Council in Brussels on 9 March. Stewart Stevenson, Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate Change; John Griffiths, Welsh Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development; and Alex Attwood, Northern Irish Minister of the Environment, also joined the delegation.
The day was divided into climate change items before lunch and environment items from the lunchtime discussion onwards.
The Council adopted conclusions on follow up to the 17th session of the conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the 7th session of the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol in Durban. The text sets out the EU position on the outcome of this conference, strongly welcoming the positive outcomes which further implement the Cancun agreements, pave the way for immediate and concrete actions on the ground and lay a solid foundation through the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. The text also looks ahead to the next conference, C0P18 in Doha, signalling the EU priorities for this conference, in particular, progress on mitigation and on agreement of a new, single, legally binding treaty applicable to all. Through these conclusions the EU and its member states confirmed that they would submit information on a EU ‘QELRO’ (the target under the Kyoto protocol) by 1 May 2012.
Unfortunately the Council was unable to adopt conclusions on the 2050 low carbon road map. For the second time, Poland vetoed the conclusions. However, 26 member states were able to sign up to presidency conclusions, which recognised that the cost effective trajectory for EU emission reductions to 2050 passed through domestic milestones of minus 40% in 2030 and minus 60% in 2040. Those 26 member states also called on the Commission to present timely and cost effective policy proposals to deliver the emissions reductions in the road map.
The environment half of the day began with a lunchtime discussion on preparations for the Rio+20 conference in June, at which Ministers debated the approach that the EU and member states should take, especially regarding the sustainable development goals (SDGs). After the discussion, Ministers moved back to the Council chamber to adopt non-legislative Council conclusions under the title Rio+20: Pathways to a sustainable future. Ministers stressed their commitment to playing an active role, with a view to contributing to an ambitious outcome in Rio. The Council welcomed the proposal on SDGs as it could contribute to a more focused and coherent action towards sustainable development and confirmed the willingness of the EU and its member states to engage in further discussion on this topic.
Ministers then considered the legislative proposal on restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of genetically modified organisms. The presidency pushed hard for political agreement on their compromise text but was ultimately unsuccessful in securing the necessary support as it was opposed by France, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Slovakia and the UK. I made it clear that the UK Government could not accept the presidency text because we still had fundamental concerns about the component of the proposal which would provide for unilateral bans of GM crops. I explained that the UK Government were keen to pursue a positive and workable outcome in order to improve the functioning of the EU authorisation system in a way that is legally secure. The presidency concluded discussions by saying it would consider next steps.
For the final substantive item of the day, the presidency held a legislative orientation debate on LIFE, the sole direct funding instrument for environment and climate change in the EU budget. Given the late hour, the UK and other member states who intervened mainly limited themselves to the questions posed by the presidency on geographical balance and simplification. On geographical balance we asserted that national allocations should be reinstated for all projects, and supported the extension of LIFE to the EU’s overseas countries and territories. Regarding simplification, we supported the presidency’s approach of reinstating the eligibility of permanent staff costs and VAT, but stressed that this should be balanced by a reduction in the co-financing rate. The UK also noted the relevance to LIFE of the wider negotiations on the multi-annual financial framework and the need for the LIFE programme budget to be in line with the UK view on the overall EU budget.
GLA Transport Grant (2012-13)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
During the spending review in 2010, my predecessor agreed a four year funding settlement for transport in London with the Mayor of London. In line with my duties under the GLA Act 1999, and after formally consulting the Mayor, I am therefore today reconfirming the GLA transport grant for 2012-13 at £2.829 billion. This grant is provided by the Government to Transport for London to deliver transport services and investment in the capital, including London Underground.
In line with my predecessor’s 20 October 2010 letter to the Mayor “Spending Review 2010: TfL funding agreement” and the Chancellor’s fare announcement on 20 October 2011, £881 million of this grant is designated an investment grant. This will support the delivery of vital tube upgrades, providing journey time savings and extra capacity for passengers, as well as investment in station upgrades and other projects, as set out in annex B of the 20 October letter. The remaining £1.948 billion is for the purposes of TfL.
Employment Support
(12 years, 8 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)
I confirmed in my written ministerial statement to the House on 7 March 2012 that the Remploy board would consider any credible proposals for the exit of businesses or parts of businesses and any other proposals for ways of avoiding redundancies from the 36 factories that the board have identified as unviable and subject to consultation proposed for closure.
I am now able to confirm that Remploy will publish details of the commercial process on its website today at www.remploy.co.uk. This includes contact information to assist those who wish to put forward an expression of interest.
At all points the priority of Remploy and the Government will be to minimise the number of disabled people affected by these announcements and to provide individualised assistance to employees to move into mainstream employment.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel)
My Lords, I have to inform the Committee that if there a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2012
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2012
Relevant Document: 43rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I apologise for my near lateness but I am here on time. I beg to move that the Committee considers the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before Parliament on 28 February. I will have problems with some of the pronunciations but this order will bring 2-DPMP and its related compounds—phenazepam and any ester or ether of pipradrol—under the control of the 1971 Act, based on the recommendations put forward by our independent experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, following its assessment of all available evidence.
The drugs subject to the order are so-called legal highs or new psychoactive substances which imitate the effects of and are chemically related to existing illegal drugs. I make three points. First, the ACMD likens the harms of 2-DPMP and its related compounds to controlled class B drugs which include amphetamines. We accept the ACMD’s assessment of evidence that 2-DPMP and its related compounds, as defined by the generic definition which the ACMD has provided, are sufficiently harmful to warrant class B control under the 1971 Act. Secondly, the order makes a technical amendment to include any ester or ether of pipradrol not captured by the generic definition as class C drugs alongside the main drug pipradrol to which they are chemically related. This ensures that we are consistent with current definitions used in the 1971 Act. Thirdly, the order adds phenazepam, via its full chemical name, to the list of—I now have a very difficult one—benzodiazepines which are controlled class C drugs under the 1971 Act.
The ACMD’s advice highlights evidence that websites selling so-called legal highs have exploited the current position that phenazepam is not one of the benzodiazepines covered by the 1971 Act, while the harms indicate that it is one of the more potent benzodiazepines. This order, if it is made, will enable law enforcement agencies to take full steps to curtail the availability and misuse of these harmful psychoactive substances.
There will be two negative instruments to complement this order. A designation order will be made to designate 2-DPMP and its related compounds under the generic definition, as they have no recognised medicinal or legitimate use. The designation order will amend the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001. Regulations will also be made to amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. It will include designated 2-DPMP and its related compounds in Schedule 1 to those regulations while phenazepam and esters or ethers of pipradrol will be placed with Schedule 3 drugs under the 2001 regulations to reflect their medical properties. These negative instruments will be prepared to come into force at the same time as the order. We will publicise these legislative changes through a Home Office circular addressed to all United Kingdom police forces and our criminal justice partners. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his explanation of the instruments and the other negative instruments that are to be seen in the context of this instrument. I congratulate him on his pronunciation— I do not intend to follow him down that route. As the noble Lord said, the Merits Committee has also advised us that the draft instrument supersedes a draft of the same title because of new advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the advisory committee, which will obviously be taken very seriously by the Grand Committee.
I noted in paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum that the consultation process involved consulting the MHRA, which I had the pleasure to establish, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Were other organisations consulted in that exercise? The explanatory note also refers to guidance to be issued, and I noticed that it makes reference to communicating with young people. Can the noble Lord say a little more about how it is intended to do that? Finally, paragraph 12.1 refers to the fact that the policy is to be monitored and reviewed as part of the drugs strategy. Can he say anything about how the monitoring and review will take place? Other than that, I have great pleasure in supporting the order.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, reading about these substances makes me grateful that I was young in the comparatively harmless 1960s.
The orders are difficult for the non-scientist, not just in pronunciation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am grateful to the advisory committee. I do not know whether Parliament has ever rejected one of these orders. The noble Lord referred to paragraph 8.1 in the Explanatory Memorandum. The point I took from that was the comment that these substances have not been identified as having any legitimate medical or chemical use beyond potential research use. If legitimate researchers wish to use them for research, is there a route for that to happen? In other words, can research still take place?
I have no doubt that we will consider further orders which, to those of us who are not scientists, will look much the same but which, to the scientists, will be about different substances. I doubt that it is ever possible to be fully upstream and ahead of the manufacturers, particularly in the Far East, but I, too, support the order.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I shall briefly deal with some of the questions raised and comments made by noble Lords. First, I apologise for not paying tribute to the work of the ACMD. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for doing so. We are very grateful for all the work that the committee puts in. The 25 or so members are all giving a considerable amount of their time free. What they do is very useful and we are grateful for it.
On the question of consultation raised by the noble Lord, as he will understand, we have consulted widely. The ACMD was involved. The noble Lord then mentioned the MHRA, which he was responsible for setting up, and BIS. Obviously, we will discuss these matters with other partners as and where appropriate. I am grateful that he emphasised the importance of doing that.
The noble Lord also discussed how we get the message over to young people. I just mention the Government's own advisory service for young people through FRANK, which he will be aware of, the website that provides information to them about exactly what are the dangers of certain drugs. That is all done in a manner not to appeal to the noble Lord or me but to be understandable to our children and others. As he also knows, FRANK was updated last year to improve the service available.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned the fact that she was somewhat younger in the 1960s. We were all younger in the 1960s. What was that remark—“If you can remember the 1960s, you probably weren’t there”? I leave that and make no further comment; it is probably something that we do not want to discuss.
I understand what the noble Baroness said regarding what we ought to be doing about research, and I give her an assurance that we will be facilitating research as far as possible through the licensing regime. I hope that that deals with the points that have been made.
Lord Cobbold
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who I am surprised is not here today, is leading a group in this House to undertake a review of drug policy in general. If this measure is adopted as policy for this House, will it be possible to look at it again later on?
Lord Henley
I have recently spoken to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who chairs the All-Party Group on Drugs Misuse. That group’s work is effective and important, and I want to continue to work with the noble Baroness. We are looking at whether, between myself as chair of the cross-ministerial group on drugs and her as chair of the All-Party Group, we can have further discussions. We are very grateful for all the work that she and her group put in on these problems, which sometimes seem more difficult than it is possible to be. I will certainly continue to have discussions with the noble Baroness on this matter.
Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Social Security and Revenue Information) Regulations 2012
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Social Security and Revenue Information) Regulations 2012
Relevant Document: 42nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am about to discover that I have mislaid my speech—no, I have not. These regulations are the fifth use of the data-sharing powers under the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. The Disclosure of Social Security and Revenue Information Regulations create a gateway for the sharing of information in relation to individuals in connection with certain social security and revenue payments with the Office for National Statistics. The information that these regulations allow to be shared is held by the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC. The ONS is the executive office of the UK Statistics Authority, which is referred to in the legislation as the Statistics Board.
Access to that information will enable the ONS to develop ongoing research as part of the Beyond 2011 programme. This programme is to consider possible alternatives to the traditional census in producing census-type statistics. With this information, the ONS will be able to investigate the feasibility of developing more accurate and cost-effective methods for producing population statistics. The ONS will report the outcome of this feasibility work to Parliament in 2014. The information will also be used to quality-assure and validate the 2011 census counts.
Data confidentiality and security arrangements are being assessed as a fundamental part of the preparation for sharing the information. The ONS already works to very tight confidentiality guidelines and has an excellent data security record. It is putting the necessary measures in place to protect the information and to ensure there is no disclosure of any personal information about individuals. The information provided will be used for statistical purposes only.
Section 39 of the Act makes it an offence for a member or an employee of the authority to disclose personal information it holds other than in tightly defined circumstances. Any unlawful disclosure could result in imprisonment and/or a fine. These regulations allow the ONS to disclose the information to the National Records of Scotland and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, but only for the purpose of assisting the UK Statistics Authority in producing population statistics.
These regulations enable administrative information already collected by the Government to be further utilised.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
These regulations enable administrative information already collected by government to be further utilised, but only for the purposes as set out in the regulations—that is, for the improvement of population statistics.
In summary, allowing access to information in relation to individuals associated with certain benefits and Revenue payments will lead to developments in the production of census-type statistics under the Census 2011 programme. Ultimately, it will lead to more accurate resource allocation, policy development and service planning and delivery. Simply put, better statistics will inform better policy-making. I therefore ask the Committee to support these regulations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure that we are very grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive description of the regulations before us. Of course, as he said, the context in which these regulations are being debated goes beyond the 2011 programme established by the UK Statistics Authority, which is testing and establishing alternative models for census-type statistics. Obviously, there is a great deal of interest in that and in the programme, and I should like to come back to that in a moment. However, the Explanatory Memorandum very helpfully says that the effect of sharing social security and Revenue information will be subject to internal review after 12 months and that the legislation may be amended accordingly. Will the outcome of that internal review be made public?
I also take this opportunity to ask the Minister to explain what will happen to the 2021 Census. Can he also say whether there will be parliamentary scrutiny in the event of the Government deciding to replace the current 10-year Census? Will it be subject to a legislative order or primary legislation or to a debate? It would be helpful if he could clarify that for me.
My understanding is that the UK has carried out a Census every decade since 1801, with the exception of the 1941 Census during World War II. It is of course the only time that everybody in the country is counted and the information is used by the Government to determine spending priorities and to track population movements. In addition, academics, charities and religious organisations all use information gathered in the Census, because it asks wide-ranging questions in relation to people’s households, nationality, faith and marital status. The information is also of great interest to many members of the public. The online publication of the 1911 Census, for instance, was a very great success and hugely popular. I understand that 3 million people accessed the data within a few months of its being established.
I would just like to ask the noble Lord to comment on the remarks of Geoffrey Robertson QC, a constitutional barrister, who said the news was regrettable since some sort of count had been carried out by the monarchical government for almost 1,000 years. He said that future historians will be less able to interpret Britain in the Cameron-Clegg era as a result of this decision. He actually went on to say that perhaps that is the reason for this, but I do not accuse the noble Lord of that. I would also refer him to the remarks of David Green, the director of the Civitas think tank, who said the decision was a terrible mistake. It is a question of whether alternatives are reliable. The Census is expensive but he thinks it is worth the money for historic continuity.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments and can tell him that the Beyond 2011 programme regularly reports to Ministers and these reports will be published on the ONS website, so they will reported in a form that will be easily accessible to noble Lords and others who are interested. The most important question which he posed is what will happen to the 2021 Census. My clear understanding is that the decision will not be taken until 2014 or later, and the purpose of these data exchanges and this data-sharing is to discover, first, how accurate the 2011 Census has been and, secondly, whether there are alternatives to continuing to conduct a Census of this sort.
There are costs, benefits, advantages and disadvantages to maintaining the traditional Census. As I understand it, the first Census was conducted in 1841. I say this from my historical knowledge since I can trace my family back to 1801, precisely because one of my ancestors was 40 in 1841 so one could get him back to where he had been born.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, rather like the sixties, does the noble Lord’s memory go back that far?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I hope so. It is possible that censuses have gone back further. I have at the back of my mind something that says a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. That, of course, was a census of some sort which I think was just before they managed to conquer this country, so “all the world” was a bit of an exaggeration.
The problem of the future of the Census is this: the Census of 1911 and earlier ones are tremendously interesting in their historical information for all of us. I have certainly looked at the 1911 Census and in our hall in Saltaire we have lists of everyone who lived in the house every 10 years from when the house was built to 1911. Yet how much money should one spend to provide historical information to the next generation but one? That is one question with which the Government have to be concerned.
We are somewhat impressed that Census information has got less accurate as family circumstances have become much more complicated. Children live in two houses because their parents are separated and people move around much more rapidly. With a much more mobile society in which young people, particularly young males, do not register with doctors or fill in forms, there are substantial problems in counting population. As we all know, for Government and particularly for local authorities, accurate assessment of how many people are living in your area is of considerable importance, so the purpose of this entire ONS programme is to see whether there are better alternatives to provide efficient and differentiated population statistics. It brings together a range of information now available to different government departments under very strict conditions.
In the discussions that I have had with officials on this, I said that it is quite clear that we will need a Green Paper for 2014 to allow Parliament and the public to discuss the costs and benefits of retaining the traditional Census or of otherwise moving towards a different rolling programme. After all, the data revolution is making life astonishingly different from what it was. There are enormous advantages in the amount of data that can now be collected about us. However, we are all conscious that there are enormous dangers in allowing the state to collect too much information, and that is why this statutory instrument and the others in the programme are wrapped around with so many conditions.
I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurances to enable the Committee to accept the statutory instrument.
Schools (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Schools (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012
Relevant Document: 39th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, these regulations, which were considered in another place by the First Delegated Legislation Committee on 28 February, take us back to some of our debates about behaviour during the passage of the Education Act 2011. They are separate from the provisions in the Education Act that we discussed at some length in this Room last summer but they are part of our efforts to make sure that schools can provide calm and safe environments in which teachers can teach and pupils can learn.
The Government first announced our intention to strengthen teachers’ powers to search pupils, including making these regulations and giving teachers a more general search power, in a Written Ministerial Statement on 7 July 2010. Then, in our schools White Paper, published in November 2010, we said that we wanted to make sure that teachers and head teachers,
“can establish a culture of respect and safety, with zero tolerance of bullying, clear boundaries, good pastoral care and early intervention to address problems”.
Strengthening teachers’ powers to search is an important part of this process. It means that they have the powers they need to maintain and promote good behaviour in their school.
Perhaps I may set out briefly what these powers mean in practice. Authorised members of school staff can already search for knives and weapons, alcohol and illegal drugs, and they can also search for stolen items. These powers were introduced as a result of the Apprenticeships, Schools, Children and Learning Act 2009. New general search powers included in Section 2 of the Education Act 2011 extend these powers further. From 1 April, head teachers will be able to authorise staff to search pupils for any article which has been, or is likely to be, used to commit an offence or cause harm or damage to property. Authorised school staff will also be able to search for items that are banned by the school and which are identified in the school’s own rules as items that may be searched for.
The regulations that we are discussing today build on the existing provisions simply by adding tobacco and cigarette papers, pornographic images and fireworks to the list of prohibited items. I think we would all agree that none of these items should have a place in our schools. We think that in the interests of safety and for the avoidance of doubt it is necessary for teachers to have the power to search for them, confiscate them and dispose of them appropriately.
We think that giving school staff the ability to search pupils for tobacco and to confiscate it will help to protect the health of pupils. Potential hazards are obviously involved in taking fireworks into school. That is why we want to provide school staff with a specific power to search pupils for fireworks and to be able to confiscate them.
The purpose of including pornography is to ensure that schools can take effective steps to deal with the possession or distribution of pornography by their pupils. Searches could be made for any item that authorised staff members have reasonable grounds for suspecting contained such an image, including books, magazines or electronic devices. For example, if a teacher reasonably suspects that a pupil has a pornographic image on their mobile phone, the regulations would enable the teacher to search for that phone and to search its content for the pornographic image. This is a sensible approach since electronic devices are increasingly replacing books and magazines.
Some of your Lordships may have concerns about examining the content of electronic devices and the risk that staff may, for example, access data that belong to the parents. The fact that a pupil claims that the device is not theirs does not prevent staff examining it. However, in order to examine it they must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a device contains a pornographic image. Revised departmental advice to schools will explain teachers’ obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and remind them that pupils have a right to expect a reasonable level of personal privacy. The revised advice will be published on 1 April.
The regulations also set out how the additional prohibited items should be disposed of. School staff can keep or dispose of tobacco and fireworks. Giving staff the flexibility to decide whether to retain or dispose of an item means that they will have discretion to decide on the most appropriate course of action to take in any given circumstance. Pornographic images may be disposed of, unless their possession constitutes a specified offence—for example, if they are extreme or child pornography—in which case they must be handed to the police as soon as possible. Where the image is found on an electronic device, this could mean deleting the image or retaining it so that the article that contains the image can be delivered to the police. This approach is consistent with that taken in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 in respect of the disposal of illegal drugs and stolen items.
The Government’s role is to give schools the freedom and support that they need to provide a safe and structured environment. Strengthening teachers’ powers to search for, confiscate and dispose of a range of disruptive items is a key part of this. The regulations specifically identify tobacco, fireworks and pornographic images as items that may be searched for. The person conducting the search would be able to use such force as is reasonable under the circumstances to search for these items if they judged it necessary to do so. The Government believe that given the intrinsically harmful nature of these items it is necessary to identify them specifically in regulations. This builds on the approach taken by the previous Government and will mean that teachers’ power to search for them is beyond doubt and does not rely on the pupil’s intention in having the item or on the item being banned by the school rules. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, while I support the coalition commitment to giving heads and teachers the powers that they need to ensure discipline in the classroom and promote good behaviour, I cannot resist the opportunity that this statutory instrument gives me briefly to restate an opinion that I expressed many times during the passage of the Education Act 2011. This commitment is much better achieved by good-quality teacher training and good control in the classroom than by any extension of the powers to search. Also, searching of pupils should always be done with a witness and, above a certain age, should always be carried out by someone of the same gender. However, having not resisted the opportunity to say that again—I suppose there is some difference between the two parties in the coalition—I support the Government’s approach.
Looking at the regulations themselves, I notice that in Regulation 3 the items listed include tobacco and cigarette papers. Next to that I have written “health”. Item (b) is “a firework”, next to which I have written “safety”, while item (c) is “a pornographic image”, next to which I have written “equality, respect, bullying and violence”. The great big bracket that links all three together is PSHE. Therefore, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us a little about how the internal review of PSHE is going on. This is quite relevant to this regulation. It would be nice to think that if in a lawful search of pupils in schools, following implementation at the beginning of April, any of those dangerous items were found on them, they would be given extra PSHE. An understanding of the dangers inherent in having all those items in school is covered by good quality PSHE education.
I have one other point for the Minister. The department’s guidance, Screening, Searching and Confiscation: Advice for Head Teachers, Staff and Governing Bodies, is to be updated. Will he confirm that it will contain advice on children with special needs—for example, children with autism or those who the school knows may have been subjected to physical or sexual abuse? The approach of an adult to such children could cause rather outrageous behaviour which is not the child’s fault and might escalate a situation which a little understanding could prevent. It is important that teachers understand that if they are going to search children who have or have had those problems, they need to be cautious in doing so, even though it is lawful and legitimate.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I apologise to the Committee, and in particular to the Minister, for being absent at the start of the debate. I mistakenly took a phone call at the wrong time and missed the change indicated on the monitor, which I had been watching. I hope that I missed nothing crucial—
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My apologies again. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, we debated the substance of the policy when the legislation was debated in Committee and I do not intend to reopen it. I shall confine myself to the regulations and I want to put two particular points to the Minister. The first concerns the guidance on the use of the powers, which will be forthcoming on the back of these regulations. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the current position.
When the guidance Screening, Searching and Confiscation, published earlier this year, was debated in the other place, the Minister said that it would be updated to reflect the more recent changes to the law and that new guidance would be published before implementation on 1 April this year. Will the Minister confirm that? The guidance written so far, which I have looked at on the website, says nothing about what will constitute the reasonable suspicion that a teacher must have to justify a search without consent. It says:
“The teacher must decide in each particular case what constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion”,
and gives two examples. One is hearing other pupils talking about an item, which is fairly uncontentious. If a teacher hears talk from other pupils, that is fairly obviously reasonable grounds for suspicion. The other example is that,
“they might notice a pupil behaving in a way that causes them to be suspicious”.
That is fairly wide because it could be anything. Will the Minister confirm that the guidance will make it clear, as I believe it should, that after such a search without consent, the teacher must be able to say specifically what constituted the reasonable grounds for suspicion, and that that should usually be hard intelligence or evidence rather than the teacher just feeling suspicious? For example, what would be reasonable grounds for suspicion to justify taking away and looking through a phone, a laptop or an iPad? A pupil might be behaving inappropriately in a class, fiddling with the item or looking at e-mails, but surely that alone would not justify reasonable suspicion of, for instance, the presence of pornographic images to justify a search without consent. There is a lot of grey area here, and I should like to be reassured that the guidance will help teachers to define the thresholds for suspicion in such circumstances.
Regarding another point on the guidance, I could not see any distinction in the current guidance between the approach to situations involving children of different ages—younger children as opposed to older children—in secondary schools. Will the guidance also address that issue?
My second substantive point concerns recording and monitoring the use of these powers. In the other place, the Minister said that the Government had no plans to monitor the use of the powers or to require schools to keep a log of incidents in which the powers have been used. I am particularly concerned about the powers to search without consent. I am in favour of giving teachers these powers, but this extension of powers should require schools to keep a record of the incidents in which they are used.
One may think about similar situations, for instance, in children’s homes—and I have visited very many in a previous life. I always asked to look at the incident log to see whether discipline had been used and recorded appropriately. The use of police powers requires the recording of incidents. In any part of society where professionals in authority are given powers of search and confiscation over other people, it seems only right, and a necessary and visible counterbalance to those powers—necessary though they are—that a record should be required. The Minister may come back and say something about not wanting to burden schools, but this is not about burdening schools with unnecessary requirements. Keeping a record is a reasonable and essential counterbalance to the extension of powers, and we should require schools to do so.
Similarly, there should be a requirement that data using those records be kept for monitoring, so that, for instance, any differential deployment of these powers in respect of different groups of children will be visible. We know the concern that police stop-and-search powers are used disproportionately on young black men. We would want to know—would we not?—if, however unconsciously and inadvertently, these powers of teachers could be shown to have been used differentially in relation to specific groups of children rather than others. Yet, if the information is not recorded by schools, and is not monitored by the Government and inspected by Ofsted, we will have no way of knowing just how these powers are being used, whether they are being used appropriately and whether, however inadvertently or unconsciously, specific groups of children are the subject of these powers in a differential way.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Walmsley on her ingenuity in raising some issues that are possibly within the scope of the regulations. I know her feelings on the subject, which we debated at length. The only thing that I would say is, as the revised guidance that she will have seen makes clear, the provisions that allow search by the opposite sex are very much to be used in exceptional circumstances, and the assumption is that in nearly every other circumstance that will not be the case. We had that debate previously.
So far as the PSHE review is concerned—again, the way in which my noble friend managed seamlessly to move from one of her favourite topics to another through the means of the regulation was a wonder to behold—she will know that we had hoped to be in a position at the beginning of the year to come forward with proposals on how we can improve PSHE, but the timescale on reporting back on the national curriculum generally has slowed down, and the proposals on PSHE are being aligned with that. All that I can say is that the issue is still work in progress, and proposals will come later in the year.
As for the guidance, which relates to a point made by my noble friend and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, we are on track to publish it on 1 April. However, given some of the points raised, it would be sensible if I shared it in advance of publication so that we can ensure that it deals with the issue clearly and my noble friend can see whether it addresses the question of searching children with autism, for example.
On the point about recording and monitoring, the noble Baroness was right. It is our view that we do not need to set up a detailed and complicated system of recording and monitoring. On her specific point, I understand the concern about what might be a disproportionate effect on some groups—particularly, for example, black boys. The search powers have been in place since 2007 and were extended again in 2009. The fact that we have not collectively been made aware that there is a particular problem with the way that they are exercised gives some comfort. We would rely on parents, staff and others to make their concerns known. If they were flagged up with us, we would want to act on them because, like the noble Baroness, we want to ensure that the powers are used, first, proportionately and, secondly, in an equitable fashion.
On the noble Baroness’s fair point about what is the definition of reasonable suspicion, there is no definition of reasonable suspicion, for fairly obvious reasons. There are many things in legislation that it is hard to define precisely but, over time, practice and custom grows up. We do not have plans to specify that, but I hope that the guidance which, as I said, I will happily share with the noble Baroness, will provide some help in that area so that teachers will be clear on what they are able to do and what they are not.
I hope that that gives some satisfaction and that we will be able to approve the regulations.
Alternative Provision Academies (Consequential Amendments to Acts) (England) Order 2012
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Alternative Provision Academies (Consequential Amendments to Acts) (England) Order 2012
Relevant Document: 40th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, during the passage of the Education Act last year, we discussed the creation of the new 16-19 and alternative provision academies. As part of those deliberations, we agreed to powers allowing the Secretary of State to make further consequential amendments necessary to create a legal framework for those new institutions. At that time, I assured noble Lords that any such changes to primary legislation would be made through the affirmative procedure and therefore allow for proper scrutiny. The order we are debating makes those further consequential amendments to the primary legislation.
I am grateful to both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Merits Committee for their careful consideration of the regulations. Noble Lords will know that neither committee commented or thought that the House’s attention should be drawn to these regulations.
There are two main purposes to the order: first, to extend to part-time or very small alternative provision academies the same legislation as applies to full-time and mainstream academies; and, secondly, to extend to alternative provision academies the same rules on religious designation as apply to PRUs—namely, that they cannot have a religious designation. Most of the amendments that the order seeks to make are to ensure that legislation that already applies to full-time alternative provision academies and mainstream academies applies equally to part-time or very small alternative provision academies. Academies are defined in legislation as independent schools, and the definition of an independent school is that it is non-maintained and provides full-time education for at least five pupils of compulsory school age, one child with a statement or one looked-after child. Given that quite a lot of alternative provision is part-time or full-time for fewer than five pupils, without these amendments alternative provision academies would not be subject to the independent schools legislation that applies to other academies.
I give just a couple of examples. Without the amendment to the Education Act 1996 in paragraph 5 of the schedule to the order, a part-time or small alterative provision academy would not be legally required to give access to a person authorised by the local authority to monitor provision for statemented pupils. Without the amendment in paragraph 21 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, an individual would not be required to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority to become proprietor of a part-time or small alternative provision academy.
The remaining amendments in paragraphs 9 and 28 of the schedule to the draft order relate to the religious designation and religious ethos of a school. Paragraph 9 will make alternative provision academies unable to be designated as schools that have a religious character—in line with pupil referral units.
Why are AP academies and PRUs treated differently from mainstream schools? Unlike the mainstream school system, they work on a basis whereby places are commissioned by local authorities and schools, rather than selected by parental choice. This is to help overcome a specific issue or need, after which the child would return to mainstream education, as appropriate. In those circumstances, religious designation does not make sense. Alternative provision academies will be able to have a distinct ethos based on a set of morals that are aligned with a particular faith. However, paragraph 28 provides that where alternative provision academies are registered as having a religious ethos, they will not be able to discriminate against pupils in their intake or school services on the basis of religion or belief, as independent schools can.
We have frequently discussed the failings of the current alternative provision sector, such as the poor educational results. Less than 1.5 per cent of pupils achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C. We have also discussed the knock-on effect on the rest of a young person’s life. Noble Lords will be aware of the recent report on alternative provision published by the Government’s behaviour adviser, Charlie Taylor, who describes alternative provision as,
“a flawed system that fails to provide suitable education and proper accountability for some of the most vulnerable children in the country”.
It is for this reason that the Government are giving all alternative provision, including pupil referral units, the opportunity to take advantage of the greater freedoms and benefits of academy status, and thereby—we hope—to raise standards. Charlie Taylor argues, as would I, that the principles underlying the Government’s education reforms of increasing autonomy, improving the quality of teaching and strengthening accountability should improve alternative provision and, ultimately, the lives of those children who need it.
I know that everyone here wants to make sure that every child has a high-quality education. It is the responsibility of all of us, including the Government, to do everything that we can to ensure that they get it. It is in that spirit that I commend these regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I very much support this statutory instrument. I am very excited about the potential of these new academies. Whether the new providers coming in to the system will be able to provide high-quality, more specialised alternative provision for young people remains to be seen, but it is likely that they will.
The 16-19 academies, particularly those that focus on science and technology, engineering and maths, are getting employers involved. Big companies are getting very involved in the applications to new academies, and that is a very good thing, especially to help them take in young people doing apprenticeships based in these 16-19 academies and working closely with the employer. That is a good thing.
I notice from the Explanatory Memorandum that there is no guidance specific to the amendments, given that they are consequential, but it comments that guidance on how to apply to become an alternative provision free school for existing non-maintained new providers is available on the DfE website. I gave the Minister notice today as we came into the Committee that I would ask him to look at the guidelines to make sure that they are not too tight and do not thereby exclude organisations that we really need in order to provide for certain special kinds of children—for example, the Red Balloon organisation, which provides for children who have been severely bullied and are self-excluding from school. These are young people who do not necessarily have a special educational need or a physical disability. Very often they are extremely bright but cannot go to school because they have been severely bullied. The guidance as it stands on applications to become a free school excludes organisations such as that, and possibly others that I do not know about. Will the Minister look at the guidance to see whether it can be a little more flexible so as not to exclude such worthwhile organisations?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, as the Minister said, the regulations on alternative provision academies are consequential and therefore rather technical and limited. He described what they are seeking to do and I have no issues with either of those aspects. However, I would be grateful if the Minister took the opportunity to clarify three issues on the principle of alternative provision academies with regard to the implementation. I have questions in three areas. First, how will alternative provision academies work in practice in a local area? Secondly, what will the funding level be? Thirdly, how will accountability be applied, given that it cannot be applied in the same way as a mainstream school or academy?
On the first point, which at this stage is the most important, how will an APA work in practice in a local area? As the Minister said, currently the local authority ensures that there is sufficient provision in an alternative setting, a pupil referral unit, and that there are sufficient places available for the local schools in that area to place a child when a child needs placement outside mainstream education, whether because of illness, exclusion, behavioural problems or whatever. The pupil referral unit is the resource for all the other schools locally and takes referrals from those schools; by definition, it does not have a normal admission process. The objective, one hopes, is to return the child to a mainstream school, either the one that they left or another one, as soon as possible.
If a pupil referral unit becomes an alternative provision academy, it will, as the Minister said, have all the freedoms and independence that other academies have in law. I see the argument that those freedoms are necessary to raise standards in alternative provision, and it is certainly the case that in some of our alternative provision those standards are far too low, even taking into account the difficult circumstances of some of the children. However, if an alternative provision setting has all those freedoms, how will that work in practice? Who, for example, will commission the places in an alternative provision academy? Will it be other mainstream schools? Will it be the local authority? Will the APAs themselves be able to determine the level of provision—that is, the number of places—that they will provide in that academy? If so, will that necessarily match the level of need and demand from the other local schools? Under this new regime what obligation will the alternative provision academy have to accept children referred by other schools? Will they, as now, be obliged to accept them?
Presumably the APAs—independent establishments—will be funded according to the number of pupils they have. I am concerned that as independent units, dependent on that funding, there may be the development of a perverse incentive for APAs to hold on to pupils because that is where their funding is coming from, rather than as now—where there is no such funding relationship—returning those children as quickly as possible to their mainstream education. How will a pupil actually get out of an APA, and who will be responsible for ensuring that the decisions taken about that child—whether they stay in the APA, for how long, when they leave and where they go—are in that child’s best interests? What responsibility will the referring school have for monitoring that child’s progress, looking to the eventual outcome for that child and whether it is the best that could be? What responsibility will the local authority have, if any, for monitoring the progress of the children collectively in the APAs in their areas?
All of this, I am afraid, is still very unclear to me. I may have missed something, but it seems to me, and I am not against the principle, that we are changing very profoundly the dynamics of the relationship between alternative provision and mainstream schools, whether they are schools or academies. In making the alternative provision an academy, with all of those freedoms, it is not clear where the reciprocity will lie and who will be responsible for the children.
Briefly, I have two other points. One concerns funding. I think the Government have said that the funding will follow pupils into APAs and that it will be set at a high need level. This level has yet to be announced. Can the Minister say when this will be announced and how the level of funding will compare to that in mainstream schools?
The third point is also important. It is clear to me that the usual accountability measures for mainstream schools cannot apply in quite the same way here. How will APAs be held accountable for their children’s progress or lack of it? Are the Government considering, for example, a payment-by-results model, as they are within the criminal justice system? By what yardstick will children’s progress be measured? I agree with the Minister’s comment that children’s low levels of attainment in some alternative provision is lamentably low and we should not accept it. Equally, these children are often facing multiple problems, and they need significant amounts of help in overcoming the barriers to learning that those problems engender. I am not clear about how being in an independent academy will help children to access the level and quality of extra support they need, much of it from local authority children’s services and health services. In becoming an independent academy, the relationship between that provision and the local authority and the other children’s services will be changed quite fundamentally and will, necessarily, be more distant.
Those are my three concerns. I know there are a lot of questions there, and if the Minister cannot deal with all of them in detail, I am quite happy for him to write to me. The issues which I raised in the first group of questions about the new relationship, how that will work locally and who will be responsible for the child, are particularly important. If he cannot give me answers today, then perhaps later.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful for those comments and for the support expressed for the development of alternative provision academies. I can tell my noble friend Lady Walmsley that in the first round we had a number of proposals for alternative provision free schools. I hope that they will be able to open this September and that, in the round for 2013 that closed at the end of February, there will be more application for alternative provision free schools. There is a lot of enthusiasm for them.
My noble friend is right that there are questions about this. In some ways, they link to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about the referral mechanism. Unlike with mainstream schools where, as it were, parental choice is the determinant of the placement, it is still the case with alternative provision free schools that the local authority or a school is the referral mechanism. That leads to some questions that we need to work through about when some providers want to set up in areas where a local authority may be less keen on a more varied landscape. If the local authority is not prepared to make that referral, there are issues for us to think through. I know those issues are very much in my noble friend’s mind.
Let me do my best on the thrust of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes. If there are some things that I do not pick up, I will follow them up. On the accountability of alternative provision academies to the local community, their funding agreements will require them to be at the heart of their local community. They will be accountable through their performance, which will be published in the same way as other schools. They will be inspected by Ofsted like other academies. There are a number of accountability mechanisms. They are obviously accountable through the funding agreement that they sign with the Secretary of State.
On funding, currently they will be funded through interim arrangements. The noble Baroness referred to an earlier announcement that we made, saying that the funding would come out of what is called the higher needs block. The principle of that, as she knows from other areas of academy funding, is to have equivalence with the funding that would go to a PRU. That is what we want to replicate. We want an AP academy to get the same funding that it would have received as a maintained PRU. We have put interim arrangements in place to make sure that that happens. The longer-term answer to the noble Baroness’s question will come out of our response—which we will publish before too long—to the consultation, which has ended, on our broader reforms to the funding system. As part of that, we will set out our longer-term thoughts on how funding for alternative provision academies and other parts of what one might call higher needs funding—such as special needs funding—will be dealt with going forward. I hope that we will be able to make that clear before too long.
I was asked another question on the role of the local authority. As the noble Baroness said, local authorities will retain their Section 19 duties to arrange suitable full-time education. That relationship with a converted PRU would obviously change a bit over time in the sense that the local authority role would move from being the direct provider to a commissioner of services, along the lines that I think were set out in the schools White Paper of 2005.
An important contextual point in all this is that we all want as few children as possible to go into alternative provision, and the earlier we can pick them up and put support in place, the fewer will end up doing so. Therefore, as part of the broader context, we are running trials based on the very good work that went on in Cambridgeshire to give schools responsibility, including budgetary responsibility, for an excluded child. That gives a school an added incentive to make sure that the child is looked after as well as possible and reintegrated as quickly as possible, if that is the right course of action.
As I have already touched on, pupils will be referred to AP academies in the same way as they currently are to PRUs. Under the new system, we would expect schools to work closely with professionals to ensure that pupils get the provision which best meets their needs. We do not think that we should be more prescriptive than that at this point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, asked me whether AP academies will be obliged to accept a pupil. Again, the referral mechanism will be the same as now, so the success of an AP academy will depend on its ability to meet the needs of its local community. If a local authority or other commissioner does not think that the alternative provision academy is doing a good job, it will not want to refer pupils to it, and I think that that will act as a discipline for the schools to make sure that the children are properly looked after. It will therefore be in the interests of AP academies to have strong links with the local authority and with local schools.
I hope that I have dealt with the main points. I shall obviously read the noble Baroness’s comments and, if I can add anything further, I shall write to her. With that, I hope that we can accept the order.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Perhaps I may come back briefly on the point that the Minister has just made. My question about referrals hinges not on whether the changed status of the alternative provision organisation as an academy means that if a local authority is not happy it might not want to make a referral but, rather, whether the changed status—the independent status as an academy—means that an APA will be able to refuse to take a referral, unlike the current situation with PRUs. Therefore, my question was whether the change in status would change the power of the APA.
While I am on my feet, I wish to make two other quick points. The Minister mentioned that the pilots would look at whether the referring schools could have continuing budget responsibility for a child and continuing responsibility for his or her progression through school, and I know that the Government are looking at that. However, does the Minister envisage that with APAs the referring school will continue to have responsibility for overseeing the progress of the child and for holding the ring in bringing people together to look at the issues and at whether the child is making progress? If the referring school does not do that, who will? It does not seem to be right for a child simply to be placed in an APA and for the APA to be the sole arbiter of what happens to that child in future. I think that, as is currently the case with pupil referral units, somebody outside the APA should monitor the situation, call case conferences if necessary and make sure that decisions are taken in the best interests of the child.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, again, I shall give short answers and will follow up further in writing. On the pilots, my understanding is that, alongside continuing budget responsibility, APAs will have responsibility for the child’s progress, and I think that they would perform the kind of role that the noble Baroness is contemplating.
On her first question—whether the greater independence of an alternative provision academy would mean that it could refuse pupils; and I am sorry if I got it the other way around—she will know that currently PRUs are able to refuse children if those units feel that the provision they offer is unsuitable, and they can suggest another provider that might better meet the children’s needs. We think that AP academies would continue to play a similar role, and that in general they would have an interest in taking a pupil for the right reasons—and for financial reasons, if one wants to think of it that way. We would envisage them advising local authorities and schools on the best way to choose the right provision for an individual child. That is my “off the top of the head” answer, but if I can add anything further, I certainly will. I hope that we can support the order.
Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) (Revocation) Regulations 2012
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) (Revocation) Regulations 2012
Relevant Document: 41st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, these regulations will revoke the Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) Regulations 2007, which are commonly known, fortunately, as the ContactPoint regulations—and I shall henceforth refer to them as such in the interests of brevity. The ContactPoint regulations place duties on all local authorities in England to participate in the operation of the former ContactPoint database. They specify what information can be held, who provides it, how long it can be retained and how its accuracy is to be maintained, as well as who can be granted access to it.
As noble Lords will know, ContactPoint was decommissioned back in August 2010. Although I know and am very clear that the purpose behind ContactPoint was a good one—to address the issue that was rightly flagged, whereby professionals need to share information about vulnerable children—we felt that the way it was executed was disproportionate, and that it was unjustifiable to hold information on every child in England and make it accessible to hundreds of thousands of people. It was a commitment in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos to close it. The simple point is, therefore, that without ContactPoint there is nothing for the ContactPoint regulations to apply to.
It is true that we could have revoked the ContactPoint regulations at the time, but we decided not to because it might have been possible to amend them to support a more proportionate approach to information sharing. We wanted to explore the practicality of a new national signposting service to help practitioners find out whether another practitioner is working, or has previously worked, in another area with the same vulnerable child. That was why we asked Professor Eileen Munro to consider the potential value of such a service.
In May 2011, Professor Munro issued the final report of her review. She concluded that the arguments for and against a national system were finely balanced and that there was no compelling case to recommend one at that time. We accepted that conclusion and therefore do not see any reason to retain these regulations. It is simply good housekeeping to remove them.
That was, of course, just one of a number of conclusions reached by Professor Munro, and I should like to say a little more about her review and put the narrow issue regarding these regulations into a slightly broader setting. Professor Munro’s review of child protection was the very first review commissioned by the Department for Education and reflected the importance that we attach to child protection, and to trying to get it right. In light of her findings, we are now committed to taking through a package of reforms to improve the child protection system in this country.
The general message from Professor Munro was that we needed to move towards a child protection system with less central prescription and interference, where we placed greater trust and responsibility in skilled professionals at the front line. Like her, we want a shift in mindset and relationship between central Government, local agencies and front-line professionals working in partnership.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I very much support the abolition of ContactPoint. Setting up a monumental database to cover every child in the country was a terrible waste of money. It had a danger of setting up a tick-box mentality, and there were safeguarding issues because it was quite widely accessible. We had to set up all kinds of safeguards for the people who had access to it. At least some of the savings should be spent on better training for professionals in the children’s workforce in how to work effectively with other professionals in the children’s workforce. That would be a far better way to spend the money, so I very much support the regulations.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Briefly, my Lords, as the Minister said, this is a very limited set of regulations in its intent. Given that ContactPoint has gone, I will not say anything about those regulations. I just put a couple of points on record in respect of the wider context that the Minister outlined.
First, as someone involved in the implementation of ContactPoint—sweating blood over it would not be too excessive a statement—it was never intended that it of itself could protect children. However, the recommendations from equally august people as Eileen Munro that we ought to try it came about because every inquiry, from Maria Colwell through to Jasmine Beckford, Victoria Climbié and even, to some extent, Baby Peter, identified to a lesser or greater extent the repeated failure, despite all those inquiries over 30 or 40 years, of professionals to share information properly.
One reason for that is that the local solutions that the Government are now asking local areas to put in place were always variable at best and, in many instances, were totally inadequate. They ran into the buffers of particular agencies—health is an example in many places—which felt that the law did not allow them to share information. It needs decisive government action to make it clear, as we tried to do, that those barriers do not exist. I do not mean this unkindly, but many professionals in local areas take a default position of, “We cannot share information”. That is what has happened and many children have lost their lives because of it.
There is a second, more practical reason, which ContactPoint, cumbersome though it might have been, was designed to address. For example, as a social worker, a referral from a school expressing concern about a child might land on your desk. If it is completely cold, your only contacts at that point are the school and the address of the child and their parents. You do not know, and it is often very difficult to find out, who else has been involved with or might have had concerns about that child in the recent past. It is very hard to get that information and put it together. You cannot call a case conference because you do not know who to call to it.
I must put on record that ContactPoint was never a database of information about children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, maintained; it was a database of professionals. It was simply a list of the people who were connected to a child, such as their school, their GP and any other professional who had provided a service. If you, as a professional, got a referral about a concern, you could look on the database not for the details of the child—their background, history or circumstances—but for a list of professionals who had been involved in one way or another. That does not transgress that child’s human rights or reveal any information about that child. You would have to go to the professionals and ask for the information in order to get it. The database would never have given it to you.
Therefore, I do not think that local solutions will cut it. We have tried them over decades and they have not worked. Facilitation from government is needed. While I am very much in favour of building up professionals’ capacity to use their judgment more effectively, I disagree profoundly with Eileen Munro’s belief that that will simply happen without central government drive, commitment and clarification—not necessarily prescription. I simply say to the Minister: be very wary. I am not at all sure that what is being put in place instead of ContactPoint will prevent the death of another child through the failure of professionals to share information. We need a stronger system to ensure that that does not happen. Much has been tried over the years and nothing has yet worked. I am sorry that ContactPoint did not have a chance to prove whether it could have been better.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, talked about sweating blood, and I can completely believe that she did. One starts with the simple thought that it must be possible with the use of technology in the modern age to share information more successfully than has been possible before, and there must be a rational way of delivering that through a national system. My own limited experience is that you say something in the department that sounds quite simple and before you blink you have procurement frameworks, complicated systems and national everything, and something that you thought was quite modest and rational turns into a huge thing with a life all of its own. Therefore, I understand how trying to implement it must have felt.
I also know, and it was clear from the noble Baroness’s remarks, how strongly she feels about the subject and how much she knows about it. She says, rightly, that our challenge is to try to make a more local approach work. With regard to her specific point, which I think was one of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, originally raised, the misconceptions about data protection, either genuine or used as a pretext for a default position of doing nothing, have been a problem. In the revised guidance that we will be issuing later this year, as I mentioned, we will need to make that clear and respond to the point that misconceptions about data protection cannot be used as an excuse not to share information. Therefore, that is one way of dealing with the matter.
There are also other ways. One would not want to rule out the intelligent use of IT in certain settings in order to share information at an appropriate level. The example that I referred to—the work that we are doing with the Department of Health on sharing information regarding children who might be moved around from one A&E to another by their parents or carers—may be another way in which we can deal with that.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Walmsley regarding the money that we are saving, we have spent about £244 million on ContactPoint. We are committed to funding high-quality training—for example, with our programme of social work reform, building on the work of the social work task force that the previous Government introduced.
I accept the challenge that the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, set out. We are all committed to trying to ensure that it works. With that, on the narrow point on the revocation, I hope that we are able to accept these regulations.
Insolvency Act 1986 (Disqualification from Parliament) Order 2012
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shutt of Greetland
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Insolvency Act 1986 (Disqualification from Parliament) Order 2012
Relevant Document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, the purpose of this order is to bring the law as it applies in Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales in relation to parliamentary disqualification resulting from personal insolvency. The law applying in England and Wales was amended by the Enterprise Act 2002. Someone who is bankrupt is no longer disqualified from sitting or voting in Parliament and, in the case of a Member of the House of Commons, will no longer lose his seat after six months. Someone against whom a bankruptcy order has been made will be disqualified from Parliament only if he becomes subject to a further order, termed a bankruptcy restrictions order, or if he gives a bankruptcy restrictions undertaking.
Bankruptcy restrictions orders are made by the courts and bankruptcy restrictions undertakings are given to the Secretary of State or, in the case of Northern Ireland, to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. They are a means of placing a bankrupt under continuing restrictions following his discharge on the grounds of being culpable. Discharge from bankruptcy normally takes place after one year.
The 2002 Enterprise Act aimed to provide a modern bankruptcy regime, allowing those who have failed honestly to have a second chance. A second objective behind the provisions of the 2002 Act dealing with personal insolvency was to protect the public from the actions of the culpable. That is why there is provision for a regime of bankruptcy restrictions orders and undertakings. It would not be right to allow a person who has been found to be culpable to continue sitting or voting in Parliament or to be elected as a Member of Parliament.
A system of bankruptcy restrictions orders and undertakings equivalent to the one operating in England and Wales was brought in for Northern Ireland by the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 2005. The necessary preconditions are therefore in place to allow the making of the order that noble Lords are being asked to approve.
The order will have the consequential effect of amending the grounds for disqualification from the Northern Ireland Assembly because, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a person is disqualified from being a Member of that Assembly if he is disqualified from membership of the House of Commons, other than under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
This order will extend the benefits of a more liberal disqualification regime to Members of this House, Members of the other place who are from Northern Ireland and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I beg to move.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I shall be very brief because the principle behind the order is without any significant controversy, and I note that the Explanatory Notes say that no consultation is necessary on this order. I would ask whether any consultation with the Electoral Commission was considered, particularly over the issue of making candidates and potential candidates aware of changes in relation to eligibility and disqualification.
I ask partly because of the controversy in Wales last year when two Assembly candidates were subsequently found to be ineligible for membership of the Welsh Assembly. Out-of-date information was provided to them by the Electoral Commission. Every time we change the rules about eligibility to stand for bodies or on disqualification, we need to make sure that candidates and potential candidates are aware of the up-to-date rules. Perhaps the Electoral Commission should be involved in making sure that people know where they stand in relation to matters such as this.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for his detailed explanation of the order. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, says, it is not controversial and it is one that we would also support, having introduced the original legislation in 2002 for England and Wales. It was a very sensible piece of legislation, which was then introduced by my noble friend Lord Mandelson. Since the Northern Ireland DETI, of which I am a former Minister, brought its own legislation into line in 2005, it is a bit of a shame that it has taken us so long to bring what happens in England and Wales also into line.
I have only one question for the noble Lord. I, too, noticed that there was no consultation. It is highly unusual for Northern Ireland legislation not to be consulted on, but given that the original 2002 legislation and the 2005 order had been consulted on, there was clearly no need. My comment is not unrelated to the information supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on the arrangements for sharing information across jurisdictions.
I notice that the Explanatory Notes make it quite clear that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has to notify the Speaker of the House of Commons or House of Lords if it accepts a bankruptcy restrictions undertaking from a Member of that House or if there is an order. Again, it responds to candidates. It is clear that if somebody was to be appointed to your Lordships’ House, the Appointments Commission would look into their background and would understand if there was a bankruptcy restrictions order or undertaking. However, if somebody was standing for election, how would the information be shared between jurisdictions so that the bodies for which they were standing for election would know the position? Somebody who is subject to an order or an undertaking in Northern Ireland could well wish to stand for a seat in England or Wales, or someone from England or Wales could wish to stand for a seat in Northern Ireland, although that is probably less usual. Therefore, on the point about sharing information between jurisdictions, those standing for election and electoral registration officers who accept nominations for elections should also be aware of this information.
Subject to the satisfactory answers to those questions that I am sure the noble Lord will be able to give, we are entirely content with the order.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, some of the information is still to be supplied to me. However, let us get this into perspective. We are talking about Northern Ireland. In 2010-11, there were 1,465 bankruptcy orders. That is the number of people who were made bankrupt in that year. I do not have the precise figure but I am told that a handful of people—perhaps two or three dozen—have had bankruptcy restriction orders. Those are the numbers that we are talking about and, of those two or three dozen, we then have to think about how many might think of standing for elected office. Therefore, we are talking about a very restricted number.
There has been a consultation but it has not been carried out generally because at the moment the order affects only Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, although I take the point that those who will be seeking election do not presently sit in either of those places. My briefing note says that public consultation on the order has not been carried out as it affects only Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, should any of them ever have a bankruptcy order made against them by the Northern Ireland High Court, Members of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
However, the Minister of State wrote to the Speakers of the Commons and Lords and of the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission, to inform them of his intention to bring forward this order. Only one substantive response to this exercise was received, and a Member of this House wrote to Hugo Swire, the Minister of State, in March 2011 seeking clarification on whether the order would ensure consistency in the law relating to the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament.
The response was that disqualification at Westminster in this case has automatic read-across for the Northern Ireland Assembly. The order will bring Northern Ireland into line with both England and Wales, and bringing forward this order in respect of Northern Ireland will not ensure consistency in terms of Scottish legislation at the same time. However, the reply advised that the Northern Ireland Office is liaising with the Insolvency Service, which is part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Scotland Office to ensure that this is rectified when possible.
On shared information, if the High Court in Northern Ireland makes a bankruptcy restriction order in respect of a Member of the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales, the court will notify the presiding officer of that body.
I think that I have been able to respond to the questions that have been raised and, with that, I hope that the order can be agreed.
House of Lords
Her Majesty the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now proceed to Westminster Hall for the purpose of presenting the humble Address which the House ordered on 15 March to be presented to Her Majesty, and that thereafter the House do adjourn during pleasure and do meet again in this Chamber at three o’clock.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, are assembled here today to celebrate sixty years of Your reign. We record with warmth and affection our appreciation of Your dedicated service to Your people, and Your unequalled sense of public duty over the years—service and duty to which You have only recently, and so movingly, rededicated Yourself.
We celebrate too Your stewardship of Your high office. You have personified continuity and stability while ensuring that Your role has evolved imperceptibly, with the result that the Monarchy is as integral a part of our national life today as it was 60 years ago.
We rejoice in this Jubilee and we give thanks for all that it represents.
At the same time, we record our gratitude for the support which You have received throughout Your reign from His Royal Highness Prince Philip, for in this year of jubilee we celebrate his service too.
This is one of the first of many celebrations to be held up and down the land. In the coming months You and the Duke will travel widely throughout the Kingdom. But today You have come to Parliament, the constitutional heart of the nation, and granted us the privilege of being the first of Your people formally to honour Your Jubilee. And where better to begin the celebrations than here, in the splendour of Westminster Hall—a hall of kings and queens for almost a millennium?
While this Hall has seen many historic events, few are permanently commemorated. So we look forward with great anticipation to the unveiling of the stained glass window which Members of both Houses have commissioned in honour of this day. When placed in the window above the great doors, Your Coat of Arms and Royal Cypher will bathe the Hall in colour and be seen daily by Members and staff as they walk through to their offices—and by the many thousands of visitors we receive here weekly, from both home and abroad.
For we must remember that Your Jubilee will be celebrated with joy in Your other realms and territories, and throughout the rest of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth as we know it today is of course one of the great achievements of Your reign and under Your leadership continues to flourish, with a membership of 54 countries. It is still growing. It is a tremendous force for good in the world and we are aware of its special personal significance to You.
Many of us present here today take an active part in the work of the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We work to share our experiences, to learn from one another, and to promote democracy. But our efforts are as nothing compared with those of Your Majesty in the service of Your beloved Commonwealth. Over the years You have visited all but two Commonwealth countries—some, many times—and attended all Heads of Government meetings since 1997. We look on with admiration and pride at the triumphs of some of Your recent tours and it is significant that members of the Royal Family are representing You this year at the Jubilee celebrations being held in all those lands in which You are Head of State.
Your Majesty, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled give thanks for this Your Diamond Jubilee. We look forward to the years to come and we pray that You and Your realms may enjoy the peace, plenty and prosperity that have so distinguished Your reign.
Her Majesty’s Reply
Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Reply was as follows:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
I am most grateful for your Loyal Addresses and the generous words of the Lord Speaker and Mr Speaker.
This great institution has been at the heart of the country and the lives of our people throughout its history. As Parliamentarians, you share with your forebears a fundamental role in the laws and decisions of your own age. Parliament has survived as an unshakeable cornerstone of our constitution and our way of life.
History links monarchs and Parliament, a connecting thread from one period to the next. So, in an era when the regular, worthy rhythm of life is less eye-catching than doing something extraordinary, I am reassured that I am merely the second Sovereign to celebrate a Diamond Jubilee.
As today, it was my privilege to address you during my Silver and Golden Jubilees. Many of you were present ten years ago and some of you will recall the occasion in 1977. Since my Accession, I have been a regular visitor to the Palace of Westminster and, at the last count, have had the pleasurable duty of treating with twelve Prime Ministers.
Over such a period, one can observe that the experience of venerable old age can be a mighty guide but not a prerequisite for success in public office. I am therefore very pleased to be addressing many younger Parliamentarians and also those bringing such a wide range of background and experience to your vital, national work.
During these years as your Queen, the support of my family has, across the generations, been beyond measure. Prince Philip is, I believe, well-known for declining compliments of any kind. But throughout he has been a constant strength and guide. He and I are very proud and grateful that The Prince of Wales and other members of our family are travelling on my behalf in this Diamond Jubilee year to visit all the Commonwealth Realms and a number of other Commonwealth countries.
These overseas tours are a reminder of our close affinity with the Commonwealth, encompassing about one-third of the world’s population. My own association with the Commonwealth has taught me that the most important contact between nations is usually contact between its peoples. An organisation dedicated to certain values, the Commonwealth has flourished and grown by successfully promoting and protecting that contact.
At home, Prince Philip and I will be visiting towns and cities up and down the land. It is my sincere hope that the Diamond Jubilee will be an opportunity for people to come together in a spirit of neighbourliness and celebration of their own communities. We also hope to celebrate the professional and voluntary service given by millions of people across the country who are working for the public good. They are a source of vital support to the welfare and well-being of others, often unseen or overlooked.
And as we reflect upon public service, let us again be mindful of the remarkable sacrifice and courage of our Armed Forces. Much may indeed have changed these past sixty years but the valour of those who risk their lives for the defence and freedom of us all remains undimmed.
The happy relationship I have enjoyed with Parliament has extended well beyond the more than three and a half thousand Bills I have signed into law. I am therefore very touched by the magnificent gift before me, generously subscribed by many of you. Should this beautiful window cause just a little extra colour to shine down upon this ancient place, I should gladly settle for that.
We are reminded here of our past, of the continuity of our national story and the virtues of resilience, ingenuity and tolerance which created it. I have been privileged to witness some of that history and, with the support of my family, rededicate myself to the service of our great country and its people now and in the years to come.
Groceries Code Adjudicator
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will allow trade associations to make complaints to the proposed Groceries Code Adjudicator on behalf of members who are both direct and indirect suppliers of supermarkets; and, if not, why not.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill proposes to allow the adjudicator to consider any information once an investigation has started. The only limitation is on what information it can consider when deciding whether to start an investigation. As drafted, this is restricted to information from direct and indirect suppliers and to published evidence. The Government have agreed to consider extending this to third parties, particularly to trade bodies. Ministers are taking advice and meeting representatives of both suppliers and retailers before making a final decision.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but what evidence does the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have that limiting the powers of the groceries code adjudicator to naming and shaming transgressing supermarkets will have the desired deterrent effect?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the adjudicator’s primary role will be investigating complaints and uncovering breaches of the groceries code. Once the breach is uncovered, the adjudicator will be able to use the following remedies. First, it will be able to recommend to the retailer how it should comply with the code. If that is not followed, a further investigation can be launched with a tougher remedy. It can instruct the retailer to publish information on the breach—naming and shaming, to which the right reverend Prelate referred. There is then a reserve power to impose financial penalties, which will only become available to the adjudicator once the Secretary of State has allowed it by order.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the power of supermarkets is such that there should not be any artificial restrictions on who might be the complainants and what they might complain about? Among the possible complainants would be suppliers such as farmers, through the National Farmers’ Union, or other retailers through the British Retail Consortium. Why restrict them in any way from making complaints to the groceries adjudicator if he or she is to have any real power over the exacting power of supermarkets that exists at the moment?
Lord De Mauley
I agree with the noble Lord and that is why anybody will be able to complain.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, will the Minister explain why these powers for financial sanctions will not be available from day one? Given that the point of setting up the adjudicator was to deal with the findings from the Competition Commission that supermarkets were transferring over excessive risk and unexpected cost to their suppliers, why would not the strongest possible signal be sent out right from the start?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness’s position. On balance, we think that it would be better to start with the regime that we have proposed. As I said earlier, and as she acknowledges, we may well have to move on to what she suggests, but we would like to consider it further. One advantage of doing that is that we would have the benefit of the adjudicator’s input and experience of deciding on the framework for fines.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, why have the Government been so slow in setting up this office? People have been waiting for it for years, and the Minister sounds hesitant about it even now. How long have people got to wait?
Lord De Mauley
I am sorry to hear that the noble Earl thinks that I am being hesitant. I do not think that it is reasonable to imply that we have been dragging our heels. The process was triggered in 2008 during the previous Government’s term of office by a report from the Competition Commission. I would not criticise the previous Government for dragging their heels because, in fact, they were getting on with the business of trying to persuade the grocery industry itself to put in place a process. The industry did not do that. We all want to get this right, which is why we have been through a thorough process of pre-legislative scrutiny—and I think that that is something of which noble Lords generally approve.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, we all wish to see the consumer get the best possible deal. However, this should not be at the expense of suppliers to the supermarkets; their confidence is crucial if this is to be seen to work effectively. If I might press the Minister again, will he confirm whether the adjudicator will have authority to levy financial penalties, should an abuse of power be upheld against any supermarket? Furthermore, however any resulting fine may be levied, will he confirm that this will not simply disappear to some central agency but rather be paid directly to those businesses deemed to have suffered abuse?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the noble Lord’s question is in line with comments from the BIS Select Committee, which said that the arguments on whether to introduce fines from inception are finely balanced. I think that that is fair, and the Government’s view is that financial penalties should be kept as a reserve power, as I have said. We consider that the appointment of the adjudicator is in itself important to the effectiveness of the groceries code. The adjudicator already has sanctions available, and large retailers will immediately be conscious that if there is evidence of significant non-compliance and the existing regime seems not to be sufficiently effective, there is the prospect of a swift introduction of financial penalties. As to the noble Lord’s last question, as the Treasury Whip I could not possibly say where the proceeds will go.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree that the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is very pertinent. I thought that my noble friend could have been slightly more robust in explaining the reason for the delay. Can I press him further: if this does not prove to be a satisfactory structure, will the Government be prepared to legislate further?
Lord De Mauley
In fact, my Lords, if this does not prove to be a satisfactory structure and if I interpret my noble friend rightly to be implying that we need fines, that is already in the draft Bill.
Food: Waste
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Selborne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they intend to take to prevent food waste being sent to landfill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, to reduce food waste and prevent it going to landfill, we are helping consumers through WRAP and its “Love Food, Hate Waste” campaign by working with industry via the Courtauld commitment and by aiming to launch in May a new voluntary agreement with the hospitality and food service sector. We intend to work towards our other waste review commitments, including developing the evidence base and exploring the role of incentives in reducing waste and managing it sustainably.
The Earl of Selborne
My noble friend lists a number of perfectly worthy measures, but is it not totally unacceptable that at the moment 16 million tonnes of food waste ends up in landfill—we must remember that it gives off methane, a very potent greenhouse gas? Should we not be looking at food waste as an energy source and encouraging caterers and commercial food interests to get their act together and ensure that none of this waste ends up in landfill?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning the catering industry, because the hospitality and food service commitment, which we are pressing across government, is directed expressly at that sector. Ministers in other departments are ensuring that the Government are taking up the commitment, and Members in another place and in this House are working to ensure that Parliament’s own catering is signed up to this commitment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is right that 16 million tonnes of food waste is way too high and that the potential for energy production is great. The Minister gave a fine answer in respect of catering, but can I press him on the subject of energy production, particularly from anaerobic digestion? What will Government offer to incentivise people in catering and elsewhere to put their food waste into that energy production?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord is right: anaerobic digestion is a very good process for converting food waste. I was trying to emphasise that the most important aspect of food waste is to eliminate it at source, if you can. However, where food waste arises, AD is a very effective method. Indeed, we have an AD strategy plan, which includes a £10 million loan fund to set up new capacity. WRAP offered the first loan of £800,000 to a Wiltshire-based company, Malaby Biogas, in January 2012. Other actions to promote innovation in the AD sector, particularly on a small scale, are very much part of our strategy.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, for those of us lucky enough to have gardens or allotments, the incentive to compost is obviously much greater, but what incentive does the Minister offer to households without either of those to separate out their food waste?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
This is part and parcel of the CLG process of looking for weekly collections. In partnership with local authorities, we in Defra hope to encourage food waste as a separate waste stream. Certainly that has been our policy, and many of the local authorities that are putting in bids to the CLG are doing so on the basis of a separate food waste collection.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, what discussion are Her Majesty’s Government having with the devolved authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about co-operation on this matter and learning from each other’s experiences?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
In many of these cases, we in Whitehall can learn considerably from the devolved authorities. I am in contact with my opposite number in Scotland. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. Indeed, the department works very closely with the devolved authorities. There is much that we can learn from each other.
Lord Vinson
My Lords, traditionally and historically, food waste went to pigs. It seems extraordinary that millions of tonnes of food eaten by humans one day cannot be fed to pigs the next. Will he look at the restrictions and regulations that prevent this natural, common-sense and historically highly efficient usage of a waste product, and see whether they can be revised?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank my noble friend. In fact we are doing just that; Defra has commissioned a desk study, which is being operated by FERA at the moment and is due to report this summer. All noble Lords will appreciate that people have anxieties that we need to assuage. We cannot afford the repeat of the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001, as I think all noble Lords understand.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, is the Minister aware that food waste is one of the three main constituents of biomass, which, along with branches of trees and imported pellets, it seems many power stations are being encouraged to burn? What incentive is there for these companies to burn this food as an alternative to anaerobic digestion? From my discussions with the industry, there seems to be no incentive at all.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The Energy from Waste programme is subsidised and incentivised. It is up to local authorities to decide the best channel for their food waste. I mentioned before that Defra sees huge advantages in the use of anaerobic digestion as an efficient method of converting food waste into energy.
Lord Laming
My Lords, has Defra taken an interest in the impact of unnecessarily short use-by dates on a lot of food?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
A great deal of work has been done on food marking. Some of those labels merely tell the shops when the product should be taken off the shelves, and it is really more for stock control. Some great strides have been made. The reduction in food waste will depend very much on consumers being aware that the use-by date still means that you can freeze the product and that it is still healthy to eat. By informing the consumers about the practical information that is available to them, we can save people throwing away food that is perfectly healthy.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, does the Minister agree that a great many people now growing up do not understand either how to buy or to prepare food, that often food is wasted because people are driven to believe the sell-by dates that are put on to packaged food, and that they have no mechanisms for understanding how to use their own common sense in discerning whether food is fit for consumption? Will he ask his colleagues in the Department for Education to look into educating pupils better about that matter?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sure that we could all learn good household skills. It is never too late to learn about some of these very basic matters. I agree with the noble Baroness that a lot of food waste is caused by careless shopping and food stocking. This applies not just within the household but within the commercial and catering trades. That is why we are trying to tackle this problem on all fronts.
Her Majesty the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee: Commonwealth
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O'Cathain
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will mark Her Majesty the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee year by making a commitment to celebrate and increase the United Kingdom’s involvement with the Commonwealth.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is committed to the Commonwealth and is working with the secretariat, member states and associations to modernise this 21st century network and help it realise its extraordinary potential for the direct benefit of all its members, not least the United Kingdom. This Diamond Jubilee year is also a celebration of Her Majesty’s 60 years as Head of the Commonwealth. A range of special events is being held across the Commonwealth in tribute. The recently launched Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust fund will benefit all Commonwealth citizens.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, today we have had a memorable endorsement of how much the Commonwealth means to Her Majesty, who has done more than anybody else to unify it, and a reminder that it encompasses some one-third of the world’s population. Will my noble friend assure us that he will do all he can to ensure that the Commonwealth becomes much more relevant in our deliberations? It is a fast-growing, young market eager for greater involvement with us, without demanding more and more regulation.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I very much endorse what my noble friend says; she is quite right. I am very glad that she puts it in those terms. I am myself convinced that the Commonwealth network today, in both its formal and informal linkages right across the planet, is the key to huge new markets, on which our own prosperity will depend, as well as being the promoter of our values. It is also a very youthful organisation. More than 60 per cent of the citizens of the 2 billion-member Commonwealth are under 25.
Lord Morgan
One of the Commonwealth’s truly important and precious links with this country is through higher education. Is it not the case that many Commonwealth countries—for example Malaysia, and also India—find immigration restrictions extremely difficult for them in terms of bona fide students coming to this country? Do they not also resent bona fide students being categorised under immigration policy rather than education policy? Should we not try to amend matters in this regard?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is quite right that educational links are extensive at the university level and, indeed, between schools all over the Commonwealth. He is also right that the visa issue has raised further questions. The aim, as he knows, is to cut out the bogus students, the non-studiers who claim to be students, but greatly to encourage Commonwealth exchange of students—both ways, if I may say so; not just students coming to this country but also students going to the great new technical universities of Asia and Africa which in many cases equal and even excel our own. So there is a need for all this. We are working all the time to see that the visa system, which is necessary, makes the minimum impact in delaying this growing exchange of students, pupils and young people throughout the whole Commonwealth.
Baroness Prashar
My Lords, Her Majesty the Queen said this morning that the strength of the Commonwealth is its people. How vibrant they are was only too evident at the Commonwealth People’s Forum in Perth at the Heads of Government Meeting last year. Will the Minister please tell the House whether Her Majesty’s Government are planning to support the non-governmental organisations that are working in this country to develop and enable constructive connections between the peoples of the Commonwealth?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I say to the noble Baroness, who herself has played a leading part in the promotion of the Commonwealth network, that that is certainly the aim of Her Majesty's Government. Commentators sometimes overlook that the Commonwealth is not just yet another intergovernmental organisation; it is a gigantic web of non-governmental and professional organisations, institutions, school links and every other kind of professional and interest link, which makes it absolutely unique and provides this country with the most marvellous potential soft power network that we could possibly have.
Lord Chidgey
Does my noble friend recall that at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Australia, at the back end of last year, the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group submitted a report on Commonwealth reform, which was widely accepted? Can he tell us—it is now four months later—what actions have been taken to monitor the implementation of those agreements made at CHOGM so that we can see some real progress, which we all want?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend is right: the commitments were put forward, and many of them were adhered to, at the Perth meeting of the Heads of Government which I attended, while many others were remitted for further work. The next stage is a ministerial task force to carry those ideas forward. Ideas for strengthening the values and standards of the Commonwealth, as well as strengthening many of its other aspects, will be for the task force, and then later in the autumn the Foreign Ministers of the Commonwealth will meet to implement and carry those ideas forward. Not all of them are totally agreed—in any family there are bound to be some differences—but the broad thrust is to promote and uphold the Commonwealth standards in democracy, human rights, good governance and the rule of law.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, perhaps we can hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and then perhaps from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am grateful, my Lords. Perhaps I may follow the question raised by my noble friend Lord Morgan. Would the noble Lord, Lord Howell—I am sure that he would—remind his colleagues in the Home Office that 60 per cent of those coming in under Immigration Rules are students, and that of those who enrol for bona fide three-year degree courses, 98 per cent return home on time and legally? That is to the mutual advantage of our universities, which receive their fees, and of the Commonwealth universities which acquire the expertise that we can offer them. Will he please remind his Home Office colleagues of the need to discriminate in favour of those who enrol for full-time, three-year degree courses?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The short answer is yes, I am very happy to remind the UKBA and any other authority of those kinds of figures. I am sure that the noble Baroness will not overlook the fact that despite questions having been raised about visas, which I fully admit, there are thousands and thousands of overseas students in this country—an enormous number from non-Commonwealth as well as Commonwealth countries. So our role and performance is not all bad—in fact it is extremely good—but there is always more that can be done. I am very happy to join with those who point out the enormous benefits of getting more and more genuine students to visit this country and to return and benefit our promotion and reputation in the future.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, is it not now clear that we took the wrong road away from the Commonwealth in 1972, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, has indicated in her Question, when we joined the project of European integration? Would we not have done better to lead the Commonwealth in free trade and friendly collaboration, and could we not still do so, thus benefiting from the markets of the future instead of being stuck on the “Costa Concordia” that the modern EU has become?
Lord Howell of Guildford
These aspects of being a good member of the European Union and an effective member of a reinvigorated Commonwealth are by no means exclusive; on the contrary, they go together. We can ensure that although our trade may be handled mostly by the European Union, our investment, all our other links and our movements of capital are not so limited by the European Union, and it is through those links that we can maintain excellent contact. At the same time the rest of the Commonwealth is developing its own intra-Commonwealth trade at a fantastic rate, and all these developments benefit the United Kingdom.
Medical Research
Lord Taverne
Lord Taverne to ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the refusal of some ferry companies and airlines to carry live animals for medical research, what steps they are taking to protect such research.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the Government have been actively working with the life sciences community and the transportation sector to broker a commercial solution to provide a sustainable and resilient supply chain. A cross-Whitehall group has been working since January, under the guidance of the Cabinet Office, driving this work forward and exploring shorter term contingency measures which the life sciences sector would be able to initiate itself if necessary.
The Government understand the position of the transportation sector and will continue working to secure a way forward that ensures the highest standards in animal transportation and the continuing success of scientific research in the United Kingdom.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, it is obvious that the Government and the companies face a very difficult problem. It is a very serious matter because it is not only a threat to very important research but it is a threat to democracy. If a tiny minority—in defiance of the overwhelming agreement of the public that properly regulated animal research is acceptable—forces major companies to yield to its threats, then it is a triumph for terrorism. Will the Government stress, in their negotiations with the companies, that they too have a social responsibility to play a role in protecting us from terrorism?
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend is absolutely right. The Government are working closely with the sector as a whole, as well as with individual operators. We fully understand the need to have a sector-wide solution which provides resilience and diversity.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
Will my noble friend give assurances about the checks that are made when live animals are exported to be killed abroad or for research? Do they have adequate ventilation? Are they being given water? How long are the maximum journeys? How is this being monitored?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my noble friend asks a very important question. Inspectors from the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency inspect all transport operators and vehicles wishing to transport animals for commercial purposes. Once they are content, they issue an authorisation to the relevant company. This is in accordance with the transport of animals regulations. Home Office inspectors visit UK-based establishments that use, breed or supply the animals. Any welfare problems experienced by animals during transit are recorded by the receiving establishment and would be followed up, as necessary, by Home Office inspectors.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, does the Minister agree on two points? First that, as he said earlier, a sector-specific solution to this problem is essential, so that these companies cannot be picked off by militant animal rights organisations? Does he also agree that, unless we find a solution to this problem, our own excellent medical research and pharmaceutical companies will suffer from anti-competitive practices because they will not be able to flourish in the way that our competitors on the other side of the channel do?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am very happy to say that I strongly agree with the noble Baroness on both points. The use of animals in research remains essential to developing new treatments and drugs, improving our understanding of disease and proving the safety and effectiveness of drugs and chemicals before they go forward for human trials.
Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I know, from my time as chair of Cancer Research UK, of the importance of animal research for human and animal health in the future and of the high standards that exist in this country—but not all over the world—in the use of those animals. Will the Government continue to give a lead, concertedly, across the board, to companies and to researchers, so that we will not be intimidated from doing work that is of huge value to this country and its citizens?
Lord De Mauley
I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point. I absolutely agree with her. The Government’s strategy for UK life sciences sets out our ambition for the UK to become the global hub for life sciences, bringing together business, researchers, clinicians and patients to translate discovery into real benefits for us all.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, in relation to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, would my noble friend also recognise that there are great problems across Europe in relation to the export of live horses for slaughter under the most appalling conditions? Will he pursue that matter as far as possible in the European context?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, that point is slightly outside the scope of today's Question, but the answer is yes.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, may I ask the Minister about NC3Rs? It was set up by the previous Government to engage in research that reduces the number of animals in research, and replaces them. It works very closely with, and funds, academic institutions and the scientific community, and also collaborates closely with industry. It does great work. Will the Minister ensure that the funding that comes from the Government for it will continue, and if not continue, increase?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I echo the noble Lord’s compliments to the organisation. I am certainly not aware that there is any plan to change its funding. If there is, I will let him know.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:01 - Division on Amendment 144A - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 257 - Amendment 144A disagreed.
17:28 - Division on Amendment 151AZA - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 217 - Amendment 151AZA disagreed.
21:22 - Division on Amendment 153 - Ayes: 62 / Noes: 90 - Amendment 153 disagreed.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, there has been widespread condemnation outside the House, and unanimous condemnation inside it, of the activities of parasitic claims farmers and claims management companies that engage in the process of securing referral fees simply to generate profit. A major objection to the activities of those concerns is that they foster the myth of the compensation culture. People who see advertisements on the streets or in newspapers which invite claims may get the impression that hordes of people are succumbing to the temptation to make wholly bogus claims. In the field of whiplash claims, it is acknowledged that there is some truth in that perception. However, in general terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, pointed out in his report, there is no substance to the suggestion that there is a widespread compensation culture.
The amendment deals with the position of not-for-profit organisations. We are entirely at one with the Government in seeking to ban referral fees made to commercial organisations simply for the purpose of making profits. However, some organisations—be they charities or membership organisations—receive referral fees from firms of solicitors and perhaps from others whom they appoint to panels on the basis of their expertise and record of service, and whose contributions help those organisations carry out their main purpose. That might be service to members or, in the case of charities, the furtherance of the charitable objectives of the organisation. For example, among the charitable organisations are the Spinal Injuries Association, Headway and Action against Medical Accidents. There are others, too, which receive referral fees and use the proceeds to benefit those whom their organisation was set up to help. Other membership organisations and trade unions do likewise.
When we debated amendments of a similar nature last week, the Minister referred to the main—and understandable—objective of the Government, which is to restrict the cost of litigation. We share that objective. In the case of referral fees, it is perfectly achievable. It does not constitute a cost to the system. If a referral fee is effectively charged to the client, of course that is a cost to the client, and that ought to be avoided. On general costs, costs payable by a losing party to another are either agreed or assessed by the court. Obviously, the court can base its assessment of costs on what the normal tariff would be. I have appeared before the courts many times in 35 years of practice as a solicitor—endeavouring to justify the very modest costs that my firm sought—to explain and justify those fees. In fact, a kind of tariff is applied locally by the courts. In any event, if this were thought to be a danger in the system, it would be possible to allow the courts to deal with any such referral fee, to require it to be disclosed and to make it an irrecoverable disbursement from the paying party. So the question of additional costs can be satisfactorily dealt with.
In last week’s debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, made some interesting points, one of which was incorrect. She said that the referral fees received by some trade unions find their way into the coffers of the political party with which I and others in this House are associated. That is not the case. Payments by trade unions to political parties of any colour come out of the political fund, not the general fund. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, who was once more closely involved with these matters than he is now, confirmed that.
However, the noble Baroness also referred, understandably, to the situation that arose in respect of compensation claims by miners regarding pneumoconiosis —a whole raft of cases over many years. Many law firms and others spent considerable time and money researching these cases and it was a very long time before they were settled and a scheme developed. The abuse in that case was actually rather different from what we are now debating. It was not so much the question of referral fees; it was the fact that some firms of solicitors—happily, not many—not only were paid by the Government under the compensation scheme but had the effrontery to deduct some payments from their clients. That was absolutely outrageous and many of the firms involved were severely disciplined, and rightly so, by the Law Society. But that is a separate issue from that which this amendment and the whole topic of referral fees address.
There is a world of difference between the use of referral fees by claims management companies and the like—simply to generate profit and at the same time perhaps to promote invalid claims on the off-chance that some of them may succeed—and that by other organisations genuinely endeavouring to assist their members and receiving funds which in turn are used for the benefit of the members or the non-commercial purposes, charitable or otherwise, of the organisation. I beg to move.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I will try not to repeat myself, because I spoke about referral fees last week.
Briefly, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, the evil of referral fees is threefold. First, if the law firm can afford to pay a couple of hundred pounds for each case, then it stands to reason that the case could have been handled more cheaply. Secondly, when work goes to a particular firm of solicitors, it encourages that firm not to compete and not to do its job properly because, no matter what, the work will come to it. The case of the miners to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred and which I described last week did not arise directly from referral fees, but one can see the risk. If a firm knows that 23,000 cases will come its way willy-nilly, why should it try very hard? Why should it not take short cuts?
Thirdly, referral fees arrangements deprive the consumer of choice. The argument for referring consumers to a particular firm is that they would not otherwise know where to go. These charitable organisations, to which the noble Lord referred, could do the job just as well by listing a few firms and helping their clients to go to those firms without expecting money to come their way. As far as I can make out from research on the web—I stand to be corrected—on its web page on legal services the Labour Party says that clients who are members of the Labour Party will be referred to a particular firm of solicitors if they have a problem. If one continues to click through the pages, the firm says in very small print, buried deep in the internet, that for every case that comes to it from the Labour Party website several hundred pounds will be paid to the political party.
To make things even worse, referral fees, some of which may well come from legal aid, could be channelled inter alia to a political party. There is no case for referral fees. I encourage the House not to be wooed into any set of exemptions, even where worthwhile charities are concerned, because the bad nature of referral fees spreads throughout the system, regardless of who uses them. I hope that your Lordships will reject this amendment and any similar ones. Now is the time to end the practice of referral fees.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has just said. Referral fees have for some years been a serious problem in almost all circumstances and have caused a great deal of trouble and unnecessary expense. It is not a case where, as the Labour Party has just proposed, it should be treated just as a matter where two firms are in business. This is a matter that requires to be removed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, in my youth I appeared for insurers and unions, and I did not pay anybody to get those cases. We competed on quality. The competition was there so that unions and insurers would send their work where they thought that they would get the best service, not where they thought that they would get the largest fee. It is insidious for fees to be paid to purchase cases from any organisation, whether it is a union or even the finest charity. It is not right that unions and charities should fund themselves in this way. The noble Lord has made the case from the point of view of unions and charities being funded. One has to look at it the other way round. Why should firms of solicitors or even barristers’ chambers—I have heard rumours about this—get work on the basis of how much they pay a person referring cases to them? It is a practice which has to stop.
Lord Monks
My Lords, I support my noble friend in this amendment. Referral fees are one aspect of the Bill that will affect union legal services adversely, along with changes to “after the event” insurance and conditional fee agreements. These three issues will make union legal services much more difficult and expensive to operate. Inevitably, fewer cases will be taken. Last year, unions assisted something like 50,000 individuals with cases. There was no charge on the public purse for that assistance. It was done through people’s membership of the union. Many people who were very ill or injured in some way were helped considerably. When this Bill becomes law, essentially, that will become more difficult.
I have checked which unions use referral fees and which do not. Two of the major unions use them and the rest do not. The two which use them do not use them to fund the Labour Party, which is the allegation that is around. As my noble friend explained, the political fund of the unions is completely separate. A separate contribution is made to that. It is registered under the Trade Union Act 1984, which was put through by the noble Lord, Lord King. You make a voluntary donation which is separate from your union membership fee and it is separately accounted for.
The suggestion that referral fees are used by unions to fund the Labour Party is totally wrong. The whole purpose of referral fees where they are applied has been to support the expansion of union legal services to make good some of the defects elsewhere in the justice system. I hope that the House will bear that in mind when it considers this amendment.
Lord Martin of Springburn
I declare an interest as a member of Unite. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was good enough to say that she had mentioned the problems of referral fees in a previous debate. That debate took place on my amendment. My case was that trade union officers go to places where there has been an accident. Therefore, there is a certain expenditure when those visits are made. There is obvious expenditure and there should be some compensation. The noble Baroness was good enough to mention referral fees and I was deeply impressed by what she said. Therefore, I will not move Amendment 146.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I should have declared an interest as chairman of the Bar Standards Board, which prohibits barristers from receiving or dealing in referral fees. If I gave the impression last week that referral fees that go to unions go direct to the political party and that is wrong, I apologise. My point is that it is happening in another way. I have not yet been corrected but my research on the internet showed that direct referrals from a party to a firm resulted in the firm paying a referral fee to the political party. Therefore, if it is not happening in one way, it may be happening in another.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I support the line taken by our Front Bench. Without any question, there are risks with referral fees but they are fairly minimal. The questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others should ask themselves are whether they believe that there will be more of the kind of litigants who at present benefit from the union offering these services, admittedly through using referral fees, especially given what we are doing to legal aid in this Bill; or whether there will be fewer people taking action. My view is that if these changes are put through, the likelihood is that unions will not be able to offer services on the same kind of basis that they have in the past. As a consequence, fewer people will pursue cases and the people who will not be pursuing those cases will be the ones at the bottom of the pile, and not those who are higher up with a fund of money to pursue the law without any trouble whatever. I put those very serious questions to those who are pursuing this line.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I shall intervene briefly. I declare an interest in that a firm in which I was a partner had major arrangements with a number of trade unions.
I say to the noble Lord who has just spoken that the unions and the firms who do their work will be able to adjust their arrangements. For a start, by not paying the referral fee, the solicitors doing the work will be able to drop their charges to take account of that fact, and the trade unions will be able to adjust their arrangements with their members, although it will not be a major adjustment. The point that the noble Lord reasonably made is capable of adjustment in a way that will enable the abolition of referral fees—which, in general, are extremely deleterious to justice—to be effected.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, this proposal is not in any way union bashing and I am sorry that it has been caught up like that. I was pleased that when the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, opened the debate he joined with the Government in our general desire to ban referral fees. It is of course right that injured people should be able to pursue claims and under our reforms they will be able to do so. Costs will be more proportionate and the damages they receive will be increased.
However, it is wrong for third parties to be able to profit from referral fees for personal injury cases in this way. I found the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, last Wednesday extremely powerful and I recommend noble Lords to reread it. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is right: it is not four-square with referral fees but it illustrates the danger of sweetheart relationships in this area. The Law Society was quite right—but rather belatedly so—to deal with a great injustice to miners who had already suffered much in their industry.
On the question of political funding, yes, I understand the difference between union general funds and the political fund and that it is the political fund that goes to the Labour Party. However, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, explained that she was referring to the party itself acting as a referee. Even as I speak, I wonder whether this merry thought has occurred to any other political party. I know political parties look for ways to earn funds and, if this has been thought up by the Labour Party, it is, at the moment, within the law. However, we do not think it is right.
I also welcome the intervention of my noble friend Lord Phillips. I do not always welcome his interventions but this time he has put his finger on it: we are not preventing solicitors taking on a case at reduced rates or for free; nor are we preventing solicitors from making donations to charities or other not-for-profit organisations. Charities representing injured people will still be able to offer advice and recommend the best law firms. However, they should do that in the claimant’s best interest, not on the basis of what fee they can get for that claim. The amendment would not only allow an exception for charities and unions but for all not-for-profit organisations. I fully appreciate that trade-union, charity and political-party referral fees can be nice little earners, but that kind of relationship is not in the best interests of the consumer.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Monks, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe and Lord Martin, that I am well aware of the record of trade unions in legal advice and the help that they give to their members. I have no doubt of the accuracy of the figure of 50,000 a year given by the noble Lord, Lord Monks. However, I also take the point—which I did not know—that only two trade unions use referral fees. This suggests to me that this is not the universal attack on trade unions that anybody has suggested. We simply say that whether it be political parties, trade unions or charities, it is not healthy or in the consumer’s interest to have sweetheart deals between unions, charities or political parties and individual law firms.
The amendment goes further than earlier proposals. Some claims management companies are currently not-for-profit organisations and others could become not-for-profit bodies in order to get around the ban. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, tabled an amendment that would have made an exception for charities only. This amendment now makes a wider exception which would exempt unions, political parties and not-for-profit claims management companies as well.
We believe that referral fee arrangements are wrong in principle. Under the cloak of support for charities, the amendment would allow payments for the referral of personal injury cases by a wide range of organisations. This amendment would make a mockery of the ban on referral fees, which the Opposition have claimed to support in principle—and I believe they do support it in principle. I really think—and the more I listen to this debate the more I think it—that for the Opposition to press this amendment is simply wrong-headed. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, let me make it clear that I do not for a moment charge the Minister—or indeed the Government—with conceiving of this as in any sense aimed at trade unions. It is a by-product of policy. Let me also remind your Lordships that referral fees are only banned—certainly at the moment, under the terms of this Bill—in respect of personal injury claims. For any other kind of arrangement, referral fees are apparently acceptable—not, however, in the context of personal injury claims.
That really illustrates whence this proposal comes from. It comes from the unacceptable activities of those who have perhaps been promoting spurious claims—and we will come at the next amendment to the kind of techniques that some of these firms and outfits adopt to encourage claims in a way that fosters this myth of the compensation culture. That is the genuine motivation of the Government; what they are doing to deal with it goes too far.
I do not recall having jousted in legal terms with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, 50 years or so ago when we shared adjoining desks at the Honour School of Jurisprudence, but I will joust a little with her, if I may, this afternoon. She first of all asserts that it would be an incentive for firms not to do the job properly. I do not know what possible basis she can have for saying that. A solicitor’s job is to do his best for his client. In a sense, there are two clients when one is acting for somebody referred by an organisation. Far from it being the case that there is no incentive to do the job properly, there is a greater incentive to do the job properly when one has a connection with a potential source of work—whether there is a referral fee or not —because, of course, one does not just lose and upset one client: one potentially loses a whole stream of work. In fact, therefore, the converse of her proposition is actually true.
The second of the noble Baroness’s points which I seek to rebut is that this deprives people of choice. A union member or a member of a charitable or other organisation does not have to use the organisation that is recommended or go to one that pays a referral fee. They have the same choice as anyone else. But they may choose to rely on their own organisation, trade union or otherwise, having established from its experience that a particular firm or firms are capable of carrying out the work. The choice, however, remains with them. The noble Baroness has been on the website and discovered the Labour Party’s scheme. Let me tell her and the House how much that scheme has raised: nil, nothing, not a penny. It is about as vibrant as Monty Python’s parrot. It is redundant. It is a dead scheme. It has never been activated, so that issue need not distract your Lordships’ House.
Before I conclude, I should make one other point in relation to charitable organisations. The ones I have mentioned operate on a referral-fee basis. There are three of them and I think there may be others, although perhaps that is a little beside the point. I liken the process to another aspect which is certainly something that political parties and many charities operate, and that is an affinity card with a bank, where a percentage of one’s expenditure when using the card goes to the organisation. In precisely the same way that it could be alleged—I think wrongly—that as referral fees increase costs in the legal system, so by definition an affinity card must push up the costs in relation to financial services. It is an analogous situation.
I feel strongly about this—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, drawing on his long experience, can the noble Lord tell us when referral fees first reared their head? I do not recollect them 20 or 30 years ago. Does he know when they began?
Lord Beecham
To the best of my recollection, they have appeared in the past 10 to 12 years. I have not myself been heavily involved in the practice in which I was a senior partner for the past nine years, much to its relief and mine. Having had our debate and despite the pleas of the Minister, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Clement-Jones
(c) arranges for another person to provide, for a fee, marketing services by unsolicited SMS text message, unsolicited telephone calls or any marketing in a hospital or other primary treatment centre.”
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, first, I declare my membership of the Law Society. As we have discussed both in Committee and on Report, referral fees are one of the major causes of the public’s perception that a compensation culture exists in this country. We have heard some powerful speeches across the Benches on the subject of referral fees. My noble friend Lord Thomas called them insidious and I agree. For that reason I strongly support Clauses 54 and 55.
Although there has been some difference of views on the provisions for referral fees set out in Clauses 54 and 55 as they impact on charities and trade unions, generally there seems to be a common view that although these clauses are useful, if they are to catch all the abuses they need to go further—perhaps not as far as the right honourable Jack Straw would want to go in terms of making it a criminal offence, but covering the full range of malpractices. For instance, there is nuisance marketing in personal injury—specifically, advertising in hospitals, cold calling and spam texts; financial incentives to claim; selling contact and case details of personal injury victims without their consents; and auctioning claims to the highest bidder. Mr Simon Burns the Health Minister recently told English NHS hospitals that it was not acceptable to display advertisements for law firms encouraging no-win no-fee compensation claims. That was a firm and wise action, and I commend it.
In our debate in Committee, my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, on the subject of text messaging immediately after an accident without injury even taking place, made a powerful speech in support of extending Clause 54. My noble friend Lord McNally expressed sympathy with the intention behind the amendment and said that the Government would consider it further. I hope that he will tell us today where the Government have got to. Can we expect white smoke on Report or Third Reading or, indeed, a text message? I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I entirely support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is right that this practice is a nuisance. I was half expecting a text message after I told the House about my fall the other day. I thought that eager readers of Hansard in these companies would have solicited my attention or that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, but so far nothing has happened. However, like many of your Lordships, I receive periodic texts and e-mails from organisations saying that I may not have made a claim in respect of my recent accident or, latterly, about payment protection insurance problems, and the like. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, it is an insidious practice and certainly ought to be banned.
I hope that the Minister accepts the amendment and that, if he does not, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, tests the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
My Lords, this amendment looks to deal with the serious problem of unsolicited marketing, including text messages or telephone calls about personal injury claims. I congratulate my noble friend on raising an issue which, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, indicated, annoys and irritates millions of our fellow citizens. I assure the House that the Government have given careful consideration to this issue since my noble friend raised it in Committee. Legislation, which is primarily enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office, already exists to protect individuals in this area. Recent action by that office has resulted in the confiscation of more than 20,000 mobile phone SIM cards that were being used to send unsolicited text messages.
Following this issue being raised in Committee, my honourable friend Jonathan Djanogly, the Justice Minister, will meet the Information Commissioner to discuss further how the problem can be addressed. Additionally, the ICO, the Ministry of Justice Claims Management Regulation Unit and other regulators continue to work closely with the telecommunications industry on this problem. Across government, an industry working group has been set up and is due to publish a joint guidance note for consumers explaining the functions of the relevant regulators along with advice on how to make a complaint.
On the particular point about advertising in hospitals, the Government do not support the marketing of such services on NHS premises. There is already an absolute ban on unauthorised marketing by claims management companies. We believe that it is more appropriate that authorised marketing should be dealt with through guidance rather than through regulation. In support of this approach, the National Health Service chief executive has recently written to NHS managers to make clear the position on marketing in hospitals and primary health centres.
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue. The Government take it very seriously and are taking positive action. We believe that the answer lies in greater enforcement and robust action, along the lines of regulations and guidance that already exist. We will continue to monitor the situation and take it seriously, and I hope that in the light of that response my noble friend will agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It very much falls into two parts, as far as I can see, in terms of action by and with the Information Commissioner and action by the Secretary of State and Ministers relating to unauthorised and authorised marketing in NHS hospitals. The bit I find difficult is not that relating to the Information Commissioner; indeed, it is very welcome that those powers are being mobilised and that the Minister, Mr Djanogly, is having the necessary meetings with the Information Commissioner. The surprising part concerns the National Health Service. I think that the view around this House is that there should be no authorised marketing of this kind within NHS hospitals. What baffles me is why that kind of marketing is allowed to persist within NHS hospitals. I am not going to press the amendment today but I very much hope that we can progress further, certainly in pressing the Department of Health to be much more robust than appears to be the case about this kind of marketing.
Whatever the form of marketing which is an arrangement between a hospital and a firm of solicitors —perhaps advertising law firms within hospitals or allowing texting—it certainly falls morally within the terms of the kind of action that we are trying to prevent within this clause. It therefore really should be covered, and if there is that power within the department —or indeed by any future regulator under the health Bill that has now passed—I very much hope that it will be exercised and that my noble friend the Minister’s department will keep pressing the Department of Health. Perhaps we might even bring this back for an assurance on Third Reading, to understand exactly what is being authorised if there is such a thing as authorised marketing of this kind. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
“Pro bono representationPayments in respect of pro bono representation before the Supreme Court
(1) In section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (power for certain courts to order losing party to make payment to charity where other party is represented pro bono) in subsection (10) for the definition of “civil court” substitute—
““civil court” means—
(a) the Supreme Court when it is dealing with a relevant civil appeal,(b) the civil division of the Court of Appeal,(c) the High Court, or(d) any county court;“relevant civil appeal” means an appeal to the Supreme Court—
(a) from the High Court in England and Wales under Part 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969,(b) from the Court of Appeal under section 40(2) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, or(c) under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (appeal in cases of contempt of court) other than an appeal from an order or decision made in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for criminal contempt of court;”.(2) This section applies in relation to appeals to the Supreme Court only where the decision, order or judgment that is the subject of the appeal is made or given on or after the day on which this section comes into force.”
Lord Pannick
My Lords, this amendment is less controversial than some that your Lordships have been debating on Report. I am very grateful to the Minister for adding his name to it, and I will briefly explain its purpose and effect. Lawyers are often criticised, sometimes in your Lordships’ House and sometimes with justification, but noble Lords will wish to acknowledge that a large number of them spend at least part of their time working unremunerated for clients simply because they wish to contribute to the promotion of justice. In some of these cases, the lawyer succeeds for the client. The other side in the litigation, the unsuccessful party, cannot then be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings because, having been represented by the pro bono lawyer, the successful litigant has no costs.
Section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007 addresses such cases. It confers power on the court to order a person, normally the unsuccessful party, to pay a sum in respect of the notional costs to a charity prescribed by the Lord Chancellor. The charity prescribed is the Access to Justice Foundation. It then distributes the sums paid to it to voluntary organisations that provide free legal support for individuals and communities. As currently drafted, Section 194 has one defect; it applies to civil cases in the county court, in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, but it does not currently apply to civil cases in the Supreme Court. This is despite the fact that many of the cases in which lawyers act pro bono are in the Supreme Court. This amendment quite simply will remove that defect.
The amendment is also in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Unfortunately he cannot be in his place today as he is working elsewhere, although I do not think that on this occasion it is on a pro bono basis. He is, however, the chairman of the Access to Justice Foundation. As Her Majesty’s Attorney-General, he was the promoter of Section 194. I pay tribute, as I am sure all noble Lords will want to do, to his tireless work in encouraging lawyers to give of their time to work pro bono. I know that he is as pleased as I am that the Minister has indicated that the Government will support the amendment.
I thank the Minister for considering this issue and for supporting this much needed reform, which I know will also be welcomed by the justices and practitioners of the Supreme Court and by all those clients, and potential clients, who will benefit from the receipt of further funds from the foundation. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, briefly, I support every word of the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of this amendment. On behalf of the Solicitors Pro Bono Group, which is sometimes called LawWorks, of which I am founder and president, I wholeheartedly applaud this amendment to Section 194, which can only be beneficial to pro bono.
Lord Bach
My Lords, we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, from these Benches. I thank him very much for his well deserved tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. I have to say that I felt a slight tremor of envy when I saw this amendment on the Marshalled List. I have tried throughout the Bill to put forward an amendment that might have the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, attached to it, but have failed miserably. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes one attempt and it succeeds.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I will explain. The original amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, did not cut the muster as legal statute. As the noble Lord knows, I have qualifications in this area, so I tweaked it a little, on the basis of my knowledge of part 1 of the relevant material on English legal institutions, to make it fit for purpose. I was glad to do so.
I am also glad to associate myself with the intervention of my noble friend Lord Phillips, who is on a roll today. I commend LawWorks and its encouragement of pro bono work on the part of solicitors, the Access to Justice Foundation and the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in this area. We hope that it will increase the stream of funding available for pro bono work. I have great pleasure in saying that the Government accept this amendment.
Lord Pannick
I renew my thanks to the Minister. He is absolutely right; those advising him did indeed improve the drafting of the amendment and I am very grateful to them as well.
Baroness Corston
“CHAPTER A1Women’s Criminal Justice Policy UnitWomen’s Criminal Justice Policy Unit
(1) There shall be a Women’s Justice Policy Unit (“the Policy Unit”) within the Ministry of Justice.
(2) The staff of the Policy Unit shall comprise officials from the Ministry of Justice and officials seconded from—
(a) the Department of Health;(b) the Department of Communities and Local Government;(c) the Department of Work and Pensions; and(d) the Home Office.(3) The Policy Unit shall report and be answerable to an inter-ministerial committee, including the Equalities Ministers, who shall be responsible for strategic oversight of the Policy Unit.
(4) The functions of the Policy Unit shall include—
(a) the development and implementation of a government strategy (“the strategy”) for women offenders and for women at risk of offending; and(b) review of the impact of government policies on women offenders and women at risk of offending.(5) The policies which the Policy Unit shall review under subsection (4)(b) shall include but not be limited to policies in the areas of—
(a) the delivery of appropriate and effective services to women in the criminal justice system including in the areas of—(i) the rehabilitation of offenders;(ii) sentencing, including youth sentences and the imposition of community orders;(iii) employment and treatment of prisoners; and(b) housing;(c) mental health; and(d) children and families.(6) The Ministers responsible for the strategic oversight of the Policy Unit shall lay before Parliament at least annually a report on the Policy Unit’s exercise of its functions.”
Baroness Corston
My Lords, it is a privilege to move this amendment. I acknowledge and am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
Last week was the fifth anniversary of the publication of the Corston report, and I have got to the stage now where I feel that the name on the report is not mine, as I gather that in the Ministry of Justice I have become both an adjective and a noun. However, I acknowledge that reference was made to that anniversary by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in this place, and by the Secretary of State for Justice in the House of Commons. I also acknowledge that last week, on the fifth anniversary, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, held a roundtable discussion on progress and the way forward on the women’s criminal justice agenda.
In a debate in Committee on 15 February, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that,
“we are doing many things in the direction of travel of the Corston report”.—[Official Report, 15/2/12; col. 876.]
However, central to my report was the call for strategic and structural changes to drive progress on the women’s criminal justice agenda. I called for a joined-up response across government to address the multiple and complex issues in the lives of women offenders and—I emphasise “and”—women at risk of offending. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the loss of a cross-departmental women’s unit poses a real risk of returning to policy silos within government departments that will inevitably be reflected locally.
The Ministry of Justice now has two officials left working on women’s policy, and they will inevitably focus on women offenders. In future, it is proposed that the funding should be devolved to NOMS—the National Offender Management Service—at regional level, and it will inevitably be probation focused. So NOMS will deal with women offenders. However, women who are at risk of offending do not come, and cannot come, on to its radar. These women will again be lost, as will a real opportunity to tackle their vulnerabilities before they end up experiencing custody and the consequent damage which that entails to themselves, their families and, particularly, their children.
The costs incurred to the public purse by not pursuing prevention are all too well documented. A women’s criminal justice policy unit does not need to be resource-intensive. In fact, I am not sure that it needs any resource at all. It does not need to mean cross-departmental officials working together in one place in a team. There are opportunities for creative working, with designated leads from each department working together on the common issues facing women offenders and women at risk in terms of mental health, drugs, housing, family, skills and employment. A policy unit would be cost-effective and represents a way to save money. Without such an approach, money could be wasted as individual departmental pots of money are all spent on the same group of women.
The Inter-Ministerial Group on Equalities is already in place, and I have called for ministerial oversight. I cannot see why that group cannot be used for good effect in helping the Ministry of Justice to drive forward progress on this agenda. The responsibility cannot and should not lie solely with the Ministry of Justice. Delivering the various required responses to women's needs is cost-cutting and it should be equalities-driven as well.
I am sure that many noble Lords will recall the speech of Nick Hardwick, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, on 29 February. I gather that the speech was entitled “Women in Prison: Corston Five Years On”. It was a timely reminder that while progress has been made, there is much more to be done. He said:
“We cannot go on like this … without senior, visible leadership, with real authority and resources to push things through”.
I could not agree more. That is what is missing. I do not mind people using my name, but I want them to make sure that they reflect what I called for, rather than what it might be convenient to suppose I called for.
I emphasise the need for a written strategy for these women. We currently have a virtual strategy in that government Ministers say that they have a strategy but that they will not publish it. That is no strategy at all. Surely that is meaningless if the Government are serious in their attempt to be accountable and to monitor progress. How can they evidence progress in a transparent way without publishing, at the very least, a framework of intent, supported by a statement of what they are trying to achieve for women with vulnerabilities who are caught up in the criminal justice system?
I fully understand that the Government wish to pursue localism and avoid being seen to dictate from the centre. However, without a strategy as an overarching framework, no one knows what it is about locally or can use it to persuade others of the merits of joined-up delivery. How can women's community projects or probation trusts persuade local delivery partners of the need for joined-up delivery at a local level if there is nothing to indicate that the strategy is in place? The Government’s planned programme of work on troubled families rightly intends to provide a clear national steer for local delivery. Why cannot the same be applied to the Government’s strategy for women offenders and women at risk of offending? After all, a lot of these troubled families are headed by such women.
What I am seeking is not a costly option; it is a basic minimum requirement to support the Government’s stated intent to progress the Corston agenda. It would be neither costly nor time-intensive to pull together a brief strategy that builds on earlier progress, because progress there has been. Without a strategy, how will the Government meet their requirements under the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Bangkok Rules for women. Here, there are ramifications for the Government’s standing internationally. I have absolutely no doubt of the Minister's intent to influence policy across government, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said. I also have no doubt that he will rely heavily on his officials to work closely to ensure that that influence results in tangible delivery. However, how much easier it would be for them to achieve that by having to hand a written statement of that strategy and its goals. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am very glad to have this opportunity to support my noble friend. I had the privilege of serving on the Joint Committee on Human Rights when she was its distinguished chair. I then had the opportunity to see at first hand that this is not a passing interest of hers; it is something deeply rooted in her culture and in her sense of justice and the availability of justice for everyone. If justice, in its fullest sense, is to be delivered, what matters is the appropriateness of what is being done when someone is sentenced. It is not only my noble friend who in her very challenging report has spelt out the issues, but I am repeatedly impressed by the research which seems to come to the same conclusion that the overwhelming majority of women in prison should not be in prison at all.
I vividly recall visiting Holloway prison with the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I am not certain that my noble friend was the chair at the time—in connection with some work that we were doing. While we were there we got into very good conversation with some of the staff. It is easy to be prejudiced, but for me it is always interesting that in a place like Holloway you find a mix of people in the profession, including some very good, caring people who—for any of us who would want to be seen as humanitarians—are living a very challenging life in the front line of their professional services. I remember—and this was dealing specifically with short sentences—one woman turning on us in exasperation and saying: “I don’t think you people know what you are doing. We don’t understand what you are doing. These women’s lives are a story of chaos, and all we do by having the women in here for a short term is to increase the chaos in their life in terms of their relationship with their children, their relationship with the community of which they are a part, their relationship with life as they have got to live it”. Then she looked back a little poignantly and said: “Unless, of course, by having them in here for a few days we relieve them of some of the nightmare of pressures outside”.
It is an indictment of us all that we have such an inappropriate, wrong-headed approach towards how we deal with women who may have been caught up in some offence. From that standpoint, it is clear that there has to be an interdisciplinary approach. The problem—the challenge—goes across all sorts of different aspects of life. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, repeatedly reminds us in debates on such occasions, if you are trying to get a change of culture and drive through a new approach, you have to pin down who is really responsible. You have got to have specific arrangements in place to make sure it happens and that it is pursued. This is what my noble friend’s amendment is about: making sure that we stop talking about what is wrong, stop talking about what we should all be doing, and start to do it. If that is to happen, it needs a cross-section of people with a specific responsibility for which they are accountable to make sure it is happening. From that standpoint, I warmly commend the amendment and am glad to support it.
Lord Ramsbotham
In Committee, we had two separate amendments on this issue which was, in a way, a commentary on the fact that the vital issue of women in the criminal justice system was not even discussed in Committee in the other place. I am very glad to have been able to combine the two amendments in one, in the hope that this time we really may get something in the Bill.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has drawn attention to the need to get something done. Over the years there have been directors of women’s policy, women’s policy units, women’s policy groups, Ministers for Women, Ministers of prisons looking after it, but nothing has happened. Why? Because there has never been anyone who has been the agent for those people, responsible and accountable for overseeing that what is laid down actually happens. I have lost count of the number of times I have said that, but I say it again. The key word “implementation” appears in paragraph (4)(a) of the amendment and the word “delivery” in sub-paragraph (5)(a). With all the wisdom that has gone into this subject from many sources over many years, it is all there. Everyone knows what is to happen. What is lacking now is the drive to get it done. I therefore hope that the Minister will go away from this particular stage and reassure us that this time something will be done to action what is so well known.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, may I first put on record my thanks to the Minister, my noble friend Lord McNally, for a number of changes that he introduced to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? I will do so because it has some relevance to the amendment that we are debating, which will assist many women to break the revolving-door syndrome of reoffending. There has been a near-100 per cent increase in the women's prison population in the past 20 years. The Government will find that the single initiative on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will help reduce the women's prison population.
I am attracted to at least one element of the proposal contained in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston: namely, the importance of the Government publishing a strategy to improve the treatment of women in the criminal justice system. When we debated this in Committee, my noble friend Lord McNally said that the Government’s strategy had been set out by our honourable friend Crispin Blunt in a speech on 20 January. That was a good start, and I certainly welcomed that speech.
My noble friend the Minister then set out a series of measures that the Government were taking to improve the position of women in the criminal justice system. The measures included the provision of resources for diversion schemes for mentally disordered offenders; piloting drug recovery wings in women's prisons; giving women prisoners access to the work programme on release; developing intensive alternatives to custody for women; improving access to the private rented sector for women offenders; and developing support for female offenders who have suffered domestic abuse. No one in their right mind could object to these important and welcome developments.
The occasional speech needs to be crystallised. The published strategy document would start by setting out the Government’s overall objectives: for example, to reduce women’s offending—here I mention the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act; to reduce the unnecessary imprisonment of women; to ensure that every probation area and youth offending team has programmes geared to the special needs of women offenders; to place mentally ill women in appropriate treatment settings; and to increase opportunities for contact between women prisoners and their children.
Since we are all interested in outcomes, the strategy document would then set out the measures that the Government are taking to achieve each objective. Annual reviews would be published, assessing progress against each objective of the strategy. This would enable all concerned with the treatment of women to see that the Government had a thought-out, comprehensive strategy to improve the treatment of women in the criminal justice system. It would also enable the Government to be held to account for progress on each objective of the strategy. Very importantly, it would enable this to be done on the basis of accurate information about the measures that the Government were taking to improve the position.
Far from making life more difficult for the Government, this would help increase appreciation for the range of excellent work that is under way to tackle the injustices suffered by women in the criminal justice system. I therefore hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment, and in particular that he will agree to the publication of a strategy on women's offending, followed by annual updates on the progress being made towards meeting each objective of the strategy.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the House; I was not here for the start of the debate on the amendment. Unfortunately, noble Lords moved a bit fast and by the time I got back the debate had already started. I hope that I will be allowed to say a few words as my name is on the amendment.
I start by saying that in no way do I question the Minister’s commitment to reducing the number of women in prison, or to extending support in the community for women who need help rather than punishment. However, I question the Government’s ability to make that happen within the present structure. In Committee, the Minister said that,
“we are working across government as well as with the voluntary and community sector”.—[Official Report, 15/2/12; col. 875].
That is fine, but the rest of his response made it clear that there was little co-ordination across the various elements that were working with government.
This simple and no-cost amendment would provide a model to overcome what is clearly a deficit. It would provide the Government with a strategy for women offenders and women at risk of offending, as well as reviewing the impact of government policies on this vulnerable group. It would also be a driver for local policy to provide co-ordinated and effective work to ensure that women offenders receive the right support to stop their offending behaviour. It is a tried and tested model and it works.
The backgrounds of many women offenders are certainly multifaceted. I will not go into the details as I am sure noble Lords have already heard them. If the Government are genuinely serious about trying to reduce reoffending, we need a holistic solution from all the agencies responsible. Most women offenders have children or are the primary carers for disabled and elderly relatives, so there is an enormous effect on the lives of their families. Many women offenders become homeless: imprisonment will cause one-third to lose their homes and other possessions. They are inadequately prepared for release, with little support and advice on how to cope with the future. Is it any wonder that there is such a high level of self-harming among women who have little hope for the future?
There is no question that progress has been made in recent years, and many extremely committed individuals within and outside the Prison Service have been working tirelessly, but it is essential that the momentum is maintained. The responsibility for that is firmly at the feet of the Government. However, it cannot be achieved by tinkering around the edges, but only by having a well co-ordinated strategy and integrated alternatives to custody via an expansion of the network of community centres. Essentially for the Government, this would save money, which could be used elsewhere.
This year the Government will be reporting to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women—CEDAW—on progress that has been made since the last CEDAW report five years ago, when the committee welcomed the measures that had been taken but expressed concern about there still being too many women in prison. In their report to CEDAW this year, the Government state:
“The UK Government is committed to diverting women away from crime and to tackling women’s offending effectively. It broadly accepted the conclusions in Baroness Corston’s March 2007 report … and is supportive of reducing the number of vulnerable women in prison”.
However, they are going to have to prove that, by the policies and structures that are in place, because at the moment that sentence lacks viability. Contributions from organisations that work in this field will show that that is the case.
If the Government are, as they say, serious about reducing the number of vulnerable women in the criminal justice system, the structures must be put in place to ensure that the needs of these women are prioritised, not marginalised. Only by addressing the issues strategically and monitoring the outcomes of the work effectively will we see a real reduction in the number of women in prison and the level of reoffending.
I do not for one moment question that the Government accept the seriousness of the situation, but I hope that they accept it in the context of this amendment, which will make a great difference by changing the position we have now. I hope that the Government will feel that they can accept this amendment. If they feel they cannot —although I would have great difficulty understanding why not—perhaps they could agree with the principle behind the amendment, of the need for a co-ordinated structure, and come back to us with a new amendment on Report.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, which will see the establishment of a women’s justice policy unit to review the treatment women received when they enter the criminal justice system. The unit would develop a government strategy for dealing with women offenders and the problems surrounding reoffending. Both these functions would be welcome.
In Committee, I supported an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, which called for courts to have regard for the effect of sentencing on dependants when sentencing women. I referred to the admirable work that the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and her influential 2007 report have done to raise awareness of the particular problems facing women in the penal system. Women tend to fall into crime for specific reasons and, it is often claimed, are penalised more harshly than men.
The effect that prison has on women is more taxing. As the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, points out, prisons were designed for men and thus the conditions are particularly unforgiving for women. For example, recent figures suggest that 37 per cent of women prisoners have attempted suicide, 51 per cent have severe mental illness, 47 per cent have a major depressive disorder, and 50 per cent have been subject to domestic violence and 33 per cent to sexual abuse. Developing a specific strategy to ensure that women in the penal system receive more appropriate services is fundamental if these appalling statistics are to be improved.
That the unit would tackle the problems which often give rise to women offending is welcome. It is a venture which would limit the number of women who end up in contact with the justice system in the first place. This is particularly important when we consider that, according to the Government’s figures, 54 per cent of women who are imprisoned are reconvicted within 12 months, rising to 64 per cent if the sentence was shorter than a year. To tackle offending and to limit reoffending, it is vital to eliminate the problems which cause women to fall victim to this vicious cycle of crime.
I am pleased to see that the unit would review the delivery of services relating to children and families. In Committee, we discussed the effect that sentencing can have on dependants. Some 66 per cent of female prisoners have children compared with 59 per cent of men. The Howard League for Penal Reform estimates that only 5 per cent of female prisoners’ children remain with the family when their mother is incarcerated compared with 90 per cent of male prisoners’ children. Clearly sentencing has an undeniable and often disastrous impact on women’s families. For that reason, more than most, the implementation of a unit to oversee and review strategies for women in the justice system would be a positive improvement, not just for these women, but for society at large.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I want to make a very brief point in support of my noble friend Lady Corston. She talked about how we cannot leave the issue of women in the criminal justice system to the Ministry of Justice alone. My noble friend Lord Judd made the case for an interdisciplinary approach. Many women get caught up in the criminal justice system because their crimes are crimes of poverty. Women are more vulnerable to poverty than men, and many women in this country are experiencing poverty. They have to manage poverty while looking after their children. As well as a criminal justice system better attuned to the needs of women, we need an anti-poverty policy better attuned to the needs of women. A unit such as this could link the two.
Baroness Stern
My Lords, this amendment does not ask for much. It is indeed modesty itself. It asks for a focus, a group of people in the Ministry of Justice whose job should be to carry forward the excellent policies that the Minister told the House about in Committee. It makes it clear that the Ministry of Justice cannot do this on its own and calls for the Ministry of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office to be involved—a point that has just been ably made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. It makes it clear that they should report to a ministerial group and that there should be an annual report.
This amendment is not a criticism of the Government’s work so far, nor of that of the previous Government. It is recognition that this is a particularly intractable problem. Efforts are made by many people, and the situation gets a little better, but then it reverts. The Minister will know, because he has just kindly answered a Written Question that I asked, that the Chief Inspector of Prisons said of the Keller unit at Styal prison that it constitutes,
“a wholly unsuitable place to safely hold and manage very seriously damaged and mentally ill women”.
The conditions in which such women are held in Styal prison have been criticised on and off for many years. On 15 February, in Committee, the Minister said that,
“one does not need to visit many women’s prisons to see that far too many prisoners should not be there”.—[Official Report, 15/2/12; col. 876.]
Ministers have said that before. This is not politically contentious. There is wide agreement about what should happen but sadly it does not change or it changes at the margins—one aspect improves while another deteriorates.
That is why there is wide support among those who are concerned with this issue for a statutory framework, a strategy, a focal point and an annual report that will allow Parliament to see if at last we are moving forwards and seeing improvements that last. I very much hope that the Minister will support this modest proposal.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, welcome this proposal. All of us have been talking about this area for so long, it is not true. The point about action now, which was made by various speakers, is entirely right. My noble friend Lord Wigley has quoted a number of horrendous figures, which I will not quote again, but the fact that 5 per cent of women’s children stay in the family home should be enough to indicate just how disastrous the effect of imprisoning women is on family life and on the futures of those children.
I very much hope that the actions already begun by this Government, and those started under the previous Government, to do much more to keep women out of prison will continue, which is entirely the right way to work. There needs to be intensive work and support at differing levels, both at professional and volunteer levels, to see the women out of these crises. Women prisoners outnumber men who self-harm, have mental health problems and so on. The situation is horrendous.
Without overemphasising absolutely everything about this issue, I hope that all departments will come together. I want to see good examples of what can happen in a women’s prison, but I also want to see it as an example of what would be effective for a number of men as well, particularly young offenders. I hope that the Minister and all those involved in this issue will treat it with urgency.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I add my wholehearted support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and everyone else around the House, has said. There has been no dissent. How could there be? It struck me that the proportion of women in the prison system is roughly similar to the proportion of children. Those are our two most vulnerable groups and the groups for whom we do least well by and least well for. They are the most vulnerable and the most needy.
It is very nice to see the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in his place, because the previous time we worked together—I imagine that we are together on this—we were fighting to save the YJB. I remember saying then that we must not allow ourselves to think for one minute that children are small versions of adults. Their needs are so different. Women are not other versions of men. Their needs are also extremely different. When the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, was quoted as saying that these prisons were all designed for men, she was quite right; women were in no one’s mind. They suited, and that was where they were coming from. To imagine for one minute that we could stick women into similar institutions and do them any good was absolutely insane.
If we ever get to what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, suggested and have someone who is in charge of and leads the way in policy, organisation, delivery and practice for women, I hope that that person will be a woman.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven
I rise even more briefly to support the amendment. I do not know of a single lawyer, prosecutor, judge or prison officer who does not believe that women’s prisons are full of people who should not be there and, worse, who are being further damaged by being held there. The scandal is that we have all known this for years. Ministers know it, but nothing is done about it. The amendment is a modest proposal in the right direction, and it has my wholehearted support.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I apologise for missing the beginning of this debate, but I was caught on the hop by the speed of progress.
Prompted by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, perhaps I may, with some trepidation, remind the Minister of the Youth Justice Board—not to score any points off him but to make the point that that body was set up to produce focus over a continuing period of time and to bring a range of agencies together to focus on the need of that particular group of offenders. I think the Minister accepts that some progress was made in youth justice by that kind of approach, and I hope that he will apply that approach and the same logic to women. I thoroughly support my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Gale
My Lords, I join noble Lords all round the House in supporting the amendment. There has been not one word of disagreement, and I am sure the Minister has listened carefully to what noble Lords have had to say on this issue.
I believe, as does my Front Bench, that the amendment can help to focus a national debate on the needs of women in the criminal justice system more effectively over the coming years, whatever Government are in office. My noble friend Lady Corston referred to what the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, said a few months ago. Two of the words he used to describe the state of the women’s secure estate were “aghast” and “ashamed”. I am sure that everyone who has spoken and has any knowledge of the subject would agree with those words.
In my view and that of many of my noble friends, the secure estate is too often no place for women. The majority of women in detention have not committed violent crimes. They are mothers, and each year more than 17,000 children are separated from their mothers because of imprisonment. Many of these women are victims themselves: one in four women in prison was in local authority care as a child; nearly 40 per cent left school before they were 16; over half have suffered domestic violence; and one in three has suffered sexual abuse.
I do not believe that anyone who has read the 2007 report of my noble friend Lady Corston has not been impressed by her recommendations—as my noble friend said earlier, it is now five years since the report was presented—by the examples she gave, by the intellectual force of her arguments and by the way in which these could be translated into effective solutions. We did not do enough to put those solutions into practice but we did make some progress. We continue to listen carefully to what my noble friend Lady Corston says on these matters because of her great experience in this field.
The Women’s Criminal Justice Policy Unit in the MoJ will help to bring her recommendations to life. It will provide a safe and collaborative environment within government and across departments for real joined-up thinking on these matters.
To deal with women’s needs in a holistic way—their health and social welfare needs and how local authorities, the Home Office and other bodies could work to keep them out of crime and out of jail—there is a need for all government departments to work in this collaborative way because the needs are so great and the challenges so important. The results would certainly be more beneficial, not just for the woman involved but for her family and the society that she comes from.
With this great agreement that women should not be in prison—every report that one has read over the years has said the same thing, and all Governments agree—I would hope that this amendment could be put into action. I pay tribute to my noble friends Lady Corston, Lady Gould and Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who put their names to this amendment, and to all those who have taken part in this debate this afternoon. They spoke with such passion in the belief that something should be done on these matters. I know the Minister is concerned about this and I am sure that he will look at this very favourably in the cause of justice for women. I look forward to his response.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, said that she had discovered over the years that she had become not only an adjective but a noun as well. I told her last week when we met that she was well on her way to becoming a national treasure—something I would not wish on anybody. Her report was certainly a landmark report. It is required reading for me and I listen carefully whenever she speaks and when other experts in the House speak on this subject. I also listen carefully to criticisms such as those recently made by Nick Hardwick and repeated today by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern.
I should like briefly to mention our response to those criticisms, and particularly to his criticism of the Keller unit. This is being reviewed and a number of recommendations have been suggested. The potential for the provision of updated facilities to supplement or replace the Keller unit is being reviewed by the National Offender Management Service. However, the majority of recommendations have been actioned, including the development of healthcare and support, including mental health, first aid, training in positive behaviour, support methods, the presence of a registered mental health nurse seven days a week, structured therapeutic programmes provided by mental health occupational therapists and a co-ordinated approach to the clinical review of patients. There is also the introduction of a programme of structured intervention on a daycare basis that is accessible to the residents of the Keller unit. Steps have been taken to ensure the timely sharing of records between mental health and primary care teams. The new governor of HM Prison Styal is currently reviewing the role of the Keller unit, alongside the development of other specialist accommodation in the prison to meet the needs of women with a range of complex problems. The review will continue, and the prison is currently bidding for funding to establish a therapeutic unit.
I emphasise from this Dispatch Box the importance I attach to a strategic and coherent policy addressing the problems of women at risk and the problems of women in prison and on release. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, gave us the statistics that underline the importance and urgency of this matter. As the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, mentioned, I had an interesting and informative meeting with Peers and stakeholders last week on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the Corston report. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, paid tribute to the long-term interest of the noble Baroness in these issues. My interest has grown with every month that I have been in office, every visit I make and every meeting I hold. As has been said, we have too many women in prison and we intervene too late.
However, I do not believe that a women’s justice policy unit bringing together officials from several government departments, as proposed in this amendment, is necessary. That approach was tried a few years ago, but I understand was discontinued after a year or so. I can reassure the House that there continues to be a dedicated resource to women offenders within the Ministry of Justice. However, rather than co-locating staff from other government departments into the Ministry of Justice, officials now work closely with a wide range of rehabilitation reform policy leads in those other departments who are best placed to address the needs of women offenders in their policy areas, including health, employment and homelessness. These close working relationships across departments help to ensure that the needs of women offenders are embedded in cross-government policy-making.
As I explained in Committee, this cross-government approach receives strong leadership from the Minister for Prisons and Probation, my honourable friend Crispin Blunt, who works closely with his ministerial colleagues, in particular the Minister for Women and Equalities and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Equalities. The amendment suggests that the policy unit would report and be answerable to an interministerial committee. I do not believe that we need any additional interministerial governance for the women’s agenda. The Inter-Ministerial Group on Equalities, on which Ministry of Justice Ministers sit, has responsibility for driving forward the Government’s equality strategy, including strategic oversight of issues affecting women. Departments also work together through the Cabinet Committee on Social Justice and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal System.
Finally, let me assure noble Lords that officials are already delivering effectively the functions envisaged for the new policy unit. As I explained in Committee, we already have and are delivering a strategy for women offenders. This ensures that women will benefit in key areas such as mental health, drug recovery, tackling violence against women, troubled families and employment. It recognises the important role of women’s community services, as well as the good work by NOMS to implement many of the recommendations in the noble Baroness’s report. We also actively consider gender equality as required under the Equality Act 2010. We are committed to monitoring progress on achieving key outcomes for women offenders in all areas of our approach to rehabilitating offenders. For example, in setting out our plans radically to reform criminal justice through improved punishment, payback and progression of offenders, we have looked very carefully at how these reforms will impact on women, and have given a clear commitment that we will take into account the different profile of women offenders in achieving this, including the reasons underpinning their offending. I believe that there is effective provision to ensure that the Government are held to account for progress against this agenda.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, gave us a long list of titles and initiatives, but he also pointed out that nothing has happened. What we need is what the noble Lord referred to: a drive to get it done. I believe that this is what the Government are doing—a drive to do practical things. In Committee, I undertook to consider what more we could do to communicate our priorities for women because, as I have emphasised, I believe that the priorities and policies are already in place. While I do not believe that we need a statutory requirement to report annually to Parliament on our work, I have agreed with my honourable friend Crispin Blunt that we will publish a short document setting out our strategic priorities for women. We will place this on the Ministry of Justice website for easy reference. It will be a live document that can be updated as necessary and will be available to promote questions and debate both in this House and the other place on the progress being made. We will continue to listen to noble Lords on this important issue. Noble Lords sometimes overemphasise the importance of writing things in the Bill. I believe the greater importance is, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in achieving outcomes.
I have listened carefully to this debate. It has been an excellent debate, and I think it will read well outside. I honestly do not believe it is a matter on which the House should divide. I am not in a position to accept the amendment and, therefore, if the noble Baroness does press it, I shall ask my noble friends to vote against it. I would rather urge her to withdraw it in the spirit in which this debate has taken place.
I have said that we will publish a strategic document. It will be a short document setting out our strategic priorities for women. It will be a live document and will be updated. I believe that goes some way towards what the House has been asking for. I believe also that what we are doing in practice meets the demands that have been before the House today. In that spirit, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Corston
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House who have spoken in support of this amendment. I am grateful to them for highlighting the profile of the women about whom we talk. They are poor, they are mothers, they are mentally ill, they are alcoholics, they have very little education, and they have no life skills. They are in prison for an average of 28 days, at the end of which they have lost their homes and children and generally do not get either back. It is a huge social issue, and this is the place where it can be resolved.
I have to say that the Minister is badly advised. One of the reasons progress was made from 2007 was because a women’s criminal justice policy unit was established, and because there was an interministerial group run by Maria Eagle, who harried officials, organisations and NOMS to make sure that this happened. On her watch, more than 30 so-called Corston women’s centres were set up across the country to reduce women’s offending, with spectacularly wonderful results.
To say that there was not an interministerial group is not right. Nor is it right to say that there was not a unit, in that I know that the people working in that unit from different departments made things happen. Indeed, collocation of staff from different agencies in youth offending teams and the Youth Justice Board was the key to getting agencies to work together. If you do not have that nationally, it will not be reproduced regionally and locally.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who I think of as a friend, said, you can make progress but you can quickly revert. All I say to the Government is that quick reversion is what will happen. I am sorry to sound so passionate, but it is because I feel passionate. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Awareness of sentencing options
(1) The Lord Chancellor shall, by regulation, promote arrangements to ensure that each Probation Trust provides adequate information about community sentencing provision to all magistrates in the area for which it has responsibility.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide—
(a) guidelines for liaison between magistrates and Probation Trusts;(b) a reimbursement scheme for magistrates expenses under paragraph (a); and(c) such other provision as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate.”
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, in moving Amendment 151A I shall speak also to Amendment 151B, with which it is grouped.
I am bringing back these amendments following the discussions on them in Committee, both because I believe them to be very important and because the amendment expresses a view shared by noble Lords from all around the Chamber without a single voice of dissent. They were views expressed by people of such knowledge and distinction that there was an obligation to try once more to persuade the Government of the importance of this case.
First, I thank those noble Lords who have added their names to the amendments, in particular my hero the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who was also poised to add his name to the list but was not allowed to do so. The Public Bill Office informed me that my list was already full—four names were all that were allowed—so my list has lost a little of its potential lustre. I regard the noble and learned Lord as being on my list in spirit if not in fact, and for that I am extremely grateful to him.
Although technically these are amendments they are in fact proposed new clauses, which do not amend but rather underpin the central objectives of this part of the Bill: to reduce the prison population and develop the use of alternatives to custody, and so reduce reoffending. I am a wholehearted and paid-up supporter of the Bill in these key respects, and I have worked all my life to promote the same objectives. They were also, of course, the core objectives of the Government’s policy as set out in the Green Paper. I regard these clauses as enabling ones, which ensure that the Government will achieve their objectives—and without which their success is far from being assured. Indeed, I believe that the Government need these clauses if they are to succeed.
In addition, the magistracy and the probation trusts, the organisations about which I speak, need these clauses as well. They are unequivocally in support of them because they know that if they are to be enabled to achieve their objectives, which are in line with the Government’s own, they too need them. I pay tribute to all the work that they do in their different ways. The magistracy is the bedrock of community-based justice—the representatives of our communities across the land, delivering justice locally. They are hard-working and dedicated, sustaining the peace of the realm within the law and all selfless, voluntary and unpaid. I was a magistrate once and I know how much it takes, in terms of not just time but care and effort, to try to get things right for the victims and the offenders, and for justice to be done. Their task becomes ever harder over time, as our society becomes more complex and difficult to navigate for so many.
By the same token, the work of the probation service has become ever harder but ever more necessary and valuable. As patterns of offending change and prison numbers rise, it has to provide the courts with pre-sentence reports, carry the challenging responsibilities of MAPPA and support offenders in the community, while facing more uncertainties about its own future as yet another review of its work and role is under way, causing anxiety all around. I have also been a fellow social worker—a childcare officer in my far-off youth—and my admiration for the work of probation is boundless. I also declare an interest as a patron of the old Probation Association. I know how much we all need those people, as they work at the interface of the courts and the community, protecting us as they work to reduce reoffending and meet the challenges of offenders.
These are the people who actually deliver the programmes that magistrates need, and they too are solid in support of these proposed new clauses. They know that statutory liaison is necessary to bring about the understanding by magistrates of the intricacy of what is provided in the community for the courts. From the distance of politics or non-penal worlds, it can perhaps be difficult to understand the subtleties of the relationship between these two organisations. The world of the courts is and must be at a certain remove from the day-to-day reality of the world of those who transgress and break the law, but that is where probation also operates. Good and valuable relationships can of course be, and often are, developed between individuals in both worlds. Yet you cannot conduct a system of professional interaction based on the arbitrariness of personal relationships. We discussed at Second Reading examples where we know that good liaison between probation and the magistracy frequently occur. However, we cannot deliver the sort of high-quality, highly professional service we need on that basis alone without communication and co-operation becoming uneven and patchy to the extent that we have seen happen since 2000, when the statutory basis for the relationship was abandoned. All high-quality, professional service must have a high-quality, professional structure within which to work. This is what these professionals want and it is what our communities need.
The magistracy has roughly 29,000 members and probation trusts nearly 12,000 probation officers and probation service workers, though these are slightly old figures—about 18 months old. These are dynamic institutions doing difficult, highly skilled, professional work, where change is an essential part of the progress. They must have a basic statutory basis on which to conduct their business and keep up to speed with each other. To leave it to a voluntary local effort is simply not in the nature of these national bodies. It is important that all magistrates—not just some eager ones—know what their local probation service is doing. Such is the pace of change that contact must be regular in order for everyone to be up to speed. Both parties in this area agree with that. For sentencers, this is important to be able to make properly informed disposals. Custody should never be used because a sentencer is not aware of a programme or a service which could have been a better alternative. This is sometimes tragically still the case today. While the pre-sentence report and information leaflets give a flavour, there is absolutely nothing to match or beat seeing and talking to the providers and the offenders. Quite simply, seeing is believing. This is not rocket science.
In Committee, the Minister said,
“unless we have public confidence in non-custodial sentences we will have criticism of them. We have to win that public confidence”.—[Official Report, 7/2/12; col. 170.]
How right he is. Where do we start? We start with the sentencers themselves, whose use of them will justify and develop confidence. As their own confidence grows, the more they learn. My noble friend also said that he was not aware of any obstacles to magistrates making regular visits. He is quite right; there are no obstacles. However, we need more than a mere desirable aspiration; we need a requirement, if all concerned are to understand the importance of visits and keeping abreast of current provision. I referred to the senior presiding judge’s recently revised protocol in Committee, which sets out voluntary arrangements for probation trusts, courts and magistrates. However, I am told by the Magistrates’ Association itself that, even where relations are very good, the involvement of all magistrates is “rarely achieved” and “aspirational”.
Lastly, magistrates’ expenses have in the past been a thorny issue. Expenses stopped in 2000 when liaison ceased to be statutory. I have already referred to the extraordinary and voluntary commitment of time, effort, skill and responsibility—on every level—of magistrates to their role on behalf of us all. These visits represent training over and above their duties and commitment. It seems petty and short sighted in the extreme to begrudge a bus or train fare, or petrol, to go and learn about a programme, which, if understood and then used, will save the community that proportion of the annual £40,000 cost of each prison sentence and will significantly increase the chances of reducing reoffending at a fraction of the cost while making our communities safer. That is an achievement which I think goes beyond price. My noble friend the Minister told us in Committee that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service was “looking at” this issue, which suggests at least a recognition of the right way to proceed and where its duty lies. I hope I am right about that.
I believe that this proposed new clause is what the Bill needs really to succeed in its admirable core adjective. I know that my noble friend is expected to make no concessions beyond those already agreed but I also know that it is possible to keep her heart and mind open to argument—otherwise, what are we all doing here? My case is that this simple new clause is not an amendment to anything already in the Bill but would add something which endorses it and ensures that what it stands for is achieved: namely, a safer, more civilised society with less reoffending as a result of less imprisonment and more community disposals. I commend the new clause to the House.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am very glad to support this amendment. The noble Baroness speaks with real experience because she has done a lot of front-line work in precisely this sphere in trying to bring the probation service and others together with magistrates and, indeed, judges. She is to be commended for that. She speaks in this House having done that.
I am glad that she took the opportunity to say a few words about the probation service. In my younger life, the probation service was one of the hallmarks of a decent society. It was a service in which people either had real, relevant experience of life and brought that to the service or had a good, sound, broad education to a high level and were able to bring that perspective to the work which they did. Ideally, it was a combination of both those things.
I am afraid that the probation service has been subjected to pressures and has been propelled towards becoming a sort of alternative to a custodial sentence. The old probation service concentrated on rehabilitation; it was not solely about punishing people. The sentence is the punishment. The people concerned have been told that they are being punished by society and are reported as such in the press. The task the probation service used to take on was that of helping the people concerned to become positive, constructive citizens. However, the service is now so harassed and pressed that it is very difficult to see how that work can properly be done at all, or whether indeed there is cultural leadership on what the task really is—let us be frank about that.
I cannot think of a more practical, sensible arrangement than to ensure that magistrates are not only encouraged but propelled, as it were, into meeting probation service staff, having discussions with them, obtaining information and seeing for themselves the reality of what the probation service does as part of their preparation for the work they will be doing in magistrates’ courts. Two things about magistrates are relevant in this context. I speak as someone whose mother was a magistrate and loved her work. One is that magistrates live in society—that is a strength—and are therefore bombarded by the popular press and everyone else with all kinds of prejudice and superficial judgments. To withstand that kind of psychological pressure, they need to have real exposure to and a real understanding of what is being done.
Lord Ramsbotham
I was very glad to put my name to this amendment. As always, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. On this occasion, I do so because it provides an opportunity, which is not present in much of the rest of the Bill, to mention the problems faced by the probation service.
It was a great pity when the probation service was made subordinate to the Prison Service under the arrangements of the National Offender Management Service because for years they had worked closely together with the courts and the police in the local area. The amendment draws attention to that relationship. It also makes the point that magistrates must know what is capable of being done in prisons so that there is relevance between what is ordered to be done for the rehabilitation of someone and what is able to be delivered. That will be different all over the country, and rightly so because conditions will be different. Also, as I mentioned in Committee, if prisons and the probation service had to do the same thing everywhere, it would help sentencers enormously to know what was there and what was not there, and the Ministry of Justice would also know what there was and could make good any shortfalls.
The other day, I was very alarmed to hear that the governor of Lindholme, Moorland and Hatfield prisons in Yorkshire had ordered the probation service out of those prisons because the local probation service in that part of Yorkshire was having to work with G4S over the provision of probation services. Presumably, that must have been under the direction of the National Offender Management Service and under all the marketing strategies that it is following. I mention that because I am very disturbed about probation services being marketed when the service is concerned with the face-to-face probation officer and offender relationship, which is absolutely crucial to rehabilitation.
I do not know on what authority the governor ordered the probation service out, but it is alarming because, if he is able to do that, he is interrupting the whole rehabilitation process and drawing attention to the fragility of probation, which must work closely in the community, with police and probation being subordinate to prisons. Therefore, apart from supporting this amendment, which I think improves the Bill and draws attention to the rehabilitative element of all that is going on, I am also glad that it allows us to draw attention to the problems faced by the probation service without which we are not going to be able to reduce the vast numbers in prison who are choking that system.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. I agree with everything she said. I remind the House that I currently serve on one of these committees in central London. It is not a statutory committee, but it is a very important committee from which I certainly benefit in my work as a magistrate, as I know all my colleagues do. Nevertheless, I want to make the point that there are other statutory committees. I am thinking of the bench training and development committees which are required to sit under statute. With the best will in the world, the officials administer those committees more thoroughly than they do the probation liaison committees, precisely because they are not statutory committees. For that reason alone, I recommend to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that the statutory provision would add weight to what is, after all, one of the Government’s primary objectives, which is to make sure that the magistracy has confidence in community sentences.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, knows so much about the probation service and the magistracy. She draws attention to very little of which we should not take a great deal of notice. What my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham has just said about what is happening in the probation service is alarming. I hope that someone will be able to explain what has happened in a way that makes sense. I go back a long way within the areas of the magistracy and probation and the tremendous work that they do with offenders over very many years. I was a juvenile court chairman. I was horrified when I read the report by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles. At that moment, I said to myself that if I were a probation officer, I would leave the service because I knew it had no future. It is, therefore, even more worrying to me that the whole of the very effective work that it still carries out is under this kind of threat. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that this is not the way forward.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, as a signatory to the amendment, I am pleased to say that the Opposition is more than happy to support it and should the noble Baroness not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister—we live in hope—and wish to press the amendment, we will certainly endorse it. I was particularly impressed by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who speaks from direct and daily experience of these matters in a busy court in the capital. We are already 25 minutes into this debate and there is much more to come, so I am content to rest the Opposition’s case at this point.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this amendment returns to issues raised by my noble friend Lady Linklater in Committee. I very much welcome the contribution that she has made on this issue during the passage of the Bill. My noble friend has considerable experience, to which other noble Lords have referred, in bringing magistrates and probation together and building trust in alternatives to custodial sentences. She is very much to be applauded for that. Like her, I pay tribute to the work that magistrates and probation trusts do.
We agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that probation trusts provide information to sentencers about the services they provide in delivering community sentences. We encourage that sharing of information. We agree that such liaison is beneficial both to magistrates and probation. We also agree that it is important that magistrates see for themselves the work of probation trusts. We agree with the intention behind the amendment, but we would point out that the current provisions in legislation already allow for this kind of liaison between probation and magistrates to take place. The noble Baroness is seeking to get two sets of people to talk to each other and that can already happen. There is no statutory barrier to it, but I hear what she says about trying to ensure that this happens, and we are certainly in favour of promoting best practice. We will look to see if there is more that we can do to ensure that best practice is brought to the attention of probation trusts. We are also ready to work with the Magistrates’ Association and others to ensure that we have practical arrangements in hand to encourage magistrates to take part in meetings so that information can be exchanged. We can, however, do this without changing primary legislation. I also note that the amendment does not ensure that magistrates attend these meetings—which would, of course, not be appropriate—it instead places the duty on probation trusts to provide information. As my noble friend Lord McNally said in Committee, we are not aware of a problem in the provision of information but would welcome further information on it if one exists.
I understand what the amendment is trying to achieve. It provides two illustrative examples of what regulations might cover. They include guidelines for liaison and a scheme for magistrates’ expenses. I would like to point out to my noble friend that both of these are, in fact, already covered by existing arrangements. Guidelines for liaison meetings are set out in a protocol issued not by the Government, but by the senior presiding judge. We think it is right that the protocol should set out the process so that there is no suggestion that magistrates should be unduly influenced in sentencing by consideration of a local probation trust’s priorities, rather than what they see as the appropriate sentence in an individual case. That is why the senior presiding judge issues guidance, not the Government. We agree that there should be guidance on these meetings, but we think that the current system is more appropriate and that the guidance—especially since it applies to the judiciary—should come from the senior judiciary, not the Government.
The second example which the noble Baroness gives relates to the payment of expenses. It is true that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service does not routinely pay expenses for meetings between magistrates and probation. That does not, however, mean that magistrates can not claim expenses. They can, in fact, claim expenses from the probation trusts in attending these meetings. This is an area where the Government might assist by doing more to publicise the process if magistrates are unaware of it. We will certainly consider, as a practical approach, encouraging better liaison by publicising this.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to a statutory committee. The amendment would not create a statutory committee; it would merely provide a regulation-making power to promote such arrangements if that was what was decided. On the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about ordering the probation service out, we are not aware of the detail of that situation. We would welcome further details, and I will then write to the noble Lord with our reaction to what sounds like a very concerning incident.
I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured that we are committed to best practice regarding liaison and that we will look at practical solutions. We welcome her input on guidance and expenses under the current legislation. I hope that, on that basis, she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I cannot thank everybody who has contributed to this debate warmly enough. It debate has raised many interesting, detailed elements; in particular, what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was saying about the serious knock-on effect for the old relationship that the probation service had with its community after it came under the umbrella of NOMS. The example of Lindholme indeed merits some careful examination.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for making reference to other statutory arrangements. As I understood it, my amendment was to recreate the very effective statutory liaison which existed previously. There was a reality to the liaison until 2000. This needs looking at again. I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about the worrying nature of the Carter report. I hope that it has, as it were, melted away. I must, as always, thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his incredibly enthusiastic and good comments on this subject which are very heart-warming.
The Minister made some promises. I do not know to what extent they will make a difference, but just as I have encouraged her to have ears to hear, I had better have some ears to hear myself. I was minded to divide the House at this point but I do not think it would be proper until I have learnt a little bit more about what her promises mean. I will indeed return and look at this again, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 151A withdrawn.
Amendment 151B
“Short prison sentences
A court may not pass a sentence of immediate imprisonment for a term of less than six months unless it considers that no other method of dealing with the offender is appropriate, and must state the reasons for its opinion in open court in accordance with the provisions of section 174 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (duty to give reasons for, and explain effect of, sentence).”
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
I am sorry, my Lords—you must be getting very bored with the sound of my voice. I move on briefly to the second, connected clause, which is about the presumption against short sentences.
The presumption against short sentences carries with it the expectation that low-level offending will receive an effective community sentence which is designed to address the causes of offending behaviour and to emphasise that it is in this category that reoffending is the highest of all. This is the greatest area of sentencing failure in this country today, contrary to the central goal of government policy which is to reduce reoffending. There may, of course, be times when a short prison sentence has a place. An example might be when an offender is constantly breaching a non-custodial order and the magistrates feel that they are left with no option. Or it may give the victim of an offender a brief break from the hell of a violent partner and the chance to make changes to her life in the breathing space. These are legitimate but there should be a presumption against these short sentences which is not the case at the moment, as witnessed by the 38,000 sentences of three months or less in the year up to March 2011. That is an astonishing figure; these cases should be the exception and not the rule.
I suggest that we should follow the example of Scotland, where Section 17 in Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 is entitled, “Presumption against short periods of imprisonment”. Subsection (3A) states that a court,
“must not pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 months or less on a person unless the court considers that no other method of dealing with the person is appropriate”.
This is a proper model to follow.
Many of these sentences are for women, as noble Lords mentioned in our debate on the previous amendment. They are just enough to do disproportionate damage to children, families, jobs and housing, and to the ability of chaotic, vulnerable people who commit minor offences to keep their lives together at all.
Imprisonment results in even greater chaos to the community, which then has to manage that chaos and to deal with the inevitable reoffending, whereas preventive, effective work through community disposals is far more likely to effect change and make people face up to the causes and effects on others of their law-breaking behaviour. Short prison sentences do absolutely nothing to address offending behaviour. No provision exists during or after imprisonment—hence the reoffending results, at great and disproportionate cost to the community.
It is also worth re-emphasising that where communities want and need to demonstrate toughness in punishment, community sentences are the tough option—and are seen as such by offenders. It is much tougher to be made to face up to what you have done, and why, than to sleep away your sentence in a prison cell; and to learn about the consequences of your behaviour and be made to put something back into the community, for example by doing unpaid work.
An inquiry chaired by Peter Oborne and commissioned by an organisation called Make Justice Work, which is doing a lot of effective work in this field, highlighted how effective community sentences were seen to be by offenders, as well as how much more successful they were at tackling reoffending. This ties in with my earlier remarks about magistrates knowing what community sentences are like. If properly informed, they will be at the front line of awareness of the quality of the programmes, and of what works and is being well done, which will ensure that standards are high. I greatly welcome the Government’s plans to start a consultation on the effectiveness of community sentences, and I look for reassurance from the Minister that a presumption against short sentences will form part of the framework of their thinking.
The second reason that I return to this subject is the need for sentences to come with an explanation in court of the exact reasons for a disposal—and in particular, where the threshold for custody comes in a case, and precisely why and how the threshold has been passed so that a community penalty has become inappropriate. Perhaps the Minister will confirm, following a letter of 15 March from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whether under new Section 174, to be imported under Clause 61 of the Bill, the sentencing judge or magistrate must explain to a person sentenced to less than six months in prison that,
“no other method of dealing with him is appropriate, and give reasons, including how the custody threshold has been reached, for that conclusion, whether to him if he is present or under rules made in accordance with government amendment 152ZA”.
I am quoting from the letter. If this is the case, that amendment will be welcome, since previous legislation did not require the degree of clarity and explanation that I sought. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and beg to move.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Amendment 151B, moved by my noble friend Lady Linklater, relates to the imposition of short custodial sentences. It would place a duty on a court to consider all alternatives before imposing a short custodial term. The amendment would also require the court, when imposing a short custodial sentence, to explain why alternative sentences were not considered appropriate.
As my noble friend Lord McNally said when the amendment was debated in Committee, we completely understand the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. We agree that short custodial sentences can be less effective than community sentences in tackling reoffending. The Government looked closely at community sentences and intend to consult very soon on ways to build greater confidence in their use. Our payment by results pilots are also looking to support offenders who are released from short custodial sentences.
As the Minister also said, a duty already exists in current law. I urge my noble friend to look at Section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which was passed by the previous Government and places restrictions on courts imposing discretionary custodial sentences. It states:
“The court must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence”.
That provision applies to all courts that are considering a custodial sentence of any length—not just a sentence of less than six months, to which the amendment is limited. The issue of short custodial sentences has been discussed in Scotland. My noble friend made reference to Scottish legislation. The new Scottish provisions are less onerous on judges than the existing law in England and Wales that I have just explained.
The current requirement on courts considering a custodial sentence is more wide-ranging and onerous than that contained in the amendment. I understand the intention behind it, but I hope that I can reassure my noble friend on this point. I hope that she will feed into the consultation on how to make sure that what is already in law is used as widely as possible. The law is as she wishes it; we need to ensure that it is fully understood and delivered. On this basis, I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, what alternatives to imprisonment are being considered to punish the persistent non-payment of fines, which is a very common reason why people are sent to prison for short periods? Is there no other way of recovering the amount of the fine that could be considered by the courts, and is the matter being looked at by the Government?
Baroness Northover
I thank my noble friend for those points, and will write to him with details on them. He may wish to feed in to the consultation on the matter.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
I thank my noble friend for answering my short remarks. I will go away to think a little more. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
“( ) Criminal Procedure Rules may—
(a) prescribe cases in which either duty does not apply, and(b) make provision about how an explanation under subsection (3) is to be given.”
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I turn to a group of government amendments that concern three areas. I will deal first with the substantive amendments. The first concerns the duties on courts to explain a sentence. The second deals with powers to withdraw distress warrants. I will then deal with the grouped technical amendments that relate to the powers of magistrates to impose fines.
First, government amendment 152ZA relates to the revised provisions in Clause 61, which deal with the duties on courts to give reasons for, and explain the effect of, a sentence. These duties already exist under Section 174 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 but Clause 61 provides for a revised and simplified version of the requirements.
We had an excellent debate on this in Committee. My noble friend Lord McNally was very grateful for the opportunity to discuss the concerns that several Peers had in relation to this duty and the needs of offenders who have learning difficulties or other problems understanding the sentence imposed on them. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Rix, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Wigley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Quin and Lady Gould, who have provided enormous insight into the problems that these offenders may face.
As my noble friend said in Committee, the Government were concerned to ensure that we got the balance right between removing unduly prescriptive provisions on sentencers while retaining the important duties to explain a sentence in court. The Government also wanted to ensure that the law remained practical, taking account of the million-plus sentencing decisions made by the courts each year.
The Government have looked again at these provisions, in light of the helpful discussions that we had in Committee. We believe that the basic statutory duties to give reasons for a sentence and explain the effect of a sentence, in open court and in ordinary language, remain appropriate for the vast majority of cases, but we also accept the point made by noble Lords that further guidance on this may be required.
With that in mind, we have looked at subsection (4) of the revised Section 174, which gives a power to the Lord Chancellor to prescribe cases where the duty to explain can be less onerous or not required at all. This power has existed since the 2003 Act came into force but has never been exercised by the Lord Chancellor. On reflection, we think that such a power would be better exercised by the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, an independent body that provides rules that govern the way the criminal courts operate. The Criminal Procedure Rules already touch on the sentencing process so it seems more appropriate that the committee should have a specific power in this regard.
The first part of this amendment transfers the Lord Chancellor’s order-making power to a rules-making power for the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. Secondly, the amendment clarifies the scope of the power in relation to the duties on sentencers. The amendment retains the power for the rules to prescribe when the duties to give reasons for the sentence or explain the sentence to the offender do not apply; for example, where the sentence is obvious because there is a fixed penalty or where the case is entirely dealt with on the papers without the offender being present, as happens with many low-level road traffic offences.
I draw particular attention to the fact that the amendment also allows the rules to make provision about how an explanation of the effect of a sentence is to be given to the offender. This allows the rules to cover, if required, any particular circumstances the courts should consider when meeting the statutory duty to explain the effect of a sentence to an offender.
I have no doubt that the committee, in considering this new power, will take account of the debate that your Lordships had in Committee and the helpful representations that have been made from organisations such as Mencap and the Prison Reform Trust. I will ensure that these are flagged to the committee. We believe that the consideration of the detail of requirements is better dealt with via rules than primary legislation. One of the Criminal Procedure Rules already requires the court to,
“explain the sentence, the reasons for it, and its effect, in terms the defendant can understand (with help, if necessary)”.
I thank noble Lords for sharing the benefit of their wisdom and hope that this amendment achieves our goal of allowing for practical measures to be taken to ensure that the duties to explain a sentence are met in every case.
Government Amendment 152BYH relates to a very specific area of the law that deals with distress warrants. Distress warrants are issued following the non-payment of a fine, to recover the value of the fine imposed by the courts. They can be issued by a court or by a fines officer. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, tabled an amendment that sought, among other things, to clarify the law on distress warrants, and in particular whether it was possible to withdraw a distress warrant once it had been issued. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford also highlighted the problem of the inability to withdraw distress warrants.
I indicated in response to noble Lords that the Government were willing to look at the issue and, if a change in the law was necessary, to return to it on Report. That is what we have done. I very much welcomed the opportunity we had to discuss this issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, as well as drawing on the expertise of the Z2K Trust and the CAB.
We accept that the current law is flawed. This amendment makes a number of changes, mainly to Schedule 5 to the Courts Act 2003. The new clause introduced by the amendment does four things. First, it provides magistrates’ court fines officers with the power to withdraw distress warrants they have issued, in the circumstances specified in new paragraph (40A), which is introduced by subsection (8) of the new clause. This means that a fines officer can withdraw the warrant if there is any part of the sum left to pay and if the fines officer is satisfied that the warrant was issued by mistake. This can include a mistake made as a result of non-disclosure or a misrepresentation of a material fact in the case.
Secondly, the amendment makes it clear in new paragraph (40B) that a magistrates’ court has a similar power to discharge a distress warrant issued by a fines officer as it does to discharge such a warrant issued by the court itself. Thirdly, the amendment enables fines officers to take further steps to enforce a penalty where a distress warrant has been withdrawn, but this time taking into account information that was not available when the distress warrant was issued; this includes the power to issue a further distress warrant. Finally, the amendment enables magistrates’ courts to exercise any of their powers in respect of a fines defaulter where a distress warrant has been withdrawn, including issuing a further distress warrant.
Noble Lords will have noticed that while I have explained the amendment in terms of “distress warrants”, the amendment itself refers to “warrants of control”. That reflects the new terminology that will apply when the relevant provisions of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which are presently the subject of consultation, are commenced. However, transitional provision will be made under the powers in Part 4 of this Bill to the effect that, until those 2007 Act provisions come into force, these provisions are to have effect as if the references to warrants of control were to warrants of distress.
These changes put the question of whether a distress warrant can be withdrawn beyond doubt and provide clear but practical powers for the courts and fines officers to deal with mistakes in the issuing of warrants. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to the tireless work of Reverend Paul Nicolson of the Z2K Trust, for identifying these problems and encouraging us to address them.
Finally, government Amendments 152BA to 152BYG deal with the changes to magistrates’ fines powers in Clauses 80 to 82. These amendments are largely technical and ensure that Clauses 80 to 82 operate as intended. The policy intention here is unchanged: the clauses remove the upper limit on the level of fines available in the magistrates’ courts on summary conviction. They also allow for the uprating of other fines, in particular by providing a power to increase the maximum fine amounts for levels 1 to 4 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to the set of amendments that applies the provisions to fines imposed for common law offences which can be dealt with by magistrates. These offences—“causing a public nuisance” and “outraging public decency”—were not caught by the previous version of the clauses. It is important that magistrates should have the freedom to impose larger fines for these offences in the same way as they will be able to do when sentencing offenders committing statutory offences.
Overall, these amendments now deliver more effectively the Government’s objectives. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, as the Minister has explained, Amendment 152BYH is in response to an amendment I tabled in Committee with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The purpose was to remove legal confusion about the power of bailiffs to return a fine to magistrates for consideration. That confusion has resulted in hardship for many vulnerable people.
I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for meeting me and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as well as representatives of Zacchaeus 2000 and Citizens Advice to discuss this and related matters. I am even more grateful that the Government agree that the current law is flawed and that this Bill provides the ideal vehicle for removing the confusion. I assume therefore that they do not expect that there will be a further suitable Bill coming along in the foreseeable future and thus they brought forward their own amendment.
I had hoped that I would be able to sit down at this point and that all would be sweetness and light, but as the noble Baroness knows I am worried that the amendment refers simply to the power to withdraw the warrant where there has been a mistake, albeit one made in consequence of the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact. Rectifying mistakes will not prevent all of the kinds of problems that Zacchaeus 2000 and Citizens Advice have identified. I am particularly concerned about cases where there has been a change of circumstances since the fine was set. For instance, if the debtor’s or defaulter’s material circumstances have changed because of illness, unemployment or relationship breakdown, that could have just the same effect on the ability to pay the fine as if there had been a mistake at the time of the original determination.
I have been in touch by e-mail with the Ministry of Justice about this. Its response was that while the amendment does not cover a simple change of circumstances, it is clear that a debtor can argue that the change of circumstances, if it had been known to the court, would have affected the decision to issue the warrant, so the decision was based on a mistake as to the debtor’s circumstances and that, in other words, the provision in the amendment goes further than the simple slip rule would do.
Will the Minister clarify this statement for your Lordships’ House? I do not really understand what it means. Does it mean that if a debtor’s circumstances change for the worse after the fine has been set and the bailiff is made aware of it, the bailiff can withdraw the warrant and return the fine to the magistrates’ courts on the grounds that the fine would not have been set on that basis had those circumstances pertained when it was set? If it means that, I urge the Minister to withdraw the amendment and make that clear at Third Reading. Otherwise I fear that we face a new source of legal confusion. If it does not mean that, I fear that the amendment will not go nearly far enough to resolve the kind of problems that Z2K and Citizens Advice have brought to our attention. Will the Minister withdraw the amendment and think again before Third Reading? Can the Minister confirm that a mistake will cover cases where the defaulter was not in court when the fine was imposed so that the mistake was made because the full circumstances were not known?
In Committee, the Minister prayed in aid the revision of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents, and in particular the standards they set for dealing with vulnerable and socially excluded people. The revised standards for such situations, now published on the MoJ website, are virtually identical to those previously in operation. It is clear from the experience of Z2K and Citizens Advice that they have not provided an adequate safeguard. That is why we had hoped that the amendment would ensure that bailiffs have discretion within the application of the Wednesbury principles—in other words, a test of reasonableness—to return a fine to the magistrates’ court when they discover that the debtor is in a vulnerable situation as set out in the National Standards for Enforcement Agents.
I am disappointed but realise that the Minister signalled this in Committee. Can I ask that the MoJ monitors this? If it is clear that the National Standards for Enforcement Agents are not on their own providing an adequate safeguard, will the Government consider returning to this issue at the next legislative opportunity?
In conclusion, I thank the Government for having moved on this issue. However, I am seeking assurances about the situation with regard to a change of circumstances, to be made clear in an amendment at Third Reading, if necessary, and about monitoring the effectiveness of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents, which state that,
“the agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern”,
to ensure that that happens. Otherwise I fear that vulnerable people will continue to suffer and that legal confusion will continue to reign.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Having read the amendment as drafted, I was confused as to whether the mistake was a technical mistake, a mistake of law or a mistake of fact of the basis upon which the order was made. It is not clear from the wording here that the latter is the proper meaning. I am heartened to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that she has received a communication from the Ministry of Justice saying that mistake does not mean the slip rule, which is a very familiar concept to lawyers. It may not be familiar to the bailiff who is knocking on the door. It is important that my noble friend should make it quite clear that a mistake of fact is needed; in other words, that if the magistrates’ court had been aware of the particular circumstances of the individual at the time that the warrant was to be enforced, it would not have made that order. If that is what it means and the Minister says so from the Dispatch Box, I would be satisfied with that. If that is not what it means, we need to discuss the issue further.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I speak in support of government Amendment 152ZA and also speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rix who unfortunately is unable to be present because of his wife’s ill health. I thank the Minister for the extremely productive meeting that we had, which has been mentioned. The points that my noble friend has asked me to raise arise out of the amendment which came after that discussion in support of what was said.
The context of this is the duty of the court to explain sentences in ordinary language, which we raised in Committee. The Minister admitted that the phrase would ensure only that most people could understand an explanation. While we welcome the amendment and believe that it has the ability to extend comprehension of the effect of a sentence on all parties concerned, which is an important development, we are still not certain that it covers the point about ordinary language. On that, we would like some clarification. We believe that the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee could offer a similar safeguard, but we are not sure about where that safeguard extends and how wide it is. Will the Minister clarify how confident she is that the committee will make rules regarding the need to go beyond ordinary language in certain circumstances? Will it actually make these rules? To what extent are the rules made by that committee binding on the court? The concern is that if the rules are merely guidance, they might not be put into practice, despite the best intentions of the Government and the committee.
Will the Minister tell us about the time scales? When will the committee be empowered to make such rules and when might they be enforced? Are we looking at something imminent? Will it depend on when the Bill is passed? Finally, what opportunities will there be for Members of both Houses to scrutinise the implementation of these measures in the future? If they are rules of the committee rather than something in the Bill, it is more difficult for us to monitor them. They have an enormous effect on the people whom we mentioned in Committee and their ability to understand the process of law.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this has been another useful debate. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for the Government’s changes to the duty to explain. I encourage him to feed in his concerns to the committee. I have no doubt whatever that noble Lords will scrutinise how the duty is being implemented. The fact that this may not be part of legislation will not stop people reporting, debating and asking whether this is working as it should. The Government clearly cannot dictate to the committee what it should make its rules on and what it should say, but I have no doubt that when and if noble Lords find that this is not being implemented as they feel it should be, that will have its effect.
On distress warrants, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her guarded welcome of the Government’s amendment. She questioned whether the amendment goes far enough and was kind enough to send an e-mail with a number of questions. She has referred to our response, which gives me an opportunity to expand on or clarify a number of those points. She was concerned, among other things, about whether it allowed for the withdrawal of a distress warrant where there had been a change in the offender’s circumstances or where the offender was deemed to be vulnerable. I will do my best to reassure her on a few points.
It is clear that the government amendment allows for the withdrawal of a warrant where there is a mistake in the decision to issue the warrant in the first place. The amendment covers the case where an offender is not in court when the warrant is issued, which results in the court not having the full information before it. This, in effect, amounts to a mistake. I hope that that also helps to reassure my noble friend Lord Thomas. If there has been a change of circumstances that, had it been known to the court, would have had an impact on the decision to issue a warrant, it is open to the debtor to argue that the warrant had been issued by mistake.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of bailiffs dealing with debtors who find themselves in hardship or appear to be vulnerable. It is important that we strike the right balance between protecting the vulnerable—she is right about that—and ensuring that fines, where appropriate, are paid. Noble Lords will have seen recent criticisms of fine payment rates. The fine is by far the most used sentence of the criminal courts.
In practice, however, when bailiffs come across hardship as defined in the guidance they should not execute the warrant and return it to the court. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I must say that we would welcome any further information on this matter and on the effectiveness, which she has queried, of the guidance. It is very important that that is monitored. The Government do not think that it would be appropriate for a bailiff simply to withdraw a warrant in regard to a fine issued by a court. This could undermine the decision made by the court, which is why such a power is not included in the amendment, although I realise that that will disappoint the noble Baroness. If, however, the fine was imposed because the full facts were not made clear to the court, or they had changed, the provision in the Bill could apply.
In the case of changed circumstances since the fine was imposed, the debtor can contact the court at any time to speak to a fines officer to have the matter reviewed. The Government would encourage any debtor to contact the fines officer or court about a change of circumstance, which is clearly a better approach than waiting until a bailiff seeks to execute a warrant, but it is important that we separate the two parts in that respect.
As I said in Committee, the Government think it is important that bailiffs are dealt with via effective guidance, national standards and contractual obligations. As the noble Baroness knows, the Government are consulting on the operation of bailiffs, and we will carefully consider responses to that consultation. I hope that the noble Baroness and the organisations with which she is associated will feed into that consultation.
I hope that the noble Baroness can be reassured that the government amendment addresses the key legal issue with distress warrants and places the decision on them properly with the courts. How bailiffs operate is a matter for consultation in order to make sure that they operate properly and as we would wish. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness is reassured and content with what the Government have brought forward.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I got the impression that the Minister was saying that outside organisations should do the monitoring. I would argue that the Government have a responsibility to monitor this. I realise that some of this will be covered by the current consultation, but if there is to be a reliance on the national standards and the requirements and standards are not written in the Bill, it is incumbent on the Government to monitor and to make sure, as she said, that these national standards are effective.
Baroness Northover
I understand the noble Baroness’s point. I was trying to indicate that a number of organisations are closely involved in such cases. Their information is extremely useful to the Government because they are often closer. However, the Government have picked up on the concerns, which has led them to decide that they need a consultation on the operation of the bailiffs system. I hope that she will be reassured by that government involvement in trying to take that matter forward.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
My Lords, this group of government amendments contains a number of minor and technical amendments to suspended sentence orders, detention and training orders, youth remand, and the release and recall provision. This group also contains a few substantive amendments to youth remand. Last week, I wrote to all Peers about these amendments, and a copy of the letter has been placed in the House Library. The youth remand-related substantive amendments in this group mean that any imprisonable offences committed while a young person was remanded in prison will be taken into account in order to determine whether a young person has a history of relevant offending.
Amendments 152ZB and 152BZA remove two provisions that are no longer necessary. Clause 75(10) and paragraph 20 of Schedule 9 contain amendments to the Armed Forces Act 2011. The effect is to modify amendments that Schedule 3 to that Act makes to the Armed Forces Act 2006. This was to ensure that those amendments would work if this Bill came into force before the 2011 Act. In fact, the amendments in the 2011 Act will come into force on 2 April 2012, which makes Clause 75(10) and paragraph 20 of Schedule 9 redundant.
Amendments 152YH to 152YQ are technical amendments that will ensure that Armed Forces legislation properly reflects the changes that the Bill makes to the release provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Bill makes changes to Section 240 of the 2003 Act on how relevant periods of remand time are credited towards a prisoner’s sentence, and in Schedule 15 makes certain transitional arrangements. These amendments ensure that these changes are also reflected in the equivalent Armed Forces legislation.
Substantive Amendments 152H, 152K, 152P, 152T, 152U, 152W, 152X, 152YD and 152YF in combination provide that where a young person who is being dealt with under the remand provisions of the Bill has previously committed imprisonable offences while remanded in prison under the current law, such offences can be taken into account when determining whether they reveal a relevant history of offending such that the court may impose electronic monitoring or remand to youth detention accommodation.
Currently, 17 year-olds are treated as adults for remand purposes and can be remanded only to prison. In addition, 15 and 16 year-old boys not deemed vulnerable and made subject to secure remand must also be remanded to prison. Offences committed in prison are not taken into account for the purpose of establishing a history under the equivalent tests in the current legislation, but the restructuring of the remand framework is based on the principle that all under-18s should be remanded according to the same test. Under the new remand framework, remands to prison for under-18s will cease.
These amendments are necessary to ensure that courts remanding offenders under the new framework will take into account any offences committed while an under-18 was previously remanded to prison under the old remand framework. They will ensure that all under-18s subject to the new remand framework or who may be considered for an electronic monitoring requirement on bail are treated equally.
I said before that these are mainly technical amendments, that I wrote to all Peers about them last week, and that a copy of the letter has been placed in the House Library. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover
“(3) In section 223(3) of that Act (power to amend specified periods of time), omit paragraph (c).”
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this is a very important social issue. I do not think that anyone in the House disputes the fact that alcohol-related crime is a scourge blighting too many of our city and town centres and one we must address. I pay tribute to many noble Lords, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Jenkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for ensuring that we have reached this point. Through their amendments in Committee for an alcohol-monitoring requirement, this issue was flagged up in the way that it was last year in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.
In that regard, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who brought her knowledge, experience and wisdom to this area, including when dealing with the previous incarnation of this issue during the debates on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has given an insight into the terrible harm that alcohol-fuelled violence can cause to victims and their families. I applaud the work that she has undertaken to help the Government establish a more effective approach to building active and safer communities, and in particular the work that she is leading to develop community-led, partnership-based approaches to tackling alcohol-fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour.
As noble Lords have demonstrated through their persuasive and informed words, it is vital that we look at new innovative ways of tackling the causes of alcohol-fuelled crime. That is why the Government have committed, as I set out in Committee, to undertake pilots to trial sobriety requirements as part of conditional cautions and community orders. Since then, we have considered the noble Baroness’s amendments. I was also fortunate to listen to the presentation from the United States based around experience in both South Dakota and Hawaii.
We have attempted to capture the essential elements of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in order to provide a practical power for the court to impose sober behaviour on offenders who commit alcohol-related crime. Through these means we will send a clear message that if you abuse your right to drink and damage those around you, that right can be taken away from you. That is why the Government are bringing forward their own amendment which provides courts with a new power to impose an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement as part of a community order or suspended sentence order on an offender who has committed an alcohol-related offence.
The amendment forms an important part of our wider response to these problems, introducing a new and innovative way of tackling the causes of alcohol-fuelled crime through enforced sobriety schemes. I pay tribute at this stage to the work of the London mayor, Boris Johnson, and the deputy mayor, Kit Malthouse, and to their commitment in this area. Their work on the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements is a testament to their determination to make a stand against alcohol-fuelled crime in the capital and we will continue to work with them in the development of this initiative.
The requirement as part of community orders and suspended sentence orders will therefore focus on serious offences, in particular violent offences, where alcohol is often a contributing factor, such as common assault, actual bodily harm, affray and violent disorder. Under the Government’s proposed alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements, offenders will be required by the court to abstain from drinking for a period specified by the court up to 120 days. They will be required either to attend a police station or test centre to be monitored by breathalyser equipment or to wear an alcohol tag around their ankle. This innovative new electronic monitoring technology will test sobriety at half-hourly intervals during the day.
Before imposing a requirement, the court will have to establish a link between alcohol consumption and the offending behaviour. In a case where the offender does not comply with the conditions of the requirement, existing breach proceedings will ensue and the courts will have robust powers to penalise the non-compliance.
I wish to make clear that this requirement does not amount to treatment. That is not to say that supporting programmes such as alcohol awareness and education courses do not have a use here, alongside the abstinence requirement, to help ensure that offenders seek to change their alcohol-fuelled offending behaviour. However, it is distinct from the alcohol treatment requirement and the alcohol specified activity requirement, which seek to treat dependent drinkers and provide advice and support to offenders with other alcohol-related needs. For alcohol-dependent offenders and others needing treatment these options will continue to be the best avenue for addressing these issues.
These new provisions enable the Government to carry out initial trials which will test the processes and practicalities of enforced sobriety schemes and help build the confidence of the probation officials and sentencers who will operate them. We will make use of the lessons learnt to inform further work in this area. We are carrying out an additional pilot to test sobriety schemes as part of conditional cautions. The conditional caution is an out-of-court disposal which aims to tackle low-level crime. The pilot scheme will therefore be targeted at offences such as drunk and disorderly, criminal damage and public disorder, which account for a considerable volume of alcohol-related offences overall. The condition requires an offender to abstain from drinking on the days they are most likely to offend as a result of alcohol and to attend a police station to be tested, using a breathalyser, on those days—for example, Friday, Saturday or Sunday.
We have already had interest from a number of police areas in piloting the conditional caution scheme, particularly from cities where alcohol-fuelled crime is a severe problem. We heard quite a lot about that in Committee. We will announce the pilot areas in the forthcoming government alcohol strategy. The first conditional cautions enforcing sobriety should be administered from April/May. We believe that this is a considered and effective amendment to test out the important concept of reducing alcohol-fuelled crime.
Amendments 152ZC and 152ZD seek to remove provisions under Section 223 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to amend the minimum period of time specified for a drug rehabilitation requirement or alcohol treatment requirement under Sections 209 and 212 of the same Act. The Government are taking forward provisions in the Bill to remove the statutory minimum period for drug rehabilitation requirements and alcohol treatment requirements in order to increase the use and effectiveness of these requirements, allowing for greater flexibility in tailoring and delivering treatment and recovery options to individual needs. Provisions under Section 223 for these requirements are therefore no longer necessary.
The alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement, introduced by our amendments, is to be available to the courts in England and Wales but not, of course, to the courts of Scotland or Northern Ireland. It is our intention that the requirement should not be capable of being imposed by a court in England and Wales on a person who is resident in Scotland or Northern Ireland. We undertake to bring forward and table amendments at Third Reading to make that clear. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I have some amendments in this group, but of course I am absolutely delighted that the Government have decided to bring forward their own amendments. If the House approves those amendments, I will withdraw the amendments in my name. I would like to add my thanks to all Peers from all sides of the House who have worked tirelessly to try to ensure that this localism response for local communities to deal with alcohol-fuelled offences can actually proceed and that this new sentencing ability will be available to the courts. I would also like to single out the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Northover, both of whom have gone to great lengths to listen to all sides of the argument and to take those representations away. I know that they really have worked very hard behind the scenes to get to the point that we have reached today.
The government amendments do not include the “offender pay” content set out in my amendments. I understand that this is a complex issue and, depending on the outcome of the pilots, could be revisited at a later stage, but it has wider implications. The advantage of now being able to proceed with breathalyser pilots as well as tags is that, for those who have to present daily or twice daily for breathalysing, they will encounter staff who will be able to see how they are coping and offer them support to cope with all the other aspects of their lives that they have not been managing well and that have been contributing to their alcohol abuse. There is that support element and I know from the United States that the failure rate with tags is about nine times that with breathalysers. That is partly because the offenders tend to think that the electronics will fail and do not believe in the efficacy of the tags. They sometimes try to tamper with them and so on. It will be very important to see how it works here and compare the different systems.
This week there was a motion to seek international endorsement for these types of programmes from the 180-signatory nations to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. These kinds of schemes are being debated there as well. I have had meetings with police officers from different parts of the UK and a consistent story that comes through is that after 10 pm at night alcohol-related problems are between 80 and 100 per cent of their workload, depending in part on the night of the week. Evidence of decreased reoffending has come from the USA and in the pilots we will be able to see whether that is replicated here. There, they are reporting a more than 50 per cent drop in reoffending at three years; a more than 50 per cent drop in drink-driving offences; and a more than 10 per cent drop in domestic violence. There has also been a fall in incarceration rates. Alcohol use appears to be interrupted before the person who has been abusing the alcohol can actually kill somebody, so they have decreased the very serious end of crime as well. We know that in London the Metropolitan Police recorded 18,500 offences flagged for alcohol. Offences involving violence against the person accounted for 64 per cent of those.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement that the Government have introduced, and I thank my noble friend Lady Northover for the hard work that she has put into bringing together all the parties in order to get an agreement. That is why we have this measure before us tonight. Perhaps I may also say that my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and my noble friend Lady Jenkin have worked over the past few weeks not only to bring this to the attention of the Government but to find a solution that will enable us to see this provision on the statute book before, we hope, too long.
These will be trials, of course, and I hope that they prove a valuable tool in addressing the issue of binge drinkers. During the working week many of these people, of whom there are increasing numbers, hold down responsible jobs; but at the weekend they decide that they have not had a good night out unless they get paralytically drunk, to the point where not only do they have to be helped home but—as the noble Baroness knows, having taken me to visit St Mary’s Hospital Paddington to see the work being done there—they take up huge National Health Service resources. I am sure that if we are going to tackle what in this Chamber we euphemistically refer to as binge drinking, these provisions will be valuable across a range of criminal activity and act as a deterrent for the particular group of binge drinkers who will find it difficult to comply with some of these measures during the working week. They may well start to take some responsibility for their behaviour.
The question of when alcohol dependency becomes a medical condition has already been mentioned. I would stress to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Government should continue as they have started by ensuring that alcohol abuse does not remain the Cinderella of the drugs and alcohol scenario. It is important to ensure that people get appropriate treatment and that it is sustained so that they can recover. As we know, that takes a long time and it takes resources. It is not something that is easy to achieve, but it can be done. I hope that the Government will not take their foot off the pedal in terms of ensuring that proper treatment is available to those who become alcohol dependent.
Finally, these are trials, and as is the case with all trials, it may well be that some defects are identified by the end of the trial period. Some things may not work properly and could be different. If that is the case, I urge the Government not to abandon the trials and say, “Oh well, they didn’t work”—I am sure they will not do that—but to look for ways to modify the proposals, even if it means coming back to the House to make further changes to the legislation. I feel that this is one step on what will be a long journey to identify and address the systemic problems of alcohol abuse that we have in this country.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
I, too, welcome the Government’s statement. I am one of those who have been on this journey since we commenced it in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, I want to express my support for and gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Her single-mindedness and determination have been extraordinary. She has been willing to accommodate the objections that come along, and on the route she has brought together a wide range of supporters for this change, not the least of which is the mayor’s office. Over the period people have quite significantly adjusted their responses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, was also an important part of this process. I agree with what she has just said about how we should move forward with the Government. I also thank the Government for having shifted their position over the past few months. I believe that they have now presented to the House a workable set of propositions. They will be implemented on a trial basis, but they embark on an entirely new approach and are unlike anything we have tried before. It is probably the first time that the word “sobriety” has been used in legislation in this way. I may be wrong on that, but I certainly have not seen it while I have been here over the past decade. It gives us a platform on which we can try to build in the future.
I also congratulate the Government on bringing forward these proposals in advance of publishing their strategy on alcohol. How many times are we given papers and strategies, but not the teeth to accompany them? Yet in this instance the Government are taking action in advance of the words that no doubt will follow when the paper is produced. I think that people across the whole Chamber are very pleased indeed with the progress that has been made over the past months. We look forward to seeing how the trials pan out. They may need to be adjusted, but they will provide the Government and magistrates around the country with a new tool to help us tackle the pernicious problem of the abuse of alcohol.
Baroness Newlove
My Lords, I will not go on for too long because others have covered the issue. I welcome the Government’s take on this, and obviously I want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on her hard work. Her foot has been flat down on the pedal. As someone who has suffered and who is passionate about making a change in our society, I am really grateful for these pilots. As we have just heard from the noble Baroness, after 10 o’clock at night 80 per cent of all crime is alcohol-related. My husband was attacked at 10 o’clock, so I reiterate that this is very important.
I welcome these pilots, but as we have just heard, they are only pilots. However, we have to think outside the box. They are risky, but risks can be turned around. It is important that we do not wait for more victims and families to lose loved ones. We must do what we say on the tin and make communities feel safe and be happier places to live in. I receive many letters from people who hide behind their doors because they are scared of what they are going to face outside. I live with that every day and I want to make sure that we tackle this problem. I am very interested in these pilots and I wait with bated breath to see what they do.
Even the magistrates welcome this development; I have spoken to magistrates in two areas. Also, offenders will be helped to turn their lives around. Even so, their lifestyles are no justification. Drugs and alcohol are no defence for murder, but when it comes to sentencing they are seen as mitigating circumstances along the lines of, “Oh but for the alcohol”. We have to stop justifying alcohol abuse and make changes for the better. I really welcome these amendments from the Government.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I also want to echo the warm congratulations which have been expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on achieving some nine-tenths of what she set out to do in her original amendment. She is quite right to suggest to your Lordships that we should accept the Government’s solution, which omits the “offender pays” part of her original scheme. However, ultimately we will need to consider whether offenders should be made to pay some of the costs that they impose on the community—not specifically in the context of alcohol-related offences, but perhaps over a broader area. I see no reason why “offender pays” schemes should not be considered in a more general way, if not in the context of these particular amendments.
It is excellent news that London is to be one of the pilot areas, considering the huge burden that alcohol-related crime imposes on the capital’s health and criminal justice systems. According to the London health improvement board, the capital suffers a higher rate of alcohol-related violence—particularly sexual violence—than the rest of England, and the total annual cost of the health and social impacts of alcohol misuse to the capital is a staggering £2.46 billion. The more robust the measures for tackling this appalling waste of financial and human resources, the better it will be.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I shall be exceptionally brief. Like my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, I congratulate everybody who has made possible what has happened in the course of the last three or four months. I was a roughrider in the column of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, when she originally raised the South Dakota project. I have no intention of repeating anything that I said on the police Bill, except that I am extremely grateful to her for letting me know, after I remarked in the police Bill proceedings that the South Dakota legislation had been transferred into California, that although the Californian legislation is permissive, the Sacramento experiment is going forward. I am wholly delighted by this turn of events. Having had a very minor part at an earlier stage, I find it very satisfying to see the momentum that has gathered.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am not sure what the correct collective noun is for a group of persuasive Baronesses, but whatever it is, we—the House, and indeed society—are greatly indebted to this particular group of persuasive Baronesses, supported as they have been by the occasional male Member of this House.
I would like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the Government on responding so positively and readily to the proposals to carry forward the pilot scheme and to come forward with a legislative framework to adopt the proposals. These have been pushed very hard by the Mayor of London and, indeed, by London Councils as an organisation. There has been complete unanimity politically in London, and in this House too, about the merits of this scheme.
Coming as I do from a city where, unfortunately, alcohol consumption is particularly high—leading generally to low-level crime and a low level of violence which is nevertheless a disturbing social phenomenon—I am very glad that we are beginning to see an approach here that we hope will make a difference. As has been pointed out, however, an alcohol strategy is still awaited. This is perhaps only a first instalment in what may need to be a major review of how we deal with these problems.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—who has been so much the moving spirit, if I can be forgiven the use of that term, in these matters—mentioned one particular matter: domestic violence. There has been consultation about this, as the noble Baroness rightly said. At a meeting held in May 2011, all the violence-against-women agencies present expressed,
“high levels of concern about this scheme operating in relation to domestic violence”.
They gave as reasons that tackling alcohol in itself,
“does not tackle domestic violence … implies that domestic violence behaviour is driven by alcohol, which is not the case … domestic violence can occur when men are sober”—
or when women are sober, as it is not always one-sided—and,
“implies that physical assault (which is linked with alcohol) is the main/only form of domestic violence”,
as that is not correct either. There was,
“general consensus that the additional elements which would need to be considered for DV”—
domestic violence—
“cases, including risk assessment and support”,
would make the matter very complex.
That is not in any way to derogate from the proposals being made, but it does emphasise the need to look carefully, in the context of the pilot, at what will be run as part of the experiment, and to look very sensitively at the concerns of the organisations that work most closely with women as the principal victims of domestic violence, to see whether this is necessarily the most appropriate way of dealing with those problems.
I certainly have an open mind about that, and I assume that the Government would as well. I am therefore just uttering a word of caution. It should not necessarily be assumed that domestic violence is an appropriate topic for inclusion in a scheme of this kind. It is a matter that needs to be tested. The American experience might be helpful in that respect, of course, but the culture is not necessarily the same here as it is in South Dakota or other parts of the United States. I think that we have to be a little careful about jumping to conclusions.
With that single reservation—it is only a note of caution—I very much endorse the principle and the Government’s amendments. I would also like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said about costs. I assume that the Government would cover the cost of pilots as they take place in localities. In local government parlance, this would be a new burden, and the convention is that such new burdens are funded by government. As it is a pilot, it should not be too expensive to run—and ultimately, we hope, the public purse will benefit significantly from any savings that accrue, not least in the health service, where such savings would be extremely desirable. I mean savings not only in financial resources but in the time and skills of staff.
The Opposition strongly support this principle. With that note of caution, we congratulate the Government and look forward to taking matters further. Perhaps I may also ask whether the Minister or her colleagues would be prepared to meet before the pilots are instituted with representatives of the organisations concerned with violence against women to explore their concerns and to see whether, perhaps together, a joint approach might be worked out to test the scheme in practice or to see how it might be modified to reflect the real concerns they have expressed. We certainly support the Government and these amendments.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Browning for their incredibly kind words to me. However, it is they who have been the doughty fighters who have brought us to this position. I should also like to thank my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Ken Clarke, for his help in taking forward this innovative idea.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned domestic violence, and as both noble Lords emphasised, these are complex issues which require multifaceted approaches. We will need to see how, in tackling the abuse of alcohol, there might be a beneficial effect in this area as well. The provision is not targeted at domestic violence, as noble Lords will appreciate, but we will need to see what we can learn from its possible effects. I would be extremely happy on behalf of the Government to meet the organisations to which the noble Lord referred. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, expressed an interest as well. I really appreciate that and look forward to taking that further forward. It is extremely important that we discuss what is suggested here with such groups.
We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, that alcohol treatment is extremely important; as a spokesperson for health, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that we fully recognise that. I want to reassure the noble Baroness that we believe that the pilots are there so that we can learn from them. We need to learn what works elsewhere and see how it might need to be adapted within our own legal, social and economic situation. However, we are optimistic that these are interesting proposals to take forward.
My noble friend Lord Avebury asked about the funding for the pilots and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also flagged that up. Existing resources will be drawn on for some of the work with breathalysers, but the Government are indeed providing funding for the pilots and this will be announced shortly. My noble friend Lord Avebury asked about the areas for conditional caution pilots. I hope he will be pleased to hear that this will be announced in the alcohol strategy next week.
Above all, I thank noble Lords for their support for the government amendments, and especially for the work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Browning, and others in bringing us to this point. I look forward to our learning from these pilots.
Baroness Northover
“(2) In section 223(3) of that Act (power to amend specified periods of time), omit paragraph (d).”
“Alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement
(1) After section 212 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 insert—
“212A Alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement
(1) In this Part “alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement—
(a) that, subject to such exceptions (if any) as are specified—(i) the offender must abstain from consuming alcohol throughout a specified period, or(ii) the offender must not consume alcohol so that at any time during a specified period there is more than a specified level of alcohol in the offender’s body, and(b) that the offender must, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the offender is complying with provision under paragraph (a), submit during the specified period to monitoring in accordance with specified arrangements.(2) A period specified under subsection (1)(a) must not exceed 120 days.
(3) If the Secretary of State by order prescribes a minimum period for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a period specified under that provision must be at least as long as the period prescribed.
(4) The level of alcohol specified under subsection (1)(a)(ii) must be that prescribed by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of that provision (and a requirement under that provision may not be imposed unless such an order is in force).
(5) An order under subsection (4) may prescribe a level—
(a) by reference to the proportion of alcohol in any one or more of an offender’s breath, blood, urine or sweat, or(b) by some other means.(6) The arrangements for monitoring specified under subsection (1)(b) must be consistent with those prescribed by the Secretary of State by order (and an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement may not be imposed unless such an order is in force).
(7) An order under subsection (6) may in particular prescribe—
(a) arrangements for monitoring by electronic means;(b) arrangements for monitoring by other means of testing.(8) A court may not include an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement in a relevant order unless the following conditions are met.
(9) The first condition is that—
(a) the consumption of alcohol by the offender is an element of the offence for which the order is to be imposed or an associated offence, or(b) the court is satisfied that the consumption of alcohol by the offender was a factor that contributed to the commission of that offence or an associated offence.(10) The second condition is that the court is satisfied that the offender is not dependent on alcohol.
(11) The third condition is that the court does not include an alcohol treatment requirement in the order.
(12) The fourth condition is that the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements for monitoring of the kind to be specified are available in the local justice area to be specified.
(13) In this section—
“alcohol” includes anything containing alcohol;
“specified”, in relation to a relevant order, means specified in the order.”
(2) In section 177 of that Act (community orders), in subsection (1), after paragraph (j) insert—
“(ja) an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement (as defined by section 212A),”.(3) In subsection (2) of that section (limitations on power to impose community order)—
(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (f), and(b) at the end of paragraph (g) insert “, and“(h) section 212A(8) to (12) (alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement).”(4) In section 190 of that Act (imposition of requirements by suspended sentence order), in subsection (1), after paragraph (j) insert—
“(ja) an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement (as defined by section 212A),”.(5) In subsection (2) of that section (limitations on power to impose requirements by suspended sentence order)—
(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (f), and(b) at the end of paragraph (g) insert “, and(h) section 212A(8) to (12) (alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement).”(6) In section 215 of that Act (electronic monitoring requirement), after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) An electronic monitoring requirement may not be included in a relevant order for the purposes of securing the electronic monitoring of the offender’s compliance with an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement.
(6) Subsection (5) does not prevent the inclusion of an electronic monitoring requirement in a relevant order which includes an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement where this is for the purpose of securing the electronic monitoring of an offender’s compliance with a requirement other than the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement.”
(7) In section 223(3) of that Act (provisions to which powers to amend periods of time apply), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) section 212A(2) (alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement)”.(8) In section 305(1) of that Act (interpretation of Part 12), at the appropriate place insert—
““alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement”, in relation to a community order or suspended sentence order, has the meaning given by section 212A;”.”
“Piloting of alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements
(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the coming into force of section (Alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement).
(2) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (1) with the effect that section (Alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement) is in force for the whole of England and Wales (a “general commencement order”) without having previously made a piloting order.
(3) Subsection (2) does not prevent an order under subsection (1) from bringing section (Alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement) into force for the purpose only of making orders under section 212A or 223 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or rules under section 222 of that Act (and such an order is not a general commencement order for the purposes of this section).
(4) A “piloting order” is an order under subsection (1) with the effect that section (Alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement) is force only—
(a) in relation to the area or areas specified in the order, and(b) for the period specified in the order,but otherwise for all purposes, or for all purposes other than application by the Armed Forces Act 2006.(5) If, having made one or more piloting orders, the Secretary of State decides to make a general commencement order, the Secretary of State may by order—
(a) amend section (Alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement) so as to enable the general commencement order to bring it into force with those amendments;(b) amend or repeal any provision of this Act in consequence of provision made under paragraph (a).(6) Amendments under subsection (5)(a) may confer power on the Secretary of State to make an order or rules.
(7) If, having made one or more piloting orders, the Secretary of State decides not to make a general commencement order, the Secretary of State may by order—
(a) repeal section (Alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement);(b) amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 so as to reverse the effect of that section on that Act;(c) make other consequential amendments or repeals.(8) An order under this section may make transitional, transitory or saving provision (including, in the case of a piloting order, provision relating to section (Alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement) ceasing to be in force at the end of the period specified in the order).
(9) An order under this section is to be made by statutory instrument.
(10) A statutory instrument containing—
(a) a general commencement order, or (b) an order under subsection (5) or (7),may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Woolf
“To add restorative justice to the statutory purposes of sentencing
In section 142(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (purposes of sentencing) after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) the achievement of restorative justice,”.”
Lord Woolf
My Lords, Amendments 152BZZA, 152BZZB and 152BZZC all deal with restorative justice. Restorative justice is one of the areas of good news in the criminal justice system. I should have said—I do so with apologies now—that I have the considerable advantage that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, supports what I propose in these amendments. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool would also have supported the amendment had he been able to be present today.
The fact is that the benefits of restorative justice are now widely accepted, but its role in the criminal justice system is sadly lacking in statutory recognition. It is essential that it now receives this recognition, and the Bill would be an appropriate vehicle for that recognition to be provided.
In Committee, an amendment before the House sought to give statutory recognition, but the statutory recognition then proposed is very different from what is now being sought. I have to concede that the amendment that was put before the House then was not, even with the skills of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, capable of being tweaked to achieve the purpose needed. Following in the footsteps of the Government in relation to the amendment that we just dealt with, for which the Government should be congratulated on taking such a positive role, the present amendments were drafted at a very late stage at the end of last week. Those amendments followed a similar pattern, although there is a significant difference between restorative justice and the alcohol and monitoring requirements.
The present amendments are to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides the framework for sentencing that is of great importance to courts up and down the land when they come to sentence. In relation to three separate aspects of the statutory provisions they ask no more than that one of the options—one of the menus—that those statutory provisions should include is restorative justice. That is needed, and it is surprisingly lacking.
The amendments would require the Government to take no action and would require them to spend no money, but they would take into account the fact that it has been established as a result of experience that restorative justice has an important part to play in the administration of justice, not only in ensuring that offenders receive the right sentences from the court, but in protecting victims. I would like to stress that aspect of the matter, because the Ministry of Justice, in its admirable consultative paper, Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses, sets out what a significant role restorative justice can play. Paragraph 114 on page 39 of that document states:
“In partnership with the Home Office we will develop a framework for restorative justice. This will provide guidance to local practitioners and help support them to develop and deliver effective, best practice restorative justice approaches suited to local need”.
That is clearly something that is required. It follows on from the statements in the same publication that in 85 per cent of cases where there has been restorative justice,
“victims who participated in the schemes were satisfied with the experience”.
The document also states that it is estimated that there was a,
“14% reduction in the frequency of re-offending”,
as a consequence of the use of restorative justice.
If the full impact of the amendments now proposed had been delivered in a rather more timely way, there could have been consultation between myself and Ministers so that it could have been explained from the point of view of those who have the task of sentencing in courts just why these amendments are needed and appropriate at this stage. Although the matter was only put down in its current form a late stage, for which I owe the House and the Government an apology, we now have a proposal that fits in with what the Bill is trying to do. I personally can claim very little of the credit for these amendments. They are the product of excellent work by the Prison Reform Trust, of which I declare my position as chairman, the Restorative Justice Council and many others—in particular, Paul Cavadino, whose knowledge in this area is quite outstanding. If the Government cannot accept these amendments today, I urge them to give me and those who support me an opportunity to explain in detail why these amendments are very constructive and have no conceivable downside as far as I can ascertain. I hope the Government will listen and respond to what I have just said.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, it is clear from our debates in Committee that there is agreement in all parts of the House on the merits of restorative justice and the case for ensuring that it is seen as a central and fundamental part of our criminal justice system. I will make five key points. First, it has a salutary impact on many offenders by bringing home to them the impact of their offence on victims. All too often offenders minimise or simply do not think about the effect of their actions on other people. In a restorative justice process the offender has no alternative but to face up to the impact of his or her offences on those at the receiving end. Secondly, restorative justice gives victims much more satisfaction than other ways of dealing with offenders. A lot of research has been carried out on this point. It is clear that victims who have been through restorative justice express satisfaction with that process. It enables victims to tell their story, express their hurt and receive recognition in a way that no other procedure does. It helps to give victims closure, reduce trauma and reduce their fear about the future. Many victims also feel very positive about being involved in a process which can contribute more effectively to the rehabilitation of the offenders. Thirdly, restorative justice reduces reoffending. I have the Home Office research. It found that it did so by around 14 per cent. The process thereby helps to reduce the number of people in the future who would otherwise have suffered loss, distress, injury or damage as a result of crime. Fourthly, restorative justice saves money. The Restorative Justice Consortium has estimated a cost saving of £185 million over two years based on 70,000 cases and a return of £9 for every £1 spent. Finally, a wider use of restorative justice will help to increase public confidence in sentencing. An ICM poll that was carried out last year found that 88 per cent of people wanted victims to have the opportunity to inform offenders of the harm and distress they have caused.
There were a number of speeches in Committee on this matter so I will not repeat all the arguments in favour but I want to put two or three suggestions to the Minister. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has tabled these new clauses and I think they require some discussion, even between now and Third Reading. One way is to include restorative justice in the statutory purposes of sentencing. Another is to enable courts to include restorative justice requirements in community orders. Another option that is open is to spell out that courts can use activities to require offenders to take part in restorative justice processes. Any or all of these proposals and approaches would help to keep restorative justice in the minds of sentencers and to achieve the Government’s aim of ensuring that it becomes a central part of the criminal justice system. This is not the time to look at a final outcome but I hope very much that this will open up a discussion with the Government with a view to seeing if they will move on any of these fronts. I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in what he has said.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. There was an extremely useful conference last week by the Thames Valley Partnership which has been pioneering restorative justice for many years. It was interesting to hear exactly how far the National Offender Management Service has gone in preparing for restorative justice to be administered in every prison and every probation area around the country. Indeed, staff are being trained to do it. In addition, the police have trained the all-important committee supervisors and people who run the committees which make it work. Therefore, it would seem logical if this effort is to be overseen and able to come to fruition that it should be backed up by the statutory recognition in the Bill if at all possible.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. We are entirely in agreement that restorative justice represents a significant way forward. It is calculated, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, to save public funds, reduce reoffending rates and prove acceptable to the wider community, which is not as hard-line in these matters of penal policy as sometimes people imagine. Restorative justice has been shown to be welcomed by 80 per cent of the victims who participate in it. That in itself is a testimony to its effectiveness. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment but, if she is not, I hope that she will undertake to meet the noble and learned Lord and other colleagues before Third Reading to allow a further and final opportunity to discuss the way forward to improving this part of the Bill, recognising that it will contribute to the intentions of the Government.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, these amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia return to the question of restorative justice. The noble Lords have been outstanding exponents of the importance of restorative justice and we appreciate the contribution that they have made in the House, nationally and internationally in this matter. The Government support the principle of restorative justice as part of an effective response to crime. It offers a crucial opportunity, not only to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders by making them face the consequences of their actions and seek to make amends for the damaged inflicted on others, but to give victims a greater stake in the resolution of offences and in the criminal justice system as a whole. Indeed, victim satisfaction rates have been extremely positive. Additional work in this area will enable us to realise the benefits of restorative justice further. We already have encouraging evidence around its impact on reoffending rates and anecdotal evidence that it encourages offenders to seek further necessary interventions, such as drug and alcohol treatment.
As I mentioned in Committee, we are committed to delivering greater use of restorative practices across the criminal justice system and we are putting a great deal of time and effort into building up the capacity of youth offending teams, probation trusts and prisons to provide restorative justice services, investing over £1 million in order to do so. We just heard reference from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to the Thames Valley restorative justice partnership. It is developing training materials and guidance for using restorative justice in the adult system as part of our response to more serious offences. Its experience is invaluable.
These amendments take a three-pronged approach to adding restorative justice to the current legislation. The first would make restorative justice a statutory purpose of sentencing alongside the existing purposes of punishment, reduction of crime, rehabilitation, protection of the public and making reparation to offenders, as set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The second would create a new restorative justice requirement for a community order or suspended sentence order, while the third would add the words “restorative justice” to the existing activity requirement.
Lord Woolf
I thank the noble Baroness for that response and express my gratitude to others who have expressed support for the amendments. I firmly believe that they are an indication of matters that should be undertaken to take restorative justice forward as the noble Baroness just described. After the generous offer that was made for meeting with my noble friend Lord McNally, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
(a) an offence is relevant if, immediately before the commencement day, it is a common law offence or it is contained in an Act or an instrument made under an Act (whether or not the offence is in force at that time), and(b) a”
“( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—
(a) for an offence in relation to which subsection (1) is disapplied to be punishable on summary conviction by a fine or maximum fine of an amount specified or described in the regulations, and(b) ”
(a) ”
(b) a relevant power which, immediately before the commencement day, can be exercised to create an offence punishable on summary conviction by such a fine or maximum fine.”
(a) ”
(b) for the power to be exercisable to create an offence punishable on summary conviction by such a fine or maximum fine.”
“( ) Powers under this section—
(a) may be exercised from time to time, and(b) are without prejudice to other powers to modify fines for relevant offences or fines that may be specified or described when exercising a relevant power.”
“and references to an offence, power or provision contained in an Act or instrument include an offence, power or provision applied by, or extending to England and Wales by virtue of, an Act or instrument.”
Lord McNally
“( ) Powers under this section—
(a) may be exercised from time to time, and(b) are without prejudice to other powers to modify fines for relevant offences or fines that may be specified or described when exercising a relevant power.”
Lord McNally
“Withdrawal of warrants of control issued by fines officer
(1) Schedule 5 to the Courts Act 2003 (collection of fines and other sums imposed on conviction) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 7(1) (Part 3 of Schedule does not apply on an appeal against a further steps notice) for “or 37(9)” substitute “, 37(9) or 37A(4)”.
(3) In paragraph 37(7) (further steps notice must specify steps that fines officer intends to take) for “intends” substitute “wishes to be able”.
(4) After paragraph 37 insert—
“Issue by fines officer of replacement notice37A (1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) the fines officer has delivered to P a notice (“the current notice”) that is—(i) a further steps notice that has not been replaced by a notice under this paragraph, or(ii) a notice under this paragraph that has not been replaced by a further notice under this paragraph,(b) P remains liable to pay any part of the sum due, and(c) the fines officer wishes to be able to take one or more steps listed in paragraph 38 but not specified in the current notice.(2) The fines officer may deliver to P a notice replacing the current notice.
(3) A notice under this paragraph (a “replacement notice”) must—
(a) state that the fines officer intends to take one or more of the steps listed in paragraph 38,(b) specify the steps that the fines officer wishes to be able to take, and(c) be in writing and dated.(4) P may, within 10 working days from the date of a replacement notice, appeal to the magistrates’ court against it.
(5) If a step is being taken in reliance on a notice at the time when the notice is replaced by a replacement notice, the taking of the step may continue despite the replacement.”
(5) In paragraph 38(1) (list of steps referred to)—
(a) after “37(6)(b)” insert “, 37A(3)(a)”, and (b) in paragraph (a) (steps include issuing warrants that authorise taking control, and sale, of goods) for “levying” substitute “recovering”.(6) In paragraph 39 (powers of court on referrals and appeals)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(c)—(i) after “37(9)” insert “or 37A(4)”, and(ii) after “further steps notice” insert “or replacement notice”, and(b) in sub-paragraph (4) after “further steps notice” insert “or replacement notice”.(7) In paragraph 40 (implementation of notice)—
(a) after “further steps notice”, in both places, insert “or replacement notice”, and(b) after “may be taken” insert “and retaken”.(8) After paragraph 40 insert—
“Withdrawal of warrant of control by fines officer40A (1) This paragraph applies if, in taking a step specified in a further steps notice or replacement notice, the fines officer has issued a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum due.
(2) The fines officer may withdraw the warrant if—
(a) P remains liable to pay any part of the sum due, and(b) the fines officer is satisfied that the warrant was issued by mistake, including in particular a mistake made in consequence of the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact.Discharge of warrant of control by magistrates’ court40B (1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) in taking a step specified in a further steps notice or replacement notice, the fines officer has issued a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum due, and(b) the fines officer subsequently refers P’s case to the magistrates’ court under paragraph 42.(2) The magistrates’ court may discharge the warrant if—
(a) P remains liable to pay any part of the sum due, and(b) the power conferred by section 142(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (power of magistrates’ court to re-open cases to rectify mistakes etc) would have been exercisable by the court if the court had issued the warrant.Duty of fines officer if warrant of control withdrawn or discharged40C (1) This paragraph applies if condition A or B is met.
(2) Condition A is that the fines officer has withdrawn a warrant of control under paragraph 40A.
(3) Condition B is that—
(a) in taking a step specified in a further steps notice or replacement notice, the fines officer has issued a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum due,(b) the fines officer has referred P’s case to the magistrates’ court under paragraph 42,(c) the magistrates’ court has discharged the warrant of control under paragraph 40B(2), and(d) the magistrates’ court has not discharged the collection order or exercised any of its powers under paragraph 42(2).(4) If P remains liable to pay any part of the sum due, the fines officer must—
(a) take (or retake) one or more of the steps specified in the further steps notice or replacement notice that was the last notice to be delivered to P under paragraph 37 or 37A before the warrant of control was issued, or (b) deliver to P a replacement notice and take one or more of the steps specified in that notice, or(c) refer P’s case to, or back to, the magistrates’ court under paragraph 42.””
Lord Ramsbotham
“CHAPTER 1AYoung adult offenders strategyYoung Adult Offenders Strategy
(1) The Secretary of State shall in each year—
(a) publish a strategy designed to promote the just and appropriate treatment of young adult offenders in the criminal justice process, and(b) appoint a person with responsibility for leading and co-ordinating the implementation of that strategy. (2) Publication under subsection (1)(a) shall be effected in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the strategy to the attention of persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice and of the public.
(3) For the purposes of this section “young adult offender” means a person who is aged at least 18 but under 21 when convicted.”
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, in an earlier debate today the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said that the two most vulnerable groups in prison are children and women. There is another group that is in many ways the most neglected as well as the most vulnerable, and that is young adults, who are in the halfway house between being children and adults. There is nobody in charge of them—they are lost souls. In the prison system, those in young offender establishments, or the split sites, are poor relations. Most facilities are given to children aged between 15 and 18, under the requirements of the contract let by the Youth Justice Board, and young offenders get what is left, which is frequently not enough to occupy them entirely. Whereas we have a Youth Justice Board concentrating on the needs of children and have had many reports, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, which we discussed earlier, dealing with women, there is nothing dealing with this group other than the Criminal Justice Alliance and the Transition to Adulthood Alliance, which consists of 13 organisations from the criminal justice, health and youth organisations that have been calling for a long time for something to be done about this.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Adebowale and I mentioned the problems of this group, but largely in connection with the community. I want to mention that community trials have been going on but also to focus on imprisonment, because in our prison system at the moment young men of this age group are disproportionately represented. At the end of September 2011, there were 8,317 18 to 20 year-olds in prison in England and Wales. The sentenced numbers in this age group have gone up by 30 per cent since 1997. If we extend the age group to 18 to 24, which is frequently done, we find that although that group represents only one in 10 of the population, it represents one in three of those sentenced to imprisonment and of those in the hands of the probation service. They account for one-third of the total social and economic costs of crime to the nation. In other words, this group represents a particular problem within the criminal justice system, which to my mind does not appear to be properly settled, and indeed has not been for some time.
There are very promising signs. In Committee, we mentioned the success of the intensive alternative to custody schemes, which are being piloted and pioneered by the Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire probation trusts. They were tailored to the specific needs of this age group. The probation officers commenting on the schemes said, interestingly, that this was the first time they could remember having any hope of achieving anything on reoffending with this age group because at last there were programmes that were tailored to their needs. That was in stark contrast to comments made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on young adults in one prison; he said that the young men were “sleeping through their sentences”. Commenting on young offenders in this group as a whole, he said that there was a lack of engagement in work, education and training opportunities across the whole YOI estate.
That cannot be sensible—certainly in terms of tomorrow—because if this group, who are so volatile in criminal activities, are being left to do nothing while they are in the hands of the criminal justice system, it must be a contributor to crime rather than a preventer of it. Commenting on the amendment that I put forward in Committee, the Minister warned that the Government did not have the resources to deliver intensive interventions with or supervision of this age group. I acknowledge that it is expensive. It is not a cheap option to do something with them, but on the other hand I put it to the Government that it is more expensive to do nothing and that we cannot afford that. What should we therefore best do?
Since Committee, I have had extremely productive meetings with the Minister, the Prisons Minister and Simon Boddis, who is the official in NOMS responsible for devising and introducing offender programmes—and who had the good fortune to be my principal psychologist when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons. I must admit that I have been encouraged by much of what I heard about what is going on, in areas such as the introduction of work and drug and alcohol treatment programmes. I have to admit, however, that I am concerned by the apparent overfocusing on payment by results, because I am uncertain whether payment by results really works when measuring reconviction. Who is responsible or not responsible for preventing reconviction? You really do not know which factor, which programme or which event it is, therefore how can you know exactly who qualifies for payment?
Yet in order even to have a payment-by-results regime, you have to have a structure in which it is conducted. What I do not see in the whole NOMS structure, as I have said on many other aspects of the system, is anyone in charge or being responsible for overseeing the programmes. Here you have a perfect example of the intensive alternatives to custody scheme in one part of the system. Why should that not be adopted in the other, and if it is all happening in NOMS, why should somebody not be driving it? If that happened, and if somebody was really focusing on the whole problem, the identification of what is needed and what can be done would be much sharper, and the expenses would become much clearer. Sensible planning would therefore be easier.
Lord Judd
My Lords, in supporting this amendment, briefly, I very much agree with what the noble Lord has just said: that it is a halfway step. Yet better a halfway step than no step at all. I shall make two observations. I had the privilege for nine years of being the president of YMCA in England. I was particularly impressed by the work that it was doing with young people in prisons and detention centres. During that period, I became very concerned about exactly what preoccupies the noble Lord. It is almost as though we were deliberately building the foundations for a wasted and inadequate life, with future social costs and disruption, reoffending and the rest.
We know that society is becoming increasingly competitive and that it has huge pressures for the young. I say not simply on moral grounds, which I feel strongly about, but on the economic grounds that make absolute sense for the future of the country’s economy. To avoid the future expense of things going wrong repeatedly, and if we have any sense at all about rehabilitation and any commitment to it, these years are crucial. It is the very time that people are on the threshold of life, and they need to be equipped to face it. I make a personal plea to your Lordships: just think of our own families and of our own children and grandchildren in this age group. Think of the turmoil that they are faced with and the support that they need to sort out their lives for the future. Why are we ready to abandon these inadequate, neglected people to a system in which they are not getting any kind of support of that sort? I thank the noble Lord for having introduced the amendment, and I am glad to support it.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has outlined as a beginning is a very important thought for the Minister. I hope that he will be able to adopt it. We all know what goes on in prisons with young people. We all know, and now all pretty well agree, that, early intervention, even in a prison situation, but preferably even earlier so that that does not happen, will in the long run save money. The flexible way in which what is proposed has been outlined allows the Minister to organise it in such a way that it can take account of the actual age of the individual. That will be a very good step in the right direction, whether or not it can be written into law. We have plenty of things to try to add to the law in addition to the ones on the agenda. I hope that it will be taken very seriously and that practical steps will be taken.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I rise very briefly to endorse every word that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has said. How much it resonated with me. The older end of YOIs are famously inadequate and have been so for some time, no doubt partly because they are also a famously difficult group. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, highlighted the fact that these are very often young people in transition. Transitions are difficult and absolutely awful to go through. I have always said that I am never off my knees in gratitude that I will never have to be a teenager again. There is merit in the idea that they could be, as it were, somehow incorporated—that, if the arms of the YJB became wide enough, they could encompass them in some way. I am not entirely sure how much the YJB is in favour of such a proposition, but maybe there are ways of choreographing that. However, I have simply risen to say that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has put his finger on a very real and challenging problem.
The other day, I was visiting Merseyside Probation Trust, which is doing an incredible range of first-class work. Its IACs—intensive alternatives to custody—are particularly impressive. I spent some time with one girl who had been through it. She had form like you had never seen and she came singing the praises of the person from the probation service who had been working with her through this process. It was truly worth while in that case. Maybe it is very expensive—it is certainly very time intensive—but it is something that I, along with what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, want to endorse.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, as I sit as a magistrate in both the youth and adult courts, I make one simple point. In the youth courts, we routinely say to youths, “You must behave. If you do not behave, you may come back to the adult court and of course that is a much more serious matter.” What we do not tell them is that the reason that it is a much more serious matter is because there is much less support for them in the adult court system. Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said is absolutely right. We see a huge, disproportionate, number of young men from 18 to 24 years old. There are attendance centres, which do good work. I have been to a number. However, it is very minimal compared with the support that this group needs.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has identified very clearly the nature of the problem and has come forward with proposals to help deal with it. He made a number of points that are very telling. Perhaps a couple of other matters could be added to the issues he referred to. The first is perhaps implicit in what he was saying: the very high reoffending rates among this particular group. The second, and slightly different, point is that there is a disproportionate number of young offenders from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, which is an aspect that we have not much discussed in the course of the Bill. It is not a function of any greater criminality among that group. All the evidences suggest that, for whatever reason, the likelihood of a custodial sentence—or, for that matter, a refusal of bail at an earlier stage—is much greater for people from that group, compared to offenders with comparable offences. There seems to be an in-built bias against BME offenders, which is a matter that needs to be addressed. The other issue is what happens after certain custodial sentences are completed because, after short sentences there is, effectively, no follow-up. That is a significant contributor to the high reoffending rates.
I hope that this proposal—that there should be a requirement to produce a strategy for offenders in this group—commends itself to the Minister. The phrasing of the amendment is perhaps a little difficult in terms of what might be appropriate for statute. However, the principles that the noble Lord has advanced are surely ones that would commend themselves to the Minister. Again, I hope that he can either indicate policy acceptance of the thrust of the amendment or agree that he will consult further with the noble Lord, maybe with a view to bringing back at Third Reading something to meet the common objectives of the Government and Members of your Lordships’ House. Certainly, I would support the noble Lord’s aspirations in this respect.
Lord McNally
My Lords, we keep coming round to these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. As he said, we have had debates in this House and bilateral meetings about them. There is a certain disagreement. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seems to think—and I am sure that this will provoke him to get to his feet to say that I have got it wrong—that we have to have a strategy and a command structure and, after that, all will be well. I am old fashioned enough to believe that the buck stops with the Minister. The constant desire to have strategies is not a real substitute for doing things.
Having said that, I said earlier today that you do not have to be in this job long before you realise that we have too many women in our prisons. Neither do you have to be in this job very long to see that the 18 to 24 year-old age group among males is a key area for criminal behaviour. Therefore, we have to think very hard about how we break this cycle of criminality. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, acknowledges that this is a difficult group. I cannot quite agree with her about regretting that she is no longer a teenager. I would like to be a teenager again, but knowing what I know now. It is a pity that life does not give you that particular deal.
Lord Beecham
Does the noble Lord want to revert to membership of the young socialists a little bit?
Lord McNally
I said that if I knew then—let me get back to the speech. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, acknowledged that the group we are discussing is a difficult one but that many of the ideas for dealing with it are extremely expensive. We are trying to deal with it but the Government’s view is that it is not appropriate to prescribe in detail from the centre processes which purport to improve outcomes. Such a way of working would lead to inflexibility and take up resources which are better deployed elsewhere. We are looking wherever possible to empower local decision-making and delivery by prison and probation trusts so that they use resources in a way that responds to local priorities. That also fits with our policy for the management of young adult offenders as individuals based on an assessment of risks and needs rather than their age.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I expected that response. However, I remind the Minister that I have worked in Whitehall for many years. I do not disagree with him about Ministers being responsible; of course they are, but the question is how do they exercise that responsibility? They cannot do it on a 24 hour, seven days a week basis because they have many other things to do. Therefore, they need a structure to help them do it. The noble Lord referred to a command structure. You can call it what you like but it is a matter of people being responsible and accountable to a Minister for making certain that what the Minister wants to happen does happen. That happens everywhere—in schools, hospitals, businesses and the Armed Forces, but it does not seem to happen in the Prison Service.
I am very concerned about disseminating all responsibility down to the local level. I have said many times in this House that two things are involved in this. One is the question of what should be done, which is the central responsibility, but how it is done is the local responsibility. If you get that the wrong way round and nothing but “how?” comes out from the centre at the top and all the “what” is left down below in the local areas, you get confusion. People in the local areas need to know what they have to do. They should be allowed to disburse their resources locally as there will be different needs in different areas. That again seems to me common sense because unless you have a “what?” coming down, nobody knows where they are going. I have spoken to the chairman of the Youth Justice Board, and I understand that that body would be more than happy to tackle this measure. However, the chairman made the point that she did not want the youth offending teams involved in working with this age group. I accept that entirely. However, the success of the intensive schemes pioneered by the probation service shows that it is taking a keen interest in this group, and I see no reason to interrupt that. Therefore, it seems to me that the framework is there.
The Minister mentioned that a lot of things are going on but was not very specific. In the same spirit in which we have met to talk about many issues after Committee, can we meet to discuss this matter as it is far too important just to be left in the air at half past eight at night without, frankly, it being completely clear? I understand what he says about payment by results.
Lord McNally
I am very willing to meet. The noble Lord knows how much I value his experience, expertise and commitment in this area. I am happy to meet him to discuss this matter as often as he likes. However, later this week I will be sitting down with ministerial colleagues to discuss a detailed report on the various areas of MoJ business with the civil servants with direct line responsibility for them. We will have gone through policy areas and will be looking at various policy outcomes. The idea that somehow the National Offender Management Service is drifting somewhere outside ministerial control or accountability or that it is not being set various tasks and responsibilities is just not true.
On the other side, as has been acknowledged, we are dealing with very difficult and straitened times. The resources available to target this area are extremely limited. We shall see whether we can involve payment by results as one way of getting good results and resources into this area. We do not doubt the problem. I am very willing to continue to have discussions with the noble Lord, but I do not want to give him any false hope that we can go down this way in this Bill.
Lord Ramsbotham
I thank the Minister for that reply. In no way am I seeking to interfere; I am merely seeking to ensure that our commitment to this very important problem is properly recognised because we wish to share everything that he has shared with us that has come up from below to ensure that due account is given when we get an opportunity to do so.
I am not going to talk about payment by results because, as the Minister says, this is early days and the Government have set their sights on it; they have pilot schemes in place and we shall know more. It is premature to take more than that, other than to reflect concerns that are being reflected to me by people who have to operate it on the ground, particularly the small voluntary organisations which operate in this area and which are finding it enormously difficult to survive. In view of the fact that there is so much to play for in this area, it would be sensible to continue the dialogue. Therefore, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, this group of amendments would remove the Government’s proposed amendments to the Bail Act 1976. The Government’s amendments remove certain exceptions to the presumption that bail should be granted to a defendant. Currently, bail can be withheld if judges or magistrates believe that the defendant will commit offences on bail, not turn up for subsequent court hearings, or interfere with witnesses. The Government seek to replace that with a no real prospect of custody test to make it far more likely that low-level offenders will get bail. Of course, currently the vast majority of low-level offenders already get bail.
The Government’s proposed changes are poorly thought through and could, in some cases, have the reverse effect to the one they intend. I understand that they are motivated by looking at the statistics of those who have received community sentences after they had been remanded in custody and then convicted at trial. They believe, in my view wrongly, that they will reduce costs by reducing the number of people who were originally remanded in custody.
I have come up with three practical examples which I believe will undermine the object of the Government’s proposed changes and the premise on which they are based. My first example is that of a sentencing bench. A sentencing bench sits and decides to give a community sentence where a defendant has previously been remanded in custody before trial. The sentencing court will know that, if it gives a prison sentence for a low-level but imprisonable offence, it is very likely that the defendant will walk free on the day of the trial or very shortly afterwards.
However, if the sentencing bench gives a community sentence, there is an opportunity for ongoing intervention by the probation service either through a tailored programme for drug rehabilitation, unpaid work or any of a number of courses that they can make. Of course, it is true that a court will be much better informed when it is giving a sentence than when it is making a decision about bail. I believe that it is misleading—and the Government are misleading themselves when they do so—to look at the bald figures of those who have been remanded in custody and those given community sentences.
My second example is of interfering with witnesses. I acknowledge that in another place an exception has been made in the context of domestic violence. I also accept the point made by the noble Lord in Committee when he said that interfering with witnesses is an offence. However, what about this following scenario: a neighbourhood dispute in which a bailed defendant is accused of interfering with witnesses and pleads not guilty? Of course, there will need to be a trial on the matter, but in the mean time the question of bail arises again. Surely the Government cannot be saying that the court cannot take into account a previous conviction of interfering with witnesses. That absolutely undermines everything that they are saying about putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. I find it impossible to imagine that they really intend that very real scenario.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I will comment briefly. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby made a good point. The question is whether the Bail Act 1976, which as he said has worked pretty well in a practical way at various levels—although no one would claim that it is perfect—needs to be changed by what appears at first blush to be a rather superficial alteration.
I am concerned about the matters raised by my noble friend, to which I hope the Minister will respond tonight, and about the prospect of a custody test and the expectation that a defendant will be given if he is granted bail on the basis that he will not receive a custodial sentence, because it may become absolutely apparent at the time of sentence, for whatever reason—and anyone who has been in a court knows that the facts sometimes do not emerge until very late on—that although the defendant’s expectation is that he will not get a custodial sentence, the court would not be doing its duty unless it gave him one.
The expectation that someone will have once they have been given bail is that they will not—to use common parlance—go down. In my view that is the wrong way around. Magistrates’ courts or Crown Courts should have the discretion that they enjoyed under the Bail Act 1976 to do what they consider to be right in the circumstances, subject to the terms of the Act. Therefore, my view is that the case for change has not been made, and that what is proposed is very superficial.
Lord McNally
I wonder whether one reason why the Magistrates’ Association found itself alone on this is that most other penal reform organisations welcomed a proposal that will prevent people being sent to jail. One of the big arguments that we have had about the inexorable rise in our prison population over recent decades is over whether as a society we are too quick to send people to jail. The no real prospect of custody test simply asks, “If you are not going to imprison a defendant if he is convicted, why should you be able to do so before he has been tried?”.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, tabled amendments that would remove the no real prospect of custody test from some, although not all, of the places in Schedule 11 where it appears. Amendment 152JA would remove the amendment to Section 7 of the Bail Act, which applies to the test to bailed defendants who have been arrested for absconding or breaking their bail conditions. Amendment 152JD would remove the amendment that applies the test to defendants who have committed offences that merit summary imprisonment. However, for some reason the paragraph in Schedule 11 that introduces the no real prospect test for indictable offences is left undisturbed. Amendment 152DA removes the definition of custodial sentences that is relevant to the no real prospect test, but Amendment 152JB appears to remove a consequential amendment that is not directly related to the test.
The noble Lord spoke of the risks to the safety of the public, but how much of a risk is a defendant for whom it can be said that there is no real prospect of custody? We also heard about intimidation. However, as we mentioned, intimidating witnesses is an offence in its own right that is not only imprisonable but likely to result in a custodial sentence. A defendant who is not facing custody for their original offence would be foolish to put themselves at risk of receiving a far more serious sentence by trying to interfere with a witness.
We recognise that special considerations may apply where the circumstances of the offence suggest that there may be a risk of domestic violence. That is why we have included an exception designed to protect those who might be vulnerable in this way. This exception in new paragraph 15 of Schedule 11 would in fact be removed by Amendment 152JC. I do not understand why.
The noble Lord asked me a number of specific questions about the August riots, curfews and the need for sufficient information to be given. It would be fun for me to try to reel off answers from the Dispatch Box, but it would be better, and certainly safer for me, if I wrote to the noble Lord and made that reply available in the Library of the House. He can then contemplate what he will do at Third Reading.
I am not sure that the Magistrates’ Association is on the right path here. We think this is a sensible proposal for keeping people out of prison when it is not strictly necessary for them to be there. I will try to give the noble Lord answers to his questions, but in the mean time I ask him to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
I thank the Minister for that response. I make the point that the Magistrates’ Association and every magistrate I have ever sat with do not want to put people in custody, and the whole purpose of my speech was to point out inconsistencies and a lack of clarity in these proposed changes. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for offering to respond to my specific questions, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
(a) ”
(b) in relation to an offence of which a child has been accused or convicted outside England and Wales, an offence equivalent to an offence that, in England and Wales, is punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment;”
“(9) References in this Chapter to a child being subject to a custodial remand are to the child being—
(a) remanded to local authority accommodation or youth detention accommodation, or (b) subject to a form of custodial detention in a country or territory outside England and Wales while awaiting trial or sentence in that country or territory or during a trial in that country or territory.(10) The reference in subsection (9) to a child being remanded to local authority accommodation or youth detention accommodation includes—
(a) a child being remanded to local authority accommodation under section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, and(b) a child being remanded to prison under that section as modified by section 98 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or under section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948.”
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
(a) “
(b) a child being remanded to prison under that section as modified by section 98 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or under section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948.”
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
“(11) The references in subsection (3)(b) to an imprisonable offence include a reference to an offence—
(a) of which the child or young person has been convicted outside England and Wales, and(b) which is equivalent to an offence that is punishable with imprisonment in England and Wales.(12) The reference in subsection (3)(b) to a child or young person being subject to a custodial remand is to the child or young person being—
(a) remanded to local authority accommodation or youth detention accommodation under section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012,(b) remanded to local authority accommodation under section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 or to prison under that section as modified by section 98 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or under section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948, or(c) subject to a form of custodial detention in a country or territory outside England and Wales while awaiting trial or sentence in that country or territory or during a trial in that country or territory.”
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
“( ) Section 246 (crediting of time in service custody: terms of imprisonment and detention) is amended as follows.
( ) For subsections (2) to (5) substitute—”
“( ) In subsection (6)—
(a) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a), and(b) after paragraph (b) insert “, and“(c) a determinate sentence of detention in a young offender institution,”.”
Lord McNally
“( ) Part 1 of Schedule 13 and section 104(13) so far as it relates to that Part (but this is subject to sub-paragraph (3)).”
“( ) In sub-paragraph (3) “the new provisions” means—
(a) where the direction was given under section 240(3) of the 2003 Act, section 240ZA of that Act;(b) where the direction was given under section 246(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, section 246 of that Act as amended by Part 1 of Schedule 13.”
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
“Duty to release certain prisoners serving a whole life sentence
In Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 after section 28 insert—“28A Duty to release certain prisoners serving a whole life sentence
(1) In the case of a life prisoner who has been made subject to a whole life order, and has served 30 years of his sentence, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, after consulting the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge if available, to refer the case to the Parole Board.
(2) If the Parole Board is satisfied—
(a) that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined, and(b) that in all the circumstances the release of the prisoner on licence would be in the interests of justice,the Parole Board may direct his release under this section.(3) Where the Parole Board has directed a prisoner’s release under this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to release him on licence.””
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I start by seeking to degroup Amendment 153 from the other two amendments in the group.
Amendment 153 concerns the 41 prisoners who are currently serving whole life sentences in England and Wales. Before the Criminal Justice Act 2003, these prisoners would have had their sentences reviewed by the Home Secretary after 25 years. If they had made exceptional progress and there was no other reason for keeping them in prison, the Home Secretary would consider them for release on licence. There was never any question of automatic release. Each case was considered on its own merits. Some were released on licence; some were not.
What I have just described was the settled practice of successive Home Secretaries for many years. It was a humane practice since it gave whole life prisoners the same hope of a review as other life prisoners. When the 2003 Act was going through Parliament this settled practice was somehow overlooked. There is no evidence that it was overlooked on purpose. It was not a deliberate omission. The purpose of this amendment is to restore the position to what it was before 2003, except that the review would be carried out not by the Home Secretary but by the Parole Board. The reason for that is that the Home Secretary no longer has any function in relation to sentencing except the power to release a prisoner on compassionate grounds, a power which has never been exercised.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. All he wants to do in the amendment, as I understand it, is to go back to the pre-2003 position. Because of judgments of the European Court, the Home Secretary is not able to take such a decision, but successive Home Secretaries have not been willing to give this kind of decision to the Parole Board, as envisaged in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.
I believe that the present position is untenable. The noble and learned Lord referred to the case of Vinter, in which it was decided—by a majority of four to three, a tiny majority—that this was not an inhumane process. I do not always have the greatest confidence in this court, which is not a very happy court to be in. When I appeared before it as an attorney, you had half an hour. Your opponent had half an hour in which to reply. You might have had a few minutes to say a few more words but the court would file out having heard the argument and not have any exchange whatever with counsel or carry the matter any further. A few months later you would have a decision.
As I understand it, this matter will undoubtedly go to an appeal. It will be considered by a court of five and the Government may lose. In all probability, it may then go, if leave is given, to the Grand Chamber and the Government may lose. With these tiny votes and these tiny majorities, one cannot be sure what will happen in this court. The Government will be in a very difficult position and will undoubtedly have to take action.
Without any further words, I believe that the present position is not compassionate, is not human and is not in the interests of justice, whatever that may mean. Surely to leave an individual in this kind of limbo, which he was not left in previous to 2003, is not a practice that would commend itself to the civilised world. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment so persuasively moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. We are here concerned with the most awful cases of murder but, as your Lordships have heard, prior to 2003 such cases were reviewed after 25 years. There is no suggestion that that gave rise to any difficulty or any problems at all. The argument for the amendment is very simple. It is simply wrong in principle for anyone, however wicked, to be told that they must spend the whole of their life in prison with no possibility of review, however long is going to elapse and whatever progress they may make.
It is unlikely that a murderer who has committed such grave crimes that he has received a whole-life tariff will ever make the progress that would make release appropriate, but the point surely is that basic humanity demands that the offender has a chance, however remote, to prove to others and to himself that he can live a worthwhile life. It is surely also very unfortunate from the point of view of prison administration that a group of highly dangerous persons —that is, dangerous when they are sentenced—should be told that however well they behave they will never be released. Surely that makes our prisons much more dangerous places.
I have no confidence that the Minister will tell the House this evening that he will accept this amendment. I very much hope that he will but I have no confidence that he will in the light of what he said in Committee. However, I urge him to ask himself whether our penal regime should really be based on a principle of locking the prison door and throwing away the key.
Lord Judd
My Lords, it takes a good deal of cheek for me, as a lay man, to come in after three speeches like that. All I can say is that in the society in which I want to live, no matter how heinous or terrible the crime that has been committed—clearly, these crimes are about terrible things that have happened—that society should be based on the principle of hope of redemption and hope that even the worst offender can become a better and decent person, otherwise it has a very negative culture that undermines a lot more than simply the issue of the prisoner himself. It is about the values and self-confidence of society as a whole. It is high time that this situation was put right. I am very privileged as a lay man to support these well qualified views that we have just heard. I hope that the Minister will take them seriously.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I can be very brief because the speeches that have been made set out the case very well indeed. Proper caution has been taken in the way in which the amendment has been worded. We all know that the people whom we are talking about have committed the most terrible offences and in many cases—in practically every case, I suggest—it may well be, given the caution included in the wording of the proposed new clause, that these people will stay in prison for the rest of their lives. All that the noble and learned Lord is asking, as a matter of principle, is that for anyone after they have served—this is the caution— 30 years of a sentence,
“it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, after consulting the Lord Chief Justice”—
of the day, presumably—
“and the trial judge if available, to refer the case to the Parole Board”.
Surely we have trust and faith in the Parole Board. The Parole Board has to be satisfied that,
“it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined, and … that in all the circumstances the release of the prisoner on licence would be in the interests of justice”.
My argument is that the Parole Board has to make hard findings in any case, particularly in cases of this kind. Even if the Parole Board is satisfied on these matters, the amendment says only that it “may direct his release under this section”.
The amendment is extremely cautious, but it is humane, in the way that has been described, for people who sometimes may seem not to deserve the protection of a humane state. However, we live in one, and surely the point of the penal policy is for it to be humane when it can be.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said in response to this matter in Committee and it seemed to me then that the Government’s real case is—I put it crudely—that the Daily Mail would not like it. If that is really the level of the argument that the Minister is going to put again today, it is quite unsatisfactory for a matter of principle of this kind. I hope that, if the Minister opposes the amendment, he will find a better argument than that.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the better argument is that if I accepted the amendment, the Labour Party would, as it has done on most law and order issues over the past 20 years, try to outbid the hard right to the right. If the noble Lord is announcing a new Labour Party policy on this issue, I shall give way. No, he is not, so let us not go too far down that road.
I acknowledge that this is a cautious amendment. We have heard from some very distinguished and learned Members of the House and I shall not try to match them in legal skills. However, I have been around politics for quite a few years and, in many ways, one has to make political judgments. If we had been debating this in the 1960s along with Sydney Silverman or in the 1970s with Roy Jenkins, we might have found a political atmosphere in which to discuss these issues. Sadly, things have moved on since then and if you are a legal reformer like me you try to make progress where you can.
Part 3 of the Bill carries us forward significantly in two areas of legal reform: reform of IPPs, which we will be discussing later, and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I believe that those are worthwhile measures. I do not think that we are in a position at the moment to move as far as this amendment suggests, cautious though that may be in rational terms. Just as there are passionate arguments about the possibility of ultimate rehabilitation for even the most dangerous offenders, there are equally passionate arguments that there are some prisoners who should never be released under any circumstances. Both views were reflected in the debate in Committee. I do not think that we are in a position—never mind the opinion of the other place—to carry public opinion with us on this matter.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I do not find that response in any way satisfactory. What single reason has the noble Lord for supposing that the public would not accept this amendment, just as they accepted the position before 2003? There was no problem then, so why should there be a problem now, unless it is a problem that has been specifically created by two political parties, each of which is trying to be tougher on crime than the other? That is the political judgment that the noble Lord has made and it has nothing to do with the justice of this amendment or restoring to these people the expectation that they had before 2003. I have no hope of persuading the noble Lord or his party, but I intend to test the opinion of the House, because this is something that should have been accepted by both political parties.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
As the House will remember, Clause 117 provides that if a person has been convicted of a listed offence for which he has been sentenced to 10 years or more and then commits a further offence for which he might expect at least a 10-year sentence in prison, then he “must” be sentenced to life imprisonment unless it would be unjust to do so.
I described this clause in Committee as being pointless and indeed it is, but I now suggest that it is worse than pointless. In Committee, the Minister described the clause as introducing a new mandatory life sentence, and he placed particular emphasis on “mandatory” to show, no doubt, that the Government in this respect are being tough on crime. But a mandatory sentence is one that the court is obliged to pass, like the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder. This clause is quite different from that.
Despite the use of “must”, the clause recognises that the judge will in fact pass the sentence which, in the particular circumstances, he believes to be the just sentence. That is exactly what judges always do when sentencing. Why then do the Government persist in calling it a mandatory sentence? It cannot surely be in order to create some sort of presumption that a life sentence should be passed. How would the judge begin to know what weight to give to such a presumption? Calling it a mandatory life sentence and the use of “must” in the light of the judge’s ability to pass the sentence he believes to be just is simply a contradiction in terms. To create contradictions in terms in all legislation is a mistake, particularly in legislation of a criminal kind which has to be interpreted by the courts. What the clause could have said was that the court “may” pass a life sentence in these circumstances. That would at least serve some purpose because it would cover those rare cases where the second offence does not carry with it a life sentence as its maximum. As it is, the clause is not only pointless for the reasons I have gone into but it is also ambiguous.
I have one other point. Do we want to create more life sentences? I look round to see if the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, is here and I do not thinks she is, so I will make the points which I know she would have made. She quoted what are on any view some very surprising figures that we have in England and Wales 7,663 persons serving life sentences. The figures, which have been provided by the Council of Europe, show that, whereas we have 12 lifers for 100,000 members of the population, for France the proportion is 0.85 per cent, for Germany it is 2.4 per cent, for the Netherlands it is 0.14 per cent, and for Sweden it is just over 1 per cent. The conclusion from these figures is inevitable. We have far too many prisoners serving life sentences when a long determinate sentence would do just as well. As for deterrence, it is very fanciful to suppose that a prisoner having served 10 years already would be deterred by the prospect of a life sentence rather than a long deterrent sentence and decide thereafter to go straight.
As for Amendment 157, we have a new Clause 134 which creates an offence of threatening with a knife. It too carries a mandatory sentence and, as such, suffers from all the defects which I have already mentioned in the earlier debate. It is even more pointless for the reason that we already have an offence of carrying a knife in a public place under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It carries a maximum sentence of four years. In 2003 the Court of Appeal issued guidelines in which it said that if the knife was used to threaten, then the sentence should be towards the upper end of the scale. What, then, can be the purpose of now creating a new offence of threatening with a knife, carrying the same maximum sentence of four years? Clause 134 is exactly covered by the existing legislation. Its only purpose I can see is, as I have said before, to give the impression that the Government are doing something about knife crime. If they think that, then they deceive themselves. The only way to do anything about knife crime, as I mentioned in Committee, is to do what has been done in Glasgow and that is to get in among the gangs who use these knives. There, knife crime has been reduced by an astonishing 82 per cent. That is the way to reduce knife crime, not cluttering up the statute book with unnecessary provisions such as this. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, a concern expressed by some noble Lords in Committee seemed to be that the new mandatory life sentence would be pointless—a word that the noble and learned Lord used several times—because courts will not have to apply it if it would be unjust to do so. It is right to say that the court will retain a discretion not to impose the new mandatory life sentence when the particular circumstances of the offence or the offender would make it unjust to do so. But that is very far indeed from meaning that the sentence is pointless. Save for murder, all mandatory sentence requirements on the statute book contain an exception of this kind. It is done so that mandatory sentence requirements will be compatible with human rights, and to prevent arbitrary sentencing, which cannot take any account of specific and individual circumstances. It is clearly not a permission or excuse for the court to do away with the mandatory sentence requirement. We expect that in the majority of cases the exception will not be engaged at all.
Last summer we made a commitment to introduce a tougher determinate sentencing regime to replace IPPs. A key element of that regime is mandatory life sentences for the most serious repeat offenders. The mandatory sentence requirement in Clause 117 will ensure that the worst repeat sexual and violent offenders receive a life sentence.
Amendment 157 would remove Clause 134, a new knife offence, from the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, argued in Committee that the two new offences in Clause 134 are adequately covered by existing legislation and that, therefore, there is no reason for creating them. It is true that unlawful possession of a knife or offensive weapon is already a serious criminal offence which carries a maximum custodial sentence of four years. The intention of Clause 134 is to strengthen this existing legislative framework by targeting behaviour that amounts to more than simple possession but does not go so far as resulting in injury to the victim. The new offence will complement the existing offences of possession, which deal with those who carry offensive weapons or bladed or pointed articles in public places or schools without lawful authority, or reasonable excuse or good reason. It will do so by targeting behaviour that goes beyond possession, specifically targeting instances where an individual brandishes a knife or weapon, threatening another and placing them at immediate risk of serious physical harm. We want to send a strong message that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. The minimum sentence attached to the new offence drives home the point that this kind of behaviour is extremely serious, even if it does not carry through into causing actual physical harm. Indeed, threatening people and placing them in fear of serious physical harm is serious enough that people should expect to face custody if they act in this way.
I know that the noble and learned Lord is particularly concerned about the minimum sentence for 16 and 17 year-olds contained in the new offences. I understand his concern, but in the other place my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear at Third Reading that the Government had listened carefully to the arguments made in support of extending a minimum custodial sentence to all those under 18. The Government had then decided, on balance, that it would be appropriate to extend the minimum sentence to the narrower group of 16 and 17 year-olds who commit these offences. The Government have not made the decision to create these offences lightly, but consider it appropriate to have minimum sentences set out in legislation when a particular offence demands a firm and unequivocal response.
The Government cannot accept this amendment. To do so would undermine the strong message sent by this clause. We need this to complement the much wider range of initiatives we have in place to address problems posed by people who unlawfully carry or use knives in our communities. We believe that, in respect of 16 and 17 year-olds, Clause 134 strikes the right balance. I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment, and that this clause and Clause 134 should remain in the Bill.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, the noble Lord has not explained how a life sentence in the first amendment could in reality act as any greater deterrent than a second long determinate sentence. Nor has he dealt or attempted to deal with the astonishing figures that I mentioned, which show that we seem to have a thirst for creating life sentences that is entirely unique to the United Kingdom. It is not seen anywhere else in Europe. Nor, coming to the second amendment, has he explained why it is necessary to have another offence covering exactly the same ground as the existing offence. Of course it may be limited to handling a knife, but it is not confined to handling and clearly covers threatening, which is now given a new offence with exactly the same maximum sentence. However, I see that the Government cannot be persuaded, and therefore I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“46 (1) Any offence that—
(a) was abolished (with or without savings) before the coming into force of this Schedule, and(b) would, if committed on the relevant day, have constituted an offence specified in Part 1 of this Schedule.(2) “Relevant day”, in relation to an offence, means—
(a) for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of section 246A(2), the day on which the offender was convicted of that offence, and(b) for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of sections 224A(4) and 226A(2), the day on which the offender was convicted of the offence referred to in section 224A(1)(a) or 226A(1)(a) (as appropriate).”
Lord McNally
“13A In section 156 (pre-sentence reports and other requirements) after subsection (8) insert—
“(9) References in subsections (1) and (3) to a court forming the opinions mentioned in sections 152(2) and 153(2) include a court forming those opinions for the purposes of section 224A(3).””
“15A In section 224 (meaning of “specified offence” etc) in subsection (2)(b) for “225” substitute “224A”.”
“(3) In section 305(4) (interpretation of Part 12) in paragraph (bb) (inserted by paragraph 21 of this Schedule) after “imprisonment for life” insert “or, if the person is aged at least 18 but under 21, custody for life”.”
Lord McNally
“(10) In subsections (1)(a) and (8), references to a specified offence, a specified violent offence and a specified sexual offence include an offence that—
(a) was abolished before 4 April 2005, and(b) would have constituted such an offence if committed on the day on which the offender was convicted of the offence.(11) Where the offence mentioned in subsection (1)(a) was committed before 4 April 2005—
(a) subsection (1)(c) has effect as if the words “by section 224A or 225(2)” were omitted, and(b) subsection (6) has effect as if the words “in compliance with section 153(2)” were omitted.”
Lord Dholakia
“(10) The court must specify whether the requisite custodial period shall be one-half or two-thirds of the appropriate custodial term determined by the court.”
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, Clauses 118 and 119 deal with the new extended sentence and release on licence matters. I do not question the Government’s intention in what they are trying to achieve, but I do question the discrepancy that these clauses would create. My amendments would give the courts discretion over the release date of offenders given extended sentences. In appropriate cases, courts would be able to retain the current position whereby prisoners serving extended sentences are released after half the sentence. In other cases, where the court considered it necessary, it could specify that the offender will not be released until he or she has served two-thirds of the sentence.
At present, prisoners serving determinate sentences are released on licence after serving half the sentence in custody. This also currently applies to offenders serving extended sentences. Up to now, the point of an extended sentence has not been to increase the period which offenders spend in custody. Extended sentences are currently intended to make sure that when offenders who pose a risk to the public are released, they are subject to a longer period than usual of post-release supervision on licence. This means that they are subject to restrictive conditions and controls at the same time as receiving constructive rehabilitative help from the probation service. If offenders breach the conditions of their licence, they can be recalled to prison. This is a very useful provision which means that society maintains control over these offenders’ behaviour for a long period. However, the Bill would increase the time which an offender given an extended sentence spends in prison by stipulating that all extended sentence prisoners will not be released until the two-thirds point of their sentence.
When we debated this matter in Committee on 9 February, my noble friend Lord McNally explained the Government’s view that this would be appropriate for some prisoners who would now be given IPP sentences. However, the change in the Bill will not apply only to offenders who would now receive an IPP sentence. It will also apply to people who would currently receive an extended sentence. In future, these offenders will also have to serve longer in custody if this provision in the Bill remains unchanged. The Government have produced no explanation to demonstrate why it is necessary to change the rules for prisoners of the type who would now receive an extended sentence.
As the Bill stands, a court wishing to impose an extended period of post-release supervision will be able to do so in future only if it passes a sentence which also increases the length of time spent in custody before release to two-thirds of the sentence. If a judge does not want to increase the time that the offender spends in prison but simply wants to make sure that he or she has an extended period of supervision on release, why should he not be able to order this as he can under the current provisions for extended sentences?
When I moved a similar amendment in Committee on 9 February, my noble friend Lord McNally said:
“I listened to my noble friend’s idea about discretion … I will ponder this one between now and Report”.— [Official Report, 9/2/12; col. 467.]
That is the stage we have reached. These amendments give my noble friend the opportunity to let us know the result of his thinking on my suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I was teased earlier in the day about my Labour and trade union past. One quote that sticks in my mind is from the great TUC general secretary George Woodcock, who once said that good trade unionism is a serious of squalid compromises. Sometimes law reform or criminal justice reform is a series of compromises. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, shakes his head. Of course it is. We have to carry Parliament with us, we have to carry the various parts of the coalition Government with us, and we have to carry public opinion with us. Reflecting on my noble friend’s amendment, when we announced our decision to reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, one of the campaigning groups rang up and said, “But you have not gone as far as Labour promised in their 2002 White Paper”. That is true, but we were reforming the Act for the first time in 37 years. Labour had talked big and done nothing.
A key element of our IPP replacement regime is the new extended determinate sentence for dangerous offenders. On this sentence, the offender will always serve at least two-thirds of the custodial term in prison. In the most serious cases early release will be at Parole Board discretion. This means that offenders stay inside until the end of that term. My noble friend has proposed that the court should have a discretion as to whether the minimum time in prison offenders on the new extended sentence should serve is one-half or two-thirds of the custodial term. He has explained that one of his key concerns is that there should be an appropriately long licence for the offender without the need to increase the period spent in prison. I have written to my noble friend to address the point regarding the licence.
The new extended licence consists of a custodial term set by the court, during which—or at the end of which—release will occur. This must then be followed by an extended period of licence, which is also set by the court, and may be up to five years in length for a violent offence and eight years in length for a sexual offence. The courts will base the custodial term on seriousness and factors relevant to that. The extended licence period will address risk. As the proposals stand, the court should be able to impose a sentence that will require a suitably long period of licence regardless of when during the custodial term the offender is released. Therefore, I do not think there is a problem with licence, but if there were I am not sure that this amendment would be the solution. It would be entirely possible for a serious offender to remain in prison until the end of the custodial term regardless of the point at which he becomes eligible for parole.
I also note that this would be a new decision for judges, and it is not clear on what basis they would make it. Seriousness and risk management are already addressed by the decisions the court will already make in relation to the sentence. Asking them to decide additionally between different sentence formats would seem to make this a very complex sentencing decision.
Finally, as I have said before, in June last year the Government committed to introducing a tougher determinate sentencing regime to replace IPPs. A key part of that tougher regime is that those on public protection sentences, now that they are no longer liable to receive IPP sentences, will spend more of their determinate sentence in prison. We think this is needed to enhance public protection and deliver public confidence. It will provide more time for offenders and the National Offender Management Service to work towards rehabilitation. I know that my noble friend and his friends in NACRO will continue to campaign on these issues and it is right that they should do so. However, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I am delighted with the information he has given. It is always nice to niggle him from time to time so that we can hear some lovely anecdotes. As long as he keeps bashing the Labour Party, I have no reason not to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“(8) In subsections (1)(a) and (6), references to a specified offence, a specified violent offence and a specified sexual offence include an offence that—
(a) was abolished before 4 April 2005, and(b) would have constituted such an offence if committed on the day on which the offender was convicted of the offence. (9) Where the offence mentioned in subsection (1)(a) was committed before 4 April 2005—
(a) subsection (1) has effect as if paragraph (c) were omitted, and(b) subsection (4) has effect as if the words “in compliance with section 153(2)” were omitted.”
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
“4 (1) Section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (extension of disqualification where custodial sentence imposed as well as driving disqualification) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4)(e)—
(a) for “227” substitute “226A”, (b) for “half” substitute “two-thirds of”, and (c) for “227(2C)(a)” substitute “226A(5)(a)”.(3) In subsection (4)(f)—
(a) for “228” substitute “226B”, (b) for “half” substitute “two-thirds of”, and(c) for “228(2B)(a)” substitute “226B(3)(a)”.(4) In subsection (8) omit “or 247(2)”.
(5) In subsection (9) omit paragraph (b).”
“Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c.43)4A In Schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (transfer of prisoners within the British Islands) in paragraph 9(2)(a) after “244,” insert “246A,”.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37)4B In section 51A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (sending cases to the Crown Court: children and young persons) in subsection (3)(d) for “226(3) or 228(2)” substitute “226B”.”
“5A In section 3A (committal for sentence of dangerous adult offenders) in subsection (2) for “225(3) or 227(2)” substitute “226A”.
5B In section 3C (committal for sentence of dangerous young offenders) in subsection (2) for “226(3) or 228(2)” substitute “226B”.”
“6A (4) Section 82A (determination of tariffs of life prisoners) is amended as follows.
(5) Omit subsection (4A).
(6) In subsection (7) for the definition of “life sentence” substitute—
““life sentence” means a sentence mentioned in subsection (2) of section 34 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 other than a sentence mentioned in paragraph (d) or (e) of that subsection.””
“9 (1) Section 106A (interaction of detention and training orders with sentences of detention) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), in paragraph (b) of the definition of “sentence of detention”, after “section” insert “226B or”.
(3) In subsection (6)—
(a) before “228” insert “226B or”, and(b) after “Board under” insert “subsection (5)(b) of section 246A or (as the case may be)”.”
“9A (1) Section 147A (extension of driving disqualification where custodial sentence also imposed) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4)(e)—
(a) for “227” substitute “226A”, (b) for “half” substitute “two-thirds of”, and(c) for “227(2C)(a)” substitute “226A(5)(a)”.(3) In subsection (4)(f)—
(a) for “228” substitute “226B”, (b) for “half” substitute “two-thirds of”, and(c) for “228(2B)(a)” substitute “226B(3)(a)”.(4) In subsection (8) omit “or 247(2)”.
(5) In subsection (9) omit paragraph (b).”
“16 (1) Section 156 (pre-sentence reports and other requirements) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)(a) for “section 227(1)(b) or section 228(1)(b)(i)” substitute “section 226A(1)(b) or section 226B(1)(b)”.
(3) After subsection (9) (inserted by paragraph 13A of Schedule 19) insert—
“(10) The reference in subsection (1) to a court forming the opinion mentioned in section 153(2) includes a court forming that opinion for the purposes of section 226A(6) or 226B(4).”.
“16A In the heading of section 225 (life sentence or imprisonment for public protection for serious offences) omit “or imprisonment for public protection”.
16B In the heading of section 226 (detention for life or detention for public protection for serious offences by those aged under 18) omit “or detention for public protection”.
16C In section 231 (appeals where convictions set aside) in subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a) after “225(3)” insert “, 226A”,(b) in paragraph (b)— (i) before “227(2A)” insert “226A(2) or”, and(ii) before “227(2B)” insert “226A(3) or”, and(c) in paragraph (c) after “may be)” insert “226A(2) or”.16D Omit section 232 (certificates of convictions for the purposes of sections 225 and 227).”
“19A In section 330 (orders and rules) in subsection (5)(a) omit—
(a) “227(6),”, and (b) “228(7)”. 19B Omit Schedule 15A (offences specified for the purposes of sections 225(3A) and 227(2A)).”
“Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c.28)20A In section 45(1)(a) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (sentences or orders triggering notification requirements under Part 4 of that Act) after sub-paragraph (vi) (but before the “or” at the end of that sub-paragraph) insert—
“(via) detention under section 226B of that Act (extended sentence of detention for certain dangerous offenders aged under 18),”.Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c.25)20B (1) Section 126 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (determination of tariffs etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) omit paragraphs (a) and (b), (b) in paragraph (c) for “227 of that Act” substitute “226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003”, and(c) in paragraph (d) for “228” substitute “226B”.(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) omit paragraph (b),(b) in paragraph (c) for “227(3) of that Act” substitute “226A(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003”, and(c) in paragraph (d) for “228(3)” substitute “226B(4)”.(4) In subsection (4) for the words from “has” to the end substitute “means a sentence mentioned in subsection (2) of section 34 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 other than a sentence mentioned in paragraph (d) or (e) of that subsection”.
Consequential repeals20C In consequence of amendments made by section 116, 118 or 119 or this Schedule—
(a) in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, omit paragraph 4 of Schedule 18, and(b) in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 omit— (i) sections 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18(2);(ii) Schedule 5;(iii) in Schedule 26, paragraph 76.”
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
“Sections 116, 118 and 119: consequential and transitory provision
Schedule 20 (abolition of certain sentences for dangerous offenders and new extended sentences: consequential and transitory provision) has effect.”
Lord McNally
“2 (1) Section 237 (meaning of “fixed-term prisoner” etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b), before “227” insert “226A, 226B,”.
(3) In subsection (3), before “227” insert “226A or”.”
“4A (1) Section 246 (power to release prisoners on licence) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4)(a), after “section” insert “226A,”.
(3) In subsection (6), in the definition of “term of imprisonment”, before “227” insert “226A, 226B,”.”
“(b) before the second “227” insert “226A, 226B,”.”
“6A In section 258 (early release of fine defaulters and contemnors), in subsection (3A), before “227” insert “226A, 226B,”.”
“(3) In subsection (7) before “227” insert “226A, 226B,”.”
Lord McNally
“Dangerous offenders subject to service law etc
Schedule (Dangerous offenders subject to service law etc) (dangerous offenders subject to service law etc) has effect.”
Lord Ramsbotham
“( ) The Secretary of State shall—
( ) delegate responsibility for implementing release plans for IPP prisoners, and( ) make a Statement to both Houses of Parliament setting out to whom they have delegated this responsibility.( ) The Secretary of State shall, once the work is completed and within one year of enactment, report to both Houses of Parliament when all release plans for IPP prisoners are completed.”
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can. Overcrowding, as we all know, is the scourge of imprisonment. With far too many people in prison who should not be there, inadequate resources are unable to be deployed to the people who need them most; that is, the people who present the greatest risk to the public.
Having welcomed the end of the unspeakable indeterminate sentence in this Bill, I was very concerned about those people who are in prison serving indeterminate sentences who do not know their release date. Some have already exceeded their tariff and more exceed their tariff almost every day. That is why I raised the issue in Committee. I was very grateful to the Minister for his letter of 16 February in response, in which he described to me the workings of the Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners Co-ordination Group, which had been set up in 2010 not to manage the cases of individual prisoners but, interestingly enough, to provide strategic oversight—a word for which I was berated by the Minister earlier—and co-ordination of the whole system of management of the whole sentence itself.
The purpose of this group is, apparently, to develop and promote the most effective means of managing indeterminate sentence prisoners and to ensure that resources are effectively directed. To this end, it has developed and co-ordinated strategies about assessment, sentence planning and delivery, access to interventions in the parole process, prison capacity issues and control in the community following release. It has also developed a tool for providing information on the numbers requiring specific interventions and also allocation to local prisons. In other words, there is a strategy; there is a group responsible for overseeing the strategy; and there is a tool for doing what is required. The only thing that is missing is the application of all this to the individuals who need individual plans made; otherwise, they will stay in prison for an indeterminate time caused by the fact that there are not the resources to do anything about getting them out.
In Committee, I proposed that it might be worth changing the burden of proof so that the Prison Service had to prove why someone should not be released rather than the person concerned having to prove that they should be. Therefore, this amendment is very much related to the information that the Minister gave me. Why could not the Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners Co-ordination Group be entrusted with making the plans for every individual indeterminate sentence prisoner, so that people—most particularly, those prisoners and their families from whom I receive several letters every day—know something about their future? I tabled this amendment again in the hope that something will be done to tackle this problem; otherwise I fear that the Government will be tarred with the same brush as those who introduced the sentence in the first place. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“( ) The Secretary of State shall report to both Houses of Parliament every six months thereafter—
( ) the number of IPP prisoners remaining in custody after the tariff date in each case has expired,( ) the arrangements made for such prisoners to complete their courses,( ) the proportion of such prisoners who have already completed their courses, and( ) the number of outstanding applications to the Parole Board for release.”
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Amendment 154YUA would add the need for reports to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Although I welcome the abolition of IPPs, I am still concerned about those who have served their tariff but have not been released. The best way of dealing with that is to keep a very close eye on what happens to them. Under my amendment we would know every six months the number of IPP prisoners remaining in custody after their tariff date has expired, the arrangements made for them to complete their courses, the proportion of such prisoners who have already completed their courses, and the number of outstanding applications to the parole board for release. One would hope that within a foreseeable period, perhaps two years, one would see that there was no need for a report because there were no IPP prisoners left in this category. That is the purpose of my amendment, and I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. He identifies a useful process and an obligation on the Government to ensure that cases are properly considered and that there is a reasonable way of reporting back on them.
Although I sympathise with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I do not find the content of it particularly persuasive. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to delegate the responsibility for implementing release plans without saying to whom the responsibility should be delegated. That would be odd in primary legislation. The requirement to report within a year of enactment on all cases seems to be too restrictive, given that unfortunately under the previous Government there was a backlog in working with such prisoners, and it is not at all clear how much work would be involved and what resources would be required to deal with the current numbers. It is not really acceptable for the timescale to be in the Bill in this form.
Having said that, if the noble Lord were minded to look seriously at the propositions—and I would certainly commend the thinking behind them if not necessarily the precise formulation that reaches us in the form of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—that could be brought back for consideration at Third Reading. The direction of travel is right but the precise route is somewhat questionable. I hope that the Minister will think sympathetically about the underlying approach of the two noble Lords whose amendments are before the House.
Lord McNally
My Lords, we return to the issue of dealing with IPP prisoners. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that I do not think there is any doubt about the direction of travel. I am dubious about whether we need the kind of prescriptions in both amendments. Ministers are here to be questioned by Parliament. I do not think that there would be any problem in finding opportunities to check on progress, but let us see.
The Government, through the National Offender Management Service, have already made significant improvements to increase the supply of rehabilitation interventions for this group. One of the main criticisms of IPPs was that people became trapped in them in a kind of Catch-22; they had to fulfil certain requirements to be considered for release but the facilities and channels to get these qualifications, improvements and records were not there. Better use is already being made of sentence plans to prioritise interventions for existing IPPs where the need is greatest, and work is under way to ensure that programmes can be delivered more flexibly, supporting greater access and the inclusion of offenders with more complex needs such as learning difficulties.
In addition, a new specification for offender management, which will provide for the prioritisation of resources based on risk, will take effect from April 2012. Once embedded, this will result in the improved targeting of rehabilitative interventions for IPP prisoners. We are using a range of measures to improve the progression of these prisoners through their sentence, including improvements to assessment, sentence planning, and delivery and parole review processes.
I wrote to the noble Lord following Committee about the work that NOMS is doing to improve support for these prisoners, and I summarise the key points here. First, we plan to issue a prison service instruction that will require effective and realistic sentence plans to be put in place for all offenders on the new extended sentence and for IPP prisoners already in the system.
On the administration of support for IPP prisoners, there are already appropriate structures in place within NOMS to carry out this work. The Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners Co-ordination Group is the NOMS body responsible for co-ordinating the management of all indeterminate sentence prisoners—that is, lifers as well as IPPs. The group’s purpose is to develop and promote the most effective means of managing this group of offenders and to ensure that resources are directed effectively. For example, the group has mandated work to improve the speed of allocation to open prison and identify ways of increasing capacity in the open prison estate for the IPPs, and has co-ordinated the introduction of a new centralised system for organising their transfer.
On the specific amendment, I should make it clear that, as legislation currently stands, it would not be possible for the Secretary of State to produce or delegate anything other than sentence plans for these offenders that may or may not result in progress to a quick release on licence. Statutorily, only the Parole Board can actually direct the release of IPP prisoners on the basis of risk criteria. Amending that situation would be a substantial change to sentences that have already been imposed and would require primary legislation. In Committee, I made it clear that the Government do not believe that that would be appropriate. On the proposal that such plans should be delegated, I noted that it would be unusual for legislation to go into this type of detail about the administration of executive duties.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford proposed a requirement for the Secretary of State to report regularly to Parliament on IPP prisoner parole status and interventions. Information on the number of IPP prisoners whose tariff has expired is published in the quarterly offender management statistics published by my department. The Parole Board’s annual report publishes comprehensive data on its IPP application workload and backlog. I must resist the requirement to report on programmes in individual cases, as this would be hugely difficult to achieve. Offender managers will regularly review and update sentence plans.
Our recent research suggests that while the Parole Board will take account of the completion of accredited programmes when considering whether to direct the release of an IPP prisoner, this is only one part of the evidence that it will consider. Research shows that the parole process is targeted on the individual, and only programmes specific to the individual’s needs that are successfully completed and show some impact on the prisoner are likely to be taken as evidence of sentence progression. Simply counting completed courses will not be good evidence of how prisoners in general are progressing.
I hope that I have said enough to reassure the House that we have already put effective measures in place to support these prisoners’ progress towards release while keeping paramount our concerns for public safety. We have not introduced these reforms to the IPP system simply to see them fail. The biggest incentives for making sure that our reforms work are for the Ministers who brought them in, and we will be pleased to be judged by our results. I hope that both noble Lords will withdraw their amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I believe that I should reply first. The Minister’s response was encouraging. He said that Ministers were here to be questioned. I shall make a note in my diary to put in a Written Question every six months, asking for the information—or something like it—that I seek in the amendment. It is very important that a close eye is kept on those who remain under an IPP sentence but whose tariff has expired. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Gresford, that perhaps we could put in Written Questions every other six months.
I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said. Having tried various proposals in Committee and seen them rejected, I searched for other proposals. Perhaps we have learnt not only that there is a genuine desire for progress, which the Minister outlined, but that he has a tool that will enable him to answer our Written Questions, which I assure him he will receive. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord McNally
Baroness Gale
“Disclosure of information about convictions etc. of violent abusers to members of the public
(1) The responsible authority for each area must, in the course of discharging its functions under arrangements established under section 325 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, consider whether to disclose information in its possession about the relevant previous convictions of any violent abuser managed by it to any person deemed by the authority to be at risk.
(2) In the case mentioned in subsection (3) there is a presumption that the responsible authority should disclose information in its possession about the relevant previous convictions of the offender to the particular member of the public.
(3) The case is where the responsible authority for the area has reasonable cause to believe that—
(a) a serious violent abuser managed by it poses a risk in that or any other area of causing serious harm to a particular at risk person, and(b) disclosure of information about the relevant previous conviction of the offender to the particular member of the public is necessary for the purpose of protecting the at risk person from serious harm caused by the offender.(4) The presumption under subsection (2) arises if the person to whom the information is disclosed requests the disclosure.
(5) Where the responsible authority makes a disclosure under this section—
(a) it may disclose such information about the relevant previous convictions of the offender as it considers appropriate to disclose to the member of the public concerned, and(b) it may impose conditions for preventing the member of public concerned from disclosing the information to any other persons.(6) Any disclosure under this section must be made as soon as is reasonably practical having regard to all the circumstances.
(7) The responsible authority for each area must compile and maintain a record about the decisions it makes in relation to the discharge of its functions under this section.
(8) The record must include the following information—
(a) the reasons for making a decision to disclose information under this section,(b) the reasons for making a decision not to disclose information under this section, and(c) the information which is disclosed under this section, any conditions imposed in relation to its further disclosure and the name and address of the person to whom it is disclosed.(9) Nothing in this section requires or authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998.
(10) This section is not to be taken as affecting any power of any person to disclose any information about a violent abuser.”
Baroness Gale
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to the amendments in my name, even at this late hour. In Committee on 9 February we debated Amendments 155 and 156, which deal with Clare's law. I spoke in detail about the tragic case of Clare Wood, a young woman who was murdered in 2007 by her ex-partner, George Appleton. Six days after he murdered Clare, he committed suicide. It was then discovered that he had a long background of violence against women. Clare had no way of knowing; if she had, perhaps it could have saved her life. I pay tribute to Michael and Adam Brown, Clare’s father and brother, for their campaign to change the law. I also thank my right honourable friend Hazel Blears MP, who is Michael’s Member of Parliament and has campaigned with him to bring in Clare’s law.
The national domestic violence disclosure scheme represents an important addition to the measures successive Governments have taken in dealing with domestic violence. Until the intervention of your Lordships’ House, this Bill might have done so much damage to the rights of victims of domestic abuse because of the legal aid cuts, but finally there is something that bolsters the rights of women—and men—to live in freedom from violence.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am sorry that I was unable to take part in the debate in Committee.
The noble Baroness has spoken powerfully about a very serious subject. I share the views of those who responded to the consultation with some doubts about whether it was appropriate or necessary to change the law. These included key stakeholders such as Women’s Aid, Refuge, Liberty and the Local Government Association. I share their concerns about whether introducing a new law is realistic.
I do not know anyone who has gone into a relationship with the mindset that suggests checking up on the new partner through this sort of scheme. Most importantly, it could well be a distraction from the important work that still needs to be done in this area, but I will not spend more time on that. The thrust of the noble Baroness’s speech was about the pilots. If legislation was not needed for the pilots, legislation is not needed for their assessment. I would not lose faith in any Government if, having committed themselves to pilots, they would seek to avoid an evaluation and assessment. We have too much on the statute book. Let us see the evaluation of a pilot put in place on the basis of the law that we have now before Amendments 155 and 156 or anything like them. I will take my cue from my noble friend and put asking questions about it in my diary. I dare say that the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, will do the same. She has a great record for raising these issues, so she is not going to let this rest. Parliament is going to hear about it.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, when we debated these amendments in Committee my noble friend Lord McNally was able to tell the Committee how sympathetic the Government were to the thinking behind them, borne out of the circumstances of the tragic murder of Clare Wood by Clare’s ex-boyfriend who had previous convictions for violent offences. I pay tribute to Clare’s family and to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and others on this issue.
As the noble Baroness has flagged, the Home Secretary has announced the Government’s intention to pilot a domestic violence disclosure scheme for one year in the four police force areas of Greater Manchester, Gwent, Nottinghamshire and Wiltshire. The pilot will start this summer, and I hope that noble Lords will welcome it. The pilot, which is similar in spirit to that envisaged by the noble Lady’s amendment, will be established under existing police powers and test two types of process.
The first will be triggered by a request by a member of the public, in other words, a “right to ask”. The second will be triggered by the police, where they make a proactive decision to disclose the information in order to protect a potential victim, which we are calling a “right to know”. The Government believe that a disclosure scheme, which establishes a framework with recognised and consistent procedures for disclosing information, will enable new partners of previously violent individuals to make informed choices about how and whether they take that relationship forward. I note what my noble friend Lady Hamwee said on this, and it may be that she would prefer the second pilot.
The Home Secretary’s announcement follows a consultation held by the Government. A clear majority of respondents favoured the introduction of a national disclosure scheme. However, the consultation raised important issues about the scope and proportionality of the information that should be disclosed to potential victims, the safeguards that will be needed against malicious applications and the paramount need for the safety of victims to be taken into account. These are serious matters, and the Home Secretary has concluded that it is therefore right that these issues are addressed and tested in a pilot to ensure that the disclosure scheme is compatible with all relevant law and accounts for the safety and needs of potential victims. The Home Office is undertaking further scoping work to decide how the disclosure scheme will work.
Amendment 156ZA would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the pilot and to publish its findings. I can confirm, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee indicated, that we will conduct an assessment of the domestic violence disclosure scheme as part of the pilot process and make our conclusions public. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. The assessment will be used to inform decisions about whether the scheme should be expanded further after piloting.
The House may be assured that the Government’s aim is to end all forms of violence against women and girls. Soon after coming to office, we set out a new strategy to end violence against women and girls, and on 8 March we published an updated action plan in this area. The domestic violence disclosure scheme pilot announced by the Home Secretary is part of that updated action plan. The fact that approximately two people are killed by their current or former partner each week underlines the need for action. The Government believe that the domestic violence disclosure scheme will be an important additional tool that enhances the protection available to victims. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for her work in this area, and I hope that with these reassurances she will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gale
I thank the Minister for her reply and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her contribution to this debate. I agree that in the early stages of a new romance a woman is not likely to check on her new partner but, as time progresses, she may have queries and worries. We know the success of Sarah’s law. I am sure that the pilot and the assessment could provide a lot of evidence which would make it useful for rolling out throughout the country.
I am glad that the assessments about which the Minister spoke will be made public. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested, we will be putting this in our diaries, checking up and asking questions. Certainly, at the end of the first year everyone will want to know the results of the assessment. I am glad that the Minister once again made the Government’s commitment to end violence against women. Both the previous Labour Government and the coalition Government have been committed to this and we have a lot in common. I do not think that there is much between us at all. I thank the Minister for her response. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
“Benefits payments to prisoners
(1) Regulations shall provide that a person undergoing imprisonment or detention in legal custody who, at the time that imprisonment or custody commences, is in receipt of any of the qualifying benefits, shall be assessed, during his or her time in imprisonment or custody, for eligibility for those benefits at the time of his or her imprisonment or custody.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the qualifying benefits are—
(a) universal credit;(b) income support;(c) personal independence payment, to the extent provided for in regulations made under section 84 (prisoners) of the Welfare reform Act 2012; and(d) any other benefits provided for in regulations made under this section.(3) Regulations made under this section shall provide that the assessment required under subsection (1) shall commence as soon as a person is received into imprisonment or custody.
(4) Regulations shall in particular provide that a person appointed by the Secretary of State shall record, at the time a person is received into imprisonment or custody, details of any qualifying benefits which are in payment at that time, together with any personal information needed to establish the person’s identity, including but not limited to their national insurance number.
(5) An assessment of eligibility under subsection (1) shall be completed in such time as to ensure that the person assessed receives payment of any benefits for which he is assessed as being eligible no later than one week after his release from imprisonment or custody.
(6) Regulations under this section shall be made by the Secretary of State and shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I shall again be brief, because we had a good discussion on this in Committee. I was very glad that the Minister told the House about the advance plans to use the work programme as the primary vehicle for help and support so that all prison leavers who claim jobseeker’s allowance will enter the work programme from the first day of release from prison. The background to this is the present situation where people leave prison with a release grant of £46 and then have to live for up to three weeks before their claim, having been processed by the jobcentre, comes through. This amendment is intended to prevent that, because it is the most terrible cause of reoffending. However, the comments in Committee dealt with jobseeker’s allowance, and mention was made of universal credit and the ability to use payment on account to cover the gap before a universal credit payment came through. What was not mentioned in Committee was the progress on all the other claims that might be processed or bid for by prisoners. Mention also was made of work being done with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that this was looked at.
My proposal might seem prescriptive but it is based on observation of the cause of considerable misery when people are released. It suggests that the jobcentre staff currently working in every prison should be required to process the applications and entitlements of every prisoner while they are in prison so that proper plans are made. When they leave they would not have to start doing work that could have been done already, and thus, we hope, it will prevent them reoffending, as seems to happen when people find themselves without the means to support themselves for too long before their benefits come through. The purpose of this amendment is therefore to tidy up the discussions that we had in Committee, and to ask the Minister to ensure that the work with the Department for Work and Pensions is in progress.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for continuing to bring this issue forward. It is a vital area and we should work to ensure that when people leave custody, they will have swift access to the benefits to which they are entitled.
As I mentioned in an earlier debate, we think of coming out of prison as something positive. However, it can be traumatic for people who rely on benefits in a system which they see as complicated, slow and sometimes unhelpful. One report has made the point that people who leave prison with no financial contingency and are highly reliant on the benefit system might, if not helped, return to crime, which has been a proven source of income for them in the past. We know that there have been delays and problems with pre-custodial claims which need to be resolved before a new claim can be made. There can be delays because a person has no fixed abode, and there are sometimes queries over the dates of prison admission and release dates. We know that eight in 10 prisoners are reliant on benefits and that one-third do not have access to a bank account, which makes any down payment for a new home particularly difficult.
Prisoners released over the next few years will come out to a whole new welfare system. The Welfare Reform Act will have changed things enormously, and even those claiming benefits before they went in will have to negotiate a whole new system of rules. There will also be the benefit cap, the bedroom tax and different units to which the payments are made. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, although we welcome the advice given on the jobs programme, released prisoners will also need help with benefits if they are to survive when they come out.
This amendment, which I trust the Government will accept, will be good for prisoners. It will also be good for society and the state if it reduces the chances of reoffending and helps ex-prisoners to re-establish themselves in society.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for continuing to examine the practical difficulties that some ex-prisoners face. We appreciate the difficulties that they may face when trying to resettle in the community and we have taken a number of steps to address these problems.
When the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, withdrew his amendment in Committee, he expressed the hope that the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Work and Pensions would communicate more effectively on this issue. My noble friend Lord McNally wrote to my noble friend Lord Freud and I can give the noble Lord an absolute reassurance that our departments are working very closely to address the gap between release and receipt of benefits.
Prisoners’ needs are already often assessed on reception as part of the sentence plan. New prisoners are specifically asked about benefits by staff at induction and are referred to one of the 140 Jobcentre Plus employment and benefit advisers currently working in prisons. In addition, all prison leavers have their rehabilitation needs reviewed as part of the discharge process only weeks before release. It is this period close to release that is key to meeting resettlement needs, and that is where the Government have invested resources.
The Government are doing a great deal to overcome resettlement barriers and are currently implementing a strong package of measures. The key strategy to take this forward is the data-linking project which is being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and the DWP. The project shows that more than half of offenders sentenced to custody are claiming benefits immediately prior to their incarceration, and two years after release from prison almost half are claiming out-of-work benefits. This is the scale of the task we face as we seek to make improvements to the process.
However, improvements are there. From 1 March, offenders leaving custody have their jobseeker’s allowance claims processed before they leave. We expect to reach some 30,000 prisoners a year. Jobcentre Plus advisers are rightly in the lead on providing advice and administering benefit claims, but they are working closely with prison staff to facilitate this process, including advice on financial support available prior to release. We believe that this is the right point at which to make assessments for eligibility.
We are also aiming to address the finance gap through our plans for universal credit payments. Under our proposals, an applicant, on leaving prison with a valid claim, can be paid his claim immediately through payment on account in the same way as any other benefit claimant. All of this is intended to help prison leavers get their benefits quickly and help increase their chances of finding work, which is also a key part of the Government’s agenda on reducing reoffending.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 156A would have prisons potentially duplicating the work of Jobcentre Plus. In addition, the process proposed by the amendment would require the Prison Service to conduct sometimes wasted work. A mandatory assessment of all offenders on entering into custody would either be premature—as the work done on entering prison is highly likely to need updating as the sentence continues—or not needed at all, if the personal circumstances of that person do not justify it.
The Government are fully committed to ensuring that ex-prisoners have the support they need to make a successful and productive return to society. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is quite right in his aim in this respect. Our proposals on ex-prisoners’ access to welfare benefits are part of that commitment. I hope that what I have said today reassures the noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Just to correct her, I had no intention of duplicating any work; I was hoping that the Jobcentre Plus representative in prison would do the work while in prison so that it did not have to be done in the jobcentre outside prison. So it was early work by the jobcentre—nothing more by the Prison Service. I am very glad to hear that this has happened, and it is useful that, at last, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice have come together, because this is a piece of joint working that could have been done years ago and would have saved a great deal of misery among released prisoners. Rather like the previous amendment, this is something on which the Government can expect to be questioned at fairly regular intervals in the future. Again, in that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Northover
“Dangerous offenders subject to service law etcPart 1Sentences for dangerous offenders subject to service law etcArmed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52)1 The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
2 After section 218 and the italic heading “Required or discretionary sentences for particular offences” insert—
“218A Life sentence for second listed offence
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person aged 18 or over is convicted by the Court Martial of an offence under section 42 (criminal conduct);(b) the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence listed in Part 1 of Schedule 15B to the 2003 Act;(c) the offence was committed after this section comes into force; and(d) the sentence condition and the previous offence condition are met.(2) Section 224A(2) of the 2003 Act applies in relation to the offender.
(3) In section 224A(2)(a) of that Act as applied by subsection (2)—
(a) the reference to “the offence” is to be read as a reference to the offence under section 42; and(b) the reference to “the previous offence referred to in subsection (4)” is to be read as a reference to the previous offence referred to in subsection (5) of this section.(4) The sentence condition is that, but for this section, the Court Martial would, in compliance with sections 260(2) and 261(2), impose a sentence of imprisonment for 10 years or more, disregarding any extension period imposed under section 226A of the 2003 Act as applied by section 219A of this Act.
(5) The previous offence condition is that—
(a) at the time the offence under section 42 was committed, the offender had been convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 15B to the 2003 Act (“the previous offence”); and(b) a relevant life sentence or a relevant sentence of imprisonment or detention for a determinate period was imposed on the offender for the previous offence.(6) A sentence is relevant for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) if it would be relevant for the purposes of section 224A(4)(b) of the 2003 Act (see subsections (5) to (10) of that section).
(7) A sentence required to be imposed by section 224A(2) of that Act as a result of this section is not to be regarded as a sentence fixed by law.”
3 (1) Section 219 (dangerous offenders aged 18 or over) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) Section 225(2) of the 2003 Act applies in relation to the offender.”
(3) In subsection (3) omit “and (3A)”.
4 In the heading of that section for “Dangerous” substitute “Life sentence for certain dangerous”.
5 After that section insert—
“219A Extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offenders aged 18 or over
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person aged 18 or over is convicted by the Court Martial of an offence under section 42 (criminal conduct) (whether the offence was committed before or after the commencement of this section);(b) the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is a specified offence;(c) the court is of the required opinion (defined by section 223); (d) the court is not required to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life by section 224A(2) of the 2003 Act (as applied by section 218A of this Act) or section 225(2) of that Act (as applied by section 219 of this Act); and(e) condition A or B is met.(2) Condition A is that, at the time the offence under section 42 was committed, the offender had been convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 15B to the 2003 Act.
(3) Condition B is that, if the court were to impose an extended sentence of imprisonment under section 226A of the 2003 Act as a result of this section, the term that it would specify as the appropriate custodial term would be at least 4 years.
(4) Subsections (4) to (9) of section 226A of the 2003 Act apply in relation to the offender.
(5) In section 226A(4) to (9) of the 2003 Act as applied by this section—
(a) the reference in subsection (6) to section 153(2) of the 2003 Act is to be read as a reference to section 261(2) of this Act;(b) the reference in subsection (7) to further specified offences includes a reference to further acts or omissions that would be specified offences if committed in England and Wales;(c) the reference in subsection (8)(a) to a specified violent offence is to be read as a reference to an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is a specified violent offence; and(d) the reference in subsection (8)(b) to a specified sexual offence is to be read as a reference to an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is a specified sexual offence.(6) In this section “specified offence”, “specified sexual offence” and “specified violent offence” have the meanings given by section 224 of the 2003 Act.”
6 Omit section 220 (certain violent or sexual offenders aged 18 or over).
7 In section 221 (dangerous offenders aged under 18) for subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) Section 226(2) of the 2003 Act applies in relation to the offender.”
8 In the heading of that section for “Dangerous” substitute “Life sentence for certain dangerous”.
9 After that section insert—
“221A Extended sentence for certain violent or sexual offenders aged under 18
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person aged under 18 is convicted by the Court Martial of an offence under section 42 (criminal conduct) (whether the offence was committed before or after the commencement of this section);(b) the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is a specified offence;(c) the court is of the required opinion (defined by section 223); (d) the court is not required by section 226(2) of the 2003 Act (as applied by section 221 of this Act) to impose a sentence of detention for life under section 209 of this Act; and(e) if the court were to impose an extended sentence of detention under section 226B of the 2003 Act as a result of this section, the term that it would specify as the appropriate custodial term would be at least 4 years.(2) Subsections (2) to (7) of section 226B of the 2003 Act apply in relation to the offender.
(3) In section 226B(2) to (7) of the 2003 Act as applied by this section—
(a) the reference in subsection (4) to section 153(2) of the 2003 Act is to be read as a reference to section 261(2) of this Act;(b) the reference in subsection (5) to further specified offences includes a reference to further acts or omissions that would be specified offences if committed in England and Wales;(c) the reference in subsection (6)(a) to a specified violent offence is to be read as a reference to an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is a specified violent offence; and(d) the reference in subsection (6)(b) to a specified sexual offence is to be read as a reference to an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is a specified sexual offence.(4) In this section “specified offence”, “specified sexual offence” and “specified violent offence” have the meanings given by section 224 of the 2003 Act.”
10 Omit section 222 (offenders aged under 18: certain violent or sexual offences).
Part 2Consequential provisionJuries Act 1974 (c. 23)11 In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 (persons disqualified from jury service) in paragraph 6(d) after “2003” insert “(including such a sentence imposed as a result of section 219A, 220, 221A or 222 of the Armed Forces Act 2006)”.
Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1908 (N.I. 27))12 In article 6(1) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (sentences excluded from rehabilitation under the Order) in sub-paragraph (g)(iii) after “section” insert “226A, 226B,”.
Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48)13 In section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (early release of prisoners) in subsection (1A)—
(a) before “227” insert “226A or”, and(b) after “219” insert “, 219A”.Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)14 The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is amended as follows.
15 In section 99 (conversion of sentence of detention to sentence of imprisonment) in subsection (6)—
(a) after “226” insert “, 226B”, and(b) after “221” insert “, 221A”.16 In section 106A(1) (interaction with sentence of detention) in the definition of “sentence of detention”—
(a) before “228”, in the second place it appears, insert “226B or”, and(b) before “222” insert “221A or”.Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43)17 The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 is amended as follows.
18 In section 62 (release on licence etc: conditions as to monitoring) in subsection (5)(f) after “221” insert “, 221A”.
19 In section 64 (release on licence etc: drug testing requirements) in subsection (5)(f) after “221” insert “, 221A”.
Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)20 In section 131 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (young offenders: application) in paragraph (l) before “222” insert “221A or”.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)21 In section 237 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (meaning of fixed term prisoner etc) in subsection (1B) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) references to a sentence under section 226A of this Act include a sentence under that section passed as a result of section 219A of the Armed Forces Act 2006;(bb) references to a sentence under section 226B of this Act include a sentence under that section passed as a result of section 221A of the Armed Forces Act 2006;”.Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52)22 The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
23 (1) Section 188 (consecutive custodial sentences) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) in paragraph (c)—
(a) for “228” substitute “226B”, and(b) for “222” substitute “221A”.(3) In subsection (4) in paragraph (c)—
(a) before “228” insert “226B or”, and(b) before “222” insert “221A or”.24 In section 209 (offenders aged under 18 convicted of certain serious offences: power to detain for specified period) in subsection (7)—
(a) for “section 226(2)” substitute “sections 224A and 226(2)”, and(b) for “section 221(2)” substitute “sections 218A and 221(2)”.25 In section 211 (offenders aged under 18: detention and training orders) in subsection (4)—
(a) after “218,” insert “218A,”, and(b) for “222” substitute “221A”.26 In section 221(3) (dangerous offenders aged under 18) after “as applied” insert “by”.
27 In section 223 (the “required opinion” for the purposes of sections 219 to 222) in subsection (1)—
(a) for “220(1)” substitute “219A(1)”, and(b) for “222(1)” substitute “221A(1)”.28 In the heading of that section for “222” substitute “221A”.
29 For section 224 (place of detention under certain sentences) substitute—
“224 Place of detention under certain sentences
Section 235 of the 2003 Act (detention under sections 226, 226B and 228) applies to a person sentenced to be detained under section 226(3), 226B or 228 of that Act as applied by section 221, 221A or 222 of this Act.”
30 (1) Section 228 (appeals where previous convictions set aside) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
“(1A) Subsection (3) applies in the cases described in subsections (1B) to (2).
(1B) The first case is where—
(a) a sentence has been imposed on any person under section 224A of the 2003 Act (as applied by section 218A of this Act);(b) a previous conviction of that person has been subsequently set aside on appeal; and(c) without that conviction, the previous offence condition mentioned in section 218A(1)(d) would not have been met. (1C) The second case is where—
(a) a sentence has been imposed on any person under section 225(3) of the 2003 Act (as applied by section 219(2) of this Act);(b) the condition in section 225(3A) of the 2003 Act was met but the condition in section 225(3B) of that Act was not; and(c) any previous conviction of the person without which the condition in section 225(3A) would not have been met is subsequently set aside on appeal.(1D) The third case is where—
(a) a sentence has been imposed on any person under section 226A of the 2003 Act (as applied by section 219A of this Act);(b) the condition in section 219A(2) was met, but the condition in section 219A(3) was not; and (c) any previous conviction of the person without which the condition in section 219A(2) would not have been met is subsequently set aside on appeal.(1E) The fourth case is where—
(a) a sentence has been imposed on any person under section 227(2) of the 2003 Act (as applied by section 220(2) of this Act);(b) the condition in section 227(2A) of the 2003 Act was met but the condition in section 227(2B) of that Act was not; and(c) any previous conviction of the person without which the condition in section 227(2A) would not have been met is subsequently set aside on appeal.”(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) for “Subsection (3) also applies” substitute “The fifth case is”; and(b) in paragraph (a) after “226” insert “of this Act”.(4) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Subsection (3B) applies where—
(a) a sentence has been imposed on a person under section 224A of the 2003 Act (as applied by section 218A of this Act);(b) a previous sentence imposed on that person has been subsequently modified on appeal; and(c) taking account of that modification, the previous offence condition mentioned in section 218A(1)(d) would not have been met.(3B) An application for leave to appeal against the sentence mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) may be lodged at any time within 29 days beginning with the day on which the previous sentence was modified.”
(5) In subsection (4) for “Subsection (3) has” substitute “Subsections (3) and (3B) have”.
31 In section 237 (duty to have regard to the purposes of sentencing etc) in subsection (3)(b)—
(a) after “sections” insert “218A,”, and(b) before “225(2)” insert “224A,”.32 In section 246 (crediting of time in service custody: terms of imprisonment and detention) in subsection (6)(b)—
(a) before “228” insert “226B or”, and(b) before “222” insert “221A or”.33 (1) Section 256 (pre-sentence reports) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c)—
(a) for “220(1)” substitute “219A(1)”, and(b) for “222(1)” substitute “221A(1)”.(3) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to a court forming any such opinion as is mentioned in section 260(2) or 261(2) includes a court forming such an opinion for the purposes of section 218A(4).”
34 (1) Section 260 (discretionary custodial sentences: general restrictions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b)—
(a) before “225(2)” insert “224A,”, and(b) before “219(2)” insert “218A,”.(3) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The reference in subsection (4) to a court forming any such opinion as is mentioned in subsection (2) or section 261(2) includes a court forming such an opinion for the purposes of section 218A(4).
(4B) The reference in subsection (4) to a court forming any such opinion as is mentioned in section 261(2) also includes a court forming such an opinion for the purposes of section 226A(6) or 226B(4) of the 2003 Act (as applied by section 219A or 221A of this Act).”
35 (1) Section 261 (length of discretionary custodial sentences: general provision) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) before “225” insert “224A,”, and(b) before “219(2)” insert “218A,”.(3) In subsection (3) for “220, 222” substitute “219A, 221A”.
36 In section 273 (review of unduly lenient sentence by Court Martial Appeal Court) in subsection (6)(b)—
(a) before “225(2)” insert “224A,”, and(b) before “219(2)” insert “218A,”.37 In section 374 (definitions applying for purposes of the whole Act) in the definition of “custodial sentence” after paragraph (e) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—
“(ea) a sentence of detention under section 226B of that Act passed as a result of section 221A of this Act;”.Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28)38 In Schedule 6 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (notification requirements: application to service offences) in paragraph 5(1)(a) after sub-paragraph (vi) (but before the “or” at the end of that sub-paragraph) insert—
“(via) detention under section 226B of that Act (extended sentence of detention for certain dangerous offenders aged under 18);”.Part 3Transitory provision39 (1) In relation to any time before the repeal of section 30 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (protection of children: supplemental) by Schedule 10 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, that section has effect with the modification in sub-paragraph (2).
(2) In subsection (1), in paragraph (dd) of the definition of “qualifying sentence”, after “2003” insert “(including such a sentence imposed as a result of section 221, 221A or 222 of the Armed Forces Act 2006)”.”
Lord Sharkey
“Rehabilitation of offenders: equality of treatment
In any case where a statute provides for a person to have a right to apply to the Secretary of State to have a conviction or caution disregarded, the provisions of that statute shall apply in the same way to any relative of any deceased person who would, had they still been alive, have been eligible to apply to have such a conviction or caution disregarded in accordance with the provisions of that statute.”
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this amendment. As your Lordships will recall, there is a provision in the Protection of Freedoms Bill which will, when it is enacted, allow all those convicted of homosexual acts subsequently decriminalised to apply to the Secretary of State to have their convictions disregarded. This provision was widely welcomed in all parts of your Lordships’ House. According to an estimate provided by the House of Commons Library, since the relevant laws came into force in 1885, 75,000 men have been convicted of such now-decriminalised offences. Of those 75,000 men, it is estimated that 16,000 are still living. The Protection of Freedoms Bill will allow these men to apply to have their convictions disregarded; this will provide real help and comfort to them and their families, relatives, friends and loved ones. It will help to put right a serious historical injustice.
As things stand, however, this comfort and rehabilitation will not be available to families, relatives, friends and loved ones of those convicted under these repealed statutes and who have since died. Our amendment simply proposes equal rehabilitation and straightforward equality of treatment for all those convicted under the repealed laws. Under the provisions of the amendment, the relatives of those now convicted under the repealed laws but now deceased would be able to apply to have the convictions disregarded in exactly the same way as those who are still living.
We believe that this very simple extension is fair and right in principle. It would provide some comfort and closure for the families, relatives, friends and loved ones of those who have been convicted but are not able to apply for a disregard for themselves. We believe that all those convicted under these repealed and cruel laws should have an equal opportunity for rehabilitation. The amendment would go a small way towards making amends to the many thousands of men who were cruelly and unjustly persecuted simply for being gay.
One of the men who falls into this category is Alan Turing. This is the year of the centenary of his birth, and the Royal Mail is to issue a commemorative stamp in his honour. I think that everyone would acknowledge that Turing’s work at Bletchley Park on cracking the Enigma code contributed greatly to our efforts in the last world war and that Turing is, of course, the father of modern computer science. I know that my noble friend the Minister is well aware of the injustice of Turing’s treatment and, by extension, is well aware of the injustice in the treatment of all gay men similarly convicted and punished.
In answer to my Question for Written Answer in February, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said:
“It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd—particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort”.—[Official Report, 2/2/12; col. WA 342.]
Those sentiments echo those of the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who, in writing in the Daily Telegraph in September 2009, said of Turing:
“The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely. He was in effect tried for being gay”.
He continued by saying:
“I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him”.
Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted, under homophobic laws, were treated terribly. These many thousands of gay men were treated terribly, and our amendment would help to put some of that right. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give this amendment sympathetic consideration and I beg to move.
Lord Bach
My Lords, from the opposition Front Bench I thank the noble Lord for the impressive way in which he moved the amendment, and an impressive amendment it is too. He could not have put the case better. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply, and we would be very surprised if it is not sympathetic.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Sharkey for putting his case, and indeed I have deep sympathy for it. The amendment appears to extend the provisions contained in the Protection of Freedoms Bill so that they are also available to those who are no longer alive. The provisions in that Bill allow a person to apply to have his historic convictions for consensual gay sex with over-16 year-olds deleted from official records, the effect of which is that those convictions will no longer affect that person’s life or career. This was a commitment made in our programme for government. However, the objective is not to rewrite history. The provision in the Protection of Freedoms Bill does not state that the person was wrongfully convicted, nor does it pardon them. It is just that they can now be treated for all purposes in law as someone who was not convicted of those offences.
The position in relation to those who have been convicted of this type of offence and have since died is different. I understand the strength of feeling about such convictions, and the cruelty of the laws under which they were imposed, and I know that this is particularly true in relation to the conviction of Dr Alan Turing. As Gordon Brown said in 2009, while we cannot put the clock back, we recognise that his treatment was utterly unfair and we are all deeply sorry for what happened to him. He deserved so much better. That said, I do not believe that the provisions for disregarding convictions, which are concerned with the practical consequences of conviction, are an appropriate means of putting right the wrongs done to people who are no longer alive to suffer those consequences. As my noble friend himself points out, the numbers involved are potentially very large. I understand his aim, but I am afraid that we cannot agree to his amendment. I realise that he will be disappointed, but I am afraid that I must invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sharkey
I must say that I am extremely disappointed by that response. I would also point out to my noble friend that I was not calling for a pardon, and that I know the difference between a pardon and a disregard. Nor was I asking for the clock to be put back, as perhaps seemed to be the case.
This was, above all, a very simple opportunity to put right a historic wrong. It also seems to me that the notion that there is a large number involved, and that it therefore makes this difficult, sits oddly with the fact that the impact assessment for the Protection of Freedoms Bill showed precisely no cost in relation to the 16,000 who are still alive. It is hard to see how you could multiply that by any figure and get a significant cost at all.
I will end by saying that I feel truly disappointed by the response. It seems unnecessarily mean-spirited, and although I shall withdraw the amendment now, this is something that I shall pursue, and look for support in pursuing, at Third Reading.
“Amendment to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964
In section 5 (other offences relating to scrap metal) after subsection (2) insert—“(3) If any scrap metal dealer accepts or makes payment in cash, that dealer shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(4) When deciding the level of fine to be charged under subsections (1) to (3), a court may take into account—
(a) the value of the scrap metal in question;(b) the provenance of the scrap metal in question;(c) the compliance of the scrap metal dealer with the provisions of sections (1) to (3) of this Act generally; and(d) any other factors which the court deems to be relevant.””
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, this has been quite a long journey. I first asked an Oral Question on 3 October last year, arguing the case for cashless transactions and the necessity of amending the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. On 10 November, in a Remembrance Day debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, a number of noble Lords, including me, spoke about the despicable theft of war memorials for their scrap metal value.
The Bill we are debating tonight received a Second Reading in your Lordships’ House on 21 November, and I gave notice of my intention then to table the amendment which appears today on the Marshalled List. I drew attention to ACPO’s estimate that the national cost of metal theft was £770 million. I also referred to the 16,000 hours of delays suffered by rail passengers over the past three years caused by the theft of signalling cable, and to other examples of metal theft such as lead from church roofs, manhole covers, telephone wire and works of art.
Since then the scale of the problem has continued to grow, and every week brings fresh accounts of new theft. Last week, for example, my own local newspaper, the Worcester News, reported that 350 metres of BT underground copper cable had been stolen, which cut off telephone and broadband service in one of the major districts of the city. Numerous heritage railways have written to me to say that scores of metal items such as rails, lamps and even a fork-lift truck have been stolen for their scrap value.
I have another press report dated 1 March saying that seven churches are being targeted and robbed every night for the lead on their roofs; and in a new twist Network Rail reports that, in recent signalling cable thefts on the Cotswold line between Oxford and Worcester, the theft of a 650-volt distribution cable had been concealed by the insertion of a short length of domestic cable in its place—an incredibly dangerous manoeuvre. On it goes.
To his credit, the Minister has indicated that he is determined to do something about it, as did his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I am particularly grateful to her, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, for putting their names to Amendment 156D, and for their stamina in staying here at this late hour tonight.
The Home Secretary announced in a Written Statement on 26 January that government amendments to the Bill would be tabled to,
“create a new criminal offence to prohibit cash payments to purchase scrap metal; and significantly increase the fines for all offences under the existing Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964”.—[Official Report, 26/1/12; cols. WS 80-81.]
The Minister may be aware that I immediately issued a statement warmly welcoming that announcement. It took a long time for the government amendments to appear, but last week they finally did, and we are debating them now as Amendments 157F, 157G and 157J.
What the Government are proposing is fine except for one baffling respect. For reasons that have not been properly explained so far, they are proposing an exemption for itinerant sellers. As I understand it, that will mean that the sale of metal to an itinerant collector will not have to be recorded, whether it is a householder getting rid of some unwanted domestic appliance or a metal thief using the itinerant as a way of getting into the chain. By proposing that exemption, the Government are opening up a serious loophole that could undermine much of the benefit that their move towards cashless transactions will create.
My understanding is that it is not difficult to register under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 as an itinerant collector, which is defined in that Act as,
“a person regularly engaged in collecting waste materials, and old, broken, worn out or defaced articles, by means of visits from house to house”.
While there may not be too many of those registered at the moment, surely there is a risk that there will be many more once word went round that this was a way to avoid the cashless requirement of being a scrap-metal dealer.
The Minister will be aware that the itinerant seller exemption has caused alarm among many in the industry. For example, SITA, to which both the Minister and I have paid visits in recent months to discuss this legislation, said this in its latest briefing:
“There is no reason why a cashless system cannot be implemented by bona fide itinerant collectors, along with the rest of the scrap metal industry … Moreover, the requirement for a cashless transaction between the itinerant collector and a scrap metal merchant will in any event necessitate the former to maintain a bank account with provision for electronic or cheque payment. It is therefore illogical to exempt the initial transaction between the seller and the itinerant collector, but to (rightly) mandate a cashless transaction for the on-sale of the material to a scrap metal dealer. Traceability over the entire chain, from seller to intermediary to dealer, will be broken along with proof of provenance of the metal presented for sale”.
That is a pretty convincing argument and is why I have tabled my own Amendment 157H to the government amendment to delete the exemption. I shall listen very carefully to the Minister's response to these points before deciding whether to press that amendment. In particular, I hope that I will hear him say that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act will be replaced by an entirely fresh piece of legislation to be introduced in the new Session. That could deal with all the issues relating not just to itinerant sellers but to the registration and licensing of the trade generally. Meanwhile, it would be churlish of me not to welcome the Government’s acceptance of the argument that I first put forward almost six months ago that an essential first step in tackling the epidemic of metal theft is to move to cashless transactions and to increase the penalties for persons committing this appalling, anti-social and dangerous crime. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
It might be useful if I intervene at this stage. In doing so, I want to make it quite clear that I hope other noble Lords will intervene after me despite the fact that this is Report. This is purely because I have amendments in this group and it might speed up the process by which we debate these matters.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for all that he has done. We have listened to him and, as he knows, we have responded as much as we can in due course. I also want to make it quite clear that we in the Government recognise what a serious problem it is. I cannot list in detail the individual Peers, Members of the Commons and others who have been to see me. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was the first to come and see me to highlight the problem relating to the churches. Obviously, this problem goes beyond the churches and beyond art theft; we all know about that Barbara Hepworth that was stolen recently. This affects communities and businesses throughout the country. We have seen damage to our infrastructure, to the railways, to communications and so on again and again and that damage is very great indeed. The noble Lord quite rightly cited an estimate of some £700 million. That is probably the effect on business and the community as a whole. What is depressing is how little money it actually brings in to the thieves themselves. The Barbara Hepworth that I mentioned, insured for £500,000 or £1 million or whatever, will have gone to some scrap-metal yard and been ground down and sold off for literally a matter of a few pounds. The real problem arises in the scrap-metal yards in that whoever was the first person to receive that—the first fence as it were—must have known that property was as hot as you can get because you do not often get Barbara Hepworths being brought in; they are not something you happen to find on the side of the road. So that is the problem and that is why the Government believe they should take urgent action.
That action can be taken in a number of different ways. The first and most important one is enforcement. The Government have made it quite clear that we want to address enforcement. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced late last year that there was an extra £5 million of funding for a new dedicated metal theft task force. The British Transport Police has taken the lead and is doing a great deal of work on this. In certain parts of the country we have seen great improvements in enforcement. I recently visited the north-east and saw what it was doing in terms of Operation Tornado, improving enforcement and increasing the number of arrests and cash seizures from the scrap-metal industry. That is happening throughout the country. Enforcement is one strand of what we must do and there are other things that we can do in terms of design and hardening objects so that they are less easily stealable or more traceable. However, we have concluded that legislation of one form or another is the only sustainable long-term solution to the growing menace of metal theft. That is why we have put down these amendments. They are similar to the amendments the noble Lord has put down but I have to say, as I always would, I think the government amendments are superior to his and I hope he will accept them in due course.
I want to keep my remarks brief, but will explain that the new amendments create a new criminal offence to prohibit cash payments to purchase scrap metals. We believe that at the moment it is just too easy for someone having stolen something to convert that something into cash, no questions asked. They also significantly increase the fines that are available for the majority of the offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which regulates the scrap-metal-dealing industry. That is important. It only goes some way because, as I have said on a number of occasions, we believe that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act is not now fit for purpose but that it is worth at least upgrading the offences under that Act. But one should always remember that under the old Theft Act 1968 there is an offence of seven years for theft and more importantly, as I said earlier, under handling we have some 14 years available.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The story in the Commons is that the Government are saying that that subsequent legislation will be brought in under the Private Member’s Bill procedure in the House of Commons. Is that true?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not believe all stories that I hear, either in this House or in another place. I was going to come on to what we will do with scrap- metal dealers in due course. To put it briefly, we have found this opportunity under this legislation to make a number of changes, but we cannot completely redo the Scrap Metal Dealers Act under this legislation because of the scope of the Bill. We will certainly look at all legislative opportunities in the new Session to see how we can revise the Scrap Metal Dealers Act. All that I and other colleagues have said is that we believe that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act is no longer fit for purpose; it is past its sell-by date. How we revise that legislation, we will have to address in the new Session.
I have spoken of the first two changes that we are bringing in as a result of the Bill: making cash payments illegal and increasing fines under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act. Thirdly, we want in this Bill to revise the police entry powers to ensure compliance with the new offence. That, again, is something that will make the whole enforcement procedure easier for the police.
Lord Roberts of Conwy
Can the Minister confirm that even under his amendment itinerants can still have scrapyards of their own? Can they still have cash transactions and still not be inspected except under warrant?
Lord Henley
I shall come on to the question of itinerants in due course. It is something addressed by Amendment 157H in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I will deal with it in some detail because it is important, as there has been a degree of misunderstanding about that point.
We are bringing forward these three changes under the Bill, and they are just a first step in taking forward a coherent package of measures to tackle all stages of the illegal trading of stolen scrap metal. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I can give an assurance—although I cannot give a timescale for this—that we shall bring forward further measures in due course. We believe that going cashless, which is the crucial part of this amendment, will remove the “no questions asked” culture that allows low-risk criminal enterprise for metal thieves and unscrupulous dealers. That is something that we want to deal with.
I turn to Amendment 157H, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, as an amendment to government Amendment 157G. It removes the exemption for itinerant collectors—and I make it clear that it is purely itinerant collectors whom we are dealing with—who have an order in place under Section 3(1) amending the record requirements that apply to them. Let me make clear that this is not a blanket exemption. Only itinerant collectors who are subject to an order under Section 3(1) of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964—an Act that I described as being past its sell-by date, but it is still what we have—coming from their local authority and approved by the local chief officer of police will be exempted. This will be a modest number of individuals who will be known to both the police and their local authority. They will also be bound by environmental regulations with the need to have a waste carrier’s licence under the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011.
Most importantly, no itinerant collector will receive cash from the scrap-metal industry on which they are reliant for selling scrap to. Travelling around the streets picking up scrap, they will, when they take it on to the scrap yard, have to have that payment made not in cash but by some other means. Their transactions will be traceable for the first time, with the scrap-metal industry recording details of the transaction and the payment method and to whom that payment is made.
I hope that that assurance will be sufficient to allow the noble Lord to understand that I do not think his amendment is necessary. It might be that we will have to come back to this at Third Reading, but I hope that on this occasion he will accept that we have got it more or less right and that some of the reporting of the exemption for the so-called itinerants is not exactly what he thought it was.
Lord Berkeley
Can the Minister clarify Section 3(1)(a) of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964? It seems a bit odd that the only condition required of these people is that they,
“obtain from the purchaser a receipt showing the weight of … scrap metal comprised in the sale”.
We have all had receipts from people for getting things like that, probably without even a piece of carbon paper between the two. Why is it necessary to give such people an exemption when the only condition I see here is that they get a scrappy piece of paper as a receipt? It seems to be left wide open to shove things in a container and send them off to China without any paperwork at all.
Lord Henley
My Lords, first, they are not going to be shoving it into a container. This is, as it were, the rag and bone man going around collecting metal in the street. If he wants to get money for it, he is going to have to take it to a scrap yard. He is not going to get money for it by any other means. At that point, the provisions we are debating come into effect. If the noble Lord feels that we are creating an exemption that will create a loophole and drive a coach and horses through what we are doing, just by this small means of exempting the itinerants going around, he has probably got it wrong. He obviously does not accept what I have to say, but I think that he has misunderstood where we are coming from.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation that he has given to the whole House, particularly in respect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, about itinerant collectors. However, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 156D because, as my noble friend will be aware, the overall increase in metal theft is very clearly parallel to the rising cost of metals around the world. It is a world market, and the theft of the more valuable metals, such as copper, has particularly increased as the world price has gone up.
However, I remind my noble friend—not least in the context of the welcome news that we have in the government amendments tonight and the proposal completely to reform and amend the existing scrap metal Act—that it is very clear from the evidence from ACPO and others that scrap-metal theft is part of organised crime in this country. It is very easy to think that these are just opportunistic thefts, when people happen to see something that they might take on a dark night, and that sort of thing, but that is far from the case. Given that it is part of organised crime, I hope that my noble friend, in looking to get to grips with the reform needed in this area, will bear in mind the fact that very often it is the criminals who organise the people who, in practice, carry out the theft who make the most money. They orchestrate others: sometimes people who, I am quite sure, are fully aware that they are carrying out a criminal act but who themselves are not necessarily the beneficiaries of the full amount of the value of that scrap.
Reference was made just now to the Hepworth statue and how its melt-down value would not have been very much in comparison to its insurance value. The right reverend Prelate, on behalf of the churches, made very clear the overall cost to churches when they are robbed of the lead on their roofs, very often not just once, and the difficulty with insurance going up. The cost of these crimes is not just the melt-down value of the metals. It is also the consequential losses.
I would also respectfully remind my noble friend of the developing pattern in metal theft of what is referred to as rare earth. Very small quantities of these valuable metals can raise significantly more than copper and other more traditional metals. They are the sort of metals found in wind turbines and electricity generating stations. They are now starting to appear because yet again their value on the world market has gone up. Any reform to the scrap-metal act needs to take account of current trends, which are moving away from some of the more traditional metals to some of these more sophisticated metals.
I welcome the Government’s move to take out the question of this being a cash-based business—and one hesitates almost to use the word “business” in this context, but I suppose one must. They should bear in mind in any changes that they are bringing in to cover these wider issues that there is a sense of urgency about the need for more radical change. That change, if it is to address the increasing problems that we have, must look to those trends and to the future.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for the way in which the Minister, in particular, and the Government have responded to the difficulties that have been raised. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for his speech. I want to make one very simple point, as the hour is rather late. I seem to remember that Steptoe and Son was an itinerant operation that operated from a scrap-metal yard. Surely there is not a cordon sanitaire between the scrap-metal operation and the itinerant collector. Is it really the case that the only people that the Minister describes as having received these licences are people unconnected with scrap-metal yards? It seems a rather bizarre idea, which is why I am tempted to support the further amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for tabling this amendment because it raises an issue that we should not be discussing at nearly midnight in an empty House of Lords. It should have been debated at prime time, as it is a central part of the legislation. The Minister referred to a sustainable long-term solution and then to the need for further legislation. If the Private Members’ Bill procedure is used in the House of Commons—I am told that the idea is that it will be used because of the shortage of time in the next Session due to the need to push through the House of Lords reform Bill—it is distinctly probable that, unless the Government give it government time, the Bill will fall. Those of us who have been in the Commons know that most Private Members’ Bills in the House of Commons fall. There is simply an objection to block them on the Friday when they are being considered. We need something far more substantial than simply a vague reference to further legislation being considered in the future. We need a consolidated piece of legislation, which brings the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001, the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, the Motor Salvage Operators Regulations, this Bill dealing with cashless arrangements and a properly enforceable regulatory system together in a single piece of legislation. I believe that the way the Government are proceeding today is the wrong way.
I wish to quote from a question and answer session that took place in the House of Commons yesterday, as the Minister’s reply let the cat out of the bag. Graham Jones, the MP for Hyndburn, asked:
“Does the Minister not recognise that the public may be shocked that a cashless scheme might not be cashless under the Home Secretary’s proposals, which exclude mobile collectors? If they are exempt, that will create a huge loophole in the system. … Is the exemption not a giant loophole and an own goal?”.
James Brokenshire, on behalf of the Government, said:
“The … answer is no. Those involved in door-to-door sales will need to trade their product through scrap metal dealers, so they will be subject to the Bill’s provisions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/12; col. 506.]
What does that mean in reality? A thief may go into wherever, steal a war memorial, break it up, contact an itinerant trader and sell it for cash to the itinerant trader, as I can see nothing in this legislation that stops him selling it for cash. The itinerant trader either then boxes it up and sends it abroad or destroys the markings which show the origins of the material. Then he goes into the legitimate system by selling it to a registered trader. In other words, in those conditions the Government’s objective to stop cashless trading where it affects war memorials, rolls of copper from railway lines or whatever, will not be met at all because the trade will simply switch into an itinerant Traveller trade. At least at the moment that trade is going into an area of the market which perhaps is acting illegally in parts but which should under the new arrangements be subject to a cashless system. Therefore, as I say, the Government’s objective will not be met.
The noble Lord says that under Section 3(1)(a) of the 1964 Act there is an element of control over these itinerant traders. However, we know that they have no phone lines. They probably use pay-as-you-go mobiles. They rarely have an address. They invariably have no fixed abode. They also claim that they have no bank accounts. They are capable of exporting abroad because they have networks. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, referred to the networks that are run by criminals. They can send the material to Scotland, which I understand is not introducing this legislation, although I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. This whole business will switch from a legitimate area—it is legitimate in the sense that we could potentially control the movement of these items which have been taken illegally—into an illegitimate area of trade run by itinerant Travellers, who will not in any way be subject to any legislation because, as far as they and the authorities are concerned, it is unenforceable. Therefore, why do we not simply delay the legislation and introduce a proper piece of legislation which requires a more proportionate system of regulation and which deals more effectively with the problem?
The other day someone asked me over the phone how you measure the material going into these yards. Often, someone sends out a skip, the material is put in the skip and they do not know when they are collecting it and paying for it how much of what is in the skip comprises metal. Who will be responsible for dividing it up when, at the end of a year, the authorities come in—or perhaps come in—and carry out some kind of audit to ensure that all the metal has been paid for by way of a cheque or a legitimate means of payment? The question of separation of materials by scrapyards is something that the Government should deal with.
We are told that at the end of five years this matter will be reviewed. Why are we waiting five years? The industry says that it will not work. The Minister has been told repeatedly by the industry that, although it wants a cashless system, it believes that the way in which the Government are introducing it, without dealing with the wider problems of regulation, will inevitably lead to problems and that the system will fail. If this measure is to go through tonight and return to the Commons, surely even at this late stage Ministers might have a rethink. The industry does not object to the principle of a cashless system, in the way that my noble friend has suggested, but it objects to the fact that there is a loophole which will build a new industry in the hands of itinerant Travellers, who will relish the thought that they will be able to make money now that others have been restricted and regulated and that they will be subject to no proper regulation whatever.
Lord Roberts of Conwy
My Lords, I am as appalled and as horrified as anyone at the heartless, dangerous and very costly spate of metal thieving that we have suffered in recent years. There is nothing new in the offence as such. I remember the theft of a bronze head of Gladstone from a very public spot in Penmaenmawr in my erstwhile parliamentary constituency in the 1980s, where the great man used to bathe in the sea. Despite all my efforts, the bust was never found. Of course, it was an isolated incident, not part of an intense extensive campaign of metal thieving of the kind that we have experienced in recent times.
I wholeheartedly support the special efforts that are being made by the authorities, and especially by the task force led by the British Transport Police, to gain intelligence and arrest the perpetrators of these dastardly crimes. However, the amendments that we are discussing do not fall directly into this category. They are directed at the potential receivers of stolen metal. I stress the word “potential” because I am not at all convinced that the bulk of stolen metal is disposed of through the numerous scrap-metal dealers, many of whom are properly registered with local authorities and keep proper books of receipts and disposals according to the provisions of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964.
Yet these scrap-metal dealers are the main targets of the amendment. Although they can be visited by the police and other authorities at any time, their relationship with the authorities is usually strongly co-operative, if only because the scrapyards themselves are often the target of metal thieves. The real culprits are more likely to be found among the unregistered dealers and operators. They are far more likely to be the receivers of stolen scrap metal, along with the so-called itinerants whom we have talked about already this evening. Not all are as innocuous as Steptoe & Son, who curiously enjoyed special exemption under the 1964 Act. Such people cannot be inspected by the police without a warrant. Their position is still somewhat ambiguous and confusing under the government amendment because, as I read it, they can still maintain a scrapyard and be exempt from the no-cash deal restriction.
We heard an explanation from the noble Lord when I intervened, but I am not at all clear how an itinerant collector of scrap can end up with no cash at the end of his deal when he gets back to the yard, which is presumably his own yard or that of his partner. Of course, to be effective, the provisions of the 1964 Act require close supervision, and that has been missing in many local authorities in the past. I suggest that that is quite a different matter from suppressing the scrap metal crime wave that demands our attention at present.
I suspect that the prohibition of cash transactions has more to do with the Revenue than the theft issue. I would be glad if the Minister could enlighten us further on that cashless requirement. If the Revenue is concerned about VAT, I am told that dealers in the Republic of Ireland collect the tax for the Government and that the system works satisfactorily. In this context, we tend to forget the social benefit of scrapyards in disposing of metal waste from residential and other properties. We are glad to see defunct materials taken away from our premises. The fact that the plumber or the electrician gets some money for the old cast iron cistern or old lead piping does not bother us individually. We are glad to be rid of it in registered scrapyards. The majority of these transactions involve comparatively small sums, and there is an argument for allowing de minimis cash transactions of this kind, which I hope the Government will consider. They are the bread and butter income of many small scrapyards, which may have to discontinue trading if they are subjected to cashless trading that may drive customers—sellers—away to unlicensed traders.
The cashless trading requirement must be a unique prohibition in this country. I can think of no other trading activity where the use of cash is banned. I have concentrated on the typical registered scrapyard, which is unfairly and indiscriminately targeted by the cashless proposal favoured by the Government and by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. However, many of them are collectors and contributors to the success of the 300 or so members of the British Metal Recycling Association, who are the major players in the green manufacturing business, recovering some 13 million tonnes of metal from 2 million cars, 5 billion food and drink cans and so on to sell back to metal producers. They contribute £6 billion to the UK economy and generate exports of about £3.6 billion.
The BMRA appears to be reconciled to the cashless proposal but wants a better definition of scrap-metal dealers as such and a clampdown on the unlicensed operators. It also wants clarification of cash allocations to ensure the better identification of sellers. It has a great deal of that in the amendment. All this seems eminently sensible, and the Government have certainly gone some way to meet its demands. The outstanding issue is the unlicensed scrap dealer in unlicensed premises and, of course, the metal thieves themselves.
On the review of the offence of buying scrap metal for cash, five years is a long time to wait before it takes place. It should be done after a shorter period of, say, three years, which I am sure would provide ample data.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I will not take the time of the House by sharing anecdotes and expressing gratitude; all that can be taken as read. It is late, but the House is a good deal fuller than it was earlier this evening. I share many concerns expressed about the licensing of sites and the separate licensing of dealers, and about the possibility that in a cashless system legal operators will not find sellers to sell to them. Mention was made of the fact that the offence will be purchasing rather than selling, although we heard about the Theft Act. Concern was expressed about whether the definition of scrap metal will extend to used domestic appliances, and about whether we will see an entirely new group of outlets.
Will the Minister say something about the timetable for implementation? Like others, I look forward to the wholesale reform of the system. However, clearly these provisions are designed to come into effect before that will happen. Will the government amendments that will find their way into the Bill come into effect immediately on enactment? I add to the point about the review and express concern about the speed with which we will see wider reform. If we are looking to review the provisions in five years, let us hope that they will have been overtaken long before then.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Faulkner on taking this matter forward with so much pressure and commitment. My concern is that we seem to be discussing a parallel universe. The people in the BMRA, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, do everything according to the book, and we are very grateful to them. However, I believe that there is the growing involvement of organised crime in this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said.
I have heard quite a lot of evidence about the way in which containers can disappear overseas without anyone knowing what is in them. It is not very difficult, especially if you do not live in a leafy part of Surrey or Buckinghamshire, to hide containers, and itinerant scrap merchants can get the metal into containers without anyone knowing very much. Perhaps the money comes from overseas. As many noble Lords said, the problem will grow. In the short term, the only solution is to support my noble friend’s amendment to get rid of this major loophole.
Lord Henley
My Lords, perhaps I may sum up the debate and address some of the points. Earlier I paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for all that he had done on the matter. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Browning, who was the Minister who dealt with this before me. Only a few days before she unfortunately resigned and I moved to the Home Office, she summoned me and a host of other Ministers to the Home Office to discuss what we could do government-wide to address the problem. As a Defra Minister with a considerable interest in recycling and associated matters, I went along and said that it was possible that we might be able to do something through the Environment Agency. Soon after I left the meeting, my noble friend moved on and I found myself moving to the Home Office and in effect writing a letter from myself to myself to try to address these problems.
I am grateful for all that my noble friend did, and for the fact that she has now underlined some of the other problems that are beginning to appear in this matter. She referred to the problems with rare earths. I was recently in the north-west at a meeting dealing with truck theft. Truck theft is obviously very serious in terms of trucks and their contents being stolen, but certain bits of the trucks are also stolen to get the rare earths from, such as silencers, which can be of considerable value and whose theft can cause enormous problems.
I pay tribute to everything that my noble friend has done to highlight these problems. Similarly, I pay tribute to what the right reverend Prelate had to say and thank him for coming to see me to highlight the serious problems that the church is facing, particularly with the theft of lead roofs and with getting insurance on a great many church properties because of what is going on.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked me to comment on House of Lords reform. At this time of night, that is beyond my pay grade and I am not going to deal with it, but no doubt we will have further opportunities to discuss it in due course. He talked about the need for consolidated reform. I agree with him; I would like that in due course. I have made it clear that what we are doing at this stage is bringing forward the first stage of a package to get coherent reform in this area. It would not be right to delay the first few steps of that, as the noble Lord is suggesting, purely because we cannot get on to the other bits; we will get to those other bits in due course.
The noble Lord also said that the industry says that this will not work. Like the noble Lord, I have talked to the industry. I have addressed the BMRA; I have been to its annual parliamentary reception. The BMRA has made it quite clear to me that it welcomes virtually every aspect of reform. The only aspect that it is not terribly keen on is getting rid of cash. As someone else once said, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”. I happen to think, as do most people in this House, that getting rid of cash from these transactions is a very useful thing to do and something that we ought to address.
The noble Lord made two other points that ought to be addressed. He asked about itinerants. I made it quite clear in my opening remarks that only itinerant collectors who are subject to an order under Section 3(1) of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act from their local authority, approved by the local chief officer of police, will be exempted. If they are also a scrap dealer and they have a yard, they will no longer fall within that definition of being an itinerant trader and therefore they will not be exempt. We are only talking about a very small number of people, who will be covered by the regulations that are in place at the moment. They are regulated.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Minister seeks to reassure us, but what happens if over the next few years there is a noticeable shift in favour of itinerant collectors and the illegal trade? Will the Government come back to amend the legislation or will they review it?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we have made it quite clear that we are going to review it. We are going to keep this under control. The noble Lord is forgetting how few of these itinerant traders there are. They are not the people with the yards; they are people who are already regulated. The minute they have a yard they cease to qualify as an itinerant trader. It is as simple as that.
Lord Berkeley
Can the noble Lord say how many there are? He says that there are very few, but is it 10, 100 or 1,000? It would be very helpful if he could say.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that figure without notice. I have no idea. I imagine that it might be possible, at disproportionate cost, to find out the number. All I am saying is that if they want to be an itinerant trader of that sort, they need a licence from their local authority and that has to be approved by the police. There is a very strict control on that particular aspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, rightly pointed to another problem—displacement. Could some of this go to Scotland? We are well aware of this problem. As the French discovered when they introduced a similar system, there was a danger that things would cross the border into Belgium and Germany. I have discussed this with colleagues in Northern Ireland and Scotland, although Scotland is more important, as there is a land border. Our colleagues in Scotland are well aware of what we are doing and are in full consultation with us. They will try to make sure that whatever they do keeps in line with what we wish to do.
The noble Lord is, for honourable reasons, merely seeking delay—delay that I am sure the BMRA would think was a worthy object to achieve. However, we do not think that it is right. We think that it is right to get rid of cash as soon as possible from this industry and that that will make a difference.
The last point that I want to address is that made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about timing. I am afraid that I cannot give any categorical assurances to her about when and how we will get that further legislation. However, I make it clear, as my honourable friends in another place have done, that this is the first part of the package. We want to continue taking forward a coherent package to deal with all the other matters in the future, but I cannot give her any guarantee about timing.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I did not expect my noble friend to be able to help me with regard to future legislation. I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. I was asking about commencement of these provisions, which will shortly find their way into the Bill and the Bill will no doubt shortly make its way on to the statute book. I am concerned about the current provisions.
Lord Henley
My Lords, these provisions will come into effect soon after Royal Assent, but I will check up on that and allow my noble friend to have the precise answer in due course.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this fascinating debate. It is sad that it has taken place so late at night. Many other noble Lords would have liked to hear it, because it has been of a high quality.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I have seen some of the letters that she wrote when she was a Minister. I can confirm that, had she been there still, we would have had legislation along the lines of what we are discussing this evening. Her commitment to the subject is four square. I also pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, not only for what he said and his knowledge of the subject, but for his knowledge of “Steptoe and Son”. He may be showing his age, as are all of us who remember the programme, but “Steptoe and Son” has played a part in this debate and it is right that he mentioned it.
I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours about delaying this aspect. I am with the Minister on that. The important thing is that we get on with the cashless system and that we do it quickly. I hope that it will be followed rapidly by legislation of a more substantive nature that will sort out the problem of the 1964 Act. The cash as part of this scrap-metal industry is enormous. The latest estimates are that, out of a £5 billion turnover, cash accounts for about £1 billion. Large quantities of this escape the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, and it is very much an undercover operation. It is in all our interests as citizens that this issue is dealt with.
I should like to pay tribute to ACPO and the British Transport Police for the initiatives that they have taken in attempting to address the problems. They have conducted a lot of raids on scrapyards and have come across a very large amount of stolen goods. The Minister referred to Operation Tornado in the north-east, which was very successful. I should like to pay tribute to him for his part in encouraging that and for putting himself around the country in order to find out what has been going on. I was a little disappointed by his defence of the itinerant collector’s exemption. I think that he said that we might be able to return to this at Third Reading. I will read what he said on that with some care, but I was encouraged by his commitment to bring forward further measures in due course.
Of course the Government’s amendment is superior to mine. If I had the number of lawyers working for me that the Government have available to them, I should have been able to produce an amendment at least as good as theirs. However, I should like to pay tribute to the Public Bill Office. It was not the Government who found the opportunity to put this amendment into this legislation; it was the Public Bill Office advising me that I was allowed to do it and the Government taking up the principle. That should go on the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is mastering the subject and is on top of it. I know that he will do what he can with his colleagues to make sure that we have the substantive legislation as soon as possible. I hope that he will have heard the voices around the Chamber tonight who want this to come quickly. Bearing in mind that the Government amendment is superior to mine, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I am sure that the House will find it convenient if we discuss all the amendments relating to Clause 136 in one group and, therefore, I intend to regroup them. I am sure that your Lordships will not need reminding that this matter was not discussed at all in Committee in the Commons and was discussed very late at night in your Lordships’ House, although it was not at a quarter to midnight.
Even given your Lordships’ stamina, I do not think that this is any way in which to deal with a major point of principle. It is no accident that squatting in an empty property has never before been criminalised in the UK. In its historic context, it has been seen as a humane response to the homeless seeking shelter. Any big change deserves more scrutiny than it has so far had in its entire passage through Parliament. Even though the hour is late, I hope that we will discuss the principle and, should Parliament decide on the principle that the Government are asking for, some of the practical measures that need to be further considered. That is what my amendments seek to address.
This is a cross-departmental matter. It will involve the Home Office because the police will have to spend a lot more time and resources. It will involve the Department for Communities and Local Government because local authorities will be involved in rehousing tens of thousands of people who will be made homeless. The MoJ will be involved because of all the people who will end up being criminalised. In addition, there is the entire housing issue, and I am sure that your Lordships will join me in wishing that this had come as part of a housing Bill.
We need to talk about a lot of issues, but I will turn directly to the practicality of my amendments. Amendment 157A was suggested by the charity for the homeless, Crisis. This is an issue about homelessness. If a building has been empty for more than 12 months, someone squatting in it should not be criminalised. I spoke to that issue at greater length in Committee, so I will leave it at that for now.
Amendments 157B and 157C deal with “residential”. The Bill defines “residential” very loosely. If a garage had a bed in it, even someone wandering into it and lying on that bed could criminalise themselves by that action. The drafting of the definition of residential is far too wide, and we should think about it.
Amendment 157D deals with the even more worrying issue of retrospectivity. No one knows exactly—I have asked Written Questions on this and the Government have admitted that they do not know—but there could be up to 50,000 or 60,000 people squatting at the moment. If they are all criminalised overnight, what will they do? Will they present themselves as homeless to local authorities? That is what retrospectivity means here. They will not have a choice: they will either have to stay where they are and risk becoming criminalised or they will have to present themselves as homeless, and that has tremendous implications.
I am grateful to the Minister and his colleague, Crispin Blunt, who talked through transition measures with me, but there is an awful lot more we need to discuss with regard to this. I cannot think of a single local authority which would be in a position at the moment to deal with anything like 200 homeless people presenting themselves on its doorstep, let alone thousands. This is a big issue which needs further discussion. As I have said, it obviously has cross-departmental implications.
In fact, it is practicality which worries me most. The Government could choose to bring this measure in over a considerably longer period because we cannot solve the problem extremely quickly. I am sure that in their hearts the Government do not want to criminalise a section of the population who, very often through no fault of their own, are homeless. The clause is about squatters, but if you described them as “vulnerable homeless”, most people’s reaction would be different. I know the debate in the press and in political circles has been coloured by perhaps a dozen cases that the press have quoted, but I remind your Lordships that they were of squatters who went into someone’s home and that people’s homes are already protected in legislation. There are thousands of people out there who are in empty properties because they are homeless and seeking shelter. The Government need to give further thought to how they are going to deal with so many people presenting themselves as homeless. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am pleased to have added my name in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I pay tribute to her for her tenacity in making sure that this damaging clause is not completely overlooked. Both in Committee and today she has made a powerful case. I am only sorry that I was not able to be present in Committee.
I ask noble Lords to stop and think who we identify with because that will colour our attitudes to the clause and the amendments. In the Guardian last week a Ministry of Justice spokesman was quoted as it being,
“determined to stamp out this distressing practice which causes property owners untold misery and costs them thousands of pounds in eviction, repair and clean-up costs”.
I ask the Minister for his evidence of this. My point is that most of us are probably property owners—that is, we own our own homes—and the thought someone of breaking in and squatting in our homes while we are not there is, indeed, painful. In contrast, it is highly unlikely that any noble Lords have, either from choice or necessity because of homelessness, squatted. It is therefore not surprising that I detect a degree of unease about opposing this clause. However, a Government committed to evidence-based policy-making should not rely on misleading stereotypes.
This clause is not there to protect the homes of people like us. As we have heard, the law already does that. There was a letter in the Guardian last year from more than 160 leading housing lawyers, both academics and practitioners, who made clear that this clause is completely unnecessary. I understand that a similar position is taken by the Magistrates’ Association and the Metropolitan Police. If there is a problem, it is a problem of enforcement: the existing law needs to be enforced better. It is interesting that earlier today, in response to Amendment 145A, the Minister said that we do not need new legislation; we just need to enforce the existing legislation better.
On the question of stereotypes, the great majority of squatters are not doing it by choice. Research for Crisis by Sheffield Hallam University concludes:
“The evidence consistently points to squatting as a manifestation of housing need, and of inadequate support and provision for single homeless people”.
The Sheffield Hallam University Crisis report goes on to say that squatting,
“is a homelessness and welfare issue, not a criminal justice issue”.
I do not know about other noble Lords, but I find it quite distressing that I am finding more and more rough sleepers on the streets of London. It is reminding me of the 1980s. This is a welfare and homelessness issue that is growing.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Government wanted to send a clear message to existing and would-be squatters. To my mind, there is too much legislation about sending messages, especially when it is a message which involves criminalising a vulnerable group of people. I fear, however, that this is not about sending a message to squatters; this is about sending a message to the right-wing press, which has conducted a misleading and pernicious campaign on this matter, demonising homeless people in the process.
I would like us to send a message tonight—a message that we are willing to put ourselves in the shoes of homeless people for whom squatting and empty property offer a meagre lifeline and that we oppose this nasty little clause. Therefore, despite the lateness of the hour, if the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, chooses to test the opinion of the House on one of her amendments, I very much hope that noble Lords would be willing to support it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, in some circumstances I might have hesitated to support the amendments that have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. However, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves—circumstances in which the Government have made drastic cuts to new provision of social housing and have introduced reforms to housing benefit which will cause significant numbers of people to lose their homes—I can only support the noble Baroness’s amendments. I do not think it is right to criminalise vulnerable homeless people, as she describes them, who seek to find a roof over their heads in empty properties in these circumstances.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend as well. I share her concerns about criminalisation. I agree so much with everything that has been said so far, so let me see if I can extract the questions from my notes. First, with regard to this new provision—as it appears it will be—as against Sections 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, how are decisions to be taken as to whether to prosecute under one of those sections or under what is currently Clause 136? Is government guidance going to be given or will it be provided by the CPS?
One of my noble friend’s amendments refers to the police and enforcement. Clearly, she is right to draw attention to that because it is a matter of enforcement. Her first amendment, relating to 12 months, strikes me as being quite modest given that the provisions in force, the Empty Dwellings Management Orders—they were brought in when there were nearly 700,000 empty homes but the figure may well be higher—provide a six-month exemption. A period of 12 months therefore seems quite modest.
I am also concerned about the term “residential”. In its bare form, is that term used elsewhere in legislation? The suggestion in the amendments is to link this to classes of use. The Bill provides simply for “residential” to be a building,
“designed or adapted … for use as a place to live”.
I am not sure what “live” means or what permanence that implies. I know of a number of buildings that are adapted as places to reside. I would include in those City offices where in the past I have had all-night meetings and I know that those had every facility one could possibly need. I daresay government departments have those as well.
Finally, I should like to pick up the references made to the vulnerability of people who find themselves in a position where they take the decision to squat. It is hardly a decision because it is the only course open to them aside from rough sleeping. It is not a desirable thing to do and I do not believe that most people who do this would not prefer conventional accommodation. One of the organisations which has been in touch with some noble Lords is called Squash, which is almost an acronym for Squatters’ Action for Secure Homes. That is such a telling name. What is being proposed will drive people who want secure homes into much more dangerous situations. I am delighted that my noble friend has put so much effort into addressing the issues raised by these clauses.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on raising yet again this completely unnecessary clause towards the end of this long Bill. It is well described as unjust, unnecessary and, indeed, unaffordable. I shall come to those in a moment. We all know that homelessness is on the rise. Since we last debated the issue in Committee, figures show that in London the rise in the number of those who are sleeping on the streets is higher than it was 12 months ago and 24 months ago. That surely must be of concern to us. Of course we must make a distinction between those who are lifestyle squatters and those who are forced into squatting. Some 40 per cent of homeless people live in squats because they prefer that to living on the street. This is about housing, as the noble Baroness said in moving the amendment. It should be treated as a housing issue, not a criminal justice issue.
The reason it does not have to be treated as a criminal justice issue is because it is quite clear that the current law is comprehensive and effective. According to the Law Society:
“The proposals in this consultation are based on misunderstandings by the media of the scale of the problem and a misunderstanding of the current law”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the Criminal Law Act 1977 and its powers to deal with this menace when it really is a menace. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Northover: what is the need for a new criminal offence as far as this is concerned?
One of the justifiable criticisms of the last Government is that they too easily brought in new criminal offences—
Lord Bach
I am very glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. But one of the principles of this Government, as I understood, was that it would not bring in this kind of new criminal legislation unless it was really necessary to do so. What, apart from a hostile media, makes it necessary for the Government to bring in this piece of new criminal legislation?
As far as unaffordability is concerned—and this is a matter I would like the noble Baroness to deal with—a methodology and use of government data endorsed, as I understand it, by a range of academics and legal practitioners has been used to calculate that this clause could cost £790 million to the taxpayer over the next five years. This is far in excess of the £350 million that the whole Bill is supposed to save, although some of us think that is a completely false figure, particularly as far as Part 1 is concerned.
The Government’s impact assessment estimates the costs as £25 million over five years. No attempt, it seems, has been made to account for the costs of rehousing and rehabilitating those who currently squat, and estimates of the costs to the criminal justice system are far too low. The organisation ALTER, which is Action for Land Taxation and Economic Reform, says:
“This change is contrary to the interests of UK taxpayers. It would provide a valuable state funded benefit to wealthy tax avoiders”.
One of the vice-presidents of ALTER is the present Deputy Prime Minister.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her Amendment 157A, and if she were to ask to vote on it, even at this late hour, we would be happy to support it. We like it particularly because she has kindly taken notice of what was said in debate in Committee last time, and the six months is now 12 months, which seems to me, personally, to be a better timescale for the building being empty. However if, as may happen, she does not press this amendment to a vote, I hope she does not drop this issue. In fact, I am sure she will not, and will do her very best to make sure that it comes back before the Bill moves on and this ridiculous, silly clause becomes the law, and we start to criminalise the vulnerable and homeless, who should not be criminalised.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, my noble friend Lord McNally has explained in previous debates why Clause 136 is important to the Government. If somebody stole a car, a handbag or a phone, most people would expect there to be criminal consequences if the offender were caught. Yet, where squatters deprive a person of their residential property, some do not regard this as a crime. We do not accept that logic. The occupation of other people’s homes causes misery, and squatting in residential property should be a criminal offence.
Baroness Northover
I will come to that in a minute. As I say, occupation of other people’s homes causes misery, and squatting in residential property should be a criminal offence just as the theft of a car would be.
Nor do we agree that squatting is a reasonable answer to homelessness, which is the key point here. In fact it is often dangerous and bad for health, and ideally people should be in mainstream services. We share my noble friend’s concern about homelessness, but squatting is not the answer.
We are therefore proposing a balanced approach: clamping down on the squatting in residential buildings on the one hand, while ensuring that genuinely vulnerable people who might be at risk of squatting or rough sleeping are given the support that they need to find alternative forms of accommodation. We are investing £400 million in homelessness prevention over the next four years, with the homelessness grant being maintained at 2010-11 levels. We also announced in December the first ever £20 million fund to prevent single homelessness. That will help to ensure that single homeless people get the help and advice that they need, and do not have to resort to sleeping on the streets or in squats.
We have also brought together eight government departments through the Ministerial Working Group on Homelessness to tackle the complex causes of homelessness. The group published its first report, Vision to End Rough Sleeping, in July 2011, which sets out joint commitments to tackle homelessness. The working group will publish its second report on preventing homelessness later this spring.
We are also tackling the number of empty homes that often attract anti-social behaviour, vandalism and squatting. We recently announced £70 million of funding to bring more than 5,600 homes back into use as affordable housing. We will announce a further £30 million shortly, including funding for community and voluntary groups.
My noble friend’s Amendment 157A would exempt squatters who occupied buildings that had been empty for a year or more. We believe that that is wrong in principle. We would not accept that after a year of non-use it would be defensible to deprive owners of their other assets such as cars or phones. Moreover, there are many legitimate reasons why a residential building might be left empty for a year or more—for example, when a property is inherited following a death and probate takes some time to be sorted out.
The amendment would also make the offence more difficult to enforce as it would enable squatters facing a charge to argue that the property had been empty for years even if they had no idea whether that was true. Instead of legal arguments turning on the true issue at stake—the criminal occupation of somebody else’s residence—this would muddy the water and put the focus back on the police or the home owner to show how long it had been empty for.
Amendment 157B would remove the definition of “building”, leaving it unclear what “building” in the offence covers and leading to legal arguments on this matter. Amendment 157C would delete the definition of “residential” in Clause 136 and replace it with a new definition. The only residential buildings which would be covered by the offence as a result of the new definition would be those which are used for the purposes set out in class categories C3 and C4 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
The amendments would introduce confusion and complexity. The advantage of the existing clause is that any structure—permanent or temporary, moveable or immoveable—is covered by the offence if it has been designed or adapted for use as a place to live.
My noble friend’s Amendment 157D would further weaken the offence by exempting squatters who entered a building prior to commencement of the offence. This would clearly not be in the interests of home owners. It would not make sense if an offender who entered a property the day before commencement, for example, could not be convicted if they continued to live in the premises against the wishes of the property owner after the offence commenced.
Amendment 160B suggests that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament prior to commencement on likely costs of the new offence to the criminal justice system and local authorities. We published an impact assessment which included costs to the criminal justice system. The impact assessment also recognised that there might be an impact on local authorities if squatters approached them for support. Requiring the Secretary of State to report further on these issues prior to commencement is therefore not necessary.
I know that when my noble friend met the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Crispin Blunt, one of her main fears was that there would be a surge in applications for social housing in the days following commencement. We have taken my noble friend’s point on board. I can assure her that through the Ministerial Working Group on Homelessness, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office will work together to ensure that any local enforcement against squatting is carried out in partnership with local homelessness services to mitigate against an associated increase in rough sleeping.
We will also liaise with local authorities in advance of commencement to ensure that they are aware of the new offence if squatters approach them for help and to remind them of their duties towards homeless people. We will encourage authorities to make use of the good practice advice letter and an additional £20 million of funding to prevent single homelessness, both of which have been developed recently with input from Crisis.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked about the current law and why this was not sustained by what was already there. Why the need for a new offence? The current law can be improved so that it does more to deter squatters from entering and occupying a residential building without permission in the first place. We believe that there should be a specific criminal offence that protects people from those who squat in their residential buildings and that this offence should not be limited to cases where a squatter refuses to leave when required to do so. In addition, the offence under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 does not protect residential property owners who are not displaced occupiers or protected intending occupiers. Currently, they may need to seek repossession of their properties in the civil courts, which can be time-consuming and expensive. That is why we feel that the law needs to be changed.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have not only stayed but spoken so passionately that it makes up in quality for what we did not have in numbers. Several other noble Lords who were not able to stay have expressed their sadness about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spoke extremely powerfully. In one way I am glad she was not able to speak in Committee because it gave us the chance to hear some of the arguments lying at the very basis of this issue. It is important to remember, as she outlined, that this is about homeless people. I was disappointed by the Minister’s reply when she kept emphasising the occupation of someone else’s residence or home. These are not residences or homes, by and large; they are simply empty properties. This is the basis of the misunderstanding and it is what I have tried to get to the bottom of.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for his support and to my noble friend Lady Hamwee who, as always, asked some very incisive questions, some of which I do not feel were fully answered tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, is quite right when he says that I took his advice on extending the six months suggested by Crisis to 12 months, because that puts it beyond doubt that the property is empty. In fact, there are definitions, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, of an empty property, and my amendment is more modest than those.
I have not heard anything new from the Minister tonight about the transition measures. She mentioned that local authorities would be approached by those being criminalised, but I wonder whether she is aware—
Baroness Northover
I had a long list of other measures that have been taken, but I thought that the best thing might be to write to the noble Baroness with that rather than detain people too long tonight.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I am grateful to the Minister for that suggestion. Is she saying that the issue is still live and can therefore come back on Third Reading?
Baroness Northover
As I said to the noble Baroness, I am very happy to arrange a meeting to take this forward. Then we will have to see where we are at that point.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
Can she give me an assurance that it will be possible to come back on this at Third Reading on the basis of that? Can the Minister clarify what she is saying? She says that she has a list of other measures, but we will not know what they are this evening because she is not reading them out. We will need to know what they are before we decide what to do. She will need to go through the list.
Baroness Northover
My understanding is that having left it open it is still open.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the fact that it is still open. Therefore, it is free for me to bring the matter back before your Lordships at Third Reading.
Lord Bach
I do not think that that is quite what the Minister said. She said that it was open—I do not think that she said that it would be open for the noble Baroness to bring it back at Third Reading. Perhaps the noble Baroness should ask her again and see what her answer is.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I would be pleased to ask her again, because it is very important before I make a decision on what to do with this amendment.
Baroness Northover
My noble friend says that we have discussed the possibility of meeting and considering this further. I gave her the assurance that this was still open because that was what I was informed, and I reiterate that assurance.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I am grateful to my noble friend. I suspect that that is as far as we can go this evening. I have to say on the record that if I find that the agreement does not hold, I shall have to consider my position very carefully.
I still want to put on record the point that I was about to make because it is very pertinent. The Government should not be under any illusion that local authorities will be in a position to help those who present themselves to them as homeless. I quote from the Crisis report:
“Most are also recognised as homeless by the LA (78 per cent) but few are entitled to accommodation under the terms of the homelessness legislation, typically because they are not considered ‘priority need’, or are deemed ‘intentionally homeless’”.
That leaves thousands of young and middle-aged people in this country potentially being criminalised. We have not heard what measures the Government will put in place tonight to mitigate that. I am in some doubt as to whether we will be able to return to this issue, but I am sure that when the House reads this debate it will be the will of the House that we return to it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“Scrap metal dealing: increase in penalties for existing offences
(1) The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is amended as follows.
(2) For the following words (which have effect as references to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale) substitute in each case “a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”—
(a) in section 1(7) (dealer failing to register) the words from “a fine” to the end;(b) in section 2(6) (dealer failing to record dealings) the words from “a fine” to the end;(c) in section 3(4) (itinerant collector failing to keep receipts) the words from “a fine” to the end;(d) in section 4(4) (convicted dealer failing to meet additional requirements) the same words before “and the court”.(3) For the following words (which have effect as references to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale) substitute in each case “a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”—
(a) in section 1(8) (dealer failing to give notice of cessation of business) the words from “a fine” to the end; (b) in section 5(1) (dealer acquiring metal from a person under 16) the same words before the proviso;(c) in section 5(2) (selling metal to a dealer under a false name or address) the words from “a fine” to the end;(d) in section 6(5) (obstructing entry and inspection) the words from “a fine” to the end.”
Lord McNally
“Offence of buying scrap metal for cash etc
(1) The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3 insert—
“3A Offence of buying scrap metal for cash etc
(1) A scrap metal dealer must not pay for scrap metal except—
(a) by a cheque which under section 81A of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is not transferable, or(b) by an electronic transfer of funds (authorised by credit or debit card or otherwise). (2) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) to permit other methods of payment.
(3) In this section paying includes paying in kind (with goods or services).
(4) If a scrap metal dealer pays for scrap metal in breach of subsection (1), each of the following is guilty of an offence—
(a) the scrap metal dealer;(b) a person who makes the payment acting for the dealer;(c) a manager who fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the payment being made in breach of subsection (1).(5) In subsection (4)(c) “manager” means a person who works in the carrying on of the dealer’s business as a scrap metal dealer in a capacity, whether paid or unpaid, which authorises the person to prevent the payment being made in breach of subsection (1).
(6) Subsection (1) does not apply if—
(a) the payment is made in the carrying on of the dealer’s business as a scrap metal dealer as part of the business of an itinerant collector, and(b) at the time of the payment an order under section 3(1) is in force in relation to the dealer.(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(8) An order under subsection (2) is to be made by statutory instrument.
(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
(3) Section 2 (records of dealings) is amended as follows.
(4) After subsection (2)(d) insert—
“(da) where paragraph (d) applies, any part of the price that is unpaid at the time when the entry is to be made;”.(5) In subsection (2)(e) for “the last preceding paragraph” substitute “paragraph (d)”.
(6) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) If a scrap metal dealer pays at any time for scrap metal falling within subsection (1)(a)—
(a) the dealer must keep, with the book containing the entry relating to receipt of the scrap metal, a copy of the cheque (if the payment was by cheque), or any receipt identifying the transfer (if the payment was by electronic transfer and such a receipt was obtained), and(b) the particulars required by this section to be entered include those listed in subsection (4B). (4B) The particulars are—
(a) the full name and address of any person who makes the payment acting for the dealer;(b) the full name and address of the person to whom the payment is made;(c) in the case of an electronic transfer where no receipt identifying the transfer was obtained, particulars identifying the transfer.(4C) Anything kept by virtue of subsection (4A)(a) must be marked so as to identify the scrap metal by reference to the entry relating to receipt of the metal.
(4D) An entry in pursuance of subsection (4A)(b)—
(a) must be made immediately after the payment is made, and(b) if not made at the same time as the entry relating to receipt of the scrap metal, must identify the metal by reference to that entry.”(7) In subsection (5), after “this section and” insert “the book and anything required by subsection (4A)(a) to be kept with it”.
(8) Section 3 (special provisions as to records in certain cases) is amended as follows.
(9) In subsection (5)(d), for “subsection (4)” substitute “subsections (4) and (4D)(a)”.
(10) In subsection (6)(a)—
(a) after “books” insert “, and the obligation imposed by subsection (4A)(a) of that section to keep anything with a book,”;(b) after “the like particulars” insert “, and to keeping the same things,”;(c) for “and (3)” substitute “, (3) and (4A) to (4D)”.(11) In subsection (6)(c), for “subsection (4)” substitute “subsections (4) and (4D)(a)”.
(12) In section 4(1) (power for court to impose additional requirements on convicted dealers)—
(a) omit “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and(b) after that paragraph insert—“(aa) is convicted of an offence under section 3A, or”.(13) Section 6 (rights of entry and inspection) is amended as follows.
(14) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Whether or not a place is one to which a constable has a right of entry in accordance with subsection (1), a justice of the peace may issue a warrant described in subsection (3B) if satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the place—
(a) is a scrap metal store where scrap metal paid for contrary to section 3A is or has been received or kept, or(b) is a place to which admission is reasonably required in order to ascertain whether that section is being complied with.(3B) The warrant is a warrant signed by the justice issuing it which specifies the place concerned and authorises a constable to enter the place, if need be by force, at any time within one month from the date of the warrant.
(3C) A constable authorised to enter a place by a warrant granted under subsection (3A) has a right—
(a) to inspect that place;(b) to require production of, and to inspect, any scrap metal kept at that place;(c) to require production of and to inspect any book which the dealer is required by this Act to keep at that place and any copy or receipt required to be kept with the book, or, as the case may be, any receipt which the dealer is required to keep as mentioned in section 3(1)(b), and to take copies of the book, copy or receipt;(d) to require production of and to inspect any other record kept at that place relating to payment for scrap metal, and to take copies of the record.” (15) In subsection (4) for “the last preceding subsection” substitute “subsection (3) or (3A)”.”
Lord McNally
“Review of offence of buying scrap metal for cash etc
(1) Before the end of 5 years beginning with the day on which section (Offence of buying scrap metal for cash etc)(2) comes into force, the Secretary of State must—
(a) carry out a review of the offence created by that subsection, and(b) publish a report of the conclusions of the review. (2) The report must in particular—
(a) set out the objectives intended to be achieved by creating the offence,(b) assess the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, and(c) assess whether it is appropriate to retain the offence to achieve those objectives.”
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
My Lords, at this hour of the night I would like to move these government amendments formally but I do not think that I can. Amendment 159 would bring Clause 113 into force on the date of Royal Assent. Clause 113 provides a power for the Secretary of State to remove from the United Kingdom foreign national prisoners serving indeterminate sentences once they have served the minimum term, or tariff, set by the sentencing court. This will be known as the tariff expired removal scheme. By commencing this provision on Royal Assent, it will be possible to begin the process of removals under the scheme from that date. There are a number of IPP and life sentence prisoners with deportation orders served against them who are already past their tariff expiry date. The Government would like to be able to start considering these prisoners for removal under the scheme at the earliest opportunity.
The amendments to Clauses 141 and 142 set out the territorial extent of the Bill. The amendments are to tidy up the clauses in the light of changes made to the Bill during its progress through Parliament and to ensure that provisions are as clear as possible. Amendments 163 and 164 amend the Long Title of the Bill to include the references to the Government’s amendments on scrap metal and magistrates’ courts fines. This is in line with the general rule on making amendments to the Long Title of a Bill to reflect amendments which have been made to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
“(1A) Section (Piloting of alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
“( ) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) section 113, and(b) this Part.”
Lord McNally
“(2A) This section does not apply to section (Alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement) (but see section (Piloting of alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements)).”
Lord McNally
“(1) Parts 1 to 3 of this Act extend to England and Wales only, subject to subsections (2) to (8).
(2) Sections 122 and 123(1) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.”
“(4) In Chapter 8 of Part 3—
(a) section 131 extends to England and Wales only,(b) sections 132 and 133 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,(c) paragraphs 1 to 11 of Schedule 24 extend to England and Wales only,(d) paragraphs 12 to 17 of that Schedule extend to Scotland only, and(e) Part 2 of that Schedule extends to England and Wales only. (5) An amendment, repeal or revocation made by this Act has the same extent as the relevant part of the Act or instrument amended, repealed or revoked (ignoring extent by virtue of an Order in Council), subject to subsections (2), (4), (6) and (7).
(6) Subsection (5) applies to section 137(1) to (5) only so far as the provisions amended extend to England and Wales or apply in relation to service offences.
(7) Subsection (5) does not apply to paragraphs 15 and 18 of Schedule 7, which extend to England and Wales only.
(8) The following have the same extent as the amendments, modifications, enactments, instruments or provisions to which they relate—
(a) section 65(7),(b) section 75(11) and (12),(c) section 127(4), (5) and (7),(d) section 137(6), (e) Part 4 of Schedule 7 and Part 3 of Schedule 8, and(f) Schedule 15.(9) Sections 138, 139, 140, this section and section 143 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(10) But, in so far as sections 138 and 140 confer power to make provision modifying or otherwise relating to a provision of, or made under or applied by, the Armed Forces Act 2006, they have the same extent as that Act (ignoring extent by virtue of an Order in Council).”
Lord McNally
“( ) The powers conferred by sections 177, 178 and 222 of the Extradition Act 2003 (powers to apply provisions to extradition to or from British overseas territories and to extend to Channel Islands and Isle of Man) are exercisable in relation to any amendment of that Act that is made by or under this Act.”
Lord Ramsbotham
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, unfortunately I saw the groupings list yesterday too late, because of the memorable events surrounding the Diamond Jubilee, to be able to do anything about the fact that this amendment had been grouped with those we discussed earlier about restorative justice. I beg the leave of the House to move this amendment at this late hour.
Currently, the Ministry of Justice is embarked on what the Secretary of State has called the “rehabilitation revolution”. Many of us who have been trying for years to suggest ways in which the criminal justice system could better protect the public by reducing the reconviction rate have welcomed this initiative and seen this Bill as an opportunity to help the process by moving amendments, many based on practical experience, which could improve the revolution’s chance of success. So far, however, I have to admit to a double disappointment. The first was that “rehabilitation” disappeared from the original Title. The second was that so many of our suggestions have been resisted and dismissed out of hand, including my proposal that the original Title should be restored.
Since Committee, two things have happened. First, I have been thinking through the relevance of “desistance”, which means abstention from crime by those who previously had engaged in a sustained pattern of offending. I know it is said that the most effective crime-fighting tool is a 30th birthday, but that is not to be taken as justification for doing nothing about rehabilitation until that day. Research with successful desisters shows that they believe that particular staff members who identify what they could do are more valuable than any particular intervention, which demonstrates the importance of motivating and supporting prison and probation staffs and private and voluntary sector organisations that work at the rehabilitation of offenders.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I very much support this amendment and have put my name to it. It is a great shame that we could not find a way to debate this issue right at the beginning, before we started work on the detailed and different parts of this hybrid Bill. Indeed, many of the debates on today’s amendments—I am not talking about the last two or three, which seem quite beyond the Bill in many ways—illustrate exactly why this amendment is so relevant and important to the Bill. For example, plans to meet women prisoners’ different needs, the debate on restorative justice, better training and rehabilitation plans and post-prison support for young offenders: all of these were about rehabilitation. Indeed, the background to all the work that the Minister has so often talked about is about rehabilitation.
It is quite absurd to be debating what the Title of the Bill should be as we reach the very last pages of the Bill and the very early hour of the following day. If the Minister could accept the amendment, even at this stage, success would have been achieved, giving those who will use the Bill a much better understanding of what it is really about. Above all, it would not have cost the Government one single penny and, over and above that, I am quite certain that the Minister believes—as we certainly do—that in the long run it will save a great deal. I very much hope that he is in a giving mood on this amendment.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I have been wondering whether I dare quote poetry at this hour, but I think noble Lords deserve it. Whenever I hear the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who I am sure is with us spiritually, I am reminded of these lines from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:
“Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits—and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire!”
Certainly, as I have said before, there is no lack of sympathy with the promotion of the concept of rehabilitation. Indeed, as I have also said before, I believe that those who argue the case for rehabilitation are doing more for victims and more to reduce crime than those to whom the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred earlier today as the “throw away the key brigade”. There is no argument between us. The Ministry of Justice believes in rehabilitation, and a large range of our policies are geared to rehabilitation. However, I think most people will look beyond the Short Title of the Bill and judge the Government by their intentions and performance. As many noble Lords have recognised, the Bill contains key measures for the youth and adult criminal justice systems that will contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders. Therefore, although I would very much like to accept this amendment in many ways, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is right—I must simply salute, get on with the job and urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, like the Minister, I have to salute and move on. I am very glad for what he said about the essence of rehabilitation because that is hugely important. Even at this late hour, I make no apologies for moving the amendment because it is very important that all that has been said by many noble Lords during the passage of the Bill reflects the heart of what we are trying to do: namely, to secure the rehabilitation of those who end up in the criminal justice system. However, given the reassurance that everyone is trying to do all they can, and given the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally