House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
1. What plans he has to improve individual choice and standards for end-of-life care.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
We are developing a new patient funding system for all providers of palliative care. It will be fair and transparent and deliver better outcomes for patients and better value for the NHS. Just last week, I announced that we are investing £1.8 million in eight pilot sites to help us in that work. Marie Curie Cancer Care is also providing £2.5 million of funding to support those pilots. The new system will be in place by 2015.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the Secretary of State. Does he agree that current state funding for end-of-life and palliative care provision is at best patchy across the country and needs to be improved? Will he outline the role that he sees for voluntary and charitable organisations in the delivery of improved palliative and end-of-life care in future?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will know very well of the vital role that the voluntary sector already plays, whether through the hospice movement or through Marie Curie and other voluntary organisations. As he implies, we not only want to secure more consistent, high-quality end-of-life care, to which effect we are already implementing the end-of-life care strategy and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence quality standard for end-of-life care, but through the implementation of the palliative care funding review pilot schemes we want to ensure that the voluntary sector and other providers are equally able to provide the services that patients and their families desire.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
For both end-of-life care and social care more generally, the Budget was a real missed opportunity, in that the Government did not signal what they were going to do about the future funding of social care. Will the Secretary of State now update us on the discussions that he has had with the Treasury about what will be done about the gap in the future funding of social care?
Mr Lansley
On the contrary, the Chancellor set out very clearly his intention that a White Paper on the reform of social care would be published in the spring. The hon. Lady may wish to know that we are in direct discussions with the Opposition to seek consensus about the long-term reform of social care funding.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
2. What his most recent estimate is of the cost of NHS reorganisation.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What his most recent estimate is of the cost of NHS reorganisation.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The cost of the NHS modernisation is estimated to be between £1.2 billion and £1.3 billion. It will save £4.5 billion over the rest of this Parliament and £1.5 billion a year to 2020. We will reinvest every penny saved in the NHS in front-line services.
Mr Crausby
The Bolton clinical commissioning group estimates that its budget will be about £25 per Bolton resident, or £100 for a couple with two children. Is that not too much, considering that they will get no medical treatment at all from that money, just administration money paid to doctors who should really be treating patients and not sat in the back office?
Mr Burns
No, I do not believe it is. The administration figure that has been announced for CCGs throughout the country is £25 a patient, but if a CCG is more effective and efficient in providing administration and bureaucracy and makes savings, those savings can be transferred and reinvested in funding the care of their patients. That is an incentive for them to be streamlined and to ensure that that happens.
Gavin Shuker
The Minister speaks of reinvesting every single penny in the NHS budget. How does that fit with the £500 million raid on the NHS budget spoken of this week?
Mr Burns
If I could explain this to the hon. Gentleman, the £500 million that he is talking about was part of the savings made through renegotiating the IT contract. It is a perfectly normal procedure, because as the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will know, the average figure for previous years was £850 million, and one year when he was a Minister at the Department of Health, it was £2.3 billion.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
As part of the reorganisation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided—rightly in my view—that the Health Professions Council will regulate Chinese medical practitioners, but there is widespread concern in the community that these practitioners will not have protection of title. Will he please ensure that they do when he finishes his consultation?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the NHS reorganisation will abolish the strategic health authority in the eastern region, which will save £46 million a year—money that will be spent on front-line services in Harlow and elsewhere?
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
Last week in the emergency debate, the Secretary of State said:
“Risk registers…are not a prediction of the future. They set out a worst-case scenario”.—[Official Report, 20 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 676.]
I now have an early version of the risk register that civil servants gave him in September 2010. Risk No. 7 of his reorganisation was that “Financial control is lost.” That was red rated and, according to the document, likely to happen with major consequences. Is it not clear that last week the Secretary of State gave an inaccurate description of the risk registers he saw, and should he not now come to the Dispatch Box to correct the record?
Mr Burns
May I reassure you, Mr Speaker, if not so much the right hon. Gentleman, that my right hon. Friend did not mislead anyone? The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is the same as he and his predecessors pursued under the last Labour Government—and was pursued under the Thatcher and Major Governments—which is that Ministers do not comment on leaked documents.
Andy Burnham
The rest of the world is, and we would be interested to hear the Government’s views on it. Here we have it in full colour. It is not the worst-case scenario, as the Secretary of State claimed, but 43 very real and predictable risks, 21 of which are red rated and 14 likely to happen with major consequences. They include:
“Emergencies…less well managed…more failures…GP consortia go bust or have to cut services…performance dips and key staff lost”.
Is it not now clear for all to see that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have knowingly taken major risks with the national health service, ignored warnings from civil servants and kept those risks secret from Parliament in order to get their unnecessary Bill through?
Mr Burns
I am not quite sure which word in my last answer the right hon. Gentleman did not understand, so I will repeat it. Like previous Governments, we do not comment on leaked documents. Instead of coming to the Dispatch Box and talking down the fantastic work that nurses and doctors do day in and day out, why does he not read the quarter, the latest copy of which is full of facts about how the NHS is improving its performance and delivering better quality care for patients throughout England?
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of progress in tackling tuberculosis in England.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
Provisional numbers of tuberculosis cases in England in 2011 increased by 556 compared with 2010, although the number of cases is lower than in 2009. This may indicate that TB is stabilising, but it is too early to draw firm conclusions. We expect local NHS organisations, in partnership with other agencies, to sustain their efforts to control TB. On 23 March, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence published new guidance to help the NHS manage TB in hard-to-reach groups, including collaborative commissioning.
Mr Sharma
I thank the Minister for his answer. London has the highest rate of TB of any city in western Europe, with more than 3,000 cases a year. When faced with the same problem in Paris and New York, respective Governments committed to increasing resources and a clear model of care. Given the scale of the problem here, and the growing concern about drug-resistant TB, will the Secretary of State commit to implementing the London model of care for TB services that was developed by TB health professionals and advocacy groups to stop this ever-worsening problem?
Paul Burstow
I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this matter. He is a member of the all-party group on tuberculosis, and I believe he is meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) to discuss these matters further. He is right that this is a big issue in London as well as a global issue. The Department is working closely with TB Alert, the tuberculosis charity, which is running a series of programmes to raise awareness. It is working with the NHS and the voluntary sector, particularly in communities with higher risk populations, and we are working with the Royal College of General Practitioners to develop an online resource to promote the better detection and treatment of TB in primary care. I hope that he can explore these issues further, but the Government take them very seriously and are working with other agencies to make progress.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
It was 50 years ago that my dad moved on from being research secretary at the British Tuberculosis Association at Harefield because, in the 1950s, TB had ceased to be a killer in the UK. It is a tragedy that it has now come back, largely as a consequence of people with infectivity from overseas bringing TB into the country. What more can be done to enhance the screening of travellers from high-infection areas entering the UK so that those infected with TB can be identified and treated before they infect others in the population here?
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend makes an important point about one aspect of the better control of TB and its spread. The Home Office has been running a pilot programme for some years. It continues to evaluate the effectiveness of that programme with a view to establishing whether it is more widely applicable. We know that this disease has moved from the general population to specific high-risk groups, which is why the targeted approach I mentioned in my initial answer is the key to controlling it.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Minister has heard that TB is a particular problem in London—there was an 8% rise last year—and he will be aware that the current difficulties concern delays in detection and referral and the variability of commissioning and service provision. Given that the Health and Social Care Bill will necessarily lead to further fragmentation, separating health protection and public health from commissioning, how will he ensure that the Bill does not make a bad situation, in respect of TB in London, worse?
Paul Burstow
The Bill will not lead to fragmentation. It actually supports greater integration of health, social care and public health and, at a local level, it allows health and wellbeing boards to become the means by which to co-ordinate all the agencies that have a part to play when it comes to tackling TB, not least in ensuring that the advice of public health officials benefits not just the NHS but wider public services that also have a role to play in raising awareness of the disease and ensuring that it is properly tackled.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
4. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the treatment by the NHS of patients with defective breast implants.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
My officials have kept colleagues in the Welsh Government closely informed about the advice of Sir Bruce Keogh’s expert group and about our plans for the NHS treatment of patients with PIP breast implants.
Mr Lansley
I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the latest figures and place a copy of the letter in the Library. Overall, however, I am aware of 5,232 referrals to private providers, as a result of which 2,704 scans have been conducted. Consequently, the decision to explant breast implants has been taken in 298 cases. Some 75 such operations have been completed.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
6. What the average cost has been of a consultation at an NHS walk-in centre since 2008.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
The average cost of an attendance at an NHS walk-in centre was £36 in 2008-09; £42 in 2009-10; and £39 in 2010-11.
Dr Lee
I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Does he agree that in the future new commissioning groups, such as those that will serve my constituency in Bracknell, might choose not to fund walk-in centres—whether ones already established or those in the future—based on clinical justification terms? I, for one, remain to be convinced—indeed, I am far from convinced—of the long-term financial justification for, or clinical benefit of, walk-in centres.
Paul Burstow
There is not a nationally mandated programme of walk-in centres; rather, it will be for local commissioners to make decisions based on the evidence and their evaluation, and ensuring that they fulfil their contractual obligations.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the walk-in centre that opened in Rotherham a few years ago has given communities that are higher on bad health indices access to health care 12 hours a day, seven days a week? Getting rid of it—it was opposed by some local doctors, because it threatened their business—would be a backwards step. Can we expect the new commissioning groups to start commissioning GPs in areas such as mine, which are higher on bad health indices and do not have enough general practitioners?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, because he outlines the need to reduce health inequalities—something that the party of which he is a member failed to do in government. I can assure him that the Bill, which has now gone through all its parliamentary stages, will place a duty on clinical commissioning groups to seek to reduce health inequalities —something that his Government never did.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that when walk-in centres fail—or when any aspect of the national health service fails—it is because of poor management? Does he realise that good managers up and down the country are leaving the national health service? Doctors are not trained as managers. The Institute of Management has said that 43% of our managers are not up to the job, and we are not training our managers in the national health service because they are GPs.
Paul Burstow
This Government respect the contribution that NHS managers make, and we respect the contribution that the NHS Confederation makes as well. However, we also want to ensure that clinicians are at the heart of commissioning services. They are the people who understand patients most, and they are the people we are giving that responsibility to, because we think that is the way to drive improvement in the NHS.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
8. What his policy is on the rationalisation of PFI deals in the north-east for the purposes of making savings on long-standing PFI hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [R]
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Any plan to rationalise a PFI contract, such as that being considered by Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, would be a local decision. Any trust will need to satisfy itself of the value for money of any proposal. Northumbria Healthcare is a foundation trust, so Monitor is also considering its plans.
Guy Opperman
Many hospitals around the country are struggling under PFI debt. What plans does the Secretary of State have to ensure that other types of organisations, aside from Northumbria NHS Foundation Trust, will benefit from the new deal, just as my constituents in Hexham are?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have recently made it clear that where there is unsustainable PFI debt—as is the case for seven PFI contracts—we stand ready to support those trusts in meeting some of those costs, which we inherited from the last Government. Beyond that, working with the Treasury, we have undertaken a pilot project that has demonstrated how 5%, on average, can be taken out of the cost of PFI contracts through the better management of them. I hope that will be applied across the country. I welcome, as I know my hon. Friend does, the way in which Northumbria Healthcare, with its local authorities, is looking at resolving its PFI debts, and if that represents value for money, I am sure that others across the country will benefit from the experience.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
9. What steps his Department is taking to develop more effective performance management of GPs.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
As set out in the Health and Social Care Bill, performance management of general practice will become the responsibility of the new NHS Commissioning Board from April 2013. This will enable, for the first time, a single, consistent approach to be developed for the assessment and management of general practice.
Stephen Barclay
As with any profession, the performance of GPs varies widely. As more power is devolved to GPs, does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of independent performance management of GPs, in order to identify outliers and improve patient care?
Mr Burns
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, given his past association as a constituency MP with this subject, because of the problems in his constituency. I believe that we have a strong system of general practice in this country, but I am afraid that more can be done to address variations in aspects of the quality of provision by some general practitioners. As I have said, the NHS Commissioning Board will adopt a single, consistent approach, allowing an overview of performance, which is not currently possible, and ensuring that interventions occur at an early stage. I think that will go a considerable way towards helping with the problems that have been experienced.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As an elected representative for a great many years, I have often been made aware of issues relating to GPs and patient lists. Does the Minister agree that there should be greater co-operation between the Health Department and GPs with regard to their patient lists, and specifically with regard to the transfer of patients?
Mr Burns
With regard to the transfer of patients, we are seeking to give greater choice to patients under the modernisation programme so that they can move from one GP, or one GP practice, to another in a way that they cannot do at the moment. That will help to enhance the power of patients to get the GP of their choice and preference.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I am sure that the Minister would agree with me about the importance of addressing alcohol misuse through the alcohol strategy announced last week. On the performance management of GPs, however, does he agree that we need to do more than just monitor how much people drink, and that we need to ensure that GPs are incentivised to tackle the problem drinkers who attend their surgeries?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The first step that the Government should take is to start listening to doctors. Is it not the case that some senior GPs are now spending as little as one day a week seeing patients because they are too busy working on the Government’s massive NHS upheaval? It is costing the NHS up to £124,000 a year to replace each of those GPs with a locum. That is why the Department’s leaked transition risk register warns that GP leaders are not sufficiently developed to run consortia, and that they might be drawn into managerial processes that drive clinical behaviour, rather than the other way round. The risk rating for that is that it is likely to happen, with major consequences. When is the Minister going to get his head out of the sand and start listening?
Mr Burns
Well, that interesting rant bore little relation to the facts—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) would just button it for a minute, he will get the answer. The answer is that we are constantly listening to GPs, nurses, consultants and others within the NHS health economy. As we showed during the progress of the Health and Social Care Bill, we listened and we accepted a number of recommendations from the Future Forum and from a number of others, which strengthened and improved the Bill. I have to say that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) just does not get it.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
10. What steps he is taking to ensure that people receiving care at home funded by the NHS are involved in making the arrangements for that care.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
Our ambition is to enable shared decision making for all NHS patients. We expect people who are eligible for NHS continuing care funding to be fully involved in discussions about their care. Subject to the results of the current personal health budget pilots, everyone eligible for NHS continuing health care, including many people receiving care at home, will have the right to ask for a personal health budget, including a direct payment, from April 2014.
Meg Munn
I have received a letter from one of my constituents who has had direct payments for 15 years under social services. Following a stay in hospital, she was moved on to health funding, and her life has changed dramatically for the worse. She says that she no longer has any choice in who cares for her and finds it hard to find the right people with whom she feels comfortable. She concludes:
“I’m tired of being bullied. I’m just miserable.”
Will the Minister do something to bring forward the measures more quickly, so that people who have been directing their own care under social services can have the same quality of life and the same choices that they have become used to?
Paul Burstow
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady’s constituent, and with the hon. Lady. We need to ensure that, as soon as possible, the benefits and the control that direct payments give to individuals in social care are available to people in regard to their long-term health care and particularly to continuing health care. It is realistic to say that we can roll this out nationwide by 2014, but I know that the hon. Lady is having discussions with the authorities in Sheffield, and I encourage her to carry on those conversations about the way in which people can use the current arrangements to access those facilities.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Does the constituency case raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) not highlight the increasingly urgent need to achieve much more integration between health and social services, and indeed between different parts of the national health service, in order to provide joined-up care that focuses on patients’ needs and delivers better value for money to the taxpayer?
Paul Burstow
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I urge the hon. Lady to write to me about the matter so that I can respond in more detail, but let me say to my right hon. Friend that it is not just a question of delivering more integration within health care—which is often still too fragmented—or between health and social care; it is also a question of recognising that issues such as housing and leisure are critical to the delivery of greater well-being, and to an improvement in the health of the nation. The Health and Social Care Bill, which has now completed all its stages, gives people in every part of the system a clear duty to collaborate, integrate, and deliver better care for individuals.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
There are currently severe constraints on the availability of incontinence pads and on the bed linen laundry service, which is causing immense distress to the many poor families in my constituency. Will the Minister look into the problem? Will he recognise that it is simply impossible for people who are already in difficulties, and who are poor, to find the money for those extra things?
Paul Burstow
If the right hon. Lady sends me the details, I will look into the individual case. I agree with her that it is unacceptable for such products to be rationed. I think it essential to base their provision on an assessment of individuals’ needs, and for those individuals to receive what they need for a good quality of life.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
My constituent Joyce Benbow was discharged from Redcar hospital last November, but is still there owing to a failure to agree on her care package. When will the managers of health and social care budgets be more joined up so that people receive the right provision at the right time?
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend has raised an important point about the importance of joining up hospital care, community care and social care, which has often been overlooked. We have invested more than £300 million this year in developing more re-ablement services, and in January we invested an extra £150 million in support for them. We are also extending our plans for more tariff reform to ensure that local hospitals have the means to drive the development of such services in their communities.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
11. What recent representations he has received on the 111 pilot telephone service; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I have received representations from the British Medical Association and the NHS Alliance, both of which support the NHS 111 model, requesting an extension of the roll-out deadline of April 2013. I am actively considering that, and will be discussing it with the clinical commissioning groups who are leading the development of NHS 111 in their areas.
Miss McIntosh
Will the Secretary of State accept representations from me? I have used the 111 service on behalf of a family member, and I know that it is not working as well as it might, which is quite distressing. The call time and the script do not allow a person receiving a particular type of care to be fast-tracked to a clinician. I believe that there is a case for delaying its roll-out, and that the service would be infinitely better if the Secretary of State took my representations on board.
Mr Lansley
I will of course accept representations from my hon. Friend and, indeed, from anyone else. Pilot schemes are under way in County Durham and Darlington and in Nottingham, Lincolnshire and Luton. The system is also live in Derbyshire, the Isle of Wight, Cumbria, parts of Lancashire and parts of London. An evaluation will be published shortly by the university of Sheffield, but an interim evaluation suggested that 93% of patients were pleased with the service that they had received, and, most important, 84% felt that it had delivered them to the right place first time.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm the provision in regulation, reinforced by his new guidance, that no GPs should use 0844 numbers for their surgeries? Some patients are having to pay over the odds to contact their GPs.
Mr Lansley
We have made it very clear that GPs should not be using 0844 numbers for that purpose and charging patients for them. One of the benefits of NHS 111 is that it will be a free service for patients, and will give them an opportunity to gain access to integrated urgent care wherever they are in the country. That is why we want to roll it out as soon as we can.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Given the importance of 111 contracts, should we not delay assigning them until the clinical commissioning groups are properly in place?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will recall from my first answer that I am looking to discuss the timing of the roll-out with clinical commissioning groups. I do not want that to be unduly delayed, because there are clear benefits to patients in the 111 system in that it gives them a more integrated single point of access to the NHS.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
12. If he will introduce proposals to require a minimum ratio of nurses to patients in hospitals.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
Guidance on staff ratios and the proportion of registered and unregistered staff can play a useful part in supporting local decisions about setting safe and sustainable staffing levels. Both the Royal College of Nursing and the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement have produced such guidance. We have no plans to impose centrally determined ratios, as in our view that would undermine professional judgment.
Mr Cunningham
Is the Minister aware that the RCN says that nurses are overstretched, with too much reliance on cheaper, unqualified assistance? What impact does he think that will have on care for the elderly?
Paul Burstow
First, let me say that we greatly welcome the survey the RCN published last week, and the work it has done for many years to highlight ratios such as the ratio of nurses to beds. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the ratio has improved under this Government. We are working with the RCN and others to identify the processes and paperwork within the NHS that occupy nurses’ time and take them away from the bedside, which is the priority.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
When I last asked the Minister from the Dispatch Box about the loss of 3,500 nursing posts, he told the House that that was “factually incorrect”. He was right, and I apologise: the actual figure, published last week, is 4,096. In what will surely be one of the Secretary of State’s final outings in his current post, before he is reshuffled to where he can do no further harm, will he tell the House how many of those nursing posts would have been secured by the £500 million spending cut he agreed with the Treasury in last week’s Budget?
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
13. What steps he is taking to provide services for people diagnosed with Raynaud’s disease and scleroderma.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
Routine commissioning is a local responsibility, which in future will be led by clinicians, who best understand patients’ needs. From April 2013, the NHS Commissioning Board will have a clear focus on commissioning services for people with rare, specialised conditions. The commissioning of those services directly through one national commissioner to a national standard should ensure better planning and co-ordination of services, which will be of benefit to patients. The scope of this commissioning, and the extent to which it will cover complex rheumatology services, is still being considered.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for that reply. I am very proud to have the headquarters of the Raynaud’s and Scleroderma Association based in my constituency. It was founded 30 years ago by a remarkable lady, Anne Mawdsley. It is still run from a terraced house in Alsager, and she has raised £12 million through undertaking some remarkable feats, including, I think, swimming with dolphins. Will the Minister commend her work and assure her that scleroderma patients will be able to access the best specialist centres for diagnosis and treatment?
Paul Burstow
I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend does and to the work the Raynaud’s and Scleroderma Association has done over many years in raising funds, raising awareness and making sure there is a greater focus on these issues. I can assure my hon. Friend that the work we have done in establishing the NHS Commissioning Board will mean that in future, for the first time, there will be one organisation that will be able to look at issues involving specialised and complex needs that require a national focus.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
14. What recent progress he has made on the review of adult congenital cardiac services.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The review of adult congenital heart services is a clinically-led NHS review, independent of Government. I understand that an expert advisory group has been established and its first task will be to develop designation standards and a model of care that commissioners can use to help determine the future pattern of services.
Greg Mulholland
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but adult cardiac patients in Yorkshire are both disfranchised and extremely worried because of the review of the children’s heart unit, as if it is closed, they, too, would lose access to surgeons. Does the Secretary of State agree that it does not make sense to have two separate reviews, and that they should instead be brought together?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will know that no decision has yet been taken on the location of children’s or adult congenital heart surgery centres in England. Neither the draft adult clinical standards nor the proposed standards for children’s services require services for children and adults to be collocated.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State ensure that the relationship between adult and children’s cardiac services is properly considered as part of the review?
Mr Lansley
On both children’s and adult congenital heart services, all relevant clinical factors should be taken into account in the review, but I reiterate the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland): the standards for those services do not require children’s and adult services to be collocated.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
15. What assessment he has made of the provision of vision screening for children.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The Department of Health has made no assessment of the provision of vision screening for children. However, the UK National Screening Committee, which advises Ministers and the NHS on all aspects of screening, has commissioned a national mapping exercise to look at how many primary care trusts offer vision screening.
Neil Carmichael
There is some evidence of variance across the country, with some PCTs not conforming to current arrangements. What thought has been given to how to improve the situation and iron out the variance?
Mr Burns
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the National Screening Committee recommends screening for visual impairment for children between the ages of four and five, and encourages all PCTs to follow those recommendations and ensure that children are screened. However, the Government are aware that, as my hon. Friend says, there are variations in the commissioning of vision screening across PCTs, and it welcomes the review that is being undertaken. We await its recommendations as regards those variations, but we hope that under the new arrangements, after the abolition of PCTs, there will be a far more uniform approach to commissioning and screening.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
16. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of services for older people.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
A number of inspections, reports, independent audits, and investigations have revealed long-standing and unacceptable variations in the standard of care that older people receive in the NHS, and in social care. The Government are determined to root out poor-quality care wherever it is found. We have established the national Nursing and Care Quality Forum to work with patients, carers and professionals to spread best practice.
Nick Smith
The British Geriatrics Society’s “Quest for Quality” report identified that too many people in care homes were without access to NHS services, including psychiatric, physiotherapy and continence services. What action are the Government taking to ensure that care home residents get the high-quality NHS care that they deserve?
Paul Burstow
In England, one of the things that we are doing is making sure that a programme of special inspections of care homes, conducted by the Care Quality Commission, looks at those issues to ensure that we provide the right range of support services for people in care homes. In addition, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has produced quality standards; in particular, it has been working on quality standards relating to issues affecting older people—incontinence, nutrition support for adults, patient experience, delirium, dementia, and many others. All that is critical to delivering really good-quality care in care homes.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
22. Russells Hall hospital, which serves my constituency, has reviewed recent reports, and done its own research, on dignity and care for older patients. It has elevated the qualities of care and compassion to the top of its criteria for recruiting health care assistants. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Nursing and Midwifery Council should apply similar learning to nurse training?
Paul Burstow
It is important that that is applied to all who have direct responsibility for delivering care, and hands-on care in particular. The work that Russells Hall hospital is doing on care and respect, and in its responsibility programme, is a good example of that. On issues such as dementia, we are clear that we need to ensure good advice, training and support for all nursing staff—we are working with the Royal College of Nursing on this—so that they treat people who have dementia with dignity.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Government are rightly building on Labour’s national dementia strategy, and the Minister should know that the dementia crisis cannot be addressed without tackling the crisis in care. Yet his Government have cut more than £1 billion from local council budgets for older people’s care, services are being withdrawn and care charges for dementia sufferers are soaring. The Alzheimer’s Society and Age UK say that these cuts have pushed the system to breaking point. Does the Minister agree with them, yes or no?
Paul Burstow
The hon. Lady, of course, offers no solution, merely a problem. I say to her that this Government identified £7.2 billion of additional investment to go into social care over the life of this Parliament, and those resources are being used creatively by some local authorities to protect front-line services. I urge her to applaud the authorities that are doing that and join me in condemning those that are cutting services despite being given the resources.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
17. What steps he is taking to raise the professional standards of health care workers and care assistants.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
The Government have commissioned Skills for Health and Skills for Care to develop a code of conduct and minimum training standards for health care support workers and adult social care workers in England. That will inform the development of a system of assured voluntary registration for this group, which will be reviewed after it has been established for three years.
Caroline Dinenage
Have the Government made any assessment of the cost of rolling out mandatory regulations to health care support workers?
Paul Burstow
I will write to the hon. Lady with any specific details about the precise costs of rolling out such a register. I say to her that, for the first time, we have a Government who have decided that leaving unclarified the training requirements, standards and codes of conduct for health care assistants and care assistants is unacceptable. That is why we have commissioned this work. It will involve working with unions and other health care professionals to make sure we get those standards right, because we know that that is key to delivering dignified care.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
My responsibility is to lead the NHS in delivering improved health outcomes in England; to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities; and to lead the reform of adult social care, which supports and protects vulnerable people.
Jo Swinson
An estimated 50,000 people, mostly men, are misusing anabolic steroids to build muscle, which can result in liver cancer, depression, a damaged immune system, kidney problems and cardiovascular disease. Will the Secretary of State examine the public health implications of the 56% rise in steroid misuse over five years? Will he work to address its causes, such as body image anxiety, as well as just treating the problem?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a good and important point. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be subjecting these drugs to greater control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, restricting their illegal import into this country. Controlling supply is one part of the effort. Prevention is also important; people need to be fully aware of the risks to their health. The FRANK service, which provides advice to young people and parents about drugs misuse, will make it clear that the misuse of steroids is dangerous. I would encourage local areas to work with local businesses, such as gyms and fitness centres, to publicise those risks.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
T2. The Department’s latest estimate shows that alcohol misuse costs the NHS £3.5 billion every year. Will the Secretary of State now champion a 50p minimum unit price? That would save more than 3,000 lives a year, rather than 1,000 a year, which is what his public health responsibility deal is expected to secure.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman should have welcomed the alcohol strategy that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published last Friday. Not only did we see the Government’s intention to introduce a unit price, but on that day 35 business organisations across the country collectively, under the responsibility deal, pledged themselves to take 1 billion units of alcohol out of the UK market in the course of a year.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
T7. Many hospitals, including the Norfolk and Norwich university hospital, have reported a dramatic increase in alcohol-related admissions over the past 10 years, so I welcome the latest alcohol strategy. But what steps is the Secretary of State taking to support the expansion of treatment and early interventions for dependent and harmful drinkers in Norfolk and elsewhere?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and he is absolutely right to identify the priority that this Government are now placing on dealing with the harm caused by alcohol, not least because of the 1.2 million alcohol-related hospital admissions. The strategy outlined by the Home Secretary last week is about education and raising awareness; enforcement; and treatment—making sure that the treatment services are more widely spread. It is also about recognising that this is a cross-government responsibility, not the responsibility of any one Department. That is why the proposals to use a national minimum unit pricing policy will tackle cheap booze and the binge culture.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T3. We now know that the Conservatives have received more than £8 million in donations from private health care companies since 2001. This goes beyond simply cash for access to a much more sinister issue of cash for policy influence. Ministers have said that they do not expect any increase in private sector provision in the NHS, but how will this be measured in years to come?
Mr Lansley
Nobody buys influence over the policy of the Conservative party or the coalition Government. That is in complete contrast to the situation with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and his friends on the Opposition Front Bench, who are the wholly owned subsidiaries of the trade unions.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
T8. Could my right hon. Friend indicate how he proposes to use his welcome new duty to reduce health inequalities under the Health and Social Care Bill?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As he will be aware from his time on the Bill Committee this Government have for the first time in the 64 years of the NHS put into legislation a duty to reduce health inequalities. That will be done through the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups, each being under a duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in access to and the outcomes of health care. The Secretary of State will also have a wider duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities relating to the health service. That will include his duties for both the NHS and public health. It is a great step forward and I am surprised that the previous Government did not think of doing it during their 13 years.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
T4. At a time of major upheaval in the national health service, the people of west Lancashire and other areas of Lancashire are being failed by the chief executive of the Lancashire primary care trust cluster. Living in Yorkshire and working from Lancaster, Janet Soo-Chung has failed to meet with me or other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle). Can the Secretary of State assure me that the necessary time and development is being invested in health services in west Lancashire to ensure that authorisation takes place in a timely way without conditions and that the health services provided to my constituents are good?
Mr Lansley
I will, of course, ask Janet if she will meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues, but I think the hon. Lady might have noted that the NHS is performing magnificently. The quarter document published just this morning gives details of 14 performance measures across the NHS, in five of which performance has been maintained and in nine of which there has been improvement, so there has been no deterioration in performance. When the hon. Lady gets to her feet she should say to the NHS, “Well done for improving performance.”
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Currently, there is a review into paediatric cardiac services going on. I recognise that that is independent of Government, but we now have the independent analysis of patient flows, which says exactly what we have been saying—that patients in south and west Yorkshire will not go to Newcastle. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an important development and that the options should reflect that because this is a serious problem for heart services in the north of England?
Mr Simon Burns
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistent championing of his constituents, but sadly I cannot be drawn into a discussion about evidence, facts and figures that might come up around this issue, because as he will appreciate it is an independent review which is divorced from Ministers.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
T5. Mindfulness-based meditation techniques have been deemed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to be more effective than drug-based therapy in the treatment of recurring depression in many circumstances. Will the Minister tell the House his views on mindfulness-based techniques and say what other conditions and diseases he thinks would benefit from such therapy?
Paul Burstow
The Government are committed to extending the range of NICE approved therapies when it comes to access to talking therapies. Certainly, we will look very carefully at how we extend it in the area he has suggested. I will write to him in further detail about this.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to Members of Parliament representing areas that have received an allocation from the formula which has been significantly below their target, given the change in arrangements to clinical commissioning groups in future?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will be aware that the distance from target on the existing formula for Cornwall in particular has narrowed and is only just over 2%. For the future, I hope that he and all hon. Members will take considerable reassurance from the fact that not only will the formula continue to be the subject of independent advice, but new statutory provisions will set out that it should be intended to reflect the prospective burden of disease in each area, so it should be matched as closely as possible to the need for services in each area.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. The Government say that clinicians understand patients best, but there are doctors in Walthamstow who will not provide contraceptives to local women, and we now have one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and repeat abortions in the country. Will the Ministers agree to meet women from my constituency and help them understand who, under the new system and the new layers of bureaucracy, they can hold to account for these problems—yes or no?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady should first have expressed a welcome for the fact that there has been a further reduction overall in the numbers of teenage pregnancies. As she knows, in her constituency there are doctors who, as she says, do not provide contraceptives, but there are also many other practices that do—17 out 18 GP practices in Walthamstow provide contraceptive services. There was a 60% increase in a decade in the number of managers in her area and the result seems to be that she does not understand how services were managed in Walthamstow. Under local authorities and the clinical commissioning groups in the future, there will be a clearer system.
Mr Speaker
No one could accuse the Secretary of State of being other than comprehensive. We are grateful to him.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that under the allocation formula a number of PCTs have built up historic deficits, which have required us in Warrington, for example, to reduce our in vitro fertilisation services. Can the Minister confirm that with the transfer to GP commissioning, those historic deficits will be written off, which will in effect inject large amounts of money into local health economies such as Warrington’s?
Mr Simon Burns
I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend. PCTs carrying legacy debt into 2012-13 must clear it. Clinical commissioning groups will not be responsible for resolving primary care trust legacy debt that arose prior to 2011-12. It is expected that aspirant CCGs will continue to work closely with primary care trusts and primary care trust clusters in 2012-13 to ensure that no PCT ends 2012-13 in a deficit position.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
One NHS consultant told me that
“NHS reorganisation could mean that you are forced to spend around 10% of your income on private health care insurance.”
Does the Secretary of State accept that the doctor is right to say that people will either wait longer for care or they will have to pay for it?
Mr Lansley
That is complete rubbish. The legislation is absolutely clear that it does not lead to privatisation, it does not promote privatisation, it does not permit privatisation and it does not allow any increase in charges in the NHS. It simply creates a level playing field so that NHS providers will not be disadvantaged compared to the private sector, as they were under a Labour Government.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The present Wycombe hospital consultation has proceeded with a number of hiccups, not least because of the false sense of local accountability engendered by Labour’s top-down system of health management. Will the Secretary of State meet me and a small delegation of my constituents to discuss how things will improve under his reforms?
Mr Lansley
Of course. I will be glad to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents. I recall how he has been an advocate on their behalf in the past and a vocal advocate of services in Wycombe. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that we are looking towards not only the clinical commissioning groups, but the local authorities injecting further democratic accountability so that in his constituency and those across the country we see much greater local ownership and accountability for the design of services.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Chancellor’s evidence to the independent pay review body chairs last week contained curious if not dubious references to nursing pay and non-nursing pay, and possible outcome linkages of those. Does the Secretary of State understand those and can he explain them?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have asked the pay review bodies to look at the aspects of pay related to market conditions, and I do not want to prejudice that. They will come back with their advice on that.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday on dementia care. What assurances can the Secretary of State give me that this will be an aggressive strategy, looking at matters such as new access to drugs, early diagnosis and support for carers of those with dementia?
Mr Lansley
Not only were there the announcements made yesterday, but as part of that there was the establishment of three sets of champions, including Angela Rippon and Jeremy Hughes from the Alzheimer’s Society, working together as champions to raise awareness and understanding, Ian Carruthers and Sarah Pickup as champions on improving treatment and care, and Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, and Mark Walport from the Wellcome Trust, as champions for research. Their objective is specifically, as the Prime Minister told them, to hold our feet to the fire, not only for the ambitions we set out yesterday, but for going further and faster.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
On 24 February, my constituent, Audrey Kay, died after a litany of poor treatment. Will the Minister meet her son and me to hear Audrey’s treatment story?
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Is the Minister aware of the publication today of the industrial action review by the London ambulance service, which details that on 30 November, the day of the public service strikes, in the afternoon and the evening, requests for front-line staff to return to front-line ambulances were made by the London ambulance service. However, of the three unions to strike, only Unison responded to say that it would not ask staff to return to work. Three hours later, after three repeated requests for help, a patient who had been unable to get an ambulance had died. The report has called—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. I do not wish to be unkind, but topical questions are about short questions, and that was not. I am very sorry. The Minister may give a brief reply if he wishes.
Mr Simon Burns
The industrial action to which my hon. Friend refers showed both the best and the worst sides of industrial relations in this country. On the one hand, it showed the worst excesses of union militancy and intransigence in failing to put effective contingency plans in place ahead of strike day, and then in refusing to call off the strike. On the other hand, it showed the best traditions of public services when the Metropolitan police, St John Ambulance and many out-of-hour providers came to the aid of the London ambulance service. Were it not for their help, the situation could have been even more serious.
Mr Speaker
The Minister’s power to anticipate what will be said to him is extremely impressive, and I congratulate him immensely warmly.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
One year on, are the pledges under the responsibility deal working?
Mr Lansley
One year on in the responsibility deal we are seeing successes, including the elimination of artificial trans fats, further reductions in salt in manufactured foods, and over 8,000 high street outlets sharing and showing calorie information. The monitoring and evaluation of the deal is vital. We are committed to this and we are making up to £1 million available to fund an independent evaluation.
Mr Speaker
Order. I thank colleagues for their co-operation. I am sorry to disappoint those who were waiting, but we must move on.
South West Bedfordshire Constituency
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I rise to present a petition signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents, who are extremely keen to keep the town of Dunstable and the village of Kensworth within the South West Bedfordshire constituency. Many people have contributed to getting this petition together. It has been both online and on paper. I thank in particular Councillor Ann Sparrow, Councillor Beverley Whayman and two former mayors of Dunstable, Brenda Boatwright and Sally Newton. My apologies to those I have not thanked.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Bedfordshire,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposed boundary changes put forward by the Boundary Commission for England in relation to Dunstable as the Petitioners believe that the North Luton area, which the Boundary Commission proposes to combine with Dunstable, is a different community from Dunstable with different social challenges, which are very different from those of an historic market town.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons not approve any Order in Council giving effect to changes proposed by the Boundary Commission in relation to Dunstable that would combine Dunstable with North Luton.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001015]
Health and Social Care Bill
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is fitting that just before the recess I should be presenting a petition against the Health and Social Care Bill, as it has dominated our proceedings in recent days. I commend in particular Karen Walker for her work in helping to gather the signatures on the petition.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the reforms to the NHS that will be brought about by the Health and Social Care Bill as the Petitioners believe that they will damage the quality of services provided by the NHS.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse the reforms to the NHS brought about by the Health and Social Care Bill as soon as possible.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001016]
National Planning Policy Framework
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about planning policy. I am delighted today to be publishing the national planning policy framework and our response to the Communities and Local Government Committee’s report of 21 December 2011.
Our reforms to planning policy have three fundamental objectives: to put unprecedented power in the hands of communities to shape the places in which they will live; to support growth better to give the next generation the chance that our generation has had to have a decent home, and to allow the jobs to be created on which our prosperity depends; and to ensure that the places we cherish—our countryside, towns and cities—are bequeathed to the next generation in a better condition than they are in now.
To achieve these objectives, reform is sorely needed. A decade of regional spatial strategies, top-down targets and national planning policy guidance that has swelled beyond reason—over 1,000 pages across 44 documents—has led to communities seeing planning as something done to them, rather than by them. As the planning system has become more complex, it has ground ever slower. In 2004 Parliament required every council to have a plan, but eight years on only around half of councils have been able to adopt one.
During the past decade, starting long before the financial crisis, we built fewer homes than in any peacetime decade for 100 years. The average age of the first-time buyer is approaching 40, and rising rents mean that families have to spend more and more on housing, and less and less on themselves and their children. We cannot allow this to go on. To do so would be to deny our responsibility to young families, to tell them that the property-owning democracy was for our generation, but not theirs.
Not all of that is down to sclerosis in the planning system, but some is. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that the planning system has become
“too complicated, too costly, too uncertain. It discourages investment, creates mistrust and holds back our recovery.”
It is not as if what has made it through has made up in quality what it lacks in quantity. Too much development in recent years has been mediocre, insensitive and has detracted from the character of the areas in which we live and work. Too many of our habitats have been degraded and seen nature driven out. The effect has been that much of the public have come to assume that any particular change to our built environment will be negative and that it will tend to impair beauty, damage the environment and make our lives worse. What a disastrous state of affairs in a country that is home to some of the most talented designers and the best architects and craftsmen in the world, and which has over the years constructed villages, cities and buildings, such as the one we meet in, that people cross the world to see.
Our reforms to the planning system take on each of these challenges. They enshrine the local plan, produced by local people, as the keystone of the planning system. They make planning much simpler and more accessible, reducing over 1,000 pages of often impenetrable jargon to around 50 pages of clearly written guidance. They establish a presumption in favour of sustainable development that means that development is not held up unless to approve it would be against our collective interest. The framework guarantees robust protections for our natural and historic environment and goes further by requiring net improvements to put right some of the neglect that has been visited upon us. It raises the bar on design standards so that we have the most exacting requirement for design that the English planning system has ever contained.
I have always regarded reforming the planning system as a serious responsibility. From the start I made it clear that Parliament should be central to the development of the policy. We have had three full debates in this House and in the House of Lords, and I asked the Communities and Local Government Committee to consider the draft NPPF and give me its considered advice. I put on the record my thanks to the Chair and members of the Committee, and to the Environmental Audit Committee, for the seriousness and thoughtfulness they brought to the task. I am pleased to tell colleagues that, of the Committee’s 35 recommendations, I have been able to accept 30 in whole or in part. In particular, the final framework makes it clear that the local plan is, as the Committee put it, the keystone of the planning edifice.
It is crystal clear that sustainable development embraces social and environmental as well as economic objectives, and does so in a balanced way. It refers explicitly to the five principles of the UK’s sustainable development strategy. It goes further than ever before and is clear that councils should look for net improvements on all dimensions of sustainability. It makes it explicit that the presumption in favour of sustainable development works through, not against, local plans. It makes it clear that relevant policies, such as those protecting the green belt, sites of special scientific interest, national parks and other areas, cannot be overridden by the presumption. It recognises the intrinsic value and beauty of the countryside, whether specifically designated or not. It makes explicit what was always implicit: that councils’ policies must encourage brownfield sites to be brought back into use. It underlines the importance of town centres, while recognising that businesses in rural communities should be free to expand. It takes a localist approach to creating a buffer of housing supply over and above five years, and in the use of windfall sites. It allows councils to protect back gardens, those precious urban oases. It ensures that playing fields continue to benefit from the same protection that they have currently.
The final framework has been strengthened by the contributions of everyone who has taken the trouble to submit their views, and I am very grateful to them. It has always been my intention that councils which do the right thing and have either adopted, or made good progress towards adopting, local plans will not be disadvantaged by the change to the new policy.
Accordingly, I have introduced transitional arrangements suggested by and agreed with the Local Government Association. They accord weight to plans based on how advanced they are, but I have gone further in two respects: I have allowed 12 months from today for existing plans to be adjusted in order to be in complete conformity with the new framework; and I have made it clear that weight can be given to emerging plans.
Finally, this House has a particular role to play in safeguarding the interests of our successors. I will ensure that Parliament, having shaped the development of the new framework, supervises the implementation of the policies, starting with a debate on the Floor of the House soon after we return from the Easter recess.
The purpose of planning is to make the way in which we live our lives tomorrow better than it is today. This national planning policy framework will help build the homes that the next generation needs; it supports growth to allow employers to create the jobs that our constituents need; and it protects what we hold dear in our matchless countryside and in the fabric of our history. It does so by taking power away from remote bodies and putting it firmly into the hands of the people of England. I warmly commend it to the House.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, although much of it has been leaked over the past few days.
Planning helps us to get the right development in the right place—development which we need, and that is why it is so important to get the balance right in this, the most fundamental change in planning policy in more than two generations. It is therefore extraordinary that the Government managed to make such a mess of the process, which did nothing to inspire confidence in all of us who want an effective planning system and the right kind of sustainable development, but who are determined to conserve the intrinsic character and beauty of England’s green and pleasant land—something that successive Governments have supported.
Councils were particularly concerned about the presumption in favour of “sustainable development”—ill defined—if they did not have up-to-date development plans, and, as we know, Ministers lashed out at those who had the temerity to express concern—such revolutionaries as the National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, I remind the House—calling them “semi-hysterical”, “left-wing” and “nihilist”.
Ministers claim that planning is the obstacle to building homes, when 300,000 dwellings that have already been given permission have not yet been built. Why is that? Because of the failure of the Government’s own economic policy. It is no wonder they have been arguing fiercely among themselves, with one unnamed Cabinet Minister—I just wonder who that might be—quoted as accusing the Chancellor of behaving like the Taliban on planning: a very revealing comment if a pretty inappropriate one.
There has also been a lack of transparency. Can the Minister before us confirm for the House whether any of the developers whom he and his colleagues have met since last June are donors to the Conservative party? We cannot find out for ourselves because the quarterly publication of Department for Communities and Local Government ministerial meetings is now nine months out of date—in clear contravention of the ministerial code. I have twice raised that issue with CLG Ministers in this Chamber, and on both occasions I have been promised that it was about to appear. It has not.
I welcome the U-turn on protection for playing fields and open spaces. Why on earth Ministers thought they could get away with removing it in the first place, I fail to understand. I welcome also the reference to the five principles of sustainable development, which we had called for.
On brownfield land, why are the Government so against a national, as opposed to a local “brownfield first” policy, given that it is the best place to build the millions of homes that we urgently need, and the best way to protect the greenfield sites that so many Members are concerned about?
Can the Minister explain exactly what the new requirements for statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency and English Heritage will involve? How will they be, in the rather menacing words of the Budget Red Book, “held to account” for delivering sustainable development?
Will the Minister clarify the reported remarks by Professor Andrew McNaughton, the chief engineer of High Speed 2, about 100,000 new homes being built between Coventry and Wolverhampton, and about a “new docklands” to the west of London? Given the Government’s professed commitment to localism, will he tell us when the local authorities covering these areas first knew about this, and what will be the Government’s role in the development of new towns and cities to help us to build the homes that we need?
On town centres, will the Minister confirm that he has accepted our proposal that offices should remain in the sequential town centre test, given their importance to the economies of our towns and cities, including through the business generated by those who work in them,? What changes is he planning to make to use class orders? Will local authorities be given greater flexibility in determining those?
On the crucial question of transition to the new arrangements—the point that Members raised more than any other in the debate that we had back in October—we know that about half of councils currently do not have development plans. While the Minister has talked about providing 12 months to produce up-to-date plans, annex 1 of the framework is rather less clear. Will he produce further guidance on how the transition is going to work in practice? Where councils do have plans, who will determine whether they are “silent”, “out of date”, or “indeterminate”? Those words remain in the final framework, so presumably the presumption in favour of sustainable development will apply—the opposite of localism. Who decides what is “in the public interest”—the phrase that the Minister has been using in his interviews today? In particular, who will decide when an application goes to appeal?
Not only has Parliament not been given the chance to vote on the final version of the framework, but it is coming into force from today—before Members in the House have even had a chance to read it.
The country needs a planning system that will help to produce the much-needed homes, businesses, jobs and transport connections of the future, but will also protect the green spaces and special places we value. However, this revised NPPF may end up doing neither. Far from giving us certainty, there is likely to be delay as developments are held up by appeals and by the courts having to rule on a new and untested approach. In other words, there is uncertainty and chaos—the worst of all worlds—instead of the best of planning.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s response. His family may have forsworn their aristocratic origins, but he does the best impression of Lady Bracknell’s righteous indignation that we have seen in the House for some time.
It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman has not approached this in the constructive spirit in which his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), to whom I pay tribute, embarked on this process in July. She said right at the beginning that it was important that we should work together and have a constructive response to what is a shared problem to make sure that future generations continue to benefit from homes, jobs and the protections that are in place. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) maintained that approach, but it does not seem to have transmitted itself along the Opposition Front Bench. I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a partisan approach today.
Let me answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. It is important that we bring brownfield land back into use. The essence of localism is that every place is different, so it is clearly not the right approach to have a single national target that needs to be as appropriate for a country shire district as it is for an inner-city district. As he will see, the plan-making section of the framework clearly allows local councils to set a locally appropriate target for bringing brownfield land back into use. That has to make sense.
On the statutory consultees, one of the innovations of the Localism Act 2011 is that it creates a truly statutory obligation on the part of consultees, including those that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, to co-operate with local authorities to make sure that they do not renege on their responsibilities. The Act imposes a legal duty to assist local councils in putting together their local plans.
On the High Speed 2 proposal, I was as bemused as the right hon. Gentleman when I read about it in the weekend papers. He will know, having read the framework this morning, that the protection for the green belt is clear and unequivocal, as we have always said. That is one particular case, and I do not see its relevance.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are insistent that our town centres should receive support to help them to revive. As Mary Portas, the retail consultant, pointed out, town centres lose out to out-of-town centres because they cannot provide the necessary car parking spaces, which were suppressed by the previous guidance. One change that we are making is to allow local councils to set the parking standards, to reflect what is required locally. Offices will remain part of the “town centre first” policy, but with an exception for rural offices, because the creation of jobs in rural areas is important for the sustainability of villages.
The transitional arrangements begin today. They have been agreed with the Local Government Association. As of now, there is a team in the Planning Inspectorate comprising representatives of the Local Government Association, the Planning Inspectorate and my Department to assist any authority that wants help in revising its plan or advice on any aspect of it. The team will be there for as long as is necessary.
The essence of our reforms is localism—to put power in the hands of people. This is the end of the central targets and top-down direction that put people off the planning system. If we want more homes to be built, we have to work with the grain of local communities, rather than against it. That is what we are doing. We are putting power in the hands of local people. I understand that that makes an old centralist like the right hon. Gentleman unhappy, but that is the direction in which we are going and these reforms are a significant step in that direction.
Mr Speaker
Order. A large number of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there is a ten-minute rule motion to follow, and then a debate under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee that is extremely heavily subscribed. I shall try to accommodate as many colleagues as possible, but I am looking for short questions, without preamble, and short answers.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the thrust of my right hon. Friend’s statement and the changes that he has made to the consultation paper. In particular, I welcome the fact that he has protected greenfield sites designated as green belt, sites of special scientific interest or areas of outstanding natural beauty, of which we have some in Wiltshire. Is he not also concerned about the 60% of green land in England that has no designation? What will he do under the framework to ensure that those areas have protection equal or similar to that of the green belt?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend will be pleased that the revised framework includes a recognition of the intrinsic value of the countryside, reflecting its beauty, whether or not it is designated nationally, so it will have that protection.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that we will have the opportunity to debate the changes when the House comes back from the recess. However, given that the changes will take effect from today, what assurances will the right hon. Gentleman give the House about transitional arrangements for the almost 60% of local authorities that do not have local plans in place? Is it not the fact that, despite what he says, economic development will trump sustainability on every occasion?
Greg Clark
I thank the hon. Lady for the contribution of the Environmental Audit Committee. It provided a serious consideration of the matter and she will see that we have taken it in that spirit. The transitional arrangements, which were agreed with the Local Government Association, give weight to emerging plans. Although only about half of the plans are close to adoption, most places in the country have plans that are well advanced in preparation. At the suggestion of the LGA, we said to the Communities and Local Government Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), that we should give weight to the policies in emerging plans, so that they can be relied upon. That will take place from today.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
One of the monstrosities that have afflicted our green and pleasant land is the thoughtlessly over-rapid development of wind farms in the countryside. Many of my constituents fear the speed of development of such wind farms. Does my right hon. Friend’s framework offer any comfort to them?
Greg Clark
Two factors are relevant to that question. The first is the intended abolition of the regional strategies, with their targets. That will remove the imposition on local councils of those targets, as will be the case with other targets. The policy also contains the ability for local councils to map and set criteria for where renewable energy would be appropriate, and to use those criteria for subsequent applications to determine what would—and, by implication, would not—be appropriate in each of their areas.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State prides himself on being a blunt-speaking, plain-speaking Yorkshireman. Will the Minister adopt some of that plain speaking and give the House a definition of the word “sustainable” that people in Yorkshire, Derbyshire and even Kent can understand?
Greg Clark
We followed the suggestion of the Communities and Local Government Committee and used the classic Brundtland definition, which is about protecting the ability of future generations to enjoy the benefits that the present generation enjoys. We have also included the five principles of the UK’s sustainable development strategy. In practice, the policies outlined in the national planning policy framework will determine, in each case, what is and is not sustainable. For example, it is not sustainable to have a shopping development outside the town centre and it is not sustainable to build in the green belt. There is a high level of definition, and the practical application is very clear in the policies.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Bury St Edmunds is an unspoilt county market town, and its residents want to keep it that way. Will the Minister tell me whether neighbourhood plans can be used to block unwanted development?
Greg Clark
We encourage neighbourhood plans to set out, at a more local level than the council’s plan, what should be the look and feel of towns. Bury St Edmunds is a town with a great deal of civic pride and would benefit from that. Neighbourhood plans have to be consistent with the broad approach of the local plan, but it is right that specific local details, which in towns such as my hon. Friend’s may relate to architectural design and historical consistency, should be expressed in a neighbourhood plan. They would then become part of the formal plan and determine planning applications.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister personally for the way in which he has dealt with the Communities and Local Government Committee and for what seems to be a generally favourable response to our report, although we are still to see the detail. I have two specific issues to raise. Will he confirm whether the proposal that the
“default answer to development proposals is ‘yes’”
is in the final document? If the “significantly and demonstrably” test remains in the document and an application for development meets that test but fails the sustainable development test, which test has priority?
Greg Clark
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work of his Select Committee. No development can take place that is unsustainable. That is the commitment that we give on that point. I have forgotten the other question.
Greg Clark
The default answer was a variation of a presumption that everyone agreed was not terribly helpful, and we have deleted it from the document.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Among the plethora of policy failures under the previous Government, such as regional spatial strategies, parking and density targets, was the fact that between 1997 and 2005, 117,000 homes were built in floodplains. Does the document, which I strongly endorse and support, contain appropriate safeguards on residential development in floodplains?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
There is little dispute over the need for new, sensibly located affordable housing. The dispute is over whether it is the planning regulations that are preventing it. Many of us do not think that it is. The draft NPPF stated that any conditions on development proposals must allow “acceptable returns” to be made. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the final document clarifies who will be responsible for defining “acceptable returns”, and how he will ensure that company profits will not be prioritised above high environmental standards?
Greg Clark
No, they will not be. Nothing that is unsustainable can override that fact by using the viability test. That is for local plan makers and local councillors to determine. On the contribution that the planning system makes to impeding the development of affordable homes, there was broad consensus in the consultation, including among homelessness groups such as Shelter and housing associations, that the excessive bureaucracy of the process was an impediment to the development of affordable housing, as well as other types of housing.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his constructive listening approach. Has he been able to support existing lawful business against objections by more recently arrived residents who seem to think that they should be able to dominate the local community to the detriment of economic activity, employment and jobs?
Greg Clark
It is a reasonable expectation that if a business has located in an area and traded successfully, it ought to be able to continue in its line of work, especially if it is creating jobs and is part of the local scene. The new framework provides protection for businesses to continue in their trade.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Mike Slade, the chairman of the Conservative property forum, has given more than £300,000 to the Tory party over the past decade individually and through his property company Helical Bar. Mr Slade says:
“You do run the thin line of someone saying: I’m only doing this to have access and influence, but that was what politics was always about. It’s a little unfair, but there must be 20 per cent truth in it.”
It is easy to see what is in this policy for the Tory party and the developers. What is in it for my constituents?
Mr Speaker
I think we got the question at the end, but I must ask Members to use their opportunity to ask a question.
Greg Clark
I would never be influenced by any donation, and I am not aware of any such attempt ever having been made. It would certainly get pretty short shrift from me.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Today is a landmark for localism and for consultations being listened to, because the three points that I made in the consultation, about brownfield land, windfall and the localisation of the buffer, have all been adopted. I am absolutely delighted. Will the Minister clarify for my local councillors, who will now be in charge, how the transition process for the community infrastructure levy will work?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution to the consultation. We have listened broadly. I know that people are cynical about consultation exercises, but I think they will find that practical and sensible suggestions have been listened to and incorporated. The community infrastructure levy will be introduced, and we are about to publish some regulations regarding the conduct of it. I will update her in a few days about when they will take effect. Among other things, the levy will provide funding for neighbourhoods for the first time, so that communities that host developments will get to share in the proceeds at a very local level.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State touched on the fact that there are thousands of acres on which there is already planning permission for homes but the developers and builders are not building. What are the Government going to do to get them to build?
Greg Clark
Two things. First, the framework will allow those sites to be included in the housing assessment that is required. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the new homes bonus is available for homes that are brought back into use as well as those that are built. That is a powerful incentive for councils to bring back into use homes that are not being used at the moment.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
In recent times, countless family homes have been demolished and their gardens concreted over. What does my right hon. Friend’s statement mean for those of us who have campaigned against garden grabbing in our constituencies?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend will know that I have taken a long-standing interest in the matter since I was a Back Bencher. The new framework makes it absolutely clear that decisions can be taken locally. If a local council wants to protect back gardens because they contribute to the character of its area, it will be entirely free to do so and that cannot be overridden.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Minister will know that one of the greatest planning problems right across the United Kingdom has been in the consistency of planning decisions. He said that businesses in rural communities should be free to expand. How will he monitor that to ensure that there is consistency?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the general presumption is that office development should be contained in town centres. However, we know that one of the most important sources of rural employment is the conversion of agricultural buildings to very small-scale offices, and our policy means that authorities can now allow that. The Planning Inspectorate supervises and approves all the plans through a public examination, and it is there to ensure that there is consistency with national policy, but ultimately the decisions are for local people to take.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
I would like to develop a little further the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley). The Minister knows that I submitted a suggestion to the consultation that communities should in very specific circumstances be able to say an absolute no to edge-of-centre and out-of-centre retail development. That was also recommended by the Communities and Local Government Committee. Can he explain why that measure was not adopted and how some of our more iconic small towns might prepare their neighbourhood plans to afford themselves some measure of protection from such development?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is an ingenious policy maker and submitted that suggestion to the consultation. Unfortunately, it was found to be illegal. The framework that we are publishing is guidance, and it is open to anyone to submit a planning application and have it considered against the local plan and other material considerations. It is not possible to do what he requests through guidance.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
There are occasions when long-standing brownfield sites provide an opportunity for renewed open space in densely built-up urban areas. Is there not a problem that with the presumption to develop, it will be very difficult for a local community or local authority to ensure that disused industrial land can become valuable park or playing space rather than just high-density development, which would continue the problems in the area?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That is why we have specified in the framework that the priority to reuse brownfield land is subject to its not being of high environmental value. I know that in constituencies such as his and others in the centre of cities up and down the country, land that may be technically brownfield, having previously been in use, makes an enormously important contribution to the well-being of residents and wildlife, and it is clear that it should be kept that way.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I welcome the continued robust protection of green-belt land, but will the Minister clarify and confirm that greenfield land and ordinary countryside will not be prioritised over brownfield land, despite the pressure that might come from developers?
Greg Clark
The encouragement is to reuse brownfield land. Obviously there are national protections for areas such as green belt and sites of special scientific interest, but it is entirely open to authorities where greenfield areas are very important to the well-being of the community not to give priority to housing and development, and that is very likely to happen. Local plans can now specify that without being overridden.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
My constituency is 300 square miles in size. The Campaign to Protect Rural England came to see me and showed me that under the Minister’s proposals, more than half of it could now become a building site. Is that not just another example of the coalition Government abandoning the countryside?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady has not even read the revised framework. That was never true, and she will see when she reads it that it is absolutely untrue now. If she wants to come and talk to me about it, I am very happy to see her.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that however much power we put into the hands of local people, unsustainable immigration will continue to put pressure on our small island that simply cannot be met?
Greg Clark
There are a number of causes of the requirement for new housing. Immigration contributes to it, and so does the happy fact that we are living longer than we used to. Of course, Government policy is addressing immigration to get it to manageable levels, but I gently suggest to my hon. Friend that it is beyond the planning system to do much about that.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
To be clear, does the national planning policy framework endorse planning policy statement 4, which recognises the importance of protecting the English countryside for its own sake? To avoid any allegations of impropriety, when will the Department publish details of the property forum? Thanks to the wonderful Peter Cruddas, we now know how policy is made in the Tory party.
Greg Clark
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman takes that line. The protection for the English countryside is very clear. We have taken the words in the PPS to which he refers and reproduced them in spirit in our document.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
My constituents will be heartened to hear that there will now be an explicit instruction that brownfield sites should be developed before greenfield ones. What else can the Government do to make that more practical and cost-effective, and to make developers want to do it rather than develop easy and cheap greenfield sites?
Greg Clark
Of course, it is open to local authorities, in allocating the land that they have to be developed, to allocate land that is derelict, and to do that rather than allocate green fields. If that is how they specify it, that is the land that has to be developed.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Much of England is now in drought across the south and east, and that problem will only be exacerbated in the next 20 or 30 years. Can the Minister say what in his policy framework will be in place to ensure that we tackle that problem?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. This is why we need to have a plan-based system. We cannot have a plan-based system if half the country does not have a plan. If local authorities adopt a local plan, as we are encouraging every council to do, it is precisely so that they can anticipate future needs, such as the need for water, schools and infrastructure. With that in place, they have a fighting chance of ensuring that any homes that are provided have the facilities needed to accommodate them.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I thank the Minister for having clearly listened to the representations that he has heard from Members of Parliament. I was especially encouraged by his remark that councils’ policies “must” encourage brownfield sites to be brought into use. Should councils’ policies fail to do that, perhaps as a result of being overly generous in their allocation of cheaper greenfield land, how will they be made to comply?
Greg Clark
As my hon. Friend knows, every plan that is put forward is examined to determine whether it is sound, in the planning jargon, and compliance with that policy will be one of the tests of soundness.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Between July and December 2011, the Conservative party received more than £500,000 in donations. Will the Minister confirm or deny the amount of influence those developers had on this document?
Greg Clark
I am very disappointed with this theme from the Opposition. It is the case that in the past the shadow Minister, when he was a Minister, received a donation from a property developer, a Mr Abrahams, who was somewhat controversial. I do not think for one moment that that influenced any policy thoughts in his head. I have absolute faith in the right hon. Gentleman’s integrity, and it would be a service to the House if other hon. Members extended the same courtesy.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome his intention to give communities a greater say in planning decisions, but as I encourage my local communities to develop their neighbourhood plans, can he tell the House what steps he is taking to increase the protection for community facilities and important local assets?
Greg Clark
There is specific reference in the guidance that councils are under a duty to protect valued local community facilities.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
How is affordable housing defined in the reworked NPPF and is it entirely consistent with the definition contained in PPS3?
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Minister has conducted this process with great courtesy and consideration. Does he share my concern that councillors have too often felt intimidated into making decisions that they would prefer not to make by the threat of legal costs, and does this new framework offer them support in that area?
Greg Clark
Yes, it does, because the threat of legal costs arises at the moment from the very real prospect that a local decision can be overturned by, for example, the regional strategy imposing different policies. One of the reasons we want to rid ourselves of these unwanted strategies is so that decisions that are taken locally stay local, and people can have confidence in them.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Darlington borough council does a very good job in providing for the Gypsy and Traveller community, and has done so for many years. We have two very large sites that are run responsibly and, by and large, things are okay. Why is it that Darlington is now being asked to provide more sites because it has done a good job, whereas other localities nearby are not being asked to do anything at all? Will the Minister look into that?
Greg Clark
As a result of the written statement that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made on Friday, Darlington council will be able to make its own assessment of those needs without having a number imposed on it.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
In Broxtowe, a Labour-Lib Dem council is planning to build 4,000 houses on green-belt land. People throughout this country love and value our green-belt land. Will this framework continue to protect our green-belt land? Will it strengthen, weaken or diminish the existing protection of our green-belt land?
Greg Clark
Again, one of the points of abolishing the regional bodies is to take away the threat to the green belt that they introduced. They will be removed, and decisions will be taken locally, with national protection for the green belt.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Will councils be able to use the housing numbers from windfall sites as part of their core strategies?
Greg Clark
Yes. Where there is evidence that windfalls are, paradoxically, predictable and there is a record of them coming through that can be relied on—as happens in many places—they can be included in housing numbers, with the exception of back gardens, which are in a separate category.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
May I welcome the protection that my right hon. Friend has announced for the green belt? I invite him to become a champion of a positive attitude towards the green belt across Government as a whole, so that the Government show that they understand the importance of the green belt to counties such as Hertfordshire, where the green belt prevents communities merging into one another and becoming a vast urban sprawl.
Greg Clark
That is one of the purposes of the green belt—to prevent sprawl and to prevent communities merging with each other—and it is one reason why it enjoys the robust protection that it does in this framework.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
May I suggest gently to the Minister that it would have been helpful if Members had received the policy framework shortly before the statement, as other Ministers have done? On a specific point, can he confirm that once a district or borough council has decided on its plan, it will not be possible for a developer to build in an area that is not designated for development? Is that an absolute assurance?
Greg Clark
On my hon. Friend’s first point, I thought that it was the convention to publish the document to the House with the statement, and it is in the Vote Office now. On his other point, the answer is yes. It is clearly stated in the new policy framework that proposed developments that accord with the plan should be approved, and those that do not should be refused.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I welcome the transitional arrangements and local councils’ ability to set their own local targets, but developers wanting to build in my constituency still seem to be quoting not just the local development targets but the targets under the top-down regional spatial strategy. When will the effects of the locally set planning regime that the Government are introducing hold primacy, and when will there be no ambiguity about the figures?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend knows that it is the Government’s intention to revoke the regional strategies. The courts have determined that they are in place and we are engaged in a voluntary strategic environmental assessment, which will be completed shortly, but the Government’s intention to get rid of these unwanted strategies is capable of being a material consideration.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I welcome references to a more localist approach when it comes to five-year land supply. Does that mean that authorities such as mine in Swindon will be able to argue that five-year land supply should take into account economic realities such as a slowdown in house building, rather than the prescriptive and rigid approach that is taken by far too many planning inspectors?
Greg Clark
Yes. Economic conditions vary from time to time and it is reasonable for local authorities to take them into account.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has been very clear that the presumption for sustainable development does not override protections such as the green belt, SSSIs and national parks. Does that protection also apply to historic and conservation areas, such as the centre of my beautiful city of Chester?
Greg Clark
It is indeed a beautiful city and we have worked closely with English Heritage, which has said that it is content with the arrangements we have put in place.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
May I welcome what sounds like a significantly greener planning framework than the original draft, although we have yet to read the new one? One of the good things in the original draft was the designation of local green spaces, which are important not just to wildlife and the landscape, but to local communities. Has that designation survived and been weakened or strengthened, or been retained?
Greg Clark
Yes, it has indeed survived, as have green infrastructure corridors that connect places.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
One aspect of the present planning process that particularly annoys my constituents is when they see the decisions of their locally elected councillors on the planning committee being regularly overturned by planning inspectors. How will the new policy make that less likely?
Greg Clark
It will do so by enshrining the local plan as the key decision-making document. Getting rid of the regional strategies and the 1,000-plus pages of national guidance will make it clearer than ever that decisions taken in accordance with the local plan will prevail.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, when considering whether a local authority has an adequate five-year housing supply, will take into account where planning permissions have been granted but where houses have not started to be constructed?
Greg Clark
Yes. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. That has found expression in the framework.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I am pleased that the many hours we spent on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government have been reflected in the new document. One of the key thrusts that concerned us, however, was the fact that the requirement was on the developer to prove that a development was sustainable rather than on the local authority to prove that it was not if it rejected a planning application.
Greg Clark
It is always for the planning authority to assess the application, and the applicant puts in what is proposed, so there is no change to that.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement that he is allowing 12 months from today for existing local plans to be adjusted to be in complete conformity with the new framework. Will he join me, therefore, in calling for Labour-run Kirklees council’s local development framework, which was supported by the Liberal Democrats and so-called independents, to be adjusted so that it truly protects the green belt and makes any development truly sustainable?
Greg Clark
We have put facilities in place for that to be done as quickly as possible. A team is standing by to give all the advice that my hon. Friend’s authority needs to do that.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), developers in St Austell continue to flout local decision-making processes, causing much anger among residents. How can we prevent appeals for non-determination from happening during the transition period?
Greg Clark
If there is a plan in place, decisions have to be taken in accordance with it. If no plan is in place, there is a strong reason for adopting one.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has performed a Herculean task in moving away from the unwanted regional spatial strategy towards a new local plan-led system. However, there is concern in the Cotswolds that 12 months will not be long enough, particularly if there is a judicial review or there has to be a local inquiry. Is he open to representations on the length of the transition period?
Greg Clark
The 12 months is for plans that can be adjusted in that time. Even for plans that might take longer to adjust, however, weight is still given to the policies in the emerging plans. We have gone further than has been suggested, and there is adequate protection for policies adopted locally. It is eight years since local authorities were invited to produce a plan, which I think is time enough to give them an extra year to get their plans up to speed.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly refers to our matchless countryside and the fabric of our history, but could those be trumped by inspectors’ decisions in relation to EU energy and/or environmental law?
Greg Clark
Developments or proposed developments that have environmental consequences are subject to EU environmental directives. This is guidance and cannot override the laws governing it, but it gives greater power to local authorities to specify in their plans the type of development they want and where it should be.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Following on from that question, I want to ask about the criteria to be built into local plans. Daventry suffers from a huge swarm of onshore wind applications. What criteria could be used? Could landscape, height and efficiency, for example, be used as local criteria to fight these things?
Greg Clark
As my hon. Friend knows, I am a localist, and to set out national criteria for what would be appropriate would not respect the completely different geography and historical environment of different places around the country. We have given authorities the power to set out criteria, but what the criteria for locating renewable energy sites should be is a local choice.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
“Keystone” is a reassuring word, and the Minister used it twice in relation to local plans. Will he confirm that the local plans have absolute primacy and that my constituents have nothing to fear in the period after the council’s local plan has been democratically agreed, which it has, but before it has been legally adopted, which it has not yet been?
Greg Clark
As I said, we have put in place transitional arrangements for plans that are in the process of being adopted, which gives weight to the policies already there, but obviously the weight increases once they are accepted and adopted. It is clear that the decisions on planning permissions always need to be given, however, whether they are in accordance with the development plan or other material considerations.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the acid test of this framework is whether green-belt land is developed against the wishes of local residents?
Greg Clark
The protections for the green belt in the NPPF make it absolutely clear that development on green belt should be refused other than in very tight circumstances similar to those that exist at the moment.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
In Selby district, planning permission is being sought for Traveller sites on green belt. In fact, one site has already been given temporary permission in the historic village of Towton. What action does the framework permit to be taken to protect green belt and open countryside from inappropriate Traveller site development?
Greg Clark
The written statement that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made on Friday made it clear that the protection of the green belt applies to Traveller sites as it does to other developments.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Residents in Churston are desperately trying to protect one of Torbay’s last and most beautiful green spaces. It is home to the rare and lovely cirl bunting. Will sustainable development sustain the lovely cirl bunting?
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a twitcher of some renown and will be better placed than I to advise on whether this is a bird that enjoys protection and therefore whether the sites in which it nests enjoy the rigorous protections available.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
indicated assent.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s explanation that sustainable development covers both social and environmental factors, as well as economic development. Will he say a little more about the localist buffer for the five-year housing supply and how that fits in with the neighbourhood and local plans? The five-year housing supply often leads to councils being unable to turn down applications.
Greg Clark
The requirement for a plan is that it be a real plan. It should assess the needs of the authority in the future and allocate the relevant land. It is an important test of the soundness of a plan that it has a five-year land supply. We have said that if that is demonstrated, that is the end of the matter, but if a five-year land supply is not in place, a buffer will be needed to reflect that shortfall.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Will the NPPF give local people a better chance of getting rid of illegal Traveller sites when they appear in, for example, my constituency?
Greg Clark
The changes in the Localism Act 2011 dealing with enforcement provide greater powers for local authorities to act on the unlawful occupation of sites by any resident or applicant.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
Green-belt land is often threatened as much by industrial development as by residential development. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give the House that the green belt will be protected from inappropriate industrial development?
Greg Clark
Inappropriate development extends to both residential and industrial development. It is the nature of the green belt that is protected, irrespective of what is proposed.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the framework retains the protection for the green belt, refers specifically to development on brownfield land and supports the “town centre first” policy, many of the organisations opposing these proposals on the airwaves today are perhaps raising concerns unnecessarily?
Greg Clark
I hope that when people have the chance to read the framework, they will reflect on the fact that we have listened seriously to the sensible suggestions made in the consultation—we have taken an open approach—and that they will be reassured.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
What steps are being taken to protect playing fields? Does the Minister agree that it is important to protect these green spaces, not just because they are local amenities, but to support local sport?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right: it is important to protect playing fields; with a rising population, we will need them more than in the past. Playing fields are protected, and the loss of one will require the authorisation of Sport England, in much the same way as it does now.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
How can we make affordable land available for affordable housing to meet housing need in rural areas when the presumption in the NPPF places an unaffordable “hope value” on every potential site?
Greg Clark
No, the framework maintains the policy for rural exception sites, which have been successful across the country in providing affordable accommodation for people living in rural areas.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Welsh Government about the possible extension of the power and influence that he is granting to local government, particularly in relation to cross-border issues such as the proposal to cover mid-Wales with wind farms, which has an impact on Shropshire?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend knows that that is a devolved matter. The guidance applies to England only. Obviously we had discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government when the Localism Act was passing through this House. They took certain powers, but the type of planning regime that they want is a matter for them.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The “green wedges” north of Coalville in my constituency have been shown to be the most valued area of green space in the entire county of Leicestershire. Will the Minister confirm that the new planning policy framework will give more power to local residents and the local council to prevent unwanted development of that valued area of land?
Greg Clark
Yes, it will remove the imposition from the regional strategies and other top-down targets, and will also allow the designation of locally valued green space, in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) specified.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
In welcoming the statement, let me draw attention to the fact that good local plans depend on good local information, good local analysis of economic circumstances and good evaluation of jobs, employment and how industry is developing. When we finally get rid of the regional spatial strategy—hopefully it will be completely and utterly obliterated—what encouragement will the Minister give to local authorities to capture all that information, use it locally and ensure that it is generated locally, so that they understand their local communities and businesses, and know exactly what the social issues are in their areas?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend makes a good point. One of the themes of the national planning policy framework is that evidence should support plans and decisions. Evidence that has been captured over time should be available to all the authorities that shared the old regional boundaries, and they will want to keep it updated so that they can benefit from it in making their plans and decisions.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Under the last Government, villages around Harlow—in particular, Nazeing and Roydon—were forced to carry an unshared burden of having Traveller sites. Will the Minister confirm that the new proposals will stop that, making things fair for everyone across the county of Essex? Will he also confirm that local people will have a genuine say over planning decisions and set out how that will work in practice?
Greg Clark
The targets will be removed. My hon. Friend’s council would need to assess what provision it needed to make locally, and that will then be a matter for the council.
Mr Speaker
I thank colleagues, and in particular the Minister, for a succinctness that enabled 58 Back Benchers to question the Minister in 41 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time. The Minister is in danger of becoming a role model—at least in this respect—for his colleagues to emulate.
Points of Order
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will try to emulate that example. On 1 March, in response to questions about attacks by dangerous dogs, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made an explicit and welcome promise at the Dispatch Box:
“If a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that something will happen very shortly, it means precisely that. It certainly means before the House rises for Easter.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2012; Vol. 541, c. 415.]
That deadline expires today, 27 March, yet there is silence from the Department and the Government, nearly two years after the consultation ended. Nearly 100 people are treated in hospital every week. Kennelling costs are now spiralling out of control, and people in all parts of the House are rightly sickened by attacks by aggressive and uncontrolled dogs. Our sympathies go out to the five police officers from Newham who were injured in the latest attack. Dog bite incidents in the UK have risen by 79% in London and 43% nationally in recent years, according to figures from the Kennel Club. Have you received any late indication, Mr Speaker, of the Government’s intention to make a statement today? Do you have any powers, as Speaker and defender of the rights of this House, to summon the Minister to explain why the Government have broken their promise again?
Mr Speaker
The answer to both the hon. Gentleman’s inquiries is no, but he has placed his concerns on the record.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House, business and environmental organisations have been waiting for a statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since last autumn on mandatory carbon reporting. We read in the Financial Times this morning that the Government have abandoned their commitment to MCR. We also learn that Michael Hintze, a well known climate change sceptic and funder of Lord Lawson’s climate think-tank, was one of the Tory donors who had dinner at No. 10 with the Prime Minister. Surely Members of this House should have had the opportunity to question the Secretary of State about the further delay in the Government making a statement. There has been no written ministerial statement or oral statement, and a report has only just been laid in the Table Office. I would appreciate your guidance, Mr Speaker; otherwise Members of this House will be left wondering what this Secretary of State has to hide.
Mr Speaker
Those on the Front Bench will have heard what the hon. Lady has to say. She will know—and the House can testify—that I attach great importance to Ministers making statements of new policy to the House, but statements arise when—[Interruption.] Order. I do not require any assistance. [Interruption.] Order. Such statements arise when, and only when, there is a new policy to announce. There is not a matter that engages the Chair today, but the hon. Lady has placed her concerns on the record, and I thank her for doing so.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given you and the Leader of the House notice of my point of order, which arises from a question I asked the Leader of the House last Thursday about the publication of a response to the Select Committee on Science and Technology report on alcohol guidelines. I raised the matter because of a leak from the Home Office. It now appears that the leak was correct, yet the Government chose, for whatever reasons, not to separate the publication of their strategy and their response to the Select Committee, which was delayed by over a month. That is not the right way to treat a Select Committee that is doing serious work on such matters. Although the Leader of the House clearly did not mislead me, he did not tell me the full story. Will you use your good offices, Mr Speaker, to ensure that this kind of incident does not happen again, because it undermines the work of Select Committees?
Mr Speaker
I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He should be encouraged by the presence on the Treasury Bench of the Deputy Leader of the House, who will have listened to him. The gravamen of his complaint appears to relate to the relationship between the Science and Technology Committee and, in this case, the Home Office, but perhaps the Government more generally. I can say only that these are not matters of order on which the Chair can rule. The Select Committee should pursue these questions with the Government, and if the Committee is dissatisfied with the response, it should in the first instance take the matter up with the Liaison Committee.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope you will be able to guide the House on what we shall do with the Finance Bill when we get back. Two days—Wednesday and Thursday immediately after Easter—have been set aside for a Committee of the whole House, but the Bill has not yet been published. Today’s Order Paper provides that amendments to the Bill may be tabled in advance of Second Reading, but we do not yet know what subjects will be considered on the Wednesday and Thursday. Those subjects are usually agreed by the Opposition and the Government, and I am party to neither. When will we find out what those subjects will be?
What can you do through your good offices, Mr Speaker, to ensure a timely response to questions that are pertinent to the Finance Bill? I have tabled priority notice questions that have a direct bearing on the issue of child benefit, yet they have remained unanswered for over a week. What can you do to ensure that Ministers respond to them quickly?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I shall make two points in response. First, I should imagine that it is the responsibility of the Government to table a committal motion in regard to the consideration of the Finance Bill, and to do so before the rise of the House tonight. On the assumption that the hon. Gentleman remains as keenly interested in the matter throughout the day as he is at the moment—that is a confident expectation on my part—I suspect he will be beetling into the Table Office to discover at what point the Government have tabled that motion. I hope that that offers him some reassurance.
Secondly, in relation to the prospective—but, as far as he is concerned, delayed—answers to his substantive questions, the Deputy Leader of the House will have heard what he has said. It is important that there should be timely and substantive responses to parliamentary questions from colleagues, and I would say only to the hon. Gentleman in the friendliest possible spirit that not to provide timely responses to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is almost as hazardous a mission for any Minister as to treat in a similar way the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman).
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been brought to my attention today that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) has been charged with contempt of court because of comments he made in daring to criticise a judge in Northern Ireland. I understand, however, that that law is obsolete and no longer applies in England and Wales, and that the right hon. Gentleman will be charged in Northern Ireland. Have you been informed of this matter, Mr Speaker, and if not, why not? Are you able to make a ruling or to comment on it?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that I had not been informed of the matter to which he refers. Ordinarily, the Speaker would be informed only in the case of an arrest of a Member, and that is not what is involved here. Beyond that, I would say that I understand the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman treats this issue, and how perturbed he is by what he has learned, but the interest and authority of the Chair would be engaged only if the comments concerned had been made in the Chamber. My understanding is that the comments by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) were made outside the Chamber. I cannot say more than that at this stage, but if the hon. Member for North Antrim wishes to communicate with me further on this matter outside the Chamber, I will always be interested in what he has to say.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication that a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions will be coming to the House to talk about the new policy of means-testing access to cheaper postage at Christmas? Today, we have received notification by e-mail from Royal Mail of a 20% hike in postal prices. We also understand that a concessionary scheme will be introduced, but that it will apply only to pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits, who will receive cheaper stamps at Christmas. This clearly involves benefits, and it merits a statement to the House to enable Ministers to explain how they will prevent large-scale fraud through individuals buying the cheap stamps and reselling them at a lower rate than the full price. This is a serious matter, and a Minister ought to have come to the House to make a statement.
Mr Speaker
No, I have received no such indication. The hon. Gentleman might think that, as a consequence, I have been sorely deprived, but that remains the position.
Small Business Administration
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Small Business Administration with the remit of acting as an ombudsman and advocate within government for small businesses, promoting a regulatory environment appropriate for small businesses, providing advice to those wishing to set up small businesses, improving access to finance for small businesses, developing and monitoring small business-friendly procurement policies and working with small firms to assist their export potential; and for connected purposes.
Before I start, I had better declare an interest: I run a farm in my constituency, so I am a small business owner and I understand the challenges involved in establishing and growing a small business.
Let us start with some statistics. There are 4.5 million small businesses in the UK. In Wales alone, we have 210,000 businesses, of which 45,000 are incorporated and 165,000 are non-incorporated. Small and medium-sized enterprises employ an estimated 13.8 million people and have an estimated combined annual turnover of £1,500 billion. As we can see from those numbers, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, and they will drive our economic growth.
I commend the Government for their work in this area. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), have already done sterling work for small and medium-sized enterprises. Just last week, the Business Secretary announced a £125 million advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, which will open for applications from 29 March, and a new Focus on Enforcement campaign to identify any inappropriate or excessive enforcement of regulation that is holding companies back. The Government have also helped business by lowering corporation tax again, but we must not forget the many non-incorporated businesses that will not benefit from that measure. We need to bring forward measures to help those businesses as well.
Despite such measures, the Federation of Small Businesses argues that successive Government Administrations have failed to appreciate the particular needs of the UK’s small businesses, and it has proposed the creation of a small business administration—a department to champion small firms at the heart of Government. That proposal is based on a United States model that has proved incredibly successful in reducing burdens on small business through its role as an advocate and ombudsman. In 2011, it stripped out $11.7 billion of costs that would have been incurred by businesses in their first year of existence, and created ongoing savings of $10.7 billion annually by reducing the burden of regulation. Through its many programmes, small businesses have grown to become household names: Nike, Staples, Apple, FedEx, Ben and Jerry’s, Outback Steakhouse and Hewlett Packard, to name but a few.
The UK small business administration would help to reduce Government burdens on small businesses by having two roles. First, it would be an advocate in Government for small businesses’ needs. It would act as an ombudsman when problems arose with other Government Departments. As with the US model, the UK small business administration would operate in five core areas, all of which are already Government priorities. In the first instance, it would help with access to finance. Small firms in the UK are still struggling to get the finance that they need to grow. The small business administration would be able to give assistance to small businesses by offering a facility of loans and venture capital.
Credit easing is a welcome step that will make credit less expensive for many businesses, but above all we need to improve access. Alongside measures to support competition within the banking sector, support for non-bank models such as community development finance initiatives, peer-to-peer lending, asset finance and an SME bond market, the small business administration would be better placed to look beyond the big banks and to provide finance in a way that would make it accessible to small companies.
Secondly, the administration would give advice on business start-ups. During my time in Parliament, many constituents have told me that they have great business ideas but do not know how to go about turning them into reality. Obtaining the right advice at the start of a business is crucial to its survival. The administration would provide mentoring and training through a network of partners.
Thirdly, the administration would encourage exports. While I commend the Government for their work in supporting UK exports—for instance, we are a net exporter of red meat for the first time in many years, and exports are rising in many sectors—we can and must do more. The administration would be devoted to promoting exports and supporting the interests of small businesses in trade negotiations.
Fourthly, the administration would promote access to Government procurement contracts. The coalition Government have set a target for small and medium-sized businesses to gain 25% of Government contracts. I welcome that, but we have more to do if that is to be achieved. The administration would help businesses to reach the target, and could also help to ensure that small business-friendly policies were embedded throughout the public procurement process.
Finally, the administration would have a crucial role in the distribution of funds to small businesses at times of special need such as natural disasters. That would be invaluable during flooding or severe weather, and would have been useful in rebuilding business communities after the terrible riots that we saw last summer.
An excellent report by Tim Breedon on access to finance for small businesses, published just before the Budget, recommends
“A single brand and delivery agency to increase awareness and enhance delivery of the government’s range of SME finance”.
The small business administration would do that and more by combining all aspects of government that affect our small businesses.
The last time I presented a ten-minute rule Bill, I did so from the Opposition Benches. Six months later the Government had implemented my idea, and I hope to achieve a similar success from the Government Benches. There is nothing ground-breaking or radical in this Bill, which brings together many strands of Government that already do some of the work involved, and provides common-sense measures to give small businesses the best possible chance of flourishing—for if they flourish, so will our economy.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Roger Williams, Loreley Burt, Anne Marie Morris, Gordon Banks, Mr Mark Williams, Stephen Lloyd, Mark Durkan, Brandon Lewis, Stephen Williams, Annette Brooke, Caroline Lucas and Julian Smith present the Bill.
Roger Williams accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 326).
Backbench Business
Assisted Suicide
Mr Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) to move the motion, it may be useful for the House to know that I have selected amendments (a) and (b), and that Dame Joan Ruddock will be invited to move amendment (a) during the debate. I should warn the House that it will be possible for amendment (b) to be moved only if it is reached before 7 pm, after the House has disposed of amendment (a). That warning is for the benefit of the House. The House can make its own judgment in the handling of these matters.
Members will be aware that, because of the huge interest in speaking in the debate, I have imposed a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which will apply after the proposer and seconder of the motion have spoken.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Director of Public Prosecutions’ Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide, published in February 2010.
The motion will be seconded by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).
The fact that the debate is taking place today is significant, and reflects the willingness of Parliament to address society’s concerns in this area. It is more than 40 years since the subject was debated on a substantive motion, and I am extremely grateful to the Backbench Business Committee, without which I strongly suspect today’s debate would not be taking place.
This very sensitive area of law evokes deep emotions. I take the firm view that, in these circumstances, Parliament and not the courts should have the last word on prosecuting policy and the criminal law. I think it appropriate to put on record at this point that I have the highest regard for Mr Keir Starmer QC, the current Director of Public Prosecutions, who drew up the policy that we are debating as he was asked to do by the Law Lords.
Let me begin by explaining what the debate is not about. The motion welcomes the DPP’s “Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide”. This is not a debate on the recently published report of the Commission on Assisted Dying. The House is not being asked to express a view on voluntary euthanasia, which requires a change in the law of murder, and it is not being asked to support assisted dying for the terminally ill, which requires a change in the law on assisted suicide. Whatever our views, the debate is not about the application of Mr Tony Nicklinson to the High Court for assistance in ending his life, and whatever the outcome of the debate, assisted suicide will remain a criminal offence. This is a debate about the application of the existing law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is not an exact equivalent in Scotland, which has an offence of culpable homicide and no guidelines.
In the wider debate, there are many differing positions. There are those who support a change in the law to allow some form of doctor-assisted dying within up-front safeguards. Equally vocal are those who do not favour a change. Between those differing positions is the pressing issue of how the current law is applied by the DPP and the courts.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman has listed the matters that the debate is not about. Does he acknowledge that a letter was sent to Members indicating that he would welcome comments on all those matters during the debate? Has not the debate been rather confused by his own note about it?
Richard Ottaway
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have the highest regard—that it would be slightly naïve to think that the House will focus precisely on assisted suicide for five hours. One or two Members may stray on to the subject of assisted dying or voluntary euthanasia, if only within the scope of the amendment on palliative care, with which I shall deal shortly.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
My hon. Friend opened the debate by saying, quite properly, that this was an issue not just for courts but for Parliament. To what extent is the discretion of the DPP to prosecute an issue for Parliament?
Richard Ottaway
The guidelines—about which I shall say more in a moment—are a model of clarity. They reflect the way in which the DPP is applying the existing law. I hope that, if a majority in Parliament endorses the guidelines today, they will be strengthened because the debate has taken place.
Until the Suicide Act 1961, suicide was a criminal offence, and some of those who attempted suicide were prosecuted. Most were discharged, but the records show that in 1956 some 33 were sent to prison. In 1961, Parliament caught up with public sentiment, and both suicide and attempted suicide were decriminalised. That was done not to condone suicide, but to recognise that it was primarily a medical rather than a legal issue, and therefore better dealt with by healthcare professionals than by the police. Assisted suicide was a new offence, designed to protect against abuse. It created a unique legal precedent in that this was a criminal offence of being an accessory to a non-criminal act. It carries a sentence of up to 14 years in prison.
What our predecessors did not do, however, was to distinguish between the types of assistance—between the person who irresponsibly and maliciously encourages a suicidal person, and the loving spouse who fulfils a dying partner’s request for help to die. This is the question we are addressing today: should both actions be treated equally under the law?
The problem was, in part, recognised by the 1961 Act, which gave the DPP discretion, so that even when sufficient evidence existed, prosecution would not automatically occur. That recognises the delicate balance that needs to be struck in respect of motive, compassion, coercion and circumstance.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on addressing these issues so clearly and in such a measured way. Does he acknowledge that some of us support people in situations like that of Diane Pretty, my former constituent, who died 10 years ago? She went to the highest courts possible—the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights—to seek the right to assisted suicide and was refused, but there was massive public support for her at that time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that public support should be taken into account in our deliberations?
Richard Ottaway
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is huge public support, and I shall talk about that shortly.
Turning to the policy itself, records show that more than 180 Britons have travelled to Switzerland to die in the last 10 years. No one has been prosecuted for accompanying them or assisting them with their arrangements, even when there has been sufficient evidence to prosecute. However, before the 2010 policy document, precisely what criteria were used was never published—until Debbie Purdy asked for clarity.
Debbie Purdy has primary progressive multiple sclerosis. In 2009, she took her case to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. She wanted to know whether her husband would be prosecuted if he accompanied her to Dignitas in Switzerland. In their judgment, the Law Lords instructed the DPP to make clear the factors he took into account when reaching a decision on whether or not to prosecute. Lord Brown’s judgment made it perfectly clear what was required. He said that we need a custom-built policy,
“designed to distinguish between those situations in which, however tempted to assist, the prospective aider and abettor should refrain from doing so, and those situations in which he or she may fairly hope to be...forgiven, rather than condemned, for giving assistance.”
The DPP did just that, with a clarity and precision that is to be welcomed.
In February 2010, following extensive consultation, the DPP published the guidance. I have sent a copy to every Member of this House. The policy recognises the reality of prosecuting practice in cases of assisted suicide: that in certain circumstances, compassionately motivated assisters will not be prosecuted.
There are 16 factors weighing in favour of prosecution, including the assisted person not having mental capacity, and if the assister is a doctor or other professional caring for the assisted person. There are six factors weighing against prosecution, including that the assisted person made a voluntary, informed decision—in other words, they were of sound mind—as well as that the actions were of only minor encouragement or assistance, and that the suicide was reported to the police. The policy reiterates that there can be no immunity from prosecution before a crime is committed.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The guidance lists six circumstances in which prosecution would not take place. How does my hon. Friend reconcile that with his statement that this does not represent a change in the law? Surely it does?
Richard Ottaway
That is a fair point, and some people think it does represent a change in the law. However, the guidelines are set out as offering clarity on the application of the existing law, and not as changing the law. In the Purdy case, the House of Lords asked the DPP to set out how the existing law would be applied.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, what we are debating is simply an interpretation of the law by the DPP that distinguishes between wholly compassionate assistance and malicious assistance, which will continue to be prosecuted. We are being asked to endorse a reasoned, rational approach that many of our constituents support.
Richard Ottaway
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That approach is supported by many of our constituents. Compassion is at the heart of this debate. The key question is whether someone should be prosecuted for minor assistance, within the terms of the guidelines.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
To date, have there been any cases, or suspected cases, of malicious assistance?
Richard Ottaway
As far as I am aware, there have been no prosecutions for escorting someone to Dignitas in Switzerland. I shall have to write to my hon. Friend with a precise answer to his question, but I am not aware of any prosecutions for assisting suicide in recent years.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I shall support the motion; indeed, I am a signatory to it. The DPP is merely doing his job. This House passed the 1961 Act, which explicitly states that a person may be prosecuted for assisting suicide only
“by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions”,
who must decide whether or not prosecution is in the public interest. He was asked to draw up these guidelines, and he has done so. He is not acting outside his statutory obligation; he is merely following it.
Richard Ottaway
That is right. Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), every single case is investigated by the police, and there has been no derogation from the existing law of assisted suicide.
I invite the House to address how we as legislators should approach this difficult subject. When a person makes the decision to end their life, that draws on the depths of human experience and is intensely personal. The responsibility on parliamentarians to make a judgment on the rights and wrongs of assistance in such decisions is enormous.
The view of the British public is emphatic. In 2010, a YouGov poll found that 82% agreed that it is a “sensible and humane approach” not to prosecute someone who helps a close relative
“with a clear, settled and informed”
wish to die.
The same question is before the House today: should someone who is wholly motivated by compassion, and who has behaved within the parameters of the DPP’s policy, be prosecuted for assisting a person of sound mind who has made a clear and settled decision to end their life? Is it right to prosecute Judy Johnson, whose husband, Ken, was diagnosed with terminal cancer and, after a long battle, decided to end his life? Judy helped Ken make the arrangements and, with his three children, travelled with him to Switzerland. Is it right to prosecute Susan McArthur, who sat with Duncan, her loving husband of 42 years, and held his hand as he ended his life? Duncan had motor neurone disease, and decided to take control of his death while he still had the physical capability to do so. In my heart, I cannot believe it is in society’s interest to prosecute them and to convict them of a criminal offence, and to give them a prison sentence. It is not in the public interest to do so. That has been the approach taken by the DPP for many years, and I believe it should be supported by the House.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
How is it possible to be sure that somebody’s motivation is entirely compassionate, and that they are not affected by other factors?
Richard Ottaway
At the end of the day, that has to be a judgment made by the police and the prosecuting authorities. I have confidence in their ability to make that judgment. Of course there is a human element to that, but the guidelines are perfectly clear, and there is plenty of guidance on the approach taken by the prosecuting authorities.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
My hon. Friend is introducing the debate in a very measured way. I support greater patient choice at the end of life. It is absolutely right that there should be parliamentary oversight of prosecuting and sentencing policy, but does he agree that we must never leave far behind the notion that at the core of the debate is compassion, both for the patient and their immediate family? We must not lose sight of that.
Richard Ottaway
Yes, it is about compassion for those facing an experience that, obviously, none of us has had. This is the most difficult of subjects, which is possibly why Parliament has been resistant to debating it for many years.
May I turn to the amendment by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), which calls on the Government to consult on whether the code should be put on a statutory basis? The law is clear: if someone assists a person in ending their life, it is a criminal offence. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear that in a narrowly defined set of circumstances, he will not prosecute. The crux of the point is that it is quite possible that, sometime in the future, the guidance will be changed without parliamentary approval. Parliament should be consulted before any further change, and the amendment ensures that.
There is another point: putting the policy on a statutory basis would address the charge that this debate is the thin end of the wedge, or the slippery slope. It is the complete opposite. The policy exists, and can be amended without parliamentary scrutiny. If we enshrine the policy in statute, it would take another statute to amend the law. Members will have their say on all sides of the debate, and will then vote. That is how we make laws in Parliament, and the public expect no less. In my opinion, the amendment deserves support.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
Sir Peter Bottomley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and may I say how much I welcome what is on his website, which explains some of the issues? On the motion and amendment (a), the original motion that the House thought it was to consider included a reference to putting matters on a statutory basis. The motion was changed, and the amendment was brought forward. The first, and possibly only, vote this evening may put back into the motion what was taken out and put in amendment (a). Is that coincidence, or clever parliamentary practice?
Richard Ottaway
I make no secret of the fact that the original motion included the words in the amendment, but in discussion with colleagues on both sides of the argument, people rightly pointed out that there were two separate arguments in the motion, and one part might be successful, and the other defeated. The part that people agreed with might be defeated because of the bit that they did not agree with. It seemed perfectly sensible to separate the two bits. I confess that I had a conversation with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, and she has bravely undertaken to move amendment (a) today.
I turn to the other amendment selected—amendment (b), on palliative care, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I am happy to accept the amendment. I would have signed it, if it would not have looked odd to sign an amendment to my own motion. I pay tribute to those working in the area of palliative care, and in particular to St Christopher’s hospice in south London, which works closely with a number of people in my constituency.
The previous and current Governments deserve credit for the progress that they have made towards greater access to care, notably through the end-of-life care strategy. We all recognise the first-class palliative care services provided by hospices, and we should be united in hoping that it can be replicated across all care settings. I give a warm welcome to the additional funding for end-of-life care announced last week by the Secretary of State for Health at the Marie Curie Cancer Care reception, but we should recognise that—as was acknowledged by Baroness Finlay, the renowned palliative care professor and passionate campaigner against a change in the law on assisted dying—such care is not a panacea to all the suffering that the dying process can cause.
Some people, regardless of the care available to them, will seek to control the time and manner of their death. Melanie Reid wrote about that in a moving column in The Times today, which I commend to the House. She is not terminally ill; she is a tetraplegic, following a riding accident. She admits to contemplating ending her life regularly. She wrote:
“Knowing that I have a choice is a huge comfort to me; it sustains me on the days when I make the mistake of looking too far in the future. But the point is, I am blessed precisely because I have a choice.”
In other words, even if we can provide universal access to good-quality end-of-life care, some Britons will still seek to end their lives. The law must be equipped to deal with such cases and to help the vulnerable.
I was struck by a recent debate in the other place on the DPP’s policy, secured by the former Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Jay. In that debate, there was a clear division between speakers on whether the law should change to allow doctor-assisted dying, but there was unanimous support for the DPP’s approach, with Baroness Finlay describing the policy as “clear, firm and compassionate.” Furthermore, in a recent Synod debate that overwhelmingly rejected a change in the law, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has repeatedly made clear his opposition to a change in the law, said:
“We can be realistic, we can be compassionate in the application of the existing law”.
I hope that today, whatever view individually we may take on the law, we can agree that the approach taken by the DPP is both realistic and compassionate.
If there is a majority in the House in favour of this motion, we will have done the nation a service. If there is a majority against it, we will have a problem, as the DPP and 82% of the public will be saying one thing, and the people’s elected representatives another. I urge the House to support the motion and show compassion to those facing this terrible dilemma.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
It gives me much pleasure to second the motion moved by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I welcome the debate. It has been a very long time since the House of Commons debated the whole issue, and whatever view we take, it is only right and proper that the House should have an opportunity to debate the subject. The guidelines are a considerable advance on what happened before.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Debbie Purdy. I pay tribute to the way that she, faced with a terminal illness, was determined to fight through the courts to find out what the position would be if her husband accompanied her to Switzerland should she at some stage want to go there. For someone without influence—a private individual without a private income—to do what she did, albeit with the help of an organisation and sympathisers, is remarkable. Even those opposed to a change in the law would agree that she should be praised for her sheer determination and will-power in fighting her campaign.
Of course, there were others before Debbie. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned one of his constituents who, unfortunately, is no longer alive—Diane Pretty. She did not want to end her life in a way that was painful and humiliating, and did not want to be in a situation where she was almost suffocating. She did not succeed in her aim; she had the painful illness, and the ending that she so desperately wanted to avoid.
There were other such people. There are some whose cases we do not know; they, and their loved ones, would not wish their case to be publicised. One case that was particularly publicised was that of Dr Anne Turner, a medical doctor who knew full well from her work what was in store for her. Apart from anything else, her late husband, by a terrible coincidence, died from the same sort of illness that she faced, which would deprive her of all movement; at the end, she would not even be able to swallow. Dr Turner was determined that she was not going to end her life in the same way as her husband. Understandably, her children tried to change her mind, but in the end she decided—I believe she had already tried unsuccessfully to commit suicide—to make the journey to Switzerland. In order to publicise her plight and other such cases she invited the BBC to film her journey to Switzerland, and a film was made later about her position.
I can understand the situation that Dr Turner faced. Let me say straight away that I am a late convert to this position. There was a ten-minute rule Bill on euthanasia in April 1970, and had there been a vote nearly 42 years ago, I would have voted no. Indeed, I would have voted against such a Bill not only then, but today, because I am against euthanasia as such. If I was not, I would say so. I do not normally conceal my views, however much they may be in a minority. I am in favour of a change in the law, but only a very sharply defined change and one that is certainly very different from euthanasia, which, to some degree, occurs in Belgium and the Netherlands.
It is sometimes said that those of us who want a change in the law are doing a disservice to the disabled. It is pretty obvious that that is about the last thing I want to do. I have no desire to encourage disabled people in any way whatsoever to end their lives. At every stage in my parliamentary life, I have, obviously, supported every measure to support the disabled—it would be odd if it were otherwise. I believe that that would be the position of all Members of the House, regardless of where they stand on any change in the law.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making the point that one particular disabled individual should be given the right to make this judgment. Is he not, by definition, therefore making the case that a particular form of disability inevitably makes a life not worth living? Is that not a dangerous utilitarian judgment to make?
Mr Winnick
That is the very opposite of my view. As I said, I have supported every move to support the disabled in every conceivable way. It is an advance for the House of Commons that we have disabled Members and that we do not just represent disabled people who happen to be constituents. One of my colleagues is confined to a wheelchair and it is right and proper that she should be here. There is an idea that, in some way, those of us who want a change in the law would wish to harm the disabled, but the very opposite is the truth. However, I take the point that to the extent that disabled people—or, at least, the organisations that speak on their behalf—have concerns about any change in the law, people such as me, who want a change in the legislation, should certainly bear that very much in mind.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
On five separate occasions my hon. Friend has talked about changing the law and about his desire to do so. Will he confirm, for the sake of everybody in the House this afternoon, that support for the motion is not support for a change in the law, but an acknowledgment that the Director of Public Prosecutions has done his job?
Mr Winnick
Absolutely. I prefaced my remarks by saying that the DPP guidelines can be supported—the debate is actually titled “Assisted Suicide”— by those who are very much in favour of the existing law and by those who are opposed. No contradiction is involved, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has had the opportunity to make the point.
Sir Peter Bottomley
That response to that last intervention was helpful to the House. May I ask the hon. Gentleman kindly to give the House a little more help? He is arguing that he would like to see the law changed. An amendment is to be moved which says that the guidance should be put on a statutory basis—it talks about “whether” that should happen, but it, in effect, proposes that it should. Will he be supporting that amendment or is he against it, given that he wants the law changed?
Mr Winnick
I want the law changed, but that does not mean that if the time comes for a vote on the amendment I will not make up my mind accordingly.
If I were asked what sort of change I would like, if change were to occur, I would reply that it would be very much along the lines of what happens in Oregon in the United States. In Oregon, which has all the necessary safeguards in place, those with a terminal illness who wish to end their lives—they must have a terminal illness—are allowed to do so. Some may argue that that is a sliding slope, but palliative care was mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon South and we should bear in mind what has happened in Oregon, where assisted dying has existed since 1994. The number of people who have died naturally in hospices has actually doubled there. So the argument that hundreds or thousands of people would go to their deaths if we were to change the law and allow assisted dying for the terminally ill is a total fiction.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that such an approach would change a fundamental principle, which is that doctors do not kill their patients?
Mr Winnick
It is a point that the hon. Lady, a medical doctor herself, has made with great sincerity. The British Medical Association makes the same point, but presumably there are other doctors who take a different view from her. I do not know how many of them there are, but, as we know, there must obviously be certain doctors whose view is that, out of compassion, the law should not prevent them from doing what they consider to be appropriate. Of course, that would all be debated at length and in detail if any measure were to change the law as such.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Many of us have had the experience, as have many people in other countries, of doctors saying to them when their loved ones are suffering greatly that they will make sure that she or he “will not suffer”. What does my hon. Friend think doctors mean by that?
Mr Winnick
I think that we could all come to the same conclusion. Are we to take it that doctors in Oregon, Belgium or the Netherlands are not concerned about their patients, that they are potential Shipmans and that they could not care less whether or not their patients die? Although I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), I must, as my hon. Friend has indicated, accept that some doctors, however much they may be in a minority, take a different view.
I simply say to the House that whether or not we agree to any change in the law, this issue will not go away. The hon. Member for Croydon South said that more than 180 British citizens have gone to Switzerland in these circumstances. Perhaps there are others who would like to go, for they do not want to face an unbearable death, but do not have the financial means to do so. I hope that the House will not only agree to the guidelines, but be willing to explore the dilemma faced by these people. This could happen to any of us, as nobody is exempt from the possibility of having a severe illness of the sort that Anne Turner was facing and was determined to avoid at all costs, and which resulted in her going to the clinic in Switzerland. I hope that we will have a very good debate. The issues are very important and I hope that at the end of it the guidelines which the Law Lords instructed the DPP to produce will be fully supported on all sides and by all the opinions in this House.
Royal Assent
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Health and Social Care Act 2012
London Local Authorities Act 2012.
Assisted Suicide
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment (a), at the end of the Question to add,
‘and invites the Government to consult as to whether to put the guidance on a statutory basis.’.
I very much welcome this debate and the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has found time for it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on the very considered way in which he presented the motion. The amendment, which stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt), invites the Government to consult as to whether to put the policy on a statutory basis. I believe the time has come to give the public and stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the Director of Public Prosecutions’ policy in practice. The amendment invites the Government to place the DPP’s policy on a statutory footing but does not demand that.
The final version of the policy on assisted suicide has now been in place for more than two years. The draft policy was the subject of heated debate, particularly in relation to the health or disability status of the assisted person, the actions of health care professionals and the relative weight to be given to the motivation of the assister. However, there are still some areas of concern in relation to the policy, most notably its impact on doctors where there is less clarity. A patient with a terminal condition may wish to discuss with a health care professional their desire for assistance to end their life. Similarly, a patient who has come to a decision may wish to obtain their medical records in order to be assisted to die overseas.
If the Government were to hold a consultation on whether the DPP’s policy on assisted suicide should be placed in statute, I am confident that we would learn much from the response of the public and the stakeholders working with the DPP’s policy. Essentially, placing the policy in statute would reinforce not only that the DPP has discretion in deciding on prosecutions in assisted suicide cases, which is already plain in the wording of the Suicide Act 1961, but also the factors that must be considered in taking these decisions. Placing the policy in statute would signal in the strongest possible way that Parliament agrees that those who maliciously or irresponsibly encourage suicide should be prosecuted, but that it is not normally in the public interest to prosecute an otherwise law-abiding citizen who helps a loved one to die on compassionate grounds.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
It is clear that the DPP has discretion. How does placing something on a statutory footing show that the DPP has discretion?
Dame Joan Ruddock
Clearly, if the existing guidelines were put into statute they would lie alongside existing statute. I will go on to explain why I think it is very important that they should be in statute.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Would not one of the implications of the amendment, if it were passed, be to fetter the discretion of the DPP to amend the code? It would drive a coach and horses through section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which gives the DPP complete discretion to draft his own codes.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I completely disagree. First, the amendment invites the Government to consult, which could not possibly contravene an Act in itself. Furthermore, the Act that gives the discretion is not overturned by putting the guidelines into statute. What the statute would then say is, “These are the circumstances…” but it would not remove from the DPP the discretion he has in existing statute.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I am not going to give way again because I have used up my time for interventions. I am sorry but I will run out of time completely if I give way.
There is also a question of accountability to consider. The DPP is, of course, answerable to the Attorney-General and in this way is accountable to Parliament, but we as Members of Parliament are accountable to our constituents. Public interest in the law on assisted suicide and related issues is extremely high. As the hon. Member for Croydon South has told us, a YouGov poll in 2010 for The Daily Telegraph asked 2,000 people whether they agreed with the DPP’s policy. For the benefit of the House, let me repeat the outcome of that poll: 82% agreed with the compassionate treatment of people as laid out in the DPP’s guidelines, only 11% disagreed and 8% said they did not know.
As it stands, the policy could be changed by the DPP, who is after all an individual who holds the role of DPP for a term of five years. It is unlikely that a future DPP would make significant changes to the policy, but it is always possible. That is why placing the DPP’s policy on a statutory footing would mean that this sensible, humane and popular policy could be changed only by Parliament. In conclusion, I welcome the DPP’s policy and this debate. The policy is sensible, humane and provides clarity on how the law is applied in assisted suicide cases. The public strongly support that approach, which is why I believe the Government should consult on whether they want the clarity provided by the policy to be placed on a statutory footing. I have always known that in compelling circumstances I would assist a loved one to die. That is why I think it is so important that the DPP’s policy should be placed in statute. I urge hon. Members to support this amendment and the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am now going to call Fiona Bruce to speak to amendment (b), but it will not be moved at this stage. I remind hon. Members that there is a limit of five minutes for all Back Benchers.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak to my amendment. I understand that although I am not able to move it yet, other Members may speak to it throughout the afternoon. I support the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and I oppose the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock).
Britain has been ranked first in the world for quality end-of-life care in a survey by The Economist intelligence unit of 40 OECD and non-OECD countries, including the USA, the Netherlands, Germany and France. We should be proud of and support services that are providing care to enable patients to live as well as possible, while accepting natural death and doing everything to keep patients comfortable during dying.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to organisations such as the Prospect hospice in my constituency, which offers world-class palliative care, not only in-house but within the community that it serves?
Fiona Bruce
I will, and I pay tribute to the entire hospice movement in this country. The care and treatment of patients provided by such services embodies the culture that we have in this nation of prioritising care at the end of life, and does not prioritise foreshortening life by months or years at the end-of-life stage.
The DPP has said that the guidelines that he operates are working well; indeed they are. Prosecutorial discretion is part of our criminal law and applies across a wide range of crimes. We cannot fetter it in law because each case is different. The law gives a clear message that one person should not encourage or assist another’s suicide.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I am proud to be supporting my hon. Friend’s amendment today. Does she agree that this is not about choice, but is about people being forced to make choices? Does she also agree that rather than having debates about assisted dying it would be much better if we had more debates and discussions about how we could improve palliative care?
Fiona Bruce
I will continue now, if I may, to allow for the many other speakers who want to speak this afternoon.
If encouragement or assistance is given for others to commit suicide, individuals are answerable for their actions, but when appropriate, the law takes a compassionate approach. Patients at the end of life are very vulnerable to influence, particularly from those providing care. Just yesterday a specialist consultant in palliative care told me of his concerns about any change in the law in this area. He told me of an incident which, he said, was not isolated, but typical. He said: “I had a single male patient who was dying of cancer. Life was difficult for him; he had an estranged daughter who confided in me that her father had asked to be taken to Switzerland because his life was not worth living. His daughter had left home quite early in life and they had lost all contact. I talked with him and he told me how proud he was that she had become a head teacher, he himself having been a teacher earlier in his life. I encouraged him to get to know his daughter again, to tell her he loved her, and that he was proud of her. They did so and they spent the last two weeks of his life together in the hospice having these conversations, which meant so much to both of them.” Is not that the approach that we should take towards those at the end of their life?
The consultant continued, “We”—that is, doctors—“have real concerns that it would place us in a very difficult position if the law is changed, since at the heart of what we do is the tenet that we should do no harm to our patients. So for someone to have their life terminated would place our relationship on a very different footing.” Doctors do not want the relationship of trust between doctor and patients fractured. That surely is why the DPP guidelines tend towards prosecution if assistance with suicide is given by a doctor or nurse as part of their clinical relationship with the patient.
Several disability groups have told me that they would be extremely concerned should there be any change in the law—that is, in this relationship—a change which could well occur should doctors, such as the consultant I mentioned, have the “option to kill”—as he put it—their patients as one of their choices.
Unlike Oregon, where assisted suicide was made legal in 1997, we have specialist palliative care in the UK, with a full four-year training programme. Oregon has had a four and a half-fold rise in assisted suicides since it legalised the practice in 1997, a practice that would result in over 1,100 assisted suicides in this country on a population basis. And Oregon’s safeguards are paper-thin. The Royal College of Physicians has stated that physician assisted suicide
“would fundamentally alter the role of the doctor and their relationship with their patient. Medical attendants should be present to preserve and improve life—if they are also involved in the taking of life, this creates a conflict that is potentially very damaging.”
Help the Hospices says:
“It is right that actions by a care professional are treated differently from actions by a friend or family member”.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, speaking on behalf of disabled groups, has said that a change in the law
“wouldn’t just apply to the terminally ill, no matter what the campaigners may say. It would affect disabled people too, not to mention the elderly. A change in the law. . . would alter the mindset of the medical and social care professions, persuading more and more people that actually the prospect of an ‘easy’ way out is what people such as me really want. Well, the vast majority of us do not.”
The motion should keep the DPP guidelines as they are, and support improved care at the end of life.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on initiating this debate. His motion and the amendments tabled to it reveal not so much a political issue as a legal and an ethical or moral question, but either way it is here in Parliament, a place that must be at the very centre of our country’s political deliberations, that we should debate these questions and shape the laws that provide the background to and the boundaries of the criminal law.
Parliament makes our laws and has a vital role when the courts can no longer develop or reveal the common law. When a Government take the initiative to change the law, when Parliament on its own initiative decides to change the law or when the judges in our higher courts can no longer develop the common law, we come here, to Parliament, to deliberate on what the law should be and, where appropriate, to make the necessary changes to our law.
Let me make a few preliminary points. First, it is the position of the Government that the substantive law on assisted suicide is a matter of conscience and not a matter of party political controversy. If the House divides today, right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches will vote—or abstain—as their conscience dictates and not in response to the advice of the Government Whips. I dare say the same applies on the Opposition Benches.
Secondly, I acknowledge the variety of views held on assisted suicide, euthanasia, and the care of the terminally ill, and quite understand that many will use this debate to express their opinion on matters that may be outside the strict confines of the DPP’s guidelines on assisted suicide prosecutions. I do not intend to express any personal views this afternoon. Rather, I shall make some dispassionate points about the role of the DPP and of prosecutors under his leadership and about the law on assisted suicide.
Thirdly, as a Law Officer, I want to emphasise the importance of the independence of prosecutors and the undesirability of statutory guidelines for prosecutors in any area of law, not least this one. Fourthly, I repeat what I said a moment ago—that ultimately Parliament is supreme and may legislate in this area if it wishes to do so. Fifthly, I will briefly outline the Government’s strategy for end-of-life care. A good many right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House have added their names to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) to encourage the development of specialist palliative care and hospice provision.
No doubt every Member of Parliament knows of a hospice that is deserving of particular praise for the work its staff do in bringing care and sensitivity to the dying and the bereaved, and of doctors and other medical staff who specialise in palliative care. In Leicestershire we are fortunate to have the LOROS hospice for adults and the Rainbows hospice for children, both of which do so much to help their patients and the families, and I cannot commend them highly enough.
Let me now turn to the Suicide Act 1961. Until that Act was passed, suicide, and thus attempted suicide, were crimes. As late as the 1950s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South told us, a few people who had failed in their attempt to commit suicide were imprisoned. The 1961 Act decriminalised the act of suicide, but section 2 of the Act made it an offence to assist the suicide or attempted suicide of another person. It is, therefore, a highly unusual offence. I cannot think of another example where it is a crime to assist someone in doing something which is not itself a crime, but given that assisting another person to commit suicide is an area potentially open to a good deal of abuse, it was thought right to make it a criminal offence.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I am grateful to the Minister. I want to take him up on that point, because he has made the seminal point that this is a very unusual—perhaps unique—circumstance, in which assisting is a criminal offence, but suicide is not an offence. Because it is such an unusual case, it may be reasonable for the Government to consult on whether the guidelines should go into statute.
The Solicitor-General
I listened to the right hon. Lady’s speech and although I understood it, I am not convinced by her argument. None the less, she is perfectly entitled to make it.
Assisting or encouraging suicide is an offence and the maximum penalty for it is 14 years. It should not be thought that the law is not clear. We are talking about the application of the law when it comes to a decision about whether or not to prosecute. Those are discrete issues.
It cannot be acceptable to permit people to encourage others to kill themselves. Most often the people concerned would know each other, but the growth in suicide websites means that the person doing the encouraging could well be wholly unknown to, and not even present with, the person being assisted or encouraged to kill himself. To clarify the position the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 updated section 2 of the 1961 Act. That change was made amid growing concern about misuse of the internet to promote suicide and suicide methods, and to reassure the public that the internet was not outside the law. It is now clear in that 2009 Act that it is not necessary for a person committing the offence of assisted suicide to know the person whom he is encouraging to commit suicide, or even to be able to identify him. The change to section 2 came about via the Coroners and Justice Act, and any further changes to the law must, I suggest, be a matter for Parliament to decide.
Although today’s motion does not call for a change in the substantive law, and the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) calls for the DPP’s guidance to be put on a statutory basis—no doubt following consultation, but I think I can paraphrase in that acceptable way—she does not ask for a change in the statute itself. I have no doubt that some may suggest during this debate that there should be a change in the criminal law relating to assisting or encouraging suicide. I do not advocate a change in the law, nor do I think it sensible to place the DPP’s guidance on a statutory footing.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Solicitor-General has come to a point that concerns me. Does he agree that passing the amendment would appear to be doing something that is very close to changing the law, and it would be a pity to give that impression?
The Solicitor-General
I think that I am entitled to look at the amendment proposed by the right hon. Lady on its face value, and it proposes to change the current arrangements. It proposes that there should be a consultation as to whether the policy and the guidelines should be placed on a statutory footing. However, I think that I am entitled to infer from that that those who support that aspect of the amendment wish the DPP’s guidelines to be on a statutory footing. I disagree with that. I do not think that that is sensible.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Can the Solicitor-General think of another example where we expect people to commit a crime knowingly, and only find out later whether they will be prosecuted or not?
The Solicitor-General
I do not think that I will answer that question, because, to be honest, I am not entirely sure I understand it. I apologise if my failure to understand is entirely my own fault.
The DPP’s guidance relates to the framework within which prosecutors apply the law as it currently stands, and I suggest that that is a framework that should remain in place as it currently stands. As Law Officers, it is for the Attorney-General and for me to superintend the Crown Prosecution Service and to account to this House for its activities and performance, but prosecutors have always had discretion to consider what the public interest might be when they bring criminal proceedings, and it is for prosecutors to decide how to exercise that discretion.
That is set out in the code for Crown prosecutors, the document issued by the DPP that provides guidance on the principles that prosecutors should apply when making decisions on whether to prosecute in any particular case. The test requires—I paraphrase—the prosecutor to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to convict and that it would be in the public interest to prosecute. Sometimes a statute requires that either the DPP or the Attorney-General—for these purposes that means the Solicitor-General as well—must consent to the prosecution, and in the case of a prosecution under the Suicide Act 1961, as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, it is the DPP who has to consent to the bringing of criminal proceedings.
However, it has been clear for many years that it is not in every case where the evidential test is passed that a prosecution must be advanced. In 1951 in the House, the then Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, said:
“It has never been the rule in this country—I hope it never will be—that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution.”—[Official Report, 29 January 1951; Vol. 483, c. 681.]
Those words underscore the essential independence of our prosecutors from Government, from Parliament, from newspapers and their readers, from religious leaders, from the expert and ignorant, and from all who would seek to interfere in their discretion and independence. As Law Officers, the Attorney-General and I support and protect the independence of prosecutors in their decision making. With that in mind, I will turn to the DPP’s policy document.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I make a declaration as a former criminal prosecutor. It was frequently said that we were often consulted but often ignored. In these particular circumstances, given that there may be a presiding view of the Government, what is to be lost by having a consultation and finding out what is the view of the people?
The Solicitor-General
I suppose that it is a matter of attitude. I happen to think that the Government were elected to take decisions. I have expressed my view on the matter. No damage will be done to the constitution, and the world will not come to an end, if we consult on this issue. I happen to be of the view that we do not need to put this policy into statutory form. It will create a form of sclerosis and lead to all sorts of problems that may not be intended. Therefore the better position is to leave the thing as it is. If my hon. Friend, either as a Member of Parliament or as a private citizen, be he a former prosecutor or a former defender, wishes to advocate the consultation process, he should go ahead. I will not stop him. I will just simply not support him.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Whereas the guidance at paragraph 6 is clear that it does not decriminalise the offence, if the remainder of the guidance were put in statute, would that not therefore decriminalise assisted suicide, and is not that the crucial difference?
The Solicitor-General
There is a growing confusion—perhaps it was there already—between the guidelines, which are the DPP’s policy statement on when it is and is not thought appropriate to prosecute and the factors that he will consider, and the substantive law that is set out in section 2 of the Suicide Act. The two are quite different. As I mentioned to the right hon. Lady, it is a criminal offence to encourage or assist the suicide of another, and if people are prosecuted and convicted, they are very likely to receive a prison sentence measured in years, the maximum being 14 years. But the DPP’s guidelines are not the law. They are a public document that informs us how it is that he considers whether or not it is right to bring a prosecution in any given case.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South in commending the DPP for producing a document that is notable for both its clarity and its compassion. The House is fully entitled to consider the way the criminal law it enacts is applied in practice, but I hope that by considering the guidelines, the House will not only commend them, but also note that they are based on the principle of independent prosecutors exercising their discretion in their decision making, which, ultimately, must be in all our interests.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I am really grateful to the Solicitor-General for giving way. Will he just acknowledge that a future DPP could overturn the guidelines, and does he think that that would acceptable?
The Solicitor-General
If a future DPP overturned the guidelines, he would be judicially reviewed for behaving in a rather whimsical way. I also suspect that the right hon. Lady would be one of the first to stand up in the House and censor him for doing so. I can assure her that placing things in statute will not assist her cause. She and I share the view that the DPP’s guidelines are a good thing. Why not leave them where they are and let them remain a good thing?
As I said, I hope that by considering the guidelines the House will not only commend them but also note that they are based on the principle of independent prosecutors exercising their discretion in their decision making, which, ultimately, is in all our interests. The guidelines inform others how he will exercise his discretion, but as with any guidance or policy issued by the DPP, it is subservient to the law of Parliament and the decisions of the higher courts. If the law changes, any relevant prosecutor’s guidance must also change. It will change the more flexibly if it is not ossified in statute.
I make a trite point, but the law cannot do everything. We need flexibility in its application, and to be able to apply the law and to make decisions about whether or not to prosecute on the facts and the surrounding circumstances of each case and on a case-by-case basis. In this area of law, perhaps almost if not exclusively above all others, we need to approach the question of whether to prosecute with sensitivity and with care. Indeed, the High Court, in its judgment on 29 October 2008 in the Purdy case—the very action that, once it had been considered by the House of Lords in 2009, gave rise to the guidelines—said that the nature of the offence created by section 2(1) of the Suicide Act is such that
“the variety of facts which may give rise to the commission of that offence, and therefore which may result in a person being prosecuted, is almost infinite”.
The section 2 offence is very widely drawn. It covers all situations and creates no exceptions, which is why, I suggest, the DPP’s consent to a prosecution is so necessary, and why the House of Lords directed the DPP to publish the policy that we now have before us.
Guidelines or a policy statement are not required in every criminal case, but I invite the House to consider that such guidelines are best issued by prosecutors and for prosecutors, although available for public inspection and comment. Quite apart from the propriety of guidelines for prosecutors being a matter for prosecutors, there are some practical considerations to guidelines remaining on a non-statutory basis. Surely to place them in statute would be to attempt to confine the infinite. Policies and guidance are there to provide practical assistance to prosecutors on how particular categories of cases should be approached and the internal processes that should be followed. Therefore, there needs to be a certain amount of flexibility, not least because, as case law develops and public opinion and our collective moral view alter, the law changes and these guidelines and the policies will need to change in response, often quickly.
I therefore urge the House, as a matter of good practice, to conclude that the current flexible and—I admit—pragmatic approach should be retained. That said, we are all entitled, inside and outside the House, to comment on the guidelines themselves or on a decision to prosecute or not prosecute in any given case, subject to any temporary constraints imposed by the law of contempt and defamation. We should not build into the process a sclerotic arrangement that will not improve the application of the law from year to year.
The CPS has published a number of policies and guidance documents over the years. They are available on its website and are there to help the public understand how decisions are taken by prosecutors. During the past two years or so, that has included policies on prosecuting human trafficking cases, public protest cases and cases about perverting the course of justice when victims in rape and domestic violence cases make false retractions. Should these policies be codified, too? Should they be placed on a statutory footing? As my noble Friend Baroness Berridge said in the other place when this matter was debated last month:
“It is imperative that DPP policy and decisions are free from, and seen to be free from, Government interference…If the House were asking how the Government are assessing the application of DPP policy for prosecutions in cases of phone-hacking, constitutional alarm bells would, I believe, have gone off immediately.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2012; Vol. 735, c. 629.]
I agree with her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said that the application of the existing law and, by implication, the application of the guidelines in this area is a pressing issue. It is not so much the application of the existing law that is the issue, but what the substance of the existing law is. I leave others to decide how pressing the issue might be. At the risk of repeating myself, I will say that if Parliament wishes to change the law in this area, that is a matter for Parliament, but we should not confuse the way prosecutors apply the law with what the law is or should be.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I will briefly address the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and supported by a great many right hon. and hon. Members. She is encouraging—I assume—the Government to develop specialist palliative care and hospice provision further and, in responding, I transmogrify my role as a desiccated, boring and apolitical Law Officer to that of a thoroughly exciting political Minister.
The Government recognise that many people, their families and carers do not receive the quality of end-of-life care that we would all wish to receive. Hardly a month passes without our reading in the national or local press or hearing in the broadcast media of some terrible episode of personal suffering endured by an elderly person at the end of their life. Every such story demands of us that something more should be done to ensure that the care of the terminally ill, no matter what age they are, should be improved. The Government are committed to developing and supporting end-of-life and palliative care services to ensure that the care people receive, whatever their diagnosis, is compassionate, appropriate, of good quality and permits the exercise of choice by patients. That choice is, of course, within the current legal framework. For many, that means being able to choose to be cared for and to die at home, or in a care home when that has become someone’s home. However, we know that most people die in hospital, the place where they would least prefer to be.
Although realistically many people will continue to die in hospital, we know that more people could be cared for and die at home. We want services to be set up to help people make that choice, and commissioners and providers need to ensure that the right services are available in the right places and at the right time. Much needs to be done to make that happen, and we will review progress in 2013 to see how close we are to being able to offer that choice. It is very much part of the work to implement the Department of Health’s end-of-life care strategy. Published in 2008 under the previous Government, the strategy received cross-party support. It aims to improve care for people approaching the end of life, whatever their diagnosis and wherever they are, including enabling more people to be cared for and to die at home.
Fiona Bruce
I am extremely pleased to hear my hon. and learned Friend say that. It will build on what is a very high standard of care in many parts of the country, as I have already mentioned. The point I was seeking to emphasis, in particular, was that evidence shows that where there is a high standard of palliative and end-of-life care, there are fewer requests for assisted suicide. That is why it is so important that we focus on supporting and developing further end-of-life care specialism and treatment in this country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I take it that the Solicitor-General is coming to the end of his speech, because we are up against time and many Back Benchers wish to speak.
The Solicitor-General
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will avoid answering my hon. Friend’s question in order to save time.
If we are to continue to provide care where and how people want it, to expand this work into the community and to care for people with conditions other than cancer, hospices and other providers of palliative care need the right support and the right funding. We need a funding system that can last, that provides stability and security in the long term and that actively encourages community-based palliative care so that people can stay at home or in a care home as they wish. Of course, this has to be affordable within the constraints of the current financial climate.
The independent palliative care funding review looked at options to ensure that the funding of hospices and other palliative care providers is fair and covers both adult and children’s services. When it reported last summer, it recommended that a number of pilots be set up to collect data so it could refine its proposals, because of the lack of reliable data currently available. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced the seven adult and one children’s palliative care funding pilots selected for this important work. They will start in April and run for two years, and our aim is to have a new funding system in place by 2015, a year sooner than the palliative care funding review proposed.
I did not wish to be rude to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. I do not know whether there is a correlation or a causative link between the two points she drew to our attention in her intervention. None the less, if the matter comes to a Division, I urge the House to accept the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, to be deeply sceptical about the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford and to look with interest and care on the matter proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) not only on persuading the Backbench Business Committee to make time for this debate, for which I am grateful, but on his thoughtful contribution, which set the tone for the debate. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on their contributions. In my view, the debate is one of the highlights of this parliamentary term, and it is such a shame that there is unlikely to be a great deal of interest from the media, as I think that the debate shows the House at its best.
Assisted suicide is certainly a difficult issue, and I do not believe that anyone has an immediate and obvious answer to that difficulty. Personally, I am always slightly suspicious of those who believe that there is a ready answer. The issue is perhaps made more difficult by the fact that, as politicians in a democracy, it is our job to reflect public opinion, and when it comes to such issues the public far too often behave like ostriches, wanting to bury their heads and forget about it. No one wants to believe that they or those whom they love would ever be so ill that they would want to die. The truth, however, is that many of us will find ourselves in that situation.
Despite the fact that we have an increasingly ageing population, we also fail to address additional, related problems, such as the problems of pensions and long-term care, which have led to the social care crisis. Again, that is because none of us wants to believe that we will have difficulties in old age or that we will be seriously ill and need assistance. Therefore, it is not terribly surprising that we have failed to address the issue of how we ought to have a good death. Some of us will die peacefully in our sleep, but many of us will not. With advances in medicine, many of us will live with a medical condition that, even 10 years ago, we would have been unlikely to survive, and which would likely have resulted in a speedy death, so many of us are likely to live longer.
Many of us, however, are likely to live with a painful, debilitating disease that will shorten our lives. Some of us believe that that is the will of God; some of us believe that life comes from God and it is for God to take that life away; many of us believe that Pope John Paul II was an inspiration, given the dignity he showed in dealing with his Parkinson’s; and some of us—I am one of them—believe that if more hospice and palliative care was available to those coming towards the end of their lives, they would wish to live as long as they could, so long as they could remain pain-free and continue to live with dignity. I was very moved when I went to Trinity hospice, and I would consider myself fortunate, if necessary, to see out the end of my days in such a hospice.
Others, however, do not believe that such an approach is sufficient. Diane Pretty and Debbie Purdy, for example, do not wish, even with the greatest assistance, to live until the time when God, if there is a God, takes that life away; they wish to have some control over the end of their life.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Lady agree, however, that the essence of the Director of Public Prosecution’s advice is to give dying people the ability to live? It is precisely the knowledge that they have control over when they are able to die that allows them to live more fully and, often, for longer.
Emily Thornberry
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who in fact takes me to my next point, which is that no one could fail to be struck by the clearly unaffected joy of Debbie Purdy and her caring husband, Omar Puente, when they believed that there had been clarification of the stage at which they might jointly have been able to decide when she could die. The fact that they seemed to be overjoyed by that showed an essential truth in relation to them and to the decisions that they personally needed and wanted to make—and wanted the law to allow them to make.
Having rattled through the difficulties in relation to the issue, may I move on to the motion and to the amendments before the House? The motion welcomes the Director of Public Prosecution’s guidance on cases of encouraging or assisting suicide, and it is certainly my view that, as others have said, the guidelines are sensible and proportionate. The hon. Member for Croydon South rightly said that they are compassionate, and many members of the public believe that they are.
When the public saw that Diane Pretty, despite all her efforts, eventually did suffocate—exactly what she did not want, because she wanted to be able to end her life before that with assistance, if necessary—they found the DPP’s response to the case of Debbie Purdy a few years later was proportionate, and it had their broad support. The motion does not seek to change the law.
Amendment (a), in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, would not change the law, either. It
“invites the Government to consult as to whether to put the guidance on a statutory basis.”
When looking at amendments and at quasi-legal documents, I think that the safest way to interpret them is to interpret what they say as meaning what they say, and the amendment simply asks the Government to consult on whether the DPP’s guidance should be put on a statutory basis.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The hon. Lady is helping the debate. If the Government were forced to hold such a consultation, would it be based precisely on the DPP’s guidelines as they are, or would it open up the debate to state that some of the guidelines are wrong, that there should be not just assisted suicide but death on request, or that the situation ought to involve the chronically ill and some of the physically handicapped? Would the consultation be constricted, because if it were not, why would we hold it?
Emily Thornberry
The hon. Gentleman, too, anticipates what I am going to say next, because having clarified what I believe to be the purpose of amendment (a), which is to invite the Government to consult, I believe also that it would invite the public to become involved in a debate, and no one in this House, given the difficulties in relation to the issue, should be afraid of that.
There are issues related to the current guidance, but there are wider issues, too, and we should not be afraid of debating them. There are the results of the Commission on Assisted Dying, which recommended permitting a doctor to assist suicide for the terminally ill and defined who the terminally ill are, and there is the issue of whether that recommendation would assist people who suffer from locked-in syndrome, or even Debbie Purdy, who suffered from multiple sclerosis but might not have been considered terminally ill. We should not run away from debating those issues, and it is important in these circumstances that there be a debate. That is why there is some good sense in amendment (a).
Sir Peter Bottomley
The unofficial commission started, it might fairly be described, with a majority of commissioners who believed in some of the results that they came out with.
Emily Thornberry
I do not wish to apportion any motives one way or the other to people who want to be involved in the debate; it is best that we have the debate and that the public are encouraged to be involved. The DPP has, in my view, come up with very sensible guidelines on when a prosecution for assisted suicide should begin, because it is appropriate for the Crown Prosecution Service and the DPP to be informed by a wider public debate.
For the reasons that I set out at the beginning of my remarks, I believe that the public would not necessarily like to have a debate, unless they have coming up in front of them cases such as Debbie Purdy’s, which they cannot avoid, but it is our responsibility as elected representatives to listen to the public and to encourage and engender debate, and that is the good sense behind amendment (a).
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but equally she should not attribute too much to the Commission on Assisted Dying, as it was a self-appointed commission that was funded mainly by a pressure group that holds a very clear view of the existing law and how it wishes to see it changed. I also point out to my hon. Friend that this House at the very beginning of this Session argued for e-petitions, and that the same House is now arguing that e-petitions should be abolished because they produce absolutely nothing other than hundreds and thousands of e-mails.
Emily Thornberry
I take on board the points that my hon. Friend makes, but they do not sway me from my path, which is to argue that we should encourage a real debate with and among the public, and that we should learn from their views.
Amendment (b) is clearly nothing but good sense and very important. The vast majority of the public wish to die at home, but on the whole people do not do so because they are afraid that there is insufficient support for them to die pain-free and supported there. If I may step away from being a desiccated lawyer for a moment, I must say that it was such a shame that the Health and Social Care Bill spent so little time dealing with that vital issue, and instead dealt with many other issues that the public did not want.
In a more general debate, another issue that could come up is that of giving information to members of the public who might want to know how they could kill themselves or assist others to kill themselves. Again, that is controversial, but it is important that we politicians are informed by the public’s views on the matter.
For those and other reasons I welcome this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South on having ensured that we hold it here. Let us hope that it spreads to involve people outside this place.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
This is an issue where life, rather than logic, will change people’s minds, but I will have to rely on logic for the moment.
In 1961 the act of suicide was legalised, for whatever reason but in a wholly unqualified way, and, cutting through the fine words, what we are considering is legalising not a person killing themselves but, under defined circumstances, a person participating in the killing of another. This debate, to some extent, is a proxy for that, but, we seem to be arguing around and, possibly, avoiding arguing about whether an individual can claim a right in law to request that someone, possibly a state agency or a private individual, assists them in ending their life. It is not clear whether giving people this right puts anyone under an obligation, but it is clear that anyone acting in a way that enables a person to exercise the right would not be committing a crime if the law was changed, just as there are people in Switzerland who kill and volunteer to kill many people but are clearly distinguishable from murderers.
The legality of suicide, as presented in the law, is unqualified, but I think that we would all accept that the right to assist suicide has to be qualified to distinguish it from more heinous behaviour. I do not believe that there is any satisfactory way of doing that in law, and there is no evidence that it has ever been done satisfactorily in practice, because the right to assisted suicide is qualified in different ways in different countries—for very good reasons, but normally in an unsatisfactory fashion. In my view, there is no way in which we can qualify this right that will make the potential benefits outweigh the potential harm, even if we set aside the wider potential alleged social harms that may come from embodying euthanasia in our society, such as pressure on the elderly and diminishing respect for disabled people and for life itself.
Those are very persuasive arguments, but I would like to concentrate specifically on whether we can free assisted suicide, as a proposition, from all taint of harm, however we qualify it. Most people vigorously assert that consent must be a condition, and there are obviously cases in which it would be nonsense to deny that a person does not fully and knowingly consent. However, it is also abundantly clear that free consent is never a sufficient condition to claim the right for assisted suicide, nor to excuse a person who assisted them. Otherwise, we would tolerate assisted suicide in cases of people who enjoyed tolerable health but may have a range of reasons for wishing to be dead, not all of them laudable. Euthanasia on demand is not, I think, a proposition that anybody in this House cares to advance. In fact, we would all agree that it would be a wholly inappropriate response for people who are mentally ill or temporarily depressed.
Consent by itself is never a sufficient condition unless it is coupled with something else, which is usually the possibility of suffering or loss of dignity that an individual is unwilling to bear. It is also usually anticipated as being something that occurs in the last stages of terminal disease, but logically it need not be so. One cannot support euthanasia on the grounds that a level of indignity and suffering characterises a short period before death, and not support it if a lifetime of similar indignity and suffering lies ahead. One cannot easily argue for euthanasia for the terminally ill and not, at the same time, for euthanasia for those who are permanently suffering. It is the character and the extent of the suffering and indignity that counts, not where it is placed in someone’s life cycle.
Thus, free consent plus great suffering would, on the face of it, appear to make a minimum case for a civilised version of euthanasia. However, there is a sting in the tail. If we allow euthanasia for those who are either in great pain or unwilling to face the probability of great pain, why should those who are, for whatever reason, incapable of giving consent be denied mercy if they are thought to endure exactly parallel circumstances? In other words, why privilege those who are compos mentis—those fortunate enough to have their wits about them? Thus, by force of argument, one moves from being unsure about whether consent is a sufficient condition to being unsure about whether it is a necessary condition.
Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me say at the outset that I am prepared to accept the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), particularly because he indicated that he might be prepared to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I cannot support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), particularly because of the advice from the Minister, which I have received on a previous occasion.
I am vice-chairman of the all-party group on dying well, which is chaired by Baroness Ilora Finlay of Llandaff, who is professor of palliative care at Cardiff university and a former president of the Royal Society of Medicine. I am totally opposed to the legalisation of euthanasia, assisted suicide or assisted dying—whatever one calls it. It is referred to at the moment as assisted dying. I say “at the moment” because over the past few years full-blown and up-front debates on euthanasia have been held in the House of Lords, led by Lord Joffe. The campaign has changed from being one on euthanasia to one on assisted suicide, and it is now known as assisted dying. The trick, so often, is to soften the language throughout the campaign to gain public support. Therein lies a strategy.
I welcome the DPP’s revision of his guidelines for prosecuting in cases of assisted suicide. As we know, this follows a lengthy consultation. The new guidelines are focused more on public safety and, to my mind, on the protection of people with disability and serious illness, who are, as the guidelines say, of equal worth and therefore must have equal protection under the law. I highlight the issue of elder abuse within families and remind the House that not all families are loving or empathetic. It hardly needs to be stated that vulnerabilities such as physical dependence or mental health problems are not a reason for assisting suicide.
Although there is much to welcome in the guidelines, they leave me with some concerns. The use of judgmental aspects on individual cases is inherently problematic. There needs to be complete transparency over decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute. Without this, we will fail to protect the people who care for those who are dying and leave the person who is dependent and ill in a very vulnerable position. The guidelines make it clear that immunity from prosecution is not guaranteed for assistors of suicide. The danger is that the parts of the guidelines that have been published, plus the spin given in the media by those who support assisted dying, could well lead to people getting involved in illegal acts. Having said all that, there is a general welcome for some aspects of the DPP’s guidelines.
In the context of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton, I now put the case for the antidote to assisted suicide. I do so by declaring that two of my grandsons live with serious disabilities. They are brothers, and they have a neurological muscle weakness that is controlled by medication. They are both wheelchair bound and require one-to-one support at home and in their education. From time to time, they have required life support systems. I do not want them, or any other person living with a disability, to experience pressure in a system whose law suggests that their lives might not be worth living. That important point was made in the Lords debate by Baroness Campbell of Surbiton and others who spoke on behalf of those with disabilities.
As I have said, the antidote to assisted suicide is palliative care for people suffering from terminal illness. I include all types of terminal illness in that. In 2006, I introduced a private Member’s Bill on palliative care for the terminally ill. That is another reason why I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton, of which I am a signatory. Palliative care is about enhancing quality of life and—
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to speak so early in this important debate, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway).
I never thought that I would speak in a debate in support of some form of assisted suicide. However, I have been on a journey and would like to share a little of it with the House. I have a very good friend called Nicky, whom I have known for 30 years. She is in the Gallery today with her husband, David, whom I have also known for 30 years. During that time, Nicky has developed secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Although at this point it is not terminal, at some point it will be. For many years, Nicky has expressed the view that in the future she will want the right to choose the time and manner of her death. She wants dignity in dying.
Nicky and I have disagreed about that issue for many years and have had many heated debates. However, I am a pragmatist. I want to support my friend in her desire to choose the time and manner of her death, but I also want safeguards. I know Nicky and David well. I believe that I know what Nicky’s wishes are. I know that if she were to take her own life, with the assistance of David, she would be doing so of her own free will. I would be able to vouch for David and say with confidence that his only motivation was compassion, but how can I be assured of that in other cases, perhaps involving people more vulnerable than Nicky? I cannot be assured, and so we have the law. At times, though, the law can be a blunt instrument. They say that justice is blind. On occasions, perhaps the blindfold should be lifted just a little, so that justice can see that the same actions may have different motives.
I fully support the development of palliative care provision and I welcome amendment (b). I also recognise that such care, no matter how much we wish, cannot remove all suffering at the end of life. There will always be people, such as Nicky, who may request the assistance of loved ones, such as David, to help them end their lives. That would be an act of compassion, not malice. I therefore welcome the common-sense approach taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions and prosecutors in distinguishing between wholly compassionate assistance, which is highly unlikely to be prosecuted, and malicious assistance, which will be prosecuted. That policy provides clarity and peace of mind for people who are facing such difficult decisions. It also allows them to focus on living now.
My friend Nicky welcomed the DPP’s policy when it was published. She described it as “a great comfort”. She said that it will extend lives
“because people will not have to act prematurely, knowing that they can be helped… I don’t have a death wish, I just want the right to a dignified death, when I wish that to happen.”
That is what is so crucial about the policy. It gives people a degree of security in the choices that they can make, and gives them a sense of control over their own lives. It means that they can enjoy the present. As Nicky says, it is not about wanting to die, but about wanting to live with the comfort of knowing that a choice is available.
I reiterate that this debate is not about changing the law. It is about providing much-needed clarity on the application of existing legislation. The DPP’s policy sensibly distinguishes between malicious and compassionate assistance. However, it is important to note that it does not grant immunity. If there is evidence of malicious or irresponsible practice, it can and should be prosecuted.
Finally, as a committed Christian, I believe strongly in the sanctity of human life. I believe that human life is intrinsically valuable. Although I recognise the importance of debates such as this, I have many concerns regarding a wider change in the law. I keep an open mind and do not believe that it is for me to force my beliefs on others. I wholeheartedly appreciate that for many people dealing with a terminal illness, life becomes intolerable. Until we can guarantee that we can achieve the correct balance between allowing personal choice and providing complete protection, I am happy to accept the DPP’s guidance, but not further changes to the law.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee on allowing it to take place. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech. I do not think that we have agreed on much over the years in this place, but on this we are of one mind. More importantly, I congratulate the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, on publishing the guidance and the balance of public interest test that the hon. Gentleman covered in his speech.
I welcome the debate, and the mood of the House seems clearly supportive of the motion, if not yet of amendment (a), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), although there is still time to persuade colleagues. Even supporting the motion will demonstrate that we are in tune with public opinion. Just as the hon. Member for Croydon South said that the House caught up with public opinion in 1961 by passing the Suicide Act, it will catch up by agreeing to his motion today, whether or not it approves amendment (a). Amendment (b) will obviously command universal support.
I should put my cards on the table: I support the campaign Dignity in Dying. There is a photograph on its website of a supporter’s poster, which states:
“My life, my choice, at the end of my life”,
and “end” is underlined. The emphasis is on personal choice to end not only suffering and loss of dignity but the deterioration in quality of life when individuals know that the end is near and want to be in control of their own death. I say “they”, and our decisions here always have an impact on our fellow citizens, but this is also about us. We need to ask ourselves, what if it were our loved one seeking a less harrowing end to their life? Would we welcome the DPP’s common sense more or less? Would we want them to have the chance to choose?
I believe strongly that it needs to be recognised that there is some pain, some misery and some indignity that cannot be ameliorated or made more bearable by palliative care, and that being reduced to a vegetative state by increasing recourse to continuous sedation is not how some people want to end their lives. They want their own choice, and they do not want loved ones to suffer because of that choice. The DPP’s guidelines are helpful in offering both victim and family some protection.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree that there are some people who, by virtue of their affliction, illness or disease, do not have the choice of ending their lives because they physically cannot do anything for themselves? Are not those people a very important consideration in this debate?
Jim Fitzpatrick
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. I am sure all Members in the Chamber will have read the briefings by a variety of organisations and testimony from family members who have been worried even about filling in the forms to send their loved ones to Dignitas, if they could afford it. They have been worried about whether that constitutes illegality which could lead to their being prosecuted.
The Debbie Purdy case in 2009 helped us get here today. As the hon. Member for Croydon South mentioned, we owe her and her family a great debt. She did not want her husband prosecuted for helping her along the lines that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has just mentioned, and I do not believe most opponents of assisted dying in any form want loved ones prosecuted for a one-off, compassionately motivated act. I believe and hope that the DPP guidance will bring common sense to bear.
I personally believe that we need a change in the law to allow assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults in specific circumstances, so I support amendment (a). Let me personalise the matter. Most colleagues know that I was in the London fire brigade before being elected here. Every firefighter from the 1970s and before, but not after the early 1980s, used asbestos equipment. Asbestos was and is known for its heat-resistant properties, but it has been lethal for many thousands of people. Tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, in other industries and businesses have also been exposed to it.
Asbestosis and mesothelioma cause very unpleasant deaths. They cause an end that is nasty, painful and distressing not only for the victim but for their loved ones and the medical staff who have to treat them. I have been with colleagues and families who have been through that. The issue, therefore, is this: what kind of end?
The DPP’s policy provides much-needed clarity and, as many colleagues have said, sensibly distinguishes between malicious and compassionate assistance. It does not give immunity. The public interest criteria safeguard the public interest and provide to some degree that there should be a right to choose. Therefore, I support the motion and amendment (a), as well as amendment (b), because the latter is not at all in conflict. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, most people who go into decent palliative care would choose to extend their life for as long as possible, but not everyone. Those who do not want to stay to the bitter end, and who think that they have a better option for a more dignified end, should have the right to choose.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I did not originally plan to take part in today’s debate, but such is the range of emotion and also the quality of some of the contributions that many hon. Members have made—in the columns of the press and in debate—I felt it important to make a contribution. I am not someone who has ever worked closely with the hospice movement, but I appreciate the work that it puts in. That is why I was heartened to see the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
Palliative care should not just be an option when it comes to the decision to seek assisted dying. Instead, it must be at the heart of how we look after those who are nearing the end of their lives. In Fylde, we have several nursing homes that adopt what they refer to as the golden pathway. Every time I visit I leave feeling distressed, having seen people who are clearly getting to the end of their lives, some of whom do not have the benefit of loved ones to take care of them. However, they receive the highest level of nursing care possible in that environment to ensure that when they do leave this earth, they do so with as much dignity and as little pain as possible.
Anyone who knows someone in the harrowing situation of facing terminal illness, which—as we know—can come in many forms, knows that it is important that such care is available in whatever form we can give it. That should be not just through the work of the hospice movement, excellent as it is, but through care in the community and allowing people, where at all possible, to live in their home and to die with dignity in as pain-free and comfortable a way possible.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I had the privilege of nursing my mother at home with the help of Marie Curie and the Macmillan nurse service. Two weeks before she died, there was still dispute among her medical team as to whether her condition was terminal. Some people have made the point that this applies only at the end of life, but who can determine the end of life?
Mark Menzies
The hon. Lady makes a very important point and, when she was nursing her mother and was in a state of distress, the last thing she needed was the pressure and the uncertainty of questions about whether it was the end of life or something else. Every step of the way, we have to ensure that the care that is provided is of the highest quality, especially for those people whom we think may be entering the end of life. I commend the hon. Lady on the care that she gave to her mother.
I also ask that when we think of palliative care, we also think of the carers. Some people have a relative or loved one in a hospice, for example, and want to visit as often as possible, sometimes more than once a day, but they are trying to juggle family commitments, looking after children or other dependent relatives, and trying to hold down a job. When we consider amendment (b) we should think not only of those reaching end of life, but of those caring for them.
We also have to recognise the work that doctors do, and I know that many hon. Members who have been in the medical profession have reservations about anything that looks as though it moves us closer to assisted dying, because they do not want doctors to have the pressure and burden of being the person who instigates the act of bringing someone a step closer to death.
Many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak and I do not wish to take any more time, other than to say that I am very proud to be a signatory to amendment (b). I will continue to listen to the debate and I may well support amendment (c), but I cannot support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock).
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), when she rightly said that the House is at its best today. The view of the House in the public eye over the past 24 hours is one thing, but today the House has risen to its very best when debating an issue—a solemn issue and one that touches on the hearts of everyone.
We have to start by declaring boldly and clearly that this House is not God. The House does not have the right to determine and should not take upon itself the right to determine what God determines—when life begins and ends. The House would be foolish to take that role, that desire and that power upon itself. This debate sets on its course the notion that we, this Parliament, can put in place a law that will determine when people in this nation should lose their lives. Think of it! Think of how foolish the House is, in the great scheme of things, when it puts itself in that God-like position! It is not God.
The law “works well in practice”. Those are not my words but the words of the DPP, who has spelt out clearly that the law is compassionate when it has to be compassionate. The guidelines from the DPP demonstrate that the law is independent, as it has to be, and flexible when it has to be flexible. We should recognise that that is the norm and accept that the guidelines do everything they need to do without the House taking it upon itself to unbolt the door and open the floodgates to euthanasia. That, essentially, is what we are trying to do, or at least what some in the House are trying to do.
Let us consider what happened across the sea after Holland decided to change its law and encourage euthanasia. We now have reports that it has specialised roving medical teams that take upon themselves the right to go and help patients end their lives. Since they have done this, they have assisted in more than 3,100 deaths a year. The number is more than 10,000 at present. We are opening a floodgate tonight, and we should draw back from turning the key and opening that gate by supporting something that will allow for this law to be introduced. That is exactly where it would take us.
We are told by some Members that change is necessary because it will put the patient in control. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) put her finger on it: we are not actually in control of these circumstances. Indeed, the practice of medicine is well called a practice because it is exactly that—a practice, not an art. I want to quote from a letter from Patrick Pullicino, professor of clinical neurosciences at the university of Kent:
“The crux of its problem”—
euthanasia—
“is that it is not possible, even for an experienced specialist, to diagnose with any accuracy when someone’s illness is imminently going to be fatal.”
We should recognise that we cannot give the patient what they want and put them in control because we do not know—we, this House, this people are not in control of the circumstances. We should sharpen up and wake up to our own humanity. Many people are right in what they have said about their own personal circumstances. I had the honour of nursing my father-in-law seven months ago, as I watched life ebb from him. I count it an honour to have been there with him and to have watched him die with dignity, but not to have encouraged it. The House should recognise that we are not God and we do not have the right to do this.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and to listen to him speak with the same passion with which his father frequently spoke, and from exactly the same place in the Chamber.
It is not the Government’s job to micro-manage the Director of Public Prosecutions. We make the laws; it is the job of the DPP, and the DPP alone, to decide whether to prosecute. As it stands, the law has a stern face and a kind heart. It tempers justice with mercy. The current system is clear-cut and easy to understand. The law works to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. The power that the DPP holds in reserve acts as a powerful deterrent against those who would wish to exploit or abuse, while providing him with the ability to moderate justice with mercy.
It is interesting to note that at the time of the Purdy ruling, there were 20 recorded cases a year of people travelling abroad to clinics such as Dignitas to take their own lives with assistance. At the time, those seeking to liberate the law predicted and hoped that the number would increase. In fact, two years on, the figure remains 20 a year. It has not increased at all; what has increased is the number of people being reported to the DPP, which clearly shows the level of public concern about this issue.
At the moment there is a definite, clear line between where the law begins and where it ends, and it is managed by the DPP. It might not be as clear as some would like, and as amendment (a) would make it. One of my colleagues —I think it might have been the Solicitor-General— described the law as one of those wonderful things, a great British muddle, but it works well in the interests of everybody concerned. Over the last three years, two British Parliaments have refused to change the law, for two simple reasons: to protect the vulnerable and to acknowledge the fact that doctors frequently get it wrong: they often make the wrong judgment. In support of that, I cite the case of Stephen Hawking, who was given a few months to live when he was first diagnosed with motor neurone disease, but who has just passed his 70th birthday, having contributed a vast amount to the total knowledge of mankind over his lifetime. Indeed, there may have been periods of illness over the course of his life when he might have been deemed to be nearing the end of his life, but from which he in fact went on to contribute even more.
Sentiment is beginning to grow around the concept of a loving family member assisting in the final act of a loved one. However, those at the end of their lives do not always have a relative or a loved one; indeed, the “loved one” may, in fact, be the state or the care home, or wherever they are being cared for. No matter how we dress it up, there are people across this country in nursing homes being cared for—disabled people, vulnerable people—who feel very protected by the law as it stands. If it were changed, they would suddenly feel very vulnerable, because they could imagine a point in time when they are aware of what they cost the NHS, the state or wherever they are being cared for. At the moment they may feel a burden, but they know that they are protected. However, there may come a point when they become depressed because of their illness and feel that one day the state will adopt the role of the person assisting in their suicide. As one disabled lady said to me about three years ago, “I can see the day when a doctor comes to me with a little pink cocktail and says, ‘You know you’re costing the state about £10,000 a week at the moment? Would you like to end your life?” We may think that is ridiculous, but to people who are disabled and vulnerable it does not seem quite so ridiculous.
I fully support amendment (b), in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), on palliative care, which is an area that I would have liked to talk about if we had more time. However, I think that the law as it stands and the DPP’s role in interpreting it should be left exactly as they are.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My starting point is that I want our law and our legal practice to be clear but flexible. In his excellent introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) said that decisions about the law should be made by Parliament and not by the courts, but these decisions are not court decisions. They relate to how to decide whether it is right, necessary or humane to pursue a prosecution according to the circumstances of a particular case.
I support the motion, but I regard the amendment as an unfortunate attempt to hijack the debate. It is a Trojan horse attempting to change the law, and I do not want the law to be changed in either direction. There is a certain amount of pull from people on either side who are often, understandably, informed by specific cases, to reinforce a point of view that comes from that specific case. The fact remains, however, that we cannot avoid the need for people to make a judgment in difficult circumstances. The doctor, the relative, or the person who must decide whether his or her moral responsibility is to assist another or to take a particular course of action, are the only people who can weigh all the facts and come to a judgment, balancing the sanctity of human life with the suffering and the personal wishes of the individual concerned.
After the event, another judgment has to be made as to whether the individual involved broke the law, and whether there ought to be a prosecution. There was a case in my constituency of a mother who killed her severely disabled son. The public reporting of that case suggested to me that nothing was gained by the prosecution; it simply served to make even more painful, in public, the period of intense suffering that she experienced over a long period. We cannot legislate against that, but we can offer guidance on how a judgment should be made on whether to prosecute. That is what the Director of Public Prosecutions has done, and in my view he has got it right. This is an issue of judgment, which is absolutely crucial.
I shall make a comparison with data protection. People often want a safe haven, which is expressed as “If in doubt, don’t share data”, when in fact there is a legal responsibility to consider the public interest and to balance the pros and cons of sharing specific data. A judgment has to be made in accordance with the law. Indeed, the law requires a judgment to be made. That is why we bring the balance of judgment required into a single judgment by talking about data management, rather than about data protection or data sharing. I hope that that helps to illustrate the fact that, in relation to assisted dying, to say “Never prosecute” or “Always prosecute” would be equally wrong.
The motion does not seek to change the law, but the amendment would take us further down that road by suggesting that the guidance should be subject to a decision of Parliament. Surely the hidden agenda is that we could disapprove guidance in the future, or even require a change in the guidance by resolution. That would be wrong. I have had letters from people who believe that the guidance is already subject to Parliament, but it is not. Some have implied that passing this motion would make subsequent changes to the guidance subject to Parliament, but that would be wrong. The guidance tells prosecutors how they should seek to make an appropriate judgment within the law, and we should not interfere with that. If we wanted to change the law, that would be a matter for Parliament, but the interpretation of the law is something that we should note—perhaps with approval, as the motion does—but not seek to determine. Let us leave it there.
On both sides of the argument about whether we should go further or be more restrictive, people argue from a point of view of compassion, and I respect the opinions on both sides. Newspapers and hon. Members who are dealing with individual cases argue for compassion for an individual in a particular set of circumstances, but our laws have to be universal and they therefore have to allow room for compassion and for the protection of the vulnerable. That means that the law should not be too specific or inflexible. I believe that the courts have been right in reflecting the decisions of this House on what the law should be. I also believe that the Director of Public Prosecutions, in responding to the pressure on him to produce guidance, has got it right within the law.
I am happy to support the motion, and to endorse the policy set out by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The present policy appropriately protects those who want to act out of compassion in helping the terminally ill while safeguarding against the dangerous prospect of legalising assisted dying or putting pressure on the ill and the vulnerable.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this very important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael). We do not always agree, but I agreed with every word that he said on this occasion. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on the tone that he adopted: I thought it just right for the introduction of such an important debate.
I should declare an interest. I am a member of the board of Living and Dying Well, an organisation that commissions evidence-based research into end-of-life care. I have regular conversations with Lord Carlile, who chairs it, and with Baroness Finlay, who has already been mentioned today.
I too have received several letters from members of Dignity in Dying. I write back disagreeing, but I always do so with a great deal of respect, because—like other Members who have spoken—I think that opinions on both sides of the debate are motivated by compassion, and I do not think it right to be critical of those who take a different view if compassion is what motivates them.
I am rather concerned about some of the media coverage that appeared before today’s debate, which seemed to suggest that we were contemplating, and perhaps moving towards, a change in the law. That is not the case. All that we are discussing today is a reaffirmation of the current position in law, which is why I am happy to support the motion.
I am probably unusual here in having had an interest in assisted suicide for as long as it has been an offence. I was 17 in 1961, and an active member of my young farmers club. As young farmers clubs do, we discussed the issues of the day in debating competitions, and I supported the decriminalisation of suicide. A key point, however, is that that simply would not have happened without the inclusion in the Suicide Act 1961 of section 2, which introduced the offence of assisting a suicide and was seen as an absolute protection allowing the offence of suicide itself to be abolished.
My view remains exactly the same today. Over the last few days I have received many representations and briefings, as have many other Members, and over the months during which I have been a member of Living and Dying Well, we have commissioned several research papers. There so much information that it is almost impossible to engage one’s mind clearly with all of it, and because the time limit on speeches today is so tight, I shall make just one fundamental point.
In 1961, I just knew that assisted suicide was wrong. I thought that it was extremely dangerous, and I still think that. If the DPP’s guidance became statutory we would be legalising assisted suicide, and I believe that that would have a very negative impact on the frail elderly, the terminally ill, the incapacitated and the seriously depressed.
I have never believed that the malicious assister is the biggest problem, although that is probably an issue. What has always concerned me is the likelihood that the normalisation of assisted suicide would lead to uncertainty about their own worth among the groups whom I have listed. It would cause them to ask questions about their own value. They would see themselves as becoming a burden on society. When we talk to elderly people who are nearing the end of their lives, we often find that they are concerned about not being able to leave assets to their grandchildren, and I believe that that concern would be expanded greatly if assisted suicide were legalised and normalised. My view is that it was and is wrong, and that only in very special circumstances should it not be prosecuted.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I think that there is a clear distinction between allowing discretion for a prosecution that says “It is wrong to assist someone in committing suicide,” and potentially widening the number of people who may be put under pressure by codifying assisted suicide in any form in law.
Glyn Davies
I firmly believe that assisting in suicide is wrong and should be a criminal offence, but, as with all criminal offences, the DPP or the prosecution service must always have the discretion to apply a degree of common sense and make judgments about what motivated the person concerned to commit that criminal offence. Since the guidelines were issued two years ago, the DPP has made a sensible judgment in every case. Where he has been satisfied that the crime was motivated by compassion, no prosecution has taken place.
The system is working well. It is delivering exactly what we want in law; it supports what this Parliament has judged we should have in law. If we were to put things on a statutory basis, we would damage the current law, which is working so well, and it would result in pressure being put on some of the most vulnerable people in society, which would be plain wrong.
Finally, I want to say something about palliative care. For decades, all Governments have spent a huge amount of money on extending life and curing disease. We have not spent nearly enough time ensuring that that extended life is a life of quality.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I wish to sound a note of dissent in this debate. Member after Member has risen to congratulate the House on the quality of the debate—they have said that it shows the House of Commons at its best. I want to put an alternative view. I think there has been a considerable amount of cant and deceit. The only speaker who has spoken honestly about the other debate that has actually been taking place is my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). Given the contributions of many Members, we can say that this has been the debate that dare not enter its name on the Order Paper, as it is, in fact, a debate about euthanasia.
In response to an intervention, the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), made the extraordinary admission that it was not really the motion he wanted. The motion he wanted was moved as an amendment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock). My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) seconded the motion, yet he hardly mentioned it; instead, he talked about the alternative debate, although not in quite such a forthright fashion as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse.
I wish to make two points, in order to bring the debate back to the topic that the public believe we are discussing. The Attorney-General, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier), gave us a very gentle lesson in the different approaches to politics. He said that sometimes we can formulate and legislate and put things in neat, tidy little boxes, but the Attorney-General then added that there was another way of approaching politics—[Interruption.] Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, in fact, the Solicitor-General—but he should be the Attorney-General. He said another approach was necessary when issues are immensely difficult. We kid ourselves that we have the most brilliant human minds, but it can be difficult to conceptualise situations adequately; hence the compromise of the DPP’s approach. I praise him, as many other Members have, for the work he has done in navigating a path through what is, as it were, a minefield. So far, he has done that successfully.
The second point I wish to make is that we seem to think this country is populated exclusively by husbands who love their wives, and wives who love their husbands, and grannies, uncles and aunties who all gather around to do the right thing. I sometimes also see a nasty side to life, however. I know perfectly well that in certain circumstances some individuals would have no hesitation in trying to persuade a person that the decent thing to do is to end their life—and especially where money is involved.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps missing from the debate is a concern about the rights, needs and feelings of patients, including their right to change their mind if they wish?
Mrs Laing
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has enlivened the debate, but does he agree that although some people will always do the wrong thing—there will always be such a minority—it is always up to the House and Parliament to create laws that allow the vast majority of people to do what is right?
Mr Field
That is precisely the situation that we have, and that situation has been clarified and developed further by the DPP; that is why we are, totally correctly, praising him in this debate. However, to think that the world is populated by people of great charity who think only of the person on the receiving end is to mislead ourselves, look foolish before our electors, and do vulnerable people harm.
I disagree with the second point that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse made; I do not believe that we are autonomous. I find it amazing that those who are clearly on the centre left should have an individualistic view about human life. We are dependent on one another, and one person’s actions can affect another person. One might have a slightly different view if there had not been a whole series of reports about the horrors done to old people in hospitals and euphemistically named care homes. We tut, nod the reports through the House, and do damn all about them. We as a nation allow very nasty things to happen to many of our vulnerable constituents, and we do nothing, or very little, to prevent them.
Today’s debate, if I have understood it, is not really about the motion, or how it was seconded; it is about the amendment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, tabled, not because hon. Members wanted to talk about euthanasia, but because they believed that the amendment would be seen as a staging post on the way to gaining that objective. Although we are now confused about what we are supposed to be debating and what we are voting on, I hope that the House will agree with what the outside world thinks the debate is about, and what I read the motion on the Order Paper as being about.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I must make it absolutely clear to my right hon. Friend and the House that the amendment only asks the Government to consult on putting the guidance into statute. If it was in statute, the DPP would still have discretion, and assisting suicide would still be a crime.
Mr Field
Nobody in this debate has said, in concrete terms, how making that move would better protect more vulnerable people. As that case has never been made in this debate, I hope that when we vote tonight, we will vote for what we thought was the main motion, and vote strongly for the amendment in the name of my very honourable Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and many other Members of the House.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Some excellent points have been made on both sides of the argument, but no one has mentioned the effect on the person who is asked to assist. I wonder how many Members have been asked to take, or assist in taking, someone’s life. I am not talking about taking a life in the way that some Members have been trained to in the armed forces; nor am I talking about watching someone close who is in a terminal plight, and wishing that one could change places with them. I am talking about being asked by a loved one to help them take their life, or a loved one insisting that one takes their life for them. We have all seen loved ones in their final stages of life, and when we see a young person or a child in that situation there is not one of us who would not swap places, but physically to take someone’s life or be a party to taking someone’s life is a totally different thing.
Almost 28 years ago to the day, my family were asked to do just that. My youngest brother, who was just 17 and suffering from terminal cancer, asked all of us, as a family, to help him take his own life. My family are Christians and we struggled with the morality of what was being asked. As I said, not one of us would not have swapped places with him, but we were just a normal, ordinary family; we had no medical experience and we all have a strong belief in life and the reasons for life itself. My brother passed away on 20 April 1984, incredibly loved and incredibly comfortable, having received excellent palliative and hospice care.
Here we are, 28 years later, and the guilt, under whatever guise, still eats away at us. My father, who passed away only five years ago, spoke to me briefly about it just before he died. He felt guilty that he could not bring himself to give to his dying son what he had asked him to do. The guilt of his perceived failure ate away at my dad until his dying day.
There is, however, another side to this story, which is incredibly important for why we need to consider seriously what we are doing. What I have described took place in early 1980s Australia, where there was not an NHS equivalent. My father had been made redundant 18 months prior, and, being an incredibly proud man—some would say stubborn—he would not take state benefits. My brother had gone from being covered medically at school to being uncovered at 16. No insurance company would take him on because of his illness. My parents were thousands of dollars in debt, and our family home was on the market in order to pay the medical bills. My brother’s treatment was more than 100 miles away, in Sydney, because there was no other provision close by, and we did not get any help with travel. Thankfully, the situation in Australia today is very different from what it used to be.
I am absolutely convinced that the only reason why my brother asked us to help him take his life was because he perceived that he was a burden to his family—there was no other reason. I say that there was no other reason because, although this was a very long time ago, the level of palliative care offered by our local Catholic nurses was excellent. Nowadays we have so much more modern technology and drugs that there is absolutely no need for people to suffer, whatever their condition, prior to death.
Thankfully, we could not do what my brother asked. I ask this House not to put the guidance on a statutory basis. Our doctors, nurses and health professionals work daily to save lives. This House prays on a daily basis for wisdom and the life of our great nation. If we do change the guidance, that will without question be yet another slippery slope for society in a civilisation where we cherish life. There is no need to change the legislation; what we need is much higher investment in palliative care and hospice provision.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
This is not an easy contribution for me to make, and I have thought long and hard about it. My father took his life last July and my emotions are still a bit raw. I was deeply shocked at the time, although I should not have been surprised, as he had always said that he would rather end it than face a distressing and lingering death. He was 87 and he had lived his life to the full, right to the end, but he had watched many of his friends go. He regularly talked about one who had been confined to bed, doubly incontinent and, having become both deaf and blind, unable to communicate with anybody. My father saw no point to that kind of life.
My father was a strong man who had had a tough east-end childhood. He was an RAF pilot in the second world war. He had his share of health problems and faced them all positively. He was not afraid of pain but he could not face the indignity of that lingering degrading death. I am sure that he made up his mind soon after receiving a terminal diagnosis of lung cancer but he still died prematurely. I am sure that what drove him to end his life when he did was the fear that if he did not act while he could he would lose the opportunity to act at all. If the law had made it possible, he could, and I am sure he would, have shared his plans. He would have been able to say goodbye and to die with his family around him and not alone in a carbon monoxide-filled garage. He and many more like him deserved better.
I was in two minds about whether to share this experience, and what made up my mind was the attitude of my father’s friends, who had clearly thought about their own future and had nothing but respect for his decision. One contacted me only yesterday and asked me to share his experience of his daughter’s death. She was a young woman with everything to look forward to who was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer in her mid-20s. She fought it in every way she could, with everything to look forward to and undergoing all the treatments available, but ultimately they all failed. He said that even when there was no hope left for her and the hospital had withdrawn her food, they had to watch her die the most horrendous, slow death over several weeks from graft-versus-host disease, a consequence of a failed bone marrow transplant. They were deeply scarred by that experience, and still when they think of her that memory overshadows all the happy times. They thought it would have been so much kinder to have brought her life to an end as she would have wanted at an earlier point when everybody recognised that all treatments had failed and there was no hope.
I welcome the DPP’s guidance but I think that ultimately we will need to go further. Of course there must be safeguards and constructing them robustly will be difficult, but the challenge of the task should not put us off the need to do it. This issue will not go away. As medical technology advances, more and more people will face these decisions and more will be pressing at the boundaries of the law. I think this is a question not of whether we should go further and legalise assisted dying but of when. The longer it takes us to act, the more needless suffering we will have consented to.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke with great emotion. Like his father, my mother died at the age of 87; it is very difficult for us to speak about these very personal matters. I know that my mother, like many elderly people, wrongly felt that she was a burden. Of course she was never a burden, but I think that many people feel like that; there might be absolutely no pressure on them, but they feel that they would make it easier for everybody if they were to ease their path out of life. We must never allow old people in this country to feel that they are a burden. That is where I come from.
My views have progressed on this matter over the time I have been in Parliament. I freely confess that when I first came here I believed that the state had the right to take life and I voted, like many of my colleagues, in 1983 to restore capital punishment. I now think I was wrong and I have come to the conclusion that the only logical and right course of action is always to proclaim life. As it happens, at the moment I am reading a history of Stalin’s Russia, and one cannot understand the attitude of a society in which life is held so cheaply. I know that we are a million miles from that but in my view the end never justifies the means. That is why I personally voted against all the recent wars—or certainly did not vote for them. I believe that life must come first and that we must proclaim life.
That does not come from my religious views; it is a matter of absolute certainty and belief and is incredibly important for society if we are to create a society of light and hope and not one in which people ultimately feel they are a burden. That is why I have consistently voted, opposed, spoken against and moved amendments on abortion and I would vote against capital punishment. I am totally opposed to euthanasia in any shape or form. Some people will say, “That’s all very well for you. At the moment you are reasonably healthy. What if you are faced with the appalling difficulties and problems that we have been talking about today?”, and my answer is that I do not know. All I know is that we must proclaim this truth, and the House of Commons should proclaim it—that anybody, however young, unborn, crippled, hopeless, diseased or idiotic, has as much right to life as anybody else, and all life is precious because the external human body is simply a mirror of the soul. If we renege on that moral certainty and if we start on a journey, it is a very dangerous journey indeed.
Mr Winnick
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Every life is of value and the idea that because someone may be disabled or elderly and so on their life is less valuable than other people’s is totally alien to me, as it is to him. But I gave as an example Dr Anne Turner, who was so terrified of facing a death like her husband’s, where all physical movement would have ended. Does he recognise that she had the right to decide, and she took that right, though she could not do so in Britain?
Mr Leigh
I recognise that point of view and that is why, although I have expressed myself so far, some would say, with too much moral certainty, I realise that we are in a moral maze here. It is not for us to lecture people on what they may or may not do at the end. That is why the guidelines are a fair compromise. I do not think anybody wants to prosecute and send to jail somebody who acts out of the depth of love and compassion when they are faced with a close relative who is suffering. Nobody wants such a person to be sent to prison if they assist their loved one out of this life.
We have a compromise, but it is not legalised euthanasia. I tabled an amendment, which was not selected. Why should it have been? I wanted to express the point of view that the House of Commons must firmly and unequivocally state, as it has done up to now, that for the absolute avoidance of doubt, it is opposed to voluntary euthanasia. There is a world of difference between the desperate situation in which a relative helps somebody out of this world, and a situation where a doctor, as part of the legal process, kills somebody. That is what so many of us on this side of the argument believe so passionately. It might be a cliché to talk in terms of slippery slopes, but it is there in Holland and in Oregon—in only about six jurisdictions throughout the world. We do not want this country to embark on this road.
I was with my best friend, a former Member of this House, Piers Merchant, as he lay dying. He was riddled with cancer, in great pain, and I was with him as he was dying. He was filled with morphine. I could see the morphine going through his body all the time. He was no doubt killed by the morphine, not by the cancer, and I respected that judgment. He was in a wonderful, caring hospice. Everybody was looking after him and everybody was loving him. At the end of the day his doctors, I suppose, killed him because the pain would have been unendurable, but that is not legalised euthanasia. That is allowing doctors to take an informed decision on the basis of what they know to be right.
Naomi Long
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a subtle but important distinction between treatment that is administered by a doctor in order to ease pain which, as a side effect, may hasten death, and a doctor setting out to hasten death?
Mr Leigh
That is the point that I am trying to make, and that is the absolute principle that I hope this debate will proclaim. We want the law to recognise the appalling moral difficulties that people face. None of us in the Chamber speaking in this debate has yet embarked on that journey. We all will. That is the only thing we know with absolute certainty. There will come a moment when we are dying, in pain, and those around us have to make appallingly difficult decisions.
I want to live in a country where there is a moral assumption that although, at the end of the day, my passage into the next world might have to be eased, and the easing might be the killing of me, that decision will be taken in the final analysis by doctors who are simply trying to relieve pain, who have recognised that I am dying and who do not accept the principle that the state, the law, doctors or even relations have a right to come to an individual and say before their time is up, “Yes, you are a burden on society. Yes, you must go.” That is a moral principle, that is what the debate is about, and that is what we must abide by.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the brave and outstanding speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).
Assisted suicide, terminal illness and human suffering are not easy to talk about. Many of us would rather not think about them, hoping that when the time comes for us and our loved ones we will pass away swiftly, peacefully and painlessly. But the harsh reality of life teaches us that that cannot always be the case. I believe that, on balance, assisted dying should be legalised in this country. Before I say why, I want to deal with the specifics of the motion.
The motion is not about changing the law; it is about welcoming the policy produced by the Director of Public Prosecutions on how the law is applied in cases where suicide has been assisted or encouraged. The policy performs an exceptional balancing act. It is written in clear, accessible language; a document that is as much for the public as it is for CPS lawyers. Assisting someone to die is a criminal offence. I do not believe that our law should remain that way, but the DPP’s guidelines provide some clarity and comfort to people who are faced with a loved one asking for their help to end pain and suffering. The guidelines are not perfect, but on the whole they are to be welcomed.
Our law ultimately needs to change. I say this because people should have a choice: a choice that would enable them to end their lives in a dignified way, if that is possible and if that is their wish; and a choice that does not put their family or friends at risk of prosecution. About 10 years ago, I remember watching the TV with my mum, and her turning to me and saying, “Heidi, if I ever reach the stage in my life where I am suffering like that, I would want you to take me to Switzerland.” It made me feel uncomfortable. My mum is as fit and healthy as the next person, thankfully, but there she was talking about the end of her life, and saying, by implication, that she would want me to break the law. The DPP’s guidelines have improved matters since then, but we cannot get away from the fact that someone who helps another to die, even if it is purely out of love and compassion, is committing a criminal offence.
My mum does not usually express opinions on the laws of our land, and she certainly does not spend much time talking about them, but I am not surprised that she has a view on this. It is one of the most intensely human questions that anyone can ask, and it is one that Parliament should attempt to answer—not the DPP, but elected representatives. Parliament has a duty to discuss these issues in a mature, rational way. We know from opinion poll after opinion poll that 80% of the population support assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. It is not good enough for Parliament to stick its head in the sand and think that the issue will go away; it will not.
It cannot be right that in our country some people are left with little option but to attempt suicide alone in order to protect their loved ones. It cannot be right that someone’s dignity and the love and presence of family and friends can be stripped away from them at the very time when they need them most. Some will argue that world-class palliative care is the answer. It will be for many, but it will not be for everyone. I just want people to have that choice.
This morning, I met Neil McClelland, the brother of Geraldine McClelland, who died at Dignitas last December. Geraldine’s last wish was for people to talk about her death, and I want to give her the last word today. In an open letter, she wrote:
“I am not sad that I will die today. I am angry that because of the cowardice of our politicians I can’t die in the country I was born in, in my own home…If you feel anything at all when you read this letter then please turn it into a fight to change the law so that other people don’t have to travel abroad to die, and that those who are unable to because they can’t travel, or can’t afford the fees don’t have to attempt suicide at home or continue to suffer against their will.”
She went on to say:
“I appreciate that it is a difficult subject, but when dying cannot be avoided, let us be compassionate enough and tolerant enough to respect choice.”
I could not say it any better.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I respect what the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said, but I will not plead guilty to cowardice here today and do not believe that hon. Members are putting their heads in the sand. If one looks, one sees that there has been parliamentary scrutiny. There was an extensive Select Committee inquiry and there have been debates in both Houses. Indeed, as recently as January there was a debate on care for the dying, in which more than 20 hon. Members took part and spoke up for clarity on improving palliative care as the best way of improving care for the dying. There are probably more than 40 hon. Members present today who I am sure would want to coalesce around and speak up for a similar message, which is supplemented by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
That message on respect for life is shown properly in the fine words of Jean Rostand, the French biologist, which I hope will resound across the Chamber. He said:
“For my part I believe that there is no life so degraded, debased, deteriorated, or impoverished that it does not deserve respect and is not worth defending with zeal and conviction.”
Certainly, I believe that a whole day’s debate today shows that there is a respect for and a defence of those lives that are difficult, complex, costly and seemingly burdensome, but which are worthy of as good a life, and indeed death, as possible.
The debate, and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, provide the opportunity to support good-quality palliative care and the hospice movement, which many Members have spoken about. Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General spoke about the value the Government place on that, which is shown in the eight pilots that will support quality palliative care, and I see that many Members are wearing the daffodil to support Marie Curie’s matched funding of £2.5 million to help ensure that more people in the UK can access high-quality palliative and end-of-life care.
Today’s debate is specifically about the DPP’s policy. It is among a number of policies that range across criminal law, from domestic violence to bad driving. Some might find it curious, perhaps even a touch mischievous, that Parliament is concentrating on this policy. It is important, with regard to public interest, that we confirm our support for the principle that is the foundation of the DPP policy: the law must give equal protection to all, irrespective of their state of health. The policy, and therefore today’s debate, is not primarily about whether terminally or otherwise seriously ill people should be able to access legalised assistance with suicide. Crucially, the state of health of a victim of an assisted suicide is not a factor that tends either to prosecution or not in the DPP guidelines.
Like many Members, I welcome the DPP’s policy, which is firm, fair and compassionate, and which was subject to extensive consultation and revision. Parliament should respect that process and the independence of the DPP in formulating policy. That crucial guidance showed that there is no distinction between assistance with a suicide given to a terminally ill person and assistance given to a healthy person; that medical assistance should be included as an aggravating factor; and that hospices are right to say that actions by a care professional are treated differently from actions by a friend or family member.
I am cautious about Parliament delving into the DPP’s policy and trespassing on his territory, and certainly about any moves to place it on a statutory footing, which should be vigorously opposed by the House. The House of Commons Library has confirmed for me that no other DPP policy has been put on a statutory footing. Indeed, no other has been sought. We must ask ourselves why that is, and other hon. Friends have spoken about other motives.
We should not put such guidance on a statutory footing for three reasons that have applied historically but still apply today. First, Parliament needs to ensure that it does not fetter any future DPP’s discretion to amend the code for prosecutors. Secondly, Parliament needs to protect the independence of the prosecutor, which should not be dictated by Parliament. Thirdly, Parliament needs to protect the constitutional position of the Attorney-General, who is answerable to Parliament in relation to prosecution policy whereas the DPP’s discretion to prosecute certain offences is not primarily a matter for Parliament. Although it might be a matter for debate, it certainly should not be dictated to.
Today we can properly uphold the law as it stands and in no way see from the front door, or indeed from the side or back doors, any change to it and stand up for respecting life and improving palliative care.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who I think led the Adjournment debate in January, about which he told the House, and spoke very clearly this afternoon.
I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee, because as far as I can see, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s debate, this is the first substantive debate that we have had in the House, probably since the Suicide Act was passed in 1961.
We are asked to welcome the DPP’s policy for prosecutors on assisted suicide, and I do. I also strongly support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), which stresses the importance of better palliative and hospice care, and we need to look at and go further with the law in this country, but the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) is, in my view, not necessary and not sufficient.
We are blessed in Rotherham with a superb hospice, 15 beds, day places and a community hospice team. The hospice is supported by a dedicated team of staff, by more than 330 volunteers and by residents throughout Rotherham, who raise more than £2 million a year to support its work, but no care, however good, can entirely relieve suffering at the end of life, and some will choose to hasten their own end and will require and request assistance in doing so from those closest to them. That is the subject of today’s debate, and of the DPP’s policy, which clarifies and does not change how the law is applied.
Before the policy, we did not know how the DPP used his discretion on whether to prosecute under the 1961 Act, but we do now, and I hope that this House will strongly endorse that policy, because it is compassionate and reasoned.
Thinking about this debate, I remembered Debbie Purdy, to whom tributes have been paid, and that it was the power of her personal arguments, as much as her legal arguments, that had such force. At the time, she said:
“I was preparing to lose and was in the middle of organising to go to Dignitas. Winning was like being given permission to be alive… I was reliant on somebody loving me enough to risk his liberty in order to support my choices. Now, I know I am not dependent on that”.
She reminds us that this issue is as much about living as dying, as much about independence as dependence and as much about the family as the person facing the decision on their own death. But above all it is about control over what is perhaps the ultimate act and decision, to end one’s own life, taken by people who are mentally competent to decide but physically incapable of acting to do so without assistance.
My concern, despite the policy, is that we are left in this country in a legal no-man’s land. For those looking to travel abroad to die, we have a policy of non-prosecution for compassionate assistance but a law that still makes it a criminal offence, and that law, in circumstances in which it exists but is not enforced, is flawed. In circumstances in which someone does not have the means to travel abroad to die, we are not just in no-man’s land legally; we have a clinical and ethical fudge.
Doctors do hasten the end of some patients’ lives in some circumstances, and they get around the prohibition on doing so through continuous sedatives, excessive sedatives, dehydration and starvation. Discussion on that treatment and care is often clouded in ambiguity, is disguised by the “Doctor knows best” attitude, is not open, is not honest and is not properly recorded.
We deprive those who need such assistance of being able to obtain it in this country; we deprive ourselves of the proper—sufficiently strong—safeguards against it being misused; and above all, because of the situation we are in, we deprive too many people of control and dignity in dying, and it is high time we changed that.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I would welcome a debate about a change in the law on assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. However, today’s motion is about the application of the existing law on assisted suicide, and I was pleased to add my name to it.
I fully support the ongoing development of outstanding palliative care provision, and I welcome amendment (b) in that regard. I praise the great work of Zoe’s Place children’s hospice and Teesside hospice in my constituency. I am glad that the Government are taking more of a lead in providing top-quality palliative care and not having to rely so heavily on bands of local enthusiasts to raise the enormous sums of money that they do. I recognise that, no matter how much we wish it to, such care cannot remove all suffering at the end of life, and some people may request assistance from loved ones to help them to end their lives.
The danger and controversy of such a debate is that its purpose can be misinterpreted. It goes without saying that those who cruelly or recklessly encourage suicide should be prosecuted. Of course, that also includes all those who cause the death of another by their own hand. This does, however, leave sad cases such as that of Tony Nicklinson with no satisfactory resolution; he is not physically capable of committing suicide. I do not believe that it is in the public interest to prosecute a usually law-abiding citizen who helps a loved one to die on compassionate grounds. As other speakers have said, there will also be many health care professionals who have an occasional sleepless night after a wholly illegal act of deep compassion.
I hope that the motion will be supported, as it will give parliamentary endorsement to a flexible and compassionate approach to prosecution. While the policy is welcome, it is not perfect. Only 38% of GPs feel that there is enough guidance for doctors on what to do if a patient asks for help to die. The uncertainty about how the policy applies to doctors could affect their willingness to engage in discussions about the desire of patients to end their life. Since 2002, 182 British citizens have ended their lives at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. We cannot bury our heads and pretend that this is not happening. We should have a law applied in this country that encourages open, transparent, frank and safe conversations about a decision that should never be taken lightly but never taken in the dark. Let us also remember that only the wealthier can afford to go to Switzerland and pay the fees and other costs, and if they wish to die surrounded by loved ones it is even more expensive.
The law as currently drafted works as well as it can, but it does not provide a safeguarded means of assisted dying. We must ask whether people are truly protected by a law that investigates the motivation for someone’s request, and that of their assistant, after the person is dead, and whether it is right that people have to travel to an anonymous suburb of Zurich to receive medical assistance in dying. We should be examining what would happen legally if a Dignitas-style clinic were set up in this country. Let us remember that the need to be well enough to travel all that way might, in itself, influence people to make the decision earlier. The policy has not prompted a rise in the number of British people who are being assisted to die overseas. It has led to greater openness, with more people who have assisted a suicide now choosing to self-report to the police. It should be welcomed for setting out the common-sense taken by the DPP and prosecutors in distinguishing between wholly compassionate assistance, which is unlikely to be prosecuted, and malicious assistance, which will rightly be prosecuted.
I also support amendment (a), as it cannot be right that otherwise innocent people must, prima facie, break the law and then wait to see whether they will be prosecuted. Nor can it be right that we are relying on the DPP to interpret a law to this extent instead of having the interpretation fixed here, in the legislature of this country. I believe that only by Parliament giving clarity will health care professionals, the courts and the public know for sure how to deal with each case. It should not be only the rich who can buy dignity in death; everyone should have that basic right. In the words of the 1972 play on this subject, “Whose Life is it Anyway?”
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I will devote my time to reading a message that I received from a constituent who was unknown to me until he wrote. I will not mention his name, but he might well decide to identify himself. The most powerful speech that I have heard today was the courageous speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who talked about his personal experience. My constituent has asked me to pass on his experience, because he wants to challenge this House. He is of a great age and regards the policy that he lives under, and his understanding of it, to be the responsibility of a younger generation. He asks many questions. He asks whether we have the experience, as he does.
My constituent states: “I have had to watch my dear wife, very old, very much in pain, very weak and desperately wanting peace, but she continued to suffer because I couldn’t do the one thing she really wanted. I was helpless to assist her to die. Her words were, ‘I don’t want to leave you, my love, but I’m very tired and I want to go now. I know you understand. Please help me to die.’ Every day of her life she said prayers for other people, but when she pleaded, ‘Please God, take me now’; for once in that long life, she prayed for herself, but there was no one to answer. Such a simple, humanitarian act is just not permitted, so I watched my dear wife starve herself to death for three weeks—the only way she could help herself to die. I watched a lovely lady struggle without food until she grew so weak that she was unable to lift her arms, to even squeeze my fingers. She had strangers to change her, but she grew to the state where the shame and the humiliation were no longer an embarrassment. But she remembered the humiliation of those last weeks. I held her close in the days when I could no longer understand her mumbled words. I could only reply, hoping she would hear when I said, ‘I love you darling. I understand.’ I hope she knew that I was there with her. I held her when her eyes no longer opened, when she could no longer see. I knew she could hear my words when a tear dropped from the corner of her eye. I held her until she had no touch, no sight, possibly no hearing, but I still said, ‘I know darling. I love you. I understand.’ I watched her beautiful face become a skeleton. I held her when this poor love finally died. I hope she knew that I was there, but I doubt it. And now for the rest of my life, I will remember the poor wracked body and the once so beautiful face, which became a hollow mask.”
My constituent rightly says that there is a gulf of misunderstanding between his experience and the law, between his suffering—the way that his memories of his beloved wife have been poisoned by her final days—and our understanding of what is required. We have to recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, that we all fear the possibility of a loss of control and autonomy in our final days. We would want some say over the manner of our dying and, in some circumstances, over the time of our dying.
I believe that we should finally follow the path that has been taken in Oregon, which is very popular and thoroughly accepted, and in the Netherlands. That is the way ahead. We have failed to tackle this problem. The word cowardice has been used. That is a strong word, but there is truth in it. Some 80% of people in this country want us to change things. It is up to us, as their representatives, to bring in reforms that will give people the peace of mind that they can die with dignity.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I rise to contribute to this very important debate. First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for bringing the issue before the House, and to others who have tabled amendments allowing us to have a wide-ranging discussion.
I say at the outset that I am not in favour of assisted suicide. The reason is a strong personal belief in the sanctity of life, which includes not allowing one person to help another take their own life. I appreciate, however, that these are difficult issues, and that decisions are taken by people who are in terrible positions as they watch, and have to live with, the suffering of someone they love. It is hard to put ourselves in that position and know for sure what we would do, whatever our position on the sanctity of life.
With that in mind, I understand the motion and amendment (b), not because I welcome such guidance on prosecution but because I believe there are a very few exceptional cases in which we must show compassion, so I unhappily accept that it may be necessary. The alternatives would be prosecution in every case in which there is enough evidence, or seemingly arbitrary decisions by the DPP, neither of which would deliver justice.
My fear is that when exceptions are made to laws, people find ways to exploit those exceptions and commit acts that are intended to be unlawful. A timely example is the recent revelations about practices in abortion clinics, which seemingly ignore the safeguards in the Abortion Act 1967 to prevent abortion on demand. That is akin to changing the law by the back door. We must ensure that in anything we do in this House we protect the vulnerable from those who would abuse any change in the law on assisted suicide.
I believe that, for the time being, the very difficult and rare cases in question should first be judged on an individual basis by the DPP. The numbers indicate that they are so few that that would not be difficult—only 18 cases of assisted suicide have been in court in the past 10 years.
I have grave misgivings about assisted suicide in any circumstances, but I believe that we must show our support for the wider availability of, and developments in, specialist palliative care. I want to pay a short tribute to the Earl Mountbatten hospice on the Isle of Wight. Like hospices up and down the country, it does an amazing job. Comfort, composure and compassion should be the default setting for those who are dying and those who wish to die, and expert palliative care can help to achieve that in the majority of cases.
I want to thank all my constituents who contacted me, on both sides of the argument, before the debate. They have given me much food for thought. I originally intended to vote against the motion in its entirety, but the wise words of my constituents and my own experience of watching a close friend die last year have taught me that things are not always black and white, however much we wish they were.
No Government could spend enough money in this area, and it is likely that none ever will, but we must do the best we can for those who are dying and those who love them. I believe that to consider the option of assisted suicide is morally wrong. I believe that the law is the law, and that people break it with an understanding that prosecution may follow. However, unless every case is to be prosecuted whatever the circumstances, there have to be some guidelines. I apologise to those of my constituents who feel that I have let them down.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and congratulate her on bringing it to the House for consideration today. The topic is a very emotive one and I will not pretend that it is ever an easy situation for people to live through, but I was taught that not every right decision is an easy decision. We have to make right decisions sometimes that are not easy ones. Today we are tasked to take a moral stand for people who are very ill and in more pain than many of us can even begin to imagine. We in this House are commissioned to look at the bigger picture.
The law is far more than an enabler of prosecutions and convictions. It is also a symbolic system and an indication that we are protecting people. That is what we will be doing here today, legislatively in this House. The BMA has said:
“Doctors have a duty to try to provide patients with as peaceful and dignified a death as possible but the BMA considers it contrary to a doctor’s role to hasten death deliberately or assist in a suicide, even at the patient’s request.”
The first precept in the physician code is “First, do no harm.” This should also be the first section in the parliamentarian handbook. The Hippocratic oath includes the affirmation,
“I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel”.
That is crystal clear.
I read an interesting article by a doctor recently. He wrote that
“a woman in her 40s with advanced multiple sclerosis, no longer able to speak, and completely dependent on family and carers for all her activities of daily living was regularly admitted to hospital with chest infections, and on this occasion had been admitted with pneumonia that was not responding to antibiotics. Her husband said 'she would never have wanted to be like this'. The palliative care team were called to provide specialist care and advice for what was likely to be the last days of Alice’s life. Against all odds, Alice pulled through and left hospital.”
Her husband met the doctor afterwards and said that the involvement of the palliative care team meant that she and her family had received specialist care and support in the community. The doctor continued:
“This goes to the heart of the debate about assisted suicide. I have sometimes wanted to have done things a little differently, to help my patients with the benefit of hindsight. With assisted suicide, death is final. No changing of decisions—and the potential for a lifetime of guilt and regret.”
I do not believe that anyone could be so callous as to judge those who come to the end of their tether and cannot bear to suffer or see their loved ones suffer, but by the same token it is my belief that the state cannot interfere and decide when and if it is okay to end someone’s life.
Naomi Long
Several hon. Members have talked about the difficult decisions that people may face and the fact that if they choose to end their life, they should be enabled to do so. Is the difficulty not that if we accept that premise we must go on to the people who do not have family support to make that decision, so it ends up being the doctors and nurses—the people who are relied on for care—who have to make that intervention? Surely that is a step too far for even the most compassionate.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her wise words, with which I fully agree.
When I was at school, history was one of my favourite subjects. The history of pre-war and wartime Germany shows a clear policy—when people were old and infirm, they just got rid of them. I am not saying for one second that that would ever happen here, but when legal abortion was introduced—as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) said—it was never thought that 189,574 abortions would be carried out in one year, 2010, in England and Wales. That is a fact. Things escalate as time progresses and my greatest fear is that people would begin to think that rather than cause their family pain, they should end their own life or have someone do that when there could still be hope of recovery or a good quality of life.
My brother was a motorbike man, and he raced bikes. He came off and was seriously injured. He was in a coma for 19 weeks and a machine kept him alive. The prayers of Gods’ people, the skills of the surgeon and the palliative care given kept him alive. He does not have full capacity, he cannot ride a bike—which he would love to do—drive a car or work, but he is at home and can interact with his family.
Macmillan, Marie Curie and Northern Ireland Hospice were all very active in delivering palliative care for my brother—and do so for others as well. I have been contacted by Care Not Killing and read through much of its information which struck a chord with me. The European Association for Palliative Care has affirmed that assisted suicide is extremely rare when patients’ physical, social, psychological and spiritual needs are properly met. It says that the vast majority of people dying in the UK, even from diseases such as motor neurone disease, do not want assisted dying. The 1,000 MND patients who die annually in the UK do so, in the main, comfortably and with good palliative care. A good friend of mine is dying. I have known him for many years, and I am well aware of the palliative care that he is getting.
Our key priority should be to build on the excellent tradition of palliative care in this country and to make the best-quality palliative care more readily accessible. Given the choice, most people would prefer to die at home. By 2020, over-50s will comprise half the adult population, so it is essential that we rethink current service provision and end-of-life care to ensure that it can meet the demands of an ageing population. In 1994, the last House of Lords Select Committee to report on euthanasia unanimously recommended no change at all. Its chairman later said that
“any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused. We were also concerned that vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed - would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.”
It has been said that hard cases make bad laws, and no law allowing assisted dying could ever be controlled. I fully agree with that and urge the House to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton. I understand the emotions around the subject, but I cannot support the introduction of a law that will continually evolve and could leave our elderly and infirm working out the sums to see if the cost of the care justifies the continuance of their life. Some may say that will never happen. I say we have to keep the legislation as it is to ensure that it never does.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The House has certainly been at its best today, with some remarkable speeches being made. I enjoyed the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the Solicitor-General. I found their speeches and arguments compelling. I also enjoyed the speech by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who decided to take the gloves off.
The subjects of death and dying are taboo in the House and for most people. We tend to shy away from mentioning them. Like many of us, I have been to far more funerals than I care to remember, and I have visited too many sick and dying loved ones. I am not seen as a Mother Teresa figure in Southend. I am told that when I go visiting the sick at Southend hospital, the call goes up along the wards, “Look out, Amess is about. Pretend you’re dead.”
Many past Members have now died. Lord Newton died yesterday, and Lord St John of Fawsley died last week. Also, tragically, a number of our colleagues have committed suicide since I have been here. One only wishes that one had said something to try and talk them out of their decision. As has been said, however, it is right that Parliament talks about this subject and that we take a view on it. I am content with the DPP guidance as it stands, and I agree with Keir Starmer, who has said that we have a law with a stern face but an understanding heart. That says it all as far as I am concerned.
I acknowledge the DPP’s report setting out the guidance. Since it was produced in 2010, I understand that 31 cases have been referred to the DPP but there have been no prosecutions. In every sense, it has worked very well indeed. It is interesting that the debate has been centred on that report as opposed to the findings of the Falconer commission, which was badly flawed because every one of its members had a particular view. That seemed unfortunate to me.
Let us be clear that this issue impacts on the most vulnerable people in society who, despite their undoubted dignity and bravery, are in most need of our help. That is why the law is there to protect them, and in its current format, that is what it does. However, any changes would undoubtedly put the vulnerable at risk. Any proposed safeguards against abuse of assisted suicide would not work and would be a dangerous path to travel on.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Not only does the law protect the vulnerable who might be dying or at the end of their lives, it also protects their loved ones, who may feel pressured into helping them do something that they are deeply unhappy about. There is therefore a double protection in the law as it stands.
Mr Amess
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know cared for her husband, and therefore has a real feel for this issue, which she might have time to share with the House.
When I was the Member for Basildon, we did not have a hospice—we had very little money, because we are true working-class people in Basildon. We built a hospice from nothing—I laid the foundation stone—and Princess Diana and the Duchess of Norfolk came along to open it. Today, the demand for that hospice is greater than ever. I now represent Southend West, which is a little more well-heeled. We already have a successfully financed hospice, Fair Havens, and we also have Little Havens, which supports a wide area of Essex. The life of Dame Cicely Saunders should be an inspiration to every one of us, because as she made clear, people do not go to a hospice to die; they go to a hospice to live. I agree with every hon. Member who says that we as a House should do everything we can to support the hospice movement and ensure that everyone who needs access to that care has it.
I do not want to dwell on Harold Shipman, but I recall that I was on the Select Committee on Health at the time. When we think of all the things that were in place then, it is absolutely extraordinary that that doctor was responsible for finishing the lives of 214 people. We should never, never forget that.
I end inspired by the words of Dame Cicely Saunders:
“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the last moment of your life.”
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Having heard pretty much all the speeches this afternoon, I think there is an almost unanimous consensus on the DPP’s guidelines. On the one hand, the current law expresses and safeguards the fundamental principle of respect for life—everybody’s life—and on the other hand, the guidelines express the principle of compassion. I think there is a general agreement that the present situation gets the balance between law and compassion just about right.
During this debate a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said that the law should change and that assisted suicide should no longer be a crime. However, they should reflect on the role of doctors in all this, and what a difficult position any change in the law would place the medical profession in. The medical profession is clear on that point. In its evidence to the Commission on Assisted Dying last April, the Royal College of Surgeons made two clear statements:
“The law is it currently stands should not be changed and no system should be introduced to allow people to be assisted to die…The College does not recognise any circumstances under which it should be possible for people to be assisted to die.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, who has been a hospice doctor for a number of years, reminded the other place that the Royal College of Physicians had made it clear that the doctor’s role
“does not include being, in any way, part of their suicide”.
Indeed, she observed that the guidelines put in place by the DPP have made it possible for doctors and patients to have better conversations, saying that
“conversations are now more open than ever before, ensuring that healthcare professionals work with their patients to improve living, to cease futile treatments and to support patients during dying. The vast majority of hospice doctors do not want physician-assisted suicide. The policy is clear, firm and compassionate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2012; Vol. 735, c. 632.]
In so far as it is humanly possible to get this right, it would seem that the law, taken together with the DPP’s guidelines, manages to achieve that.
We have not, however, spent sufficient time reflecting on the role of palliative care in easing the difficulties of people when they are dying. The fact is that, at some point, we are all going to die. The difficulty is that hospital medicine these days sees death as a failure, but we are all going to have to recognise that it is a reality. I suspect that, given the choice, we would all like to die at home. That is not always possible, but we spend very little time working out new ways of providing palliative care.
That is why I was pleased that so many right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House were able to attend the event in the House last week for Marie Curie Cancer Care, at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that the Government were funding a number of new pilot projects for innovative palliative care. That shows that the Government recognise that palliative care is not as good as it should be, and that a lot more needs to be done. Most innovation in this area in recent years has been done by the hospice movement—an excellent movement that is usually funded and run by volunteers—but we need to ensure that the national health service and all of us spend a lot more time focusing on how we can all, as far as is humanly possible, die well.
I salute my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for tabling her amendment, and I think—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To facilitate more Back-Bench contributions, the time limit is being reduced to four minutes.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I very much welcome this debate, and I commend the Backbench Business Committee for giving it time, and the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for tabling the motion.
I am a vice-chair of the all-party group on choice at the end of life, and I am personally supportive of a change in the law on assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. That said, I want to reiterate that today’s debate is about the application of the existing law on assisted suicide, and not about a change in the law. Of course, I fully support the development of palliative care provision, and I welcome the amendment tabled on that. I am encouraged that the evidence from countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as from states such as Oregon, shows that a change in law to support greater choice at the end of life often goes hand in hand with improvements to palliative care.
Fiona Bruce
Are those improvements not due to the progress made on scientific and medical developments in recent years?
Caroline Lucas
They might be partly to do with that, but the Economist Intelligence Unit’s research into palliative care across the world found that the pressure brought to bear on policy makers in public debates on assisted suicide often acted as a catalyst for the improvement of palliative care. I do not think that we need to see the two concepts as being in opposition to each other. The move for greater palliative care can also come about as a direct result of greater debate on assisted dying.
I also recognise that, no matter how much we might wish it to be otherwise, such care cannot remove all the suffering from someone who is dying. There will be those who request assistance from loved ones to help them to end their lives. The way in which the law deals with those cases is of the utmost importance to all those involved, and it is therefore right that this should be the subject of today’s debate and that Members of Parliament should express their views on it.
I welcome the clarification provided by the DPP’s guidelines. There is no doubt that those who maliciously or irresponsibly encourage suicide should be prosecuted, and I do not think that anyone is saying otherwise. However, it is not in the public interest to prosecute a normally law-abiding citizen who, out of love and compassion, helps a loved one to die. As Members of Parliament, we have to ask ourselves whether a normally law-abiding person should face automatic prosecution for a one-off, compassionately motivated act. I hope that this is an area of common ground between those who support, and those who oppose, a change in the law on assisted dying, just as I am sure that there is a shared commitment to palliative care.
Many hon. Members have shared moving stories of their own personal experience. I have a story to share that is at one remove, as it involves someone whom I do not know directly. A mother wrote to me about her daughter, Lizzy. She explained to me that her daughter was nearly 21 when she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and that
“From the time of diagnosis she had hoped that if her health got too bad she would want to be able to choose the manner of her death. As we approached Christmas 2008 she asked me if I would start to make arrangements, she didn’t want to face another birthday with deteriorating health.”
They thought that they would be given the green light by September 2009, but, as Lizzy’s mother explained,
“we had a nasty fright when instead of the green light we were reported to Social Services. The DPP’s guidelines had been put in place earlier that year so when the police, social workers, psychiatrist and various other representatives interviewed Lizzy and me, the rules laid down made a clear case for her to be allowed to travel.
In hindsight I am very grateful to the person who contacted the authorities, it allowed them to hear from Lizzy herself, rather than me having to persuade officials that this was her desire. I…wish that people had seen the relief on her face when the letter giving her the green light actually came, it was really touch and go whether her health would hold up for travel and she was very scared of being trapped in a slowly dying body…We eventually travelled to Switzerland on 7th December 2009 and Lizzy passed away peacefully on 11th December.”
If there is a lesson to be drawn from Lizzy’s story, I think it is that regulation, clarity and openness should guide public policy in this area, rather than what may be an understandable desire to turn a blind eye. I think that any assisted death should take place within a rigorous framework of regulation, as well as in the context of the availability of the highest level of palliative care. Very few of us would want to suffer against our wishes at the end of life, and I think we have a clear responsibility to consider how our laws protect people confronting such momentous decisions—people like Lizzy and her mother. I therefore welcome the DPP’s policy on assisted suicide, and support this important motion.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I support the motion, and congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on securing a debate on an issue that is of significant public interest and has not been debated substantially in the House for some time.
What we are being asked today is simply whether we support the view of the DPP that it is not always in the public interest to prosecute people who have compassionately helped a loved one to die at his or her request. It seems to me that that is unarguable. It is true that before the DPP’s policy was set out there were few prosecutions, but, equally, it was not at all clear how decisions were being made. People were unable to know what sacrifices they could make for their loved ones, and what the consequences would be. That is why, in 2009, my friend Debbie Purdy—who I believe is in the Strangers Gallery, and who has been rightly praised by many other Members who have spoken today—took her legal case to the Law Lords.
Debbie simply wanted to know whether her husband Omar was likely to be prosecuted if he accompanied her to Switzerland to have an assisted death. In a letter that she wrote to me last week, she explained:
“My husband wanted me to delay any thought of death while my life was enjoyable, and he was emphatic that he would risk prosecution later, if I needed his help. I love Omar and wasn’t prepared to take that risk.”
Debbie was not asking for a change in the law; she simply wanted to understand it. She wrote:
“I believed I had a right to know what would actually lead to a prosecution so we could avoid that action. Clarity would let me make an informed choice as to what help I could safely accept from my husband.”
Because of her action, the Law Lords instructed the DPP to provide clarity, and the result was the DPP’s prosecuting policy which we are discussing today
Because the detail of the policy has already been explained today, I will not go into it now, but, in short, it draws a distinction between the compassionate and the malicious. It effectively says that prosecution should not be the automatic, unthinking response to assisted suicide, and that numerous human factors should be taken into account. Before the DPP’s policy was set out, Debbie was in the awful position of having to plan for her own death even while she should have been enjoying her life.
Anna Soubry
Would my hon. Friend go as far as some who would argue that it is not right or fair for Debbie to have to travel somewhere else to die with dignity as she wishes to do? Does he agree that in due course our law could change so that she could die at home rather than having to travel to some clinic abroad?
Zac Goldsmith
I do agree, and I shall say more about that in a few moments. In fact, Debbie herself said at the time that had she lost her case, she would have booked into Dignitas in 2009. Her letter concludes:
“I know of situations where these guidelines have, even without the certainty of law, delayed the timing of an assisted death and made a death less frightening and lonely. For my part, the guidelines have allowed my life to be longer and happier. The Lords saved my life.”
She says that because the Lords initiated this process.
The DPP policy is clearly a step forward, as it provides some clarity. I am not convinced it provides sufficient clarity, however. For instance, only a minority of GPs feel that there is enough guidance for doctors on what to do if a patient asks for help to die. We also need to ask if it is right that mentally competent adults should have to travel abroad to receive medical assistance to die, and we must assess whether it is right that the law can brand someone a criminal for helping their loved one, even while the same law gives them a sympathetic nod and a wink.
The motion does not address these concerns. Neither does amendment (a), for which, in truth, I have yet to hear any compelling arguments. I hope we will debate the broader issues in due course. For now, however, the policy provides greater clarity on the application of the law than was ever previously available, and must therefore be welcome.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith).
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on bringing a motion on this subject before the House for the first time in 15 years—not for the first time since the ’60s, as one Member said. In the past 15 years, advances in medicine have enhanced our abilities to heal far beyond what could have been imagined back then. However, many incurable, degenerative and terminal conditions remain, and it is those who suffer from them, and the carers who look after them, whom we must consider today.
The motion welcomes the Director of Public Prosecutions’ guidelines in respect of cases of encouraging or assisting suicide, and I support both it and the amendment on palliative care. It is a welcome attempt to bridge the gap between a blunt, legal certainty—that helping to end a life is a criminal offence—and the greyest of grey areas.
I can only speak personally. I have no direct experience upon which to draw, and I pay the utmost respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for his courage in sharing with us the very personal case that he has experienced. I have never been in that situation, but I am a father of four, and if one of my children were in agony and, as far as they were concerned, no further care could be given to alleviate that pain, I would like to think that if they asked me to do so, I could assist them to die without then spending 14 years of my life in jail.
I believe that the guidelines provide a moral flexibility—if that is the right phrase. They are as humane and wise as any guidelines could be. They are not going to satisfy everyone, however. I listened to the powerful speech of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who is not in his place at present, and I believe that assisted suicide should remain a criminal offence, for the reason he gave. As long as we follow the guidelines to the utmost extent, we should be able to grant those in extremis, and those who love them, some leeway.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that we must not impose this on the GPs. The British Medical Association tells us that the vast majority of doctors do not want to legalise assisted dying. Medical ethics demand that they prioritise the preservation of life, not the taking of it. To ask them to take life instead would violate a bond between them and the patients who trust them.
We must never let the depressed, the confused, those in terrible pain, the aged and the vulnerable feel that they must pursue the path of assisted suicide so as not to be a burden on others. The so-called right to die must not be allowed to become a duty to die. We should refocus our efforts on palliative care and leave euthanasia to other countries. For that reason, while I understand the motives of the independent commission on assisted dying, I cannot support its conclusions. In my view, the commission’s desire to institute some form of legalised euthanasia crosses a line even in the most extreme cases.
The DPP guidelines accommodate compassion. That word has frequently been uttered today, and I entirely agree that compassion must underline the approach taken in respect of extraordinary circumstances that very few of us have experienced. I support the motion and the amendment on palliative care.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
We can understand the individual cases that have been brought to the House this afternoon. There are about 5,000 suicides a year in this country. If we had an equivalent system to that in Oregon, which is the total reverse of what some have been talking about—it has physician-assisted suicides—we would have about 10,000 assisted suicides a year. If we were like the Dutch, whose position goes beyond assisted suicide to death with or without request—that is different from suicide—we would, again, have about 10,000. My wife and I were impressed by a Dutchman who had been working abroad but went back to his home country. He was asked by his doctors why he was keeping his handicapped son alive. He asked for a transfer to this country, where there is care—and not just palliative care.
No one in this House would want to argue for ending the life of those who are physically handicapped or mentally ill, or for agreeing to the requests of the clinically depressed—those most likely to commit suicide—who want to end their life. If we start to go down that line—and that is the only purpose that there can be behind amendment (a)—we will be in a different debate from the one so well introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I pay tribute to him for the letter that he sent to us all, for the way he spoke on his motion, and for what he has on his website, on which he has kept his constituents up to date with his views.
There is only one reason for amendment (a), and it is not to ensure statutory enforcement of the DPP’s guidelines. I have not found a precedent for any statutory enactment of the DPP’s guidelines. If my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General knows of any, I would be grateful if he would correct me. The only reason to want the Government to decide on whether to consult is in order to go way beyond—first slightly beyond, and then further beyond—to the question of whether the issue be confined to assisted suicide.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I hate to repeat myself, but the amendment is absolutely clear. It suggests only that the Government should consult on the matter. There is no certainty in that; the consultation may go completely the other way. The situation is unique, as I said. The framework of the law on suicide and assisted suicide is quite different from that on other matters.
Sir Peter Bottomley
But when I asked one of the right hon. Lady’s hon. Friends—the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick)—whether he would support the amendment, the answer was not clear.
Mr Winnick
I am quite happy to support the amendment, if that would satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Peter Bottomley
It is not a question of whether I am satisfied; the question is: what is the purpose of the amendment? We all heard the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) the first time round, and what she said was engaging, but it was not the reason for amendment (a). If we are not talking about going beyond assisted suicide, what are we talking about?
Sir Peter Bottomley
I will not give way again. It would have been better, if we had more time, if someone had read out all 16 of the DPP’s public interest factors tending in favour of prosecution, and the six public interest factors tending against prosecution, which, interestingly, start at nought rather than one. It is worth getting those into people’s minds. I hope that the newspapers will report those factors, if they report any part of the debate.
I have probably been with as many dying people as others. I have been in the House for 36 years, there are about four people a year with whom I spend a lot of time in my constituency, and I have had family experiences, too. I have probably seen more dead people than anyone, because of various things that I have been witness to in my life. Death is not something to be worried about; pain is, and misery is. I shall not even think of contradicting the things that many hon. Friends and Opposition Members have said, but on the DPP’s role, I point out that I back what Ken Macdonald said in 2004, when he issued a nine-point statement of independence. One of the points was as follows:
“The people of this country want a prosecution service that is confident, strong and independent. Casework decisions taken with fairness, impartiality and integrity will deliver justice for victims, witnesses, defendants and the public. Casework decisions that, for whatever reason, lack these characteristics risk miscarriages of justice. They undermine that confidence in the rule of law, which underpins our democratic society.”
If we had a statutory declaration of the principles that we have all accepted, and the DPP brought up some other issue that he wanted to bring in, it would require a statutory change. What is the point of that? If the DPP thought one of his current points was too strong and should be weakened, would he have to come to Parliament again? That is the argument against even considering whether the Government should consider consultation.
The last area I wish to examine relates to the fact that too many suicides take place in this country. Whether we ought to have an extra 20 or 30 instead of having people going abroad is one issue, but multiplying the number of assisted suicides by 100 relates to a completely different debate. What sort of number would there be then? What sort of pressures would people feel if they thought that they were being awkward or untidy, or they were experiencing pain they did not want to experience? Pain is a part of life. It is experienced by women giving birth—
Sir Peter Bottomley
Well, I am told that it is. It is experienced by many of us doing things, whether we are talking about physical pain or mental pain. People are called on to do things as parents or as children which are awful but have to be survived. I hope that the result of this debate is that we let more people survive, and we keep these guidelines as they are. They are accepted by us all.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I will not say it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, because I am not sure that is the right word to use today. However, I am sure that this is a very important debate, and I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), who gave brave speeches that could not have been easy to give.
A former Prime Minister, Churchill, described this House of Commons as the “cockpit” of the nation, and he was right. Despite many things, this House still matters a great deal. This debate, above all, matters because ultimately Parliament must express its will. Furthermore, contrary to what some may feel about the willingness of the judiciary in this country to make the law through cases brought before them, I suspect that they would much rather Parliament decided and made its position clear. I hope that that will happen this evening.
I have been contacted by a large number of constituents in advance of today’s debate. I know that many people in my constituency and across our country would wish either that we were not debating this at all or that we were considering a new law to allow doctor-assisted dying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) made it clear in opening the debate, we are not doing that. The motion simply asks us to express support—or otherwise—for the principle set out in the DPP’s policy statement. That is what I support, along with amendment (b), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
The current law does not recognise the “best interests” of the victim as a justification for killing. Equally, the compassionate motives of the “mercy killer” are, in themselves, never capable of providing a basis for a partial excuse. Some have argued that that is unfortunate, and that is what forms the nub of today’s debate. Like many hon. Members taking part in this debate, I have watched many people I love slip away. I can honestly say to this House that the question of whether I personally would have intervened at those times—or was even asked—to ease suffering never so much as crossed my mind or was ever discussed. I remember feeling a massive sense of relief when the suffering was over, but I never had a thought about expediting the end. Perhaps the fact that I have a strong Christian faith, or perhaps just the sheer numbness one can feel at those times, accounted for that. In all honesty, I still do not know which it was.
I wish to discuss palliative care. Good palliative care, which my family have been fortunate enough to have received, should be much more widely available—and the hospice movement should be a bigger sector—so that it is genuinely available as an option for all. Good end-of-life care can provide precious moments for loved ones facing their day of parting. A constituent of mine wrote me an e-mail yesterday, in which he said:
“My wife of forty years died of complications to breast cancer…The care and attention that she received during that time was exceptional thanks to the N.H.S and the Hospice Care movement. Those last few years of our time together were some of the best that we had. Somehow we were drawn together in both grief and understanding. We both knew what the outcome would be but it was a time that I treasure still.”
That is a powerful reminder of the peace and dignity that good palliative care can give, and I cannot help but wonder whether we would be having this debate if my constituent’s experience of the NHS and the hospice movement was the norm.
In conclusion, I support the main motion, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. As he has said, whatever the outcome of this debate, assisted suicide will remain a criminal offence. I am content with that. Whatever the outcome of the debate, we will not be legalising “mercy killing” or legalising assisted dying via a doctor. I support greater patient choice across the NHS and I am content to extend that to end-of-life care. The DPP’s policy strikes a reasoned and balanced approach, which combines upholding the law of the land, meeting his statutory duties under that law and judging that it is not always in the public interest to prosecute those who have compassionately assisted a loved one to move on to the next stage in the great journey we are all embarking upon. I support the motion.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who is not in his place? He introduced the debate in a very measured tone. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on arranging this debate on the Floor of the House. It is a very worthwhile subject that has not been debated for some time. I will support the motion, which stands in my name and those of colleagues. I believe there should be parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the prosecution and sentencing policy, which I think is why we are here.
I will also support amendment (a), because it deals with an issue that has not been addressed as fully as I would have liked in this debate—the uncertainty created by the current situation. The legal fudge at the heart of this debate has not been adequately addressed. The law says one thing and one can be convicted of an offence, but the prosecution, or the prosecution policy, looks the other way. The more charitable would suggest that this is about trying to get the right balance between compassion and the law, but I suggest that it creates grave uncertainty and that it is unfair. It is not fair on those who feel that they have to travel to Switzerland to avoid prosecution, it is not fair on the patients who wish to die with dignity and it is not fair on the families of relatives who may or may not be prosecuted but are not clear about where they stand, particularly regarding the patient and individual concern. Patients may be concerned about the prospect of their loved ones being prosecuted. Neither is the situation fair on patients who wish to be surrounded by loved ones or family but who might have to consider the option of dying alone for fear of those left behind being prosecuted.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me absolutely clear: I believe that the compassionate approach for patients who are in severe pain, are terminally ill and have the support of their family would be to allow them to choose to die provided that the appropriate safeguards are in place. Yes, there is a right to life, and that is terribly important, but there is also a right to choose to die with dignity, knowing that one’s relatives will not be prosecuted, and surrounded by family and loved ones—not alone for fear of the prosecution of those left behind. That is why I will support amendment (a). This area is far too important and the situation is far too unique to be left to Government officials. It should be subject to parliamentary oversight.
Yes, we know that the guidelines are just that and are not law, but prosecution or the threat of it can be profoundly disturbing to the loved ones left behind. We should not underestimate that. We do not know for sure whether those left behind will have committed a criminal act, but the threat of prosecution or prosecution itself can be profoundly disturbing, particularly for those who have already had to endure severe grief in their lives. Putting guidance on the statute book brings that certainty. It brings certainty that those who maliciously assist someone to die will be prosecuted and also provides protection to those acting on compassionate grounds. I believe that those factors should be taken into account and that we need to end that uncertainty.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
We usually begin this sort of debate by congratulating the hon. Member who secured it, and that is usually done as a courteous opening, but today I genuinely heap praise on my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway)—ah, here he comes—and the Backbench Business Committee for having secured the debate. It is pretty scandalous that the House of Commons has not debated this important subject for 40 years. Courage has been lacking but it is here today and there have been some wonderful and courageous speeches from Members across the House. It is strange that there should be reluctance to debate this issue because the one thing that is certain in all our lives is that they will end and death will come. Most of us do not know or want to think about the manner of our death, but there are some people who do know what the manner of their death will be because of the illness or disability from which they are suffering and know that they are suffering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South mentioned Melanie Reid, the columnist on The Times, who has become tetraplegic as a result of an accident. She has written an inspirational column these past 18 months. She says in this morning’s paper that
“there is no point keeping humans alive just for the sake of it, when they don’t want to be, in circumstances which we and they regard as intolerable. And if they need help to achieve a good death, in the comfort and peace of their own home, we should be able to give it to them.”
And so we should.
Many hon. Members have spoken about choice and palliative care, but palliative care does not work for everyone. If it did, we would not have a problem and we would not be having this debate. Some people who are in the final stages of life have intolerable and untreatable suffering and pain. They have no choice, and they deserve our compassion. Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) about the right to life being paramount, we cannot ignore quality of life at its end.
The guidelines protect a person’s dignity by allowing them to die in a manner of their choice, rather than going sooner than they should have to, but while they still can, to a foreign country to die with dignity. My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) paid tribute to Nicky Dalladay. Nicky is also a friend of mine and lives in my constituency. I have watched her cope courageously over the years with a degenerative illness. She has urged me to be outspoken on this matter, which I am happy to be. Her husband looks after her with compassion every day, and one day he might have to help her to die, also with compassion. That is his only motivation and it is up to us in the House to protect someone who acts in such a way.
I welcome the clarification provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is very important that Parliament today endorses the DPP’s guidelines. I am persuaded by the Solicitor-General that amendment (a) is not necessary, but I support amendment (b) and the hospice movement in general. I hope the House will show compassion and support the main motion today.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I wish to make three points. First, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) said earlier, I believe that the people who have pushed forward today’s debate are, in essence, introducing a Trojan horse. I respect the genuine feeling that many have on the issue, but my worry is that whatever the intention of some Members, this will ratchet towards euthanasia.
Secondly, there is a risk of abuse because of the serious abuse that exists in Oregon and the Netherlands, where assisted dying is legal and, dare I say it, in historical examples of state-sanctioned euthanasia, such as in Nazi Germany. Thirdly, I would argue that this is the wrong debate. In terms of resources and philosophically, surely we should put everything into helping people to live, not helping people to die.
My fear is that this is a Trojan horse motion. I accept that the motion simply welcomes the DPP’s advice, and that the Director of Public Prosecutions said in February:
“The policy does not change the law on assisted suicide”,
but he also admitted that there had been changes to the policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, Parliament has never voted on these measures, even though they de facto amend the Suicide Act 1961. There is a risk that the guidance will tilt the legal balance towards euthanasia, not least because it clarifies how people can deliberately avoid prosecution.
Bob Stewart
I do not understand how they would amend the Suicide Act. It is my understanding that it has not been amended.
Robert Halfon
My argument is that the guidelines are too flexible, and that Parliament has not made a decision about the matter. As I said, Parliament has had no say in designing the DPP’s guidance, and that is not how law should be made in Britain. We are simply being asked to rubber-stamp what the DPP has said. This matters because there is a risk of abuse—it could become a lawyer’s charter—and because of the kind of country it would make us.
Sadly, there is a real example in history of how the move to assisted dying has led to something much worse. In 1920, the eminent German medics, Binding and Hoche, argued strenuously that doctors should be protected against prosecution for assisted dying. Their research was popularised during the Weimar era, and by 1932 created the intellectual climate that allowed Prussia to remove support for the disabled and terminally ill. In 1939, we know that Hitler issued orders that doctors be commissioned to grant a mercy death to patients who were judged to be incurably sick. A small step perhaps; each step along this path was a small step. Two years later we know that 70,000 patients from Germany’s hospitals had been killed. We know that in 1941, the gas chambers were moved from the hospitals where they had been used for euthanasia to the death camps of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Nurses, doctors and technicians followed the equipment. That is why I am worried about a conveyor belt. Of course, we live in a benign country, and we think that such things would never happen, but it is precisely because we are a benign country that we have to put in every safeguard to ensure that it does never happen.
I argue that the DPP’s guidance can become a lawyer’s charter. Who will define “compassion” in the DPP’s guidance? What is “minor encouragement”? How will we know the victim’s story if only the suspect can give evidence. Moves towards assisted dying would seriously damage our national character. As the National Review reported, a 1991 Dutch survey showed that 2% of all deaths in the Netherlands were caused by deliberate euthanasia, but 10% were from euthanasia by neglect, omission or other forms of poor care.
This is the wrong debate. We should be supporting palliative care, and I am proud to be very involved with my local hospice, St Clare’s. We should remember that about 40% of hospice in-patients return home and 66% of hospice at-home patients die in their own homes.
As a society, we are beginning to devalue human life, whether it is on television, in computer games or in other forms. I accept that we give people choice, but we are not talking about going to a supermarket and choosing a brand of chocolate. Harold Shipman was mentioned earlier, and he got away with what he did because human beings became digits on a computer: form filling. I wonder whether he would have got away with what he did if we did not devalue human life in the way we do.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It is a great honour to participate in this debate, and I pay tribute to those hon. Members who have spoken from personal experience and personal testimony. That is so very powerful. But I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who spoke powerfully about what I would call the degree of group thinking that seems to occur sometimes in the Chamber. We all revert to a fairly simple, comfortable mean, around which we can all collate, and that gives me great concern.
We have heard many powerful arguments today, talking about individuality, individual rights, the fact that it is my body and that I should decide what happens to it. That fills me with great concern. We have heard the word “compassion” used over and over again, to the point where perhaps it has lost all meaning in this Chamber. The definition of compassion, fellow feeling, is sometimes lost in the debate. The compassion we should be showing when considering the most vulnerable is also a matter of putting ourselves in their place, because compassion is not about feeling sorry for them, but about identifying with their concerns.
As legislators, we should be here to protect the most vulnerable in society, but I worry that, by allowing moves towards more assisted suicides, we are not fulfilling that role. Yes, people might arrive at what they consider to be a rational decision that, because of a disability, a progressive illness or some other condition, their life is no longer worth living. With all the language of individual rights that we have heard left, right and centre today, perhaps that is where society has got to and where the currents of social change have brought us, but I fundamentally reject it.
I place a value on my life, but I place the same value on the lives of every single Member in this Chamber, because in my view all human life has equal value. If we decide that our own lives are no longer “worth living”, we make it harder for a person with an identical condition, disability or prognosis to take a brave decision, to strike out and say, “Actually, I want to keep on living. I do not want to succumb to the group-think that says I am now a burden on society.” It is not for society to decide the value of human life. It is not even for one single individual to decide that their life is no longer worth living, because by doing so they diminish the right of every other human being to decide that their life is worth living.
We can imagine two terminally ill people with almost similar prognoses, yet we do not know what might happen to them, as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) made clear. Palliative care is actually guess work. It is hoping for the best and trying to do the best for the patient, but we can never know what the final outcome will be. I am very concerned today. We often use the cliché, “the slippery slope”. I feel that we are skidding faster and faster down a slippery slope in this Chamber today, and that causes me grave concern.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I want to open my contribution simply by saying that I endorse and support the DPP’s published prosecution policy. I do not support any move to change the law or the prosecution policy or to put that policy in statute law, and I am concerned that in reality that is the pathway that will follow this debate. I oppose any moves in that direction on the basis that the current law works well in practice. Let us be clear that it does so because of the stop-gap between Parliament and the CPS, which allows a criminal investigation into any case if required but, as with all criminal law, has the element of discretion that allows consideration of mitigating factors in all cases.
I want to offer two practical objections to changing the status quo. First, the law is about protection. We are talking about protection for the most vulnerable members of our society, those with terminal illnesses, those who might be severely disabled or those who might be depressed, confused or anxious. For this reason, we should not have a law that encourages, or is unable to prosecute, any case of coerced, encouraged, pressured or uninformed assisted suicide. Consider the situation for a 97-year-old elderly lady nearing the end of her life. Despite the best motives and intentions of her family, knowing that the option of assisted suicide exists, and given strong ties of loyalty, subtle cues from the family create the risk that she will feel compelled to assist with their emotional and financial uncertainties by agreeing to a premature ending of her life.
When I visited the spinal unit in my local hospital in Odstock in Salisbury last Friday and spoke with the consultant, he told me of the frequent situation for those who become tetraplegic after accidents. He said that their attitude towards their future changes markedly while they come to terms with their situation and their future quality of life. Exemptions to the law on assisted suicide will not provide a deterrent or discouragement in those cases, nor will they provide grounds for investigation or prosecution, if needed. The only way to ensure that every single case is amenable to robust deterrence and proper investigation is to have a blanket law against assisted suicide.
We must also focus on prevention, and that means doing everything we can to aid people when they are suffering towards the end of their life, so I endorse the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), with its renewed focus on palliative care. We have all commended the hospices in our constituencies, as we know that they are an under-used and a misunderstood resource of which so many more people wish to, and could, take advantage.
When we discuss the issue of suicide, we immediately raise the need for counselling and caring for those who are depressed. The same should be true for those who are near death. My submission today is that if we were to create a painful moral dilemma and significant areas of legal uncertainty and ambiguity, we would put at risk the well-being of many people. We should leave the status of the law as it is.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in a debate that has shown this House at its best, and I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on moving the motion and the Backbench Business Committee on finding time to debate it. I am in an unusual position, as I can happily support the motion and both amendments—and will do so if we go into the Division Lobby later.
I will start at the end by supporting amendment (b) on palliative care, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) tabled and with which I wholeheartedly agree. I join other Members in paying tribute to the hospices that serve their constituencies.
My local hospice is the Treetops hospice in Derbyshire, which does amazing work, and, speaking as someone who has lost a partner to a cancer, I have seen the great care that it gives people in the final stage of their life. We never talked about whether she would have chosen a quicker, less painful and more dignified way of dying, but I remember sitting there for four days while she lay dying, thinking that if I ever got into such a situation I might prefer to go in a less painful and more dignified way.
I join those other Members who support changing the law to allow people that very difficult choice at the end of their life, but that is not what this debate, the motion or the amendment that stands in my name and that of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) is about; it is about endorsing what the Director of Public Prosecutions has done. His guidance is admirable, I have no criticism of it and I hope that it remains in place and is applied consistently.
I do not think any Member wants the issue to be subject to a different court decision, which moves the line in the sand back or forward a bit, or subject to a different DPP changing the tone of the guidance. Parliament should draw that line, saying, “This is what we think is acceptable; anything beyond that, we think not,” and if the line is to move, that should be down to Parliament as well. That is why I support amendment (a), and I do so not because I want to list loads of criteria in law.
If someone compassionately assists a loved one in ending their life when that is their choice, Parliament should say that that is not a crime. What should be a crime is trying maliciously to encourage someone to end their life when that is not their choice, when it is not what they want and when it is not done through compassion.
John Glen
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, but in reality is it not the practical, individual decisions that matter? Even if Parliament did come up with a set of criteria, would it not be their application individually that mattered? It would therefore be entirely inappropriate for Parliament to try to set criteria that could be binding in every individual situation.
Nigel Mills
The point I am trying to make is that I am not sure whether it would be right for Parliament to list a load of criteria. The feeling today appears to be that we do not think that people should be prosecuted for compassionately assisting a loved one in their free choice to end their life, but that someone should be prosecuted for maliciously encouraging or enticing someone to commit suicide when they do not really want to do so. That principle could clearly be put into statute without having to go through the individual circumstances of every situation. That would then leave the DPP free to consider in each case whether the action was compassionate or malicious. At the moment, the law says that if one assists someone to commit suicide—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman speak up a bit, because I think we all want to hear him, and I would like to hear him?
Nigel Mills
I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I am full of a cold, and my throat is not quite as strong as I would like it to be.
If Parliament intends that compassionately assisting a loved one to die should not be prosecuted but maliciously encouraging someone who does not really want to die should be prosecuted, then that is what the law should be, and it is down to the DPP to put in place guidance on how to distinguish between the two.
Alun Michael
Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the whole point is that a judgment has to be made on whether the law is being pursued or whether there are factors that show that there are grounds for a prosecution? That is what the guidance is all about. What is needed is not a change in the law but for us to applaud how the guidance has been provided, based on what Parliament has already decided.
Nigel Mills
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Parliament decided 50 years ago that all prosecutions should require the DPP’s consent. I contend that in his guidance the DPP is not strictly giving guidance on the law. The law says that assisted suicide is a crime that can be punished by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. I would rather the guidance said that compassionately assisting a loved one should not be a crime, but the malicious stuff should be, and then it could be used to determine exactly when a prosecution would be due. I strongly believe that Parliament should draw the line in the sand on this very difficult issue. We should not be leaving it to the whim of the courts or to individual DPPs slowly to move the line forwards or backwards depending on their view. It is right that Parliament should decide.
I welcome the fact that we have had this debate so that we can endorse the current position of the DPP, and I will support amendment (a) to try to put that on a firmer footing.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and previous speakers said, it shows the House at its best. How different from yesterday—but sadly it is yesterday that will lodge in the public mind.
We often take part in passionate debates in this House about a whole range of issues, be it planning, as it was earlier today, House of Lords reform, or whatever. Important though they are, they are not life and death issues, but today we are discussing just that. I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim any particular insight; indeed, I see through the glass darkly. I have the uneasy feeling, which I know is shared by many hon. Members, that we, as a society, are moving towards a situation whereby assisted dying is legitimised. Though I believe life to be sacred and God-given, I readily acknowledge that that view is not universally accepted. However, I am sure that we can all agree that life is uniquely precious, in which case we should surely do everything possible to preserve it.
I do not in any way question the motives of those, be they Members of the House or among the general public at large, who take a different view. Many will have reached those conclusions having witnessed the slow and painful death of a loved one. I believe that any move to lay out a statutory framework is a further step, however small, towards an acceptance that assisted dying is in some way given the seal of approval. Some things are best left in the grey area.
Both my parents died of cancer and suffered in their final months. I well remember the telephone call from the specialist who, after receiving the results of the test on my father, said that we must hope that God is merciful and does not allow him to suffer for too long. Although he did suffer, it was not for too long. In fact, he lived for a further six months after I received that fateful call. In his final weeks, which he spent in St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby, I saw what comfort can be offered through palliative care. No longer did he suffer the periods of pain that he had in earlier weeks. That happened as long ago as 1988. Through my visits to St Andrew’s and to Lindsey Lodge hospice in Scunthorpe, both of which serve my constituency, I have seen the advances that have been made in 24 years.
Such an experience raises in the mind of any right-thinking person the question of how to minimise suffering. If somebody has previously indicated their wish to hasten their death in such circumstances, I acknowledge that it is extremely difficult and a major moral dilemma. However, I believe that any move that gives a small nod of approval is a further move towards legalising assisted dying.
The relationship between doctor and patient is crucial. I believe that it could be compromised if the patient was anything other than 100% certain that the doctor was striving to maintain life. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) described how he witnessed the death of a friend and said that it had probably been hastened by morphine. That was most likely the case with both my parents. However, it is better that the situation is left as it is. If one is old, frail, weak and seriously ill, one needs help, support and compassion, not the added worry and the nagging doubt over whether everything possible is being done to preserve one’s life.
Transparency is something that this House seeks in many areas, such as in financial dealings, but in this area, I suggest that the grey area should remain.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
During the Budget debate last year, I collapsed in Central Lobby. It was not, I assure hon. Members, the Budget that made be ill, but a tumour the size of a small fist in the left part of my brain. I was taken to St Thomas’s hospital, where an A and E doctor advised me that I required a craniotomy to remove the meningioma from my brain.
That was extremely frightening. I was advised as to the likelihood of death, paralysis, loss of speech or sight, and so much more. It was a week before I had my operation. I was one of the lucky ones. I survived with a few scars and with no deficit whatever. However, I have to face up to the possibility that I might not have been so lucky. I had a week to contemplate the situation. It made me think about what might have been.
One comes back to a simple issue which, I suggest, is at the heart of this entire debate: to whom does a person’s life belong? I suggest that a person’s life belongs to the individual themselves. It is for those who are not as lucky as I was to make their choices about how they live their lives. That somebody cannot take those choices does not mean that we in Parliament should deny them any choice. It upsets me tremendously that the state prescribes that it knows best. It cannot be right that individual members of the public are prevented from doing something in this country that they are able to go and do at Dignitas in Switzerland, where they can die in the manner of their choosing.
Robert Halfon
I am glad to see my hon. Friend so strong and alive in this Chamber. He talks about choice. Does he not agree that this issue is not just about individual choice, because people can be pressurised into making choices? That is what is really at the heart of the debate.
Guy Opperman
There is a great need for strong protections. Everybody accepts that. Not a single person disagrees with that, just as there is not a single person who does not wholeheartedly endorse the need for palliative care. However, that is not enough. I suggest that the principle of clear self-determination must be the core of any concept of human rights.
I am a huge supporter of palliative care, like all other Members. I pray in aid the Charlotte Straker home and the Tynedale hospice in my constituency. If I need to declare an interest, it is that I have raised considerable sums for both those organisations.
I welcome many constituents of mine who have come from Northumberland today. Many of them were friends of Geraldine McClelland, the former BBC TV producer and founding member of Newcastle’s Live theatre, who took her life at Dignitas last December following an unsuccessful battle with cancer. Her letter has already been read out. Her good friend Nick Ross, the “Crimewatch” presenter, said:
“Gerry had to abandon her home and be driven across Europe…to end her life in a light commercial estate in an impersonal Swiss suburb.”
He continued:
“It sometimes seems that each concession to freedom in this country has had to be dragged out of a reluctant and controlling instinct that someone else knows best.”
I endorse entirely those remarks and urge the House to address the issue that dare not speak its name, which is that we need to consult properly about assisted suicide. I will of course support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), but in the longer term, the matter will not go away.
Dame Joan Ruddock
The hon. Gentleman said that he would support the motion and amendment (b), on palliative care, as I will. He did not mention my amendment (a), but I think it may be of use to the House if I say that I and the other Members who have spoken in favour of it have come to the conclusion that it might be in the best interests of the House if it were not pressed. Some will undoubtedly regret that, but I hope he agrees that it is an appropriate course to take in the spirit of the debate.
Guy Opperman
That is very helpful, because we would all concede that a consultation on putting in statutory guidelines what is already in guidance from the DPP, who has done an excellent job and whom we should all thank for his tremendous efforts, is not necessarily the way forward for long-term consultation on assisted suicide.
To enable others to get in, I will try to draw my comments to a close. Many people do not have self-determination, because of their disability and illness, and such people need help to escape from their imprisonment. They want to know that individual friends and family will not be prosecuted. The Solicitor-General said in reply to me that guidance could change as public opinion altered, but he refused a consultation on this particular issue. He will need to revisit whether to consult on assisted suicide, because we need to be brave. The issue will not go away, and the likes of Geraldine McClelland and the amazing Melanie Reid, about whom we all read on Saturdays in The Times with ever-increasing incredulity at her great efforts, have shown us why the law must change. Our life belongs to each and every one of us, and that must be enshrined in law.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) not only for tabling the motion but for his courtesy in writing to all hon. Members with understanding and detailed work on the subject.
I speak in support of amendment (b), in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and I wish to touch on the issue of palliative care. My contribution arises from conversations that I have had with a great friend of mine who is a consultant in palliative care and has thought about the matter very deeply. He has drawn my attention to the work of Harvey Chochinov, who addressed the congress on palliative care in Gateshead earlier this month.
Harvey Chochinov is a psychiatrist from Canada who has researched extensively the experiences of patients who are approaching the end of their lives, and ways of helping them. His work includes research on the expression of a desire for death or a loss of will to live, which he explains is often misconstrued as synonymous with a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide.
There is good evidence that in the context of advanced illness, the desire for death can be thought of as a continuum. At its most extreme, it is synonymous with suicidal intent, and perhaps with the wish to die. Far more common are the many patients who, over the course of their illness—perhaps cancer—experience occasional and fleeting thoughts that not waking to another day may offer the escape and comfort that they perceive life can no longer afford. However, the research shows that in response to appropriate palliative care and the rallying of a community of support, thoughts about the wish to die can dramatically recede.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are good examples of the community supporting the provision of palliative care? For example, in Medway, the Friends of the Wisdom Hospice raised more than £500,000 to support the excellent palliative care there. The community and the voluntary sector want palliative care, so we have to work with them to ensure that such excellent facilities carry on.
Jeremy Lefroy
I thank my hon. Friend and I entirely agree with him. In my constituency, we have the great work of Katharine House and, across Staffordshire, many other places, which I applaud.
Dying with dignity involves being treated as an individual—yes, having physical symptoms such as pain treated, but a lot more than that. Good palliative care is essential and we need to recognise that for the vast majority of patients, good palliative care—including the opportunity to express oneself as an individual and to retain control over the areas of life that one can have control of—will result in a desire for life rather than death.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I would argue that whatever side of the assisted dying debate we are on, it has been helpful to consider the basis for putting these guidelines on a statutory footing. As stated by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Winchester (Steve Brine), the guidelines are, in effect, pseudo-statutory—statutory, but subject to the view of the DPP, as his own guidelines have to be observed.
We have often discussed in recent months the importance of Parliament making laws and judges interpreting them as a matter of principle, and I agree with that principle. Hon. Members have touched on the issue of consistency. Suicide is not a crime and, generally speaking, it is not a crime to assist someone in an action that is legal.
There is a third issue on which I wish to focus, and it goes some way to picking up the gauntlet thrown down by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is no longer in his place. There are very practical reasons of consistency and confidence why we should consider elevating these guidelines. It is a reasonable assumption, although the Government should test it, that there would be greater confidence in those guidelines as a result.
Currently, there are 400 suicides a year related to a chronic or terminal illness. That is 400 people committing suicide alone and in appalling situations. I wish to share with the House an extract from the diary of the husband of a lady who died of cancer of the womb on 2 January last year. He wrote:
“On New Years Day she persuaded me to take the dogs out for a walk and to visit friends to wish them Happy New Year. Whilst I was gone for perhaps an hour she took a large overdose in an attempt to end it all; due to the fact that she had been on strong painkillers and sleeping tablets for several months she was unsuccessful. She had previously signed a form saying that she did not wish to be revived in the event of requiring treatment, so they merely monitored her, however she did recover sufficiently to be allowed home on January 2nd. She seemed very weak and only wanted to sleep. However she was obviously not so weak as she seemed because when I took the dogs out that night she took advantage of my absence to tape herself into a plastic bag and end her life in that terrible way alone.
She should have been allowed to quietly slip away surrounded by her beloved dogs and in my arms but she felt that option was not available and while she lay dead upstairs I was subjected to various police questioning sessions which lasted until 6 o’clock the next morning. Even worse, she was subjected to a wholly unnecessary and barbaric post mortem and it was a fortnight before we could hold her funeral.”
I read that out not as an argument for assisted death, or to argue that the author should have been spared the ordeal of an investigation or his wife’s post-mortem, but to show the tragedy when someone feels that they do not have the confidence in guidelines that should be there to protect their loved ones, as well as themselves, to the extent that they do not even share their intentions.
Although I accept that the desire to end one’s own life can often be a rational one, I ask whether those 400 people a year would have still wished to attempt suicide in the way that they did, or at all, if they had felt able to talk more with their loved ones or a health care professional.
Penny Mordaunt
I do not have time.
Whichever side of the debate we are on, we have to acknowledge the plight of those who choose to take their own life, and those they leave behind. I am content that the DPP’s sensible guidelines should be considered and put on a statutory basis as I believe such a move could reduce the instances of such suicides, and that is worth the Government considering.
What the Solicitor-General said about what might happen to future DPPs if they attempt to change those guidelines on a whim was very helpful. On a point of principle, we might legitimately ask whether this particular DPP has got it right. If we reach the point of asking that question, we have already conceded that some further action is required. I would say he has got it right, but other hon. Members may say he has not, but whatever Parliament decides, it is surely right that it should do so.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
Like others, I congratulate Members on the standard of debate. I think there is a saying from the Torah: things that come from the heart speak to the heart. The contributions from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) have certainly demonstrated that.
This has been a difficult debate that many of us approach with personal experience, or a mixture of that and difficult constituency cases. I have been approached by one constituent about assisted suicide, and I acknowledge the difficult circumstances that can lead a person to this kind of decision. I try to understand. The 20 or so cases per year demonstrate what other hon. Members have said about compassion and human relationships being stretched to the ultimate. I claim no moral superiority or imply any wrongdoing—that is for the law.
That is what we are debating—the law and the DPP’s guidance. It seems to me that the guidance works. It might seem incredible to hon. Members that part of the machinery of the state actually works, but that bit seems to work, so let us leave it alone to carry on its work. I am therefore prepared to support the motion. I was hoping—and still am, given the noises off—that we will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
I took the strictures of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) when he said that, when it comes to end of life, the state and society, as they are now, cannot even protect the vulnerable and elderly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham said, how then can we provide the necessary strong protections? There are supposed to be strong protections when dealing with the elderly. Dr Shipman has been mentioned, but let us also consider the apparent neglect in certain care homes and hospitals. Such places should provide the ultimate in protection, but that is not happening. That is why I could not go along with Members in moving to what is called “euthanasia” or whatever else it might be. In that sense, I take the same line as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who asked whether this was a Trojan horse motion and whether we were getting on to a slippery slope.
I came here with the old-fashioned view that this place was here to protect the life and liberty of individuals in this country. That is the kind of old-fashioned view I stand by. We must be absolutely sure that the dignity of the dying is preserved and that when they are at their most vulnerable, emotionally and physically, there must be no way in which a person is led to believe that their life is no longer precious or that their circumstances allow their vulnerability to be exploited.
The professionalism of doctors and nurses also needs to be protected from any implication that their duty is no longer to maintain life. Any of us who have experienced this or supported a partner through a long illness to the final moments of death would have given anything for a little more time—God-given time, I would call it. In that sense, I would like to thank St Joseph’s hospice in east London—one of the oldest of the hospice movement—and St John’s in Morecambe next to my constituency.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I had the pleasure of spending 12 years working in the hospice movement. This debate shows that we need to expand palliative care and the hospice movement so that people have a real choice when it comes to end-of-life care. I know that my hon. Friend has personal experience of this. Does he agree that that is the fundamental point? Let us try that first before we start going down the line of assisted suicide.
Eric Ollerenshaw
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Even though he is from Yorkshire, he seems to encapsulate exactly what I, being from Lancashire, was struggling to explain. Yes, it is about the hospice movement. That is why I support and hope we can vote on the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. That is the route we should be going down and exploring even more than now. We should leave any discussion of euthanasia and the rest of it until we get the basics right in our society. I will support her amendment.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
This is such a difficult subject for us to tackle, but whatever difficulties we in this House encounter are as nothing compared with some of the graphic descriptions of the agony of the dying and those who have to watch them suffer.
I would like to read a version of Susan McArthur’s story—edited, because of the shortage of time. She says:
“On 30th October 2009 my husband Duncan died peacefully in our home with a glass of his favourite tipple by his side and me, his wife of 42 years, holding his hand. This sounds like ‘a good death’ and indeed it was except for the fact that it was illegal. This is because Duncan took his own life and I was by his side...Duncan was diagnosed with MND”—
motor neurone disease.
“He fretted and panicked until he acquired the means to end his life in his own home and at a time of his choosing. Once this had been achieved he relaxed and did his best to enjoy the time he had left…Following Duncan’s death there was a Police inquiry and the case was submitted to the DPP…This was an extremely stressful time for all the family when all we wanted to do was grieve for Duncan and say our farewells…There was no prosecution, under new guidelines it was deemed not to be in the public interest.”
Amendment (a), tabled by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and me, would have called for a consultation on whether the Government should give extra clarity and reassurance by giving legal backing to the guidelines. Parliament would then give the strongest possible signal that law-abiding citizens who compassionately help a loved one to die should not face prosecution. Any change in the guidelines must be ratified by Parliament. The DPP would not be able to change the guidelines at will. We have had a thorough discussion about that, which I would have hoped would be a comfort to those who worry that we are at the start of a slippery slope. We cannot be, because a change in the law would be needed to relax the guidelines further. Giving legal backing to the DPP guidelines would also send the strongest possible signal that those who maliciously or irresponsibly encourage suicide should be prosecuted.
Of course, discretion should and must be with the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, it is important for the policy to be discussed in greater depth by the Government and the public. I welcome amendment (b), which calls for the further development of specialist palliative care—a view shared by those on all sides of the assisted suicide argument. However, in my view, palliative care is not sufficient on its own. Suicide was made legal in 1961. The guidelines give protection to the dying person who would commit suicide if they had the ability, and to their family. Debbie Purdy said:
“If I had lost my legal case, I would have gone to Dignitas in 2009.”
With the knowledge of the guidelines, many dying people would have the confidence to hold on a little longer and have a better, more peaceful and more dignified death when the time was right for them.
Mr Speaker
The last Back Bencher who has not spoken—I see him standing to speak—is the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; patience is rewarded in this important debate. I will make my own position extremely clear. I start as a Catholic, and I believe that human life is sacred, which I take from the Catholic catechism:
“Human life must be respected because it is sacred. From its beginning human life involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.”
That is my view, but I accept that it will not be the view of all my constituents or of everybody in this country, and that although many of us have personal and deep beliefs, the legislature must think beyond that, to the practicalities involved in the DPP’s advice, and see how that fits with our consciences.
I want to look at some of the areas of concern in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ advice, which is in many ways very sensible. It places a particular obligation on doctors and nurses not to be involved in a suicide, for example, but I am concerned that, in two areas, its flexibility could lead to problems. The first involves the requirement to determine whether the victim has
“reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide”.
In such circumstances, we are dealing with very vulnerable people who are ill and at the end of their lives. How voluntary is that decision really going to be?
Anna Soubry
A constituent of mine has written to me at length and with great feeling on this subject. He is a bright, intelligent man at the end of his life who might fall into some unfortunate condition. He therefore has every ability to make a decision, as a grown-up person, about how he wants to end his life. Why should he not have that right?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
We have to legislate for everybody, not just for my hon. Friend’s most able constituents. We have to legislate for the weak and vulnerable, and for those who have nobody to defend them. Yes, of course we can all cite examples of highly intelligent, capable people who would be able, for example, to resist pressure from family members who might be after an inheritance, but what about those who feel that they have become a burden to society? My greatest concern for the elderly and the frail is that, although they might be enjoying their lives, they might feel that they have become a burden and therefore selflessly propose that their own end should be hastened. That is my concern about the term “voluntary”.
I am also concerned about the terms “clear” and “settled”. People might clearly settle something in their youth, then change their mind as the time gets closer. We read the saddest cases in the newspapers of people who have taken overdoses of paracetamol, then regretted their action and decided that they want to live. As the moment comes closer, how settled is that decision that was taken at an earlier stage?
I am also concerned about the word “informed”, Mr Speaker. Informed by whom? Are you going to set up a committee, perhaps with the two of us, to advise on the different options available to people who are at a late and vulnerable stage of their lives? Or will they in fact receive that advice from people who favour a particular course of action? How will we decide whether that information is fair, reasonable, and sufficient to allow them to make a choice that will protect their friends or family from a prosecution for assisting in their suicide?
The guidelines also state that a prosecution is less likely when a suspect is “wholly motivated by compassion”. Of course the family and the spouses involved should be motivated by compassion, but who in this House clearly knows their own motivations when they do particular things? Most motivations are mixed in a number of ways.
Jim Fitzpatrick
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the public interest criteria laid down by the Director of Public Prosecutions give the prosecuting authorities the opportunity to balance whether an action has been malicious or compassionate?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The Director of Public Prosecutions has indeed set out those guidelines, but can he be certain of people’s motivations? If we ourselves cannot always be certain of our own motivations for doing things, how much more difficult must it be for a lawyer, learned though he might be, to decide on somebody’s motives?
I must warn the House that we are sometimes in the greatest danger from those who are closest to us. I looked this up on the website of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Between 1995 and 1999, 80% of children under the age of one who were killed were killed by their parents, those from whom they would have expected love and compassion. We should therefore be very careful about assuming that just because there is a close relationship, there is automatically compassion.
My solution is that the DPP should be very cautious in his guidelines, and that we should always trust in the good sense of juries if these matters are ever brought to prosecution, for that is where hope lies.
Richard Ottaway
In the 24 years for which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have witnessed many dramatic debates in the Chamber, but this has been probably the most remarkable in which I have taken part. It has been a constructive and intelligent debate, featuring some unbelievably well-informed speeches. There have been no personal attacks on anyone—although I must confess that this is the first occasion on which I have been accused of talking cant, which I understand to be insincere talk about religion or morals; but we will put that to one side. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who said that we could disagree with each other with respect. That is what has happened today, and that governed the whole tone of his speech.
Without a shadow of a doubt, much the most moving speech was made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). One could not help feeling for him and for his conviction. That illustrates the difficulty that Members have in addressing the most difficult of subjects. It is hard to imagine being in the position of those about whom we have been talking, but the hon. Gentleman came closest to it by far. I think everyone would agree that his speech was incredibly powerful. At the other end of the spectrum, I thought that the speech of my lifelong political friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) was also particularly powerful and impressive. By sheer coincidence, one speech followed the other, which made a strong impression on me.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who has campaigned on this issue for many years. She has shown great courage in regard to a very difficult subject, and I congratulate her on what she has done over those years. I am also deeply grateful to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who has taken much of the fire today. I think it important that she tabled her amendment, but I also think that at the end of the day, following what I think was an historic debate, she was right not to press it to a Division.
What I have endeavoured to do is build a consensus around a set of guidelines which I think command substantial support. They have compassion at their heart, and I think that if the motion is carried, it will be a small step for Parliament but a big step for a modern society.
Amendment (a) negatived.
Amendment made: (b), in line 3, at end add
‘and encourages further development of specialist palliative care and hospice provision.’.”—(Fiona Bruce.)
Main motion, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Director of Public Prosecution’s Policy to Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide, published in February 2010, and encourages further development of specialist palliative care and hospice provision.
Business without Debate
Business of the House (Finance (No. 4) Bill)
Petitions
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I rise to present a petition signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents, who are extremely keen to keep the town of Dunstable and the village of Kensworth within the South West Bedfordshire constituency. Many people have contributed to getting this petition together. It has been both online and on paper. I thank in particular Councillor Ann Sparrow, Councillor Beverley Whayman and two former mayors of Dunstable, Brenda Boatwright and Sally Newton. My apologies to those I have not thanked.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Bedfordshire,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposed boundary changes put forward by the Boundary Commission for England in relation to Dunstable as the Petitioners believe that the North Luton area, which the Boundary Commission proposes to combine with Dunstable, is a different community from Dunstable with different social challenges, which are very different from those of an historic market town.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons not approve any Order in Council giving effect to changes proposed by the Boundary Commission in relation to Dunstable that would combine Dunstable with North Luton.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001015]
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is fitting that just before the recess I should be presenting a petition against the Health and Social Care Bill, as it has dominated our proceedings in recent days. I commend in particular Karen Walker for her work in helping to gather the signatures on the petition.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the reforms to the NHS that will be brought about by the Health and Social Care Bill as the Petitioners believe that they will damage the quality of services provided by the NHS.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse the reforms to the NHS brought about by the Health and Social Care Bill as soon as possible.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001016]
Foreign Secret Intelligence and State Secrets Privilege
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate.
The story I am about to tell is extraordinarily dramatic. Frankly, had I not been able to verify some of the hard facts for myself, I would not have believed it. Essentially, the story is of an intelligence-gathering operation that, had it gone ahead, would very likely have yielded advance information about the 9/11 attack in New York. The operation was delayed by what can only be described as a turf war between American intelligence agencies, and as a result the intelligence opportunity was lost.
The American Government then used the state secrets privilege to cover up that embarrassment, and did so in such a heavy-handed way that it facilitated the defrauding of some British citizens of millions of pounds. This is the same state secrets privilege, and the same American Government, that the British Green Paper on justice and security is designed to protect. The case I am about to describe will show how intelligence agencies misuse these laws not to protect our security, but to avoid their own embarrassment and, sometimes, to cover up criminal activity.
In the mid-1990s, Afghanistan, a country of almost 30 million people, had fewer than 10,000 working telephones. There was no mobile phone network and no internet, and ordinary Afghans had to queue for hours to use the few functioning public phone boxes. The country had even lost its international dialling code. In 1998, the Taliban Government decided Afghanistan needed a new phone network. As no domestic companies had the necessary expertise, they invited foreign companies to bid for the rights to build the network. The company they chose was called Telephone Systems International.
Based in New Jersey, TSI was owned by one Ehsanollah Bayat, a Kabul-born American citizen on friendly terms with the highest echelons of the Taliban Government, and particularly its leader, Mullah Omar. Helped by Mr Bayat’s powerful connections, TSI was awarded the exclusive licence to build and operate Afghanistan’s new telephone network, including domestic, international, mobile and landline calls.
Mr Bayat had a problem: he had the connections, the funding and the exclusive contract, but he had no telecommunications expertise. He needed expert advice and operational skills, and sought it from two British citizens. One was Stuart Bentham, a former officer in the Corps of Royal Engineers. The other was Lord Michael Cecil. Between them, Bentham and Cecil had built new mobile phone networks in Kenya, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and Bayat wanted them both on board. In 1998, they struck a deal under which Bentham and Cecil would each receive shares in TSI, amounting to about 30% of the company, in exchange for overseeing the building of the Afghan mobile network.
So far, so ordinary, you might think, except that Mr Bayat was no ordinary telecoms entrepreneur. Cecil and Bentham knew his secret, but at this point the Taliban had no idea that the man they had asked to build their phone network was an FBI informer. With their man now in charge of Afghan telecoms, the FBI saw a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to gather intelligence on the Taliban and, of course, al-Qaeda.
The plan was simple: the Taliban wanted American equipment for their new phone network, so the FBI and NSA—the National Security Agency—would build extra circuits into all the equipment before it was flown out to Afghanistan for use. Once installed, these extra circuits would allow the FBI to record or listen live to every single landline and mobile phone call in Afghanistan. The FBI would know the time the call was made and its duration, the caller’s name, the number dialled, and even the caller’s PIN. The FBI would also be able to monitor the telephone gateways channelling international calls in and out of the country—gateways already being used by Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their associates, thanks to the satellite phones given by Mr Bayat to Taliban Ministers as gifts.
The FBI gave the operation the codename Operation Foxden. Encouraged by a supportive Taliban Administration and eager American intelligence agencies, work on the new Afghan phone network began in earnest in 1999. Early progress was good, until suddenly, on independence day in 1999, the Clinton Administration imposed trade sanctions on Afghanistan and banned American citizens from doing business with the Taliban Government. For months, TSI had been legally exporting telecoms equipment to Afghanistan. Overnight, this activity had become a serious criminal offence. Construction of the Afghan phone network was delayed, as was the opportunity for the FBI to eavesdrop on the Taliban’s and al-Qaeda’s conversations.
In the meantime, the American security services continued to discuss the project. In December 1999 and January 2000, Stuart Bentham and Lord Cecil flew to the US for meetings with officials from the FBI and NSA. Both agencies remained convinced that building and tapping the Afghan phone network from the ground up was a massive intelligence opportunity. The NSA even provided $30 million of funding, and offered technical support, cover stories and fake passports to TSI employees to help get the job done.
In January 2000, Mr Bayat and his team were gradually finding a way to work around the sanctions and the limitations placed on them, and he made plans to fly to Afghanistan to get construction moving. According to a TSI technical expert who was on the ground in Kabul at the time, the new phone network could and would have been up and running in months. But the CIA had become aware of the project and had decided it could continue only under its control. Thus started a turf war that set the project back by some 20 months. Instead of getting the Afghan phone network built and starting to eavesdrop on Taliban leaders and al-Qaeda leaders, officials from the FBI and CIA spent more than a year and a half fighting over who should be in charge. Furthermore, when it was decided that the FBI should hand control of the project to the CIA, the CIA’s near east division and counter-terrorism centre then proceeded to bicker among themselves over which of the subsets of the CIA should run the operation.
Eventually the bickering stopped and finally, 20 months after the project had been put on hold, TSI was given the green light to resume building Afghanistan’s phone network. Within days, and with MI6’s blessing, Bayat’s British advisers, Bentham and Cecil, met CIA officials and technical experts at the Sheraton hotel, New Jersey. There they discussed future plans, Afghan satellite capacity and the possibility of more American funding. The project seemed to be back on track, but it was too little, too late. The Sheraton meeting, held in a room overlooking the World Trade Centre, took place on 8 September 2001. Three days later, while Bentham and Cecil were travelling by taxi from Heathrow to Matrix Chambers to get advice on the legality of their operation from Ken Macdonald QC, they heard on the radio the terrible news of the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre.
Of course, we cannot say for certain that if US intelligence agencies had managed to tap the Afghan phone network sooner, we would have intercepted evidence in time to stop the 9/11 attacks, but it seems quite likely. After all, there was clearly a good deal of related activity in Afghanistan immediately prior to 9/11. Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated two days before the 9/11 attacks, clearly to a timetable and clearly in a move to take out a potential US proxy against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It is probable that there was telecoms traffic relating to that, if not to the 9/11 attack itself. In addition, Massoud had told the European Parliament only that summer to expect a massive “spectacular” attack against the west in the near future, presaging the 9/11 attack.
So it looks as if a huge opportunity was missed, but that is only half the story.
Mr Davis
I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind, but I am sticking to a very narrow script on this occasion.
By early 2002, coalition forces had toppled the Taliban and controlled most of the country. In April, the new Afghan phone network, which now connected all the major Afghan cities, was officially launched, with Hamid Karzai making the first official telephone call. The project had been a belated success and was then very profitable indeed. As agreed at the outset, Mr Bayat gave shares in TSI to Cecil and Bentham, the two British men whose advice had helped him get the Afghan phone network off the ground. In May 2002, a declaration by the American Federal Communications Commission in Washington confirmed that, showing that Cecil and Bentham each owned 15% of the shares in TSI, with Bayat owning 51%. However, not long afterwards Bayat changed his tune. He first offered to buy out Cecil and Bentham for derisory sums, then denied that they were entitled to any shares at all. That “Bayat” is an Arabic term for an oath of honour must have seemed a cruel irony.
For months the dispute continued, eventually ending up in the New York southern district court, where Bentham and Cecil claimed the value of the shares they had been promised and Mr Bayat accused the British men of fraud, deceit and conspiracy. “So what?” one might think. After all, commercial squabbles between former business partners happen every hour of every day in courts around the entire world.
Mr Davis
I think the moment of interruption became a moment of terror for me then, Mr Speaker.
I was saying that the commercial squabbles between Mr Bentham, Mr Cecil and Mr Bayat might be viewed as ordinary, but this was no ordinary case. The US intelligence agencies feared the consequences if the truth about their in-fighting emerged and they were determined to stop that truth emerging.
First, it emerged that the CIA had offered Bayat $1 million for his legal fight against Bentham and Cecil. Other evidence suggests that there was a general intent by the CIA to exclude British agencies from the operation, and this may reflect that. Secondly, when Bentham and Cecil’s lawyers pressed the case, CIA officers threatened them, warning that the whole case would be shut down if they continued. Then, in November 2003, a year after litigation began, the American judge suddenly sealed the case, shutting it down without warning, citing the state secrets privilege. All records of the case were expunged, and vanished from the court’s public database. Cecil and Bentham were warned that they must destroy any documents in their possession that related to the case and that they would be in contempt of court if they discussed the case with anyone other than two named American lawyers.
Bentham and Cecil appealed, but this was quickly dismissed, with the decision being explained in a judgment that they were not even allowed to see for themselves. Undeterred, two years ago they returned to London and brought proceedings in London. However, so long is the reach of the American state secrets privilege that Bentham and Cecil were banned from discussing in the English High Court key facts and details of the American litigation. Needless to say, because of that their claim failed.
They realised then the unspeakable truth about which Parliament has until now been kept in the dark—that through heavy-handed use of the state secrets privilege, US agencies can dictate what British judges in British courts are entitled to know and how much British citizens in British courts are entitled to say. I am not here to pass judgment on the merits of Bentham and Cecil’s claim. Without having seen all the evidence I could not hope to come to a fair and accurate judgment, but the same goes for our judges. What chance did Bentham and Cecil or anyone else in a similar position have of getting a fair hearing when the American intelligence agencies can shut down cases without explanation in the US and use the state secrets privilege to control what evidence courts can see in the UK?
When this shocking story was first raised with me six months ago I was very cautious about how to handle it given the sensitivity of the information concerned—the people involved and the techniques used are the kind of thing I tend not to talk about in public—but I feel justified in raising these issues in Parliament today not just because of what this case reveals about the implications of the US state secrets privilege for British justice, but because when an American magazine published the story back in September last year, an advance copy of the article was sent for comment to the CIA as a matter of courtesy. All Governments have ways of restraining newspapers and journals from publishing matters that might jeopardise national security. We use the defence notice, or the defence advisory notice as I think it now is, procedure, and the Americans use other procedures. In this case, however, no attempt was made by the CIA or anyone else to restrict publication of a journal that goes out to millions of readers. No attempt was made to keep this supposedly sensitive information under wraps.
When one considers how heavy-handed the use of state secrets privilege was in respect of Bentham and Cecil, that is astonishing—so astonishing, in fact, that I recently put the question to someone in the know in one of the agencies involved. I asked him, “Why was this not shut down at this stage?” His response was, “Ten years have passed since 9/11, and the culpable people have moved on, so it’s no longer embarrassing.”
This demonstrates only too clearly that although the aim of the American state secrets privilege is to protect national security, in practice it is often used to eliminate embarrassment—political, bureaucratic, organisational or individual embarrassment at past failures. This has been proven to be true of the state secrets privilege from its very first use in the Reynolds case in the 1950s, and it is clearly still true today. It also shows how giving a Government agency an absolute right to secrecy encourages bad behaviour. The American agencies could easily have stopped the defrauding of British citizens without the matter going to court, given their enormous leverage in the matter. Instead, they chose to suppress justice.
I understand that both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been aware of the issue for some months. I have three questions, at this point for the Minister, but in due course for them. First, what do the Government intend to do about British citizens being defrauded of millions of pounds in this way and denied justice, with the collusion of United States Government agencies? Have the Government been in discussion with the American Government to correct this injustice? How will they prevent this happening again and being covered up in the same way again?
Secondly, in the light of previous revelations about the UK Government’s complicity in torture and rendition of detainees to locations such as Libya and Afghanistan, or illegally into American hands—an area by definition covered by state secrets privilege—how will the Government prevent the Justice and Security Green Paper proposals being misused in a similar way to cover up illegal acts and embarrassments, rather than to protect national security, which is their supposed aim, particularly when one considers that the Government’s Green Paper proposals are more draconian than the American state secrets privilege, because we do not have the constitutional protection of free speech which occasionally stops state secrets privilege being misused in the States?
Thirdly and finally, can the Minister tell the House whether there is a formal, statutory, reciprocal arrangement to our proposed closed procedures with the American courts? Will we get complete protection—the control principle for our intelligence data given to the Americans, of which there is a great deal—in exchange for the apparently absolute protection that we are giving to American intelligence being disclosed here? Will we have the same level of protection? I suspect that the answer is not the one that the Minister would like to be able to give.
This has been an extraordinary case, which has come to my attention in the past six months. It happens, by accident almost, to crystallise the issues that arise when the inevitably secret agencies of the state are given not just the normal secrecy that is extended to them to allow them to do their job, but secrecy and protection from the proper operation of the justice system in a mature democracy. I would like to hear the Minister, who I know shares many of my liberal values, tell us exactly how he intends to reflect those liberal values in the policies in the year ahead.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make the final speech—at your discretion—before we adjourn for Easter. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing this debate and on the compelling way in which he laid out his case this evening. I recognise the strength of feeling and sincerity with which he raises this specific case and the wider associated issues it serves to illuminate. I will aim to do justice to the three questions he put to me at the conclusion of his speech, but first I would like to give some context for my answers.
The security agencies play a vital role. They gather intelligence to protect our national security, with particular reference to the Government's defence and foreign policies, in the interests of the UK's economic well-being, and to prevent or detect serious crime. They provide warning of states taking actions hostile to UK interests, or planning such actions. They disrupt terrorism plots. Intelligence disrupts counterfeiting, drug trafficking and other serious offences, and intelligence can provide information on the intentions and capability of hostile state or non-state actors to launch cyber attacks against UK networks.
The agencies conduct their activities in compliance with the law and in a manner consistent with our values. Agency personnel devote considerable time and effort to ensuring that this is the case, and a system of oversight exists. That oversight includes the invaluable work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, composed of parliamentarians drawn from both Houses of Parliament and of two former High Court judges, who act as independent commissioners.
As my right hon. Friend said, the Government published a Green Paper on this issue in October 2011. In doing so, and in considering now the responses, this Government were, are and always will be guided by respect for fundamental rights to justice and fairness. It is always right that the Government should be held properly to account. The Green Paper's proposals will enable better scrutiny, which is a vital element in a healthy democracy.
Let me say a word about foreign intelligence. Threats to our security cross borders. We cannot confront them on our own, neither can we do it without co-operating with intelligence partners on the basis of trust. We rarely have all the pieces of the intelligence picture, and we must analyse the information we have alongside that we receive from our partners to create the fullest possible picture of the threats to our national security.
The ability of other countries to share intelligence with us without fear that we will have to disclose it is absolutely vital to our national interest. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) made that point eloquently in a newspaper article this morning. If we cannot uphold the control principle—the rule that any further use of intelligence requires the agreement of the agency that provided it—and others do not share information with us as a consequence, we incur very real risks to our security. No responsible Government should willingly run such risks. We expect, and demand, the same protection for the intelligence we share with our overseas partners as we offer to those who have shared their information with us. However, under the current legal framework, sensitive material may have to be disclosed in civil proceedings, putting at risk the vital overseas relationships we depend on, as well as sensitive techniques and the lives and safety of individuals.
The Government aim to achieve in any new legislation a system in which there is justice and accountability, in which secret material is protected as it should be in all our interests for the reasons I have just explained, and there is fairness for all parties. We seek to balance all those laudable objectives, including a system where there is justice and accountability.
The Green Paper sets out proposals for handling sensitive material in civil proceedings, including the introduction of closed material procedures. At the same time, it proposed strengthening oversight of the activity of the agencies. Some 90 submissions were received in response to the consultation, of which Ministers will take account when making decisions on the measures to be introduced. I will not prejudge those decisions here.
Let me turn to the questions that my right hon. Friend posed at the end of his speech. On the specific case he raises, what I can say is that the Government are aware of the case, as he has said. We will continue to look into the matter and will decide how to respond to the representations already made on behalf of Mr Bentham and Lord Cecil in due course, and my right hon. Friend’s contribution to our deliberations this evening will of course form part of those considerations.
My right hon. Friend’s second question goes to the nub of the issue, and I can speak to the House at greater length on this broader principle. How do we ensure that new arrangements apply to only the most sensitive material and are not used, as he put it, “to cover up illegal acts and embarrassments”? Ministers will consider that carefully, but I can assure him now that this is not about covering up embarrassment. It is about facilitating the work of the courts by enabling them to look at all relevant material while giving the most sensitive material proper protection. It is about putting more information before the courts than is currently possible for the very small number of cases where sensitive material is centrally relevant. The court would play a critical role and would simply not accept Government justifications for public interest that it considered were made only for the purposes of hiding embarrassment or seeking to cover up unlawful conduct. The circumstances in which a closed material procedure might be necessary are exceptional and rare. They are not wide in scope. Sensitive information is central to a very small number of cases currently before the United Kingdom courts.
On my right hon. Friend’s final question, I am told that, in the United States, Executive Order 13526 provides for the classification and protection of information where
“the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defence against transnational terrorism”.
With regard to foreign Government information, the order explicitly states:
“The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.”
Mr David Davis
I simply wish to make one point and ask that the Minister takes it back to his Department. In The New York Times v. the United States in 1971 the point about the disclosure of foreign information was advanced as one of the Nixon Government’s attempts to stop the Pentagon papers being published. It was rejected by the court on constitutional grounds, and constitutional lawyers have said that the Executive Order makes no difference to that and cannot transcend the constitution. I ask that his Department, in its approach to the Green Paper, makes it clear that there is not that absolute rejoinder the other way, because it is very important that we understand that we are at equal arms with our ally.
Mr Browne
I am grateful for that intervention, because it is obviously in our interests that there is reciprocal sharing of information with the United States and a clear understanding of the status of that information. I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend’s comments to the attention of people within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that they can consider them in any further submissions made by the Department.
The Government are committed to safeguarding national security. Drawing on our society’s fundamental values, we are also pledged to protect the liberties and way of life of our citizens. Those aims—protecting our national security and liberty and way of life of our citizens—need not be in conflict.
Jim Shannon
Have there been other occasions when American institutions and the American Government have not exchanged intelligence information with the British Government—to our detriment?
Mr Browne
The point I wish to make to the hon. Gentleman and to all Members is that we cannot be confident that we will have access to, or have secured, all the information that we could possibly hope to secure in order to safeguard the United Kingdom national interest, so, when we have an opportunity to draw on the additional information provided by reliable and long-standing allies, it is in our interests and, if reciprocated, in their interests for us to pool our information so as better to protect the citizens of our country and the country with which we enter into that reciprocal arrangement. That is the basis on which we operate, with a limited number of countries but we do have that basis, and we have to be confident, as do other countries, that such information will be handled sensitively and consistent with the undertakings that have been given. That is the basis on which we seek to discharge our obligations.
The point I seek to make in conclusion, however, is that we do not regard safeguarding our national security, and the means by which we wish to disclose such information in certain circumstances, necessarily to be inconsistent with protecting the liberties and way of life of our citizens. Indeed, we regard it as necessary that the two operate in tandem, so I want to reassure the House that we are extremely mindful of the need, as I say, to protect those essential liberties.
We must do all we can to achieve both aims, taking account of the views that we have heard throughout the consultation process, and Ministers not just in my Department but in others, most particularly the Ministry of Justice, will have listened to this debate with interest and will do so to subsequent opportunities that Members have to feed their views into the process.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I wish the House, and those who work here, visit us and follow our proceedings, a very happy and peaceful Easter.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, Ms Dorries, to serve under your chairladyship today.
I am grateful to colleagues from across the House for their support in this debate, and to the Economic Secretary and shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), for attending. Many issues will be raised in this debate—including, I am sure, the issue of duty and minimum alcohol pricing. I will restrict myself to describing and discussing the core issue of the illegal smuggling of tobacco and alcohol.
Such smuggling is becoming a serious issue in Herefordshire, particularly in Hereford city itself. My investigations have made clear to me what will already be apparent to many Members—namely, that such smuggling is only the tip of an iceberg and only the beginning of a much bigger problem nationwide. In that context, I especially want to pay tribute to PC John Yarwood, who is the Hereford city beat manager; to Councillor Mark Hubbard, who first brought this issue to my attention; and to the trading standards team at Herefordshire council, who have been fighting to keep the smuggling under control.
The problem is easily stated. A number of shops in my constituency persistently sell illegal tobacco and alcohol under the counter. A regular pattern is emerging: the shops are raided by the police and HM Revenue and Customs, goods are seized and fines are imposed. But weeks later, exactly the same thing happens again—the shops are raided, goods are seized and fines are imposed. And so it goes on. In the past 18 months, some 360,000 cigarettes have been seized in Herefordshire alone.
That pattern does not happen by accident. There is a simple explanation—the profits to be made from illicit sales far exceed the losses from fines and seizures. A single lorry-load of cigarettes can be worth £1.5 million in profits to the smugglers. Costing just 9p, a pack of 20 cigarettes has something like a 4,000% mark-up when it is sold on the street.
It has been reported that HM Revenue and Customs seizes some 1.7 billion illegal cigarettes every year. As a whole, tobacco trafficking is estimated to cost the taxpayer £2 billion a year and alcohol trafficking £1.2 billion a year so this is very big business. In effect, the fines and seizures have become just another cost of doing business—literally, a licence to smuggle. It appears that they have little or no deterrent effect. Many of these shops have had their alcohol licences revoked, but that has proven to be little or no deterrent against illegal sales.
These actions make a mockery of the law and our law enforcement agencies, and they need to be stopped. They cause a huge loss of tobacco and alcohol duty to the taxpayer, they undermine the sales of law-abiding businesses on the high street and of distributors, and there is nothing to prevent under-age sales and illegal working in these shops; one man arrested in a raid in Hereford last year had been awaiting deportation since 2008. They also create serious additional hazards to health.
Someone smoking a smuggled cigarette could be smoking anything, just as someone drinking a smuggled bottle of spirits could be drinking anything. These products are not subject to the same rigorous controls as the legal products. Generally, they are made in backstreet premises in countries far distant from the UK, and they are specifically made to be smuggled. Moreover, there is evidence that illegal tobacco and alcohol outlets are often used to fund organised crime on a far wider scale.
However, the problem goes much deeper than that. There appears to be no way in law to prevent these shops from reopening and no clear line of accountability within Government. The issue sits unhappily poised between HM Revenue and Customs, which reports to the Treasury; the UK Border Agency and the police, which report to the Home Office; and licensing policy and trading standards officers, which report to local councils. I am extraordinarily grateful to the Economic Secretary for coming today, but she cannot be expected to answer questions about policing or border controls. Those topics are for the Home Office, not the Treasury.
I am aware that the Government have taken important steps to address the issue in recent years—providing extra resources during the next four years to increase investigations, intelligence and enforcement; expanding the work of HMRC overseas to tackle importation into the UK at source; and developing new technology and resources to strengthen our borders. I am also aware that, at least in theory, HMRC has a range of penalties at its disposal, including the seizure of goods, civil penalties, fines of up to £5,000, criminal prosecution and the recovery of criminal assets. However, those penalties are not anything like enough. I repeat that a single lorry-load of cigarettes can be worth £1.5 million in profits to the criminal rings behind it.
Furthermore, recent history has not been encouraging. Far from raising their game during the past 10 years, I understand that HMRC and the UK Border Agency have been doing worse over that time: they seized fewer cigarettes and less rolling tobacco in 2008-09 than in 2000-01; they have seized fewer vehicles; and fewer people have been sentenced for tobacco smuggling.
What can we do? I suggest three things. First, we need more information. Is it true that HMRC has been less effective and not more effective during the past few years? How many prosecutions have there been? We need regular and detailed data on prosecutions and seizures. Secondly, it is not enough for the police and HMRC just to be able to seize goods and impose these relatively modest fines. They need to be able to close down premises for significant periods when there have been repeated violations of the law. That may require new law-making.
Finally, there is a clear case for having a Minister who is specifically charged with dealing with the issue and able to work across Departments to be as effective as possible. I note that the Minister with responsibility for broadband, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), works across both the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Perhaps there is scope for similar joint-reporting lines across HMRC, the Treasury and the Home Office in this area.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As the chair of the all-party group on beer, I recognise his commitment to the brewing industry; he has been a great supporter of it since he has been in this place. Does he share my concern about the Government’s recent estimate of alcohol smuggling into this country? They estimated that the equivalent of 28,000 lorry-loads of alcohol come into this country every year, which is about 538 illicit movements per week. If so, does he also share my view that if such a massive amount of alcohol is being smuggled into this country, the problem lies with the customs authorities, which are not policing our borders efficiently and effectively?
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for his intervention and questions. He puts his finger on the scale of the problem and he must also be right that the UK Border Agency is not being as effective as it should be in preventing this illegal importation of goods. That is a further element to be addressed by a Minister with the kind of joint-reporting lines that I described earlier.
Let me sum up my argument. Better information, new powers and better co-ordination between Government agencies are all required. Those three steps could make a crucial contribution to tackling the scourge of alcohol and tobacco trafficking, and I am sure that I speak for all Members in Westminster Hall today when I urge the Government to consider those steps carefully as they develop their thinking in this area.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Dorries, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this debate on a hugely important issue that is particularly timely, following the Budget. I will focus my remarks specifically on the Treasury-covered area of duty stamping. In itself, it could do a great deal to help prevent some of the illegal sales that we have discussed—certainly the illegal sale of alcohol.
One of the questions about smuggling, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), is that there is some debate—even within the alcohol industry—about how much is actually smuggled in. There is a debate about the amount that is physically smuggled in as opposed to paper movements, whereby the product never actually leaves the country and the paperwork is simply moved between countries to avoid duty. That can create a huge issue that is impossible for the UK Border Agency, or indeed any form of border control, to manage, as it is basically a paper shift.
Excise duties on alcohol generate about £9.5 billion a year; they certainly did in 2010-11. However, there is also a Treasury estimate of a tax gap of up to £1.2 billion each year due to duty evasion, principally through fraud. As has already been mentioned, about 10% of the beer sold in this country in 2009-10 was estimated to have been sold illegally. Data from wholesalers show that beer and wine sales have fallen, while those of spirits, which are now duty stamped, have increased. Those are more likely to be legal sales, as duty stamping has reduced illegal sales. Duty stamping brings an increase in duty for the Treasury; at a time when we are looking to plug an economic gap, such an increase could be hugely beneficial.
I have talked to wholesalers and retailers. In particular, the Federation of Wholesaler Distributors has done a lot of work in this area, and it is clear that there is now a correlation between beer and wine. If the Government are considering introducing duty stamping—I welcome the measure in the Budget to consult on it—I hope that they look at beer and wine together, as it is becoming clearer and clearer that those are now direct competitors, certainly where choosing whether to drink beer or wine at home is concerned. Of what men drink, it is estimated that about 60% is beer and cider and 25% is wine. The figures for women are more like 57% wine and 19% beer and cider, so a significant amount of alcohol can be covered through duty stamping.
The retail industry has experienced a significant loss in beer sales over recent years—particularly of products, such as Stella Artois, which are more subject to illegal smuggling and fraud. There is an opportunity to have a huge impact through the health service: a reduction in the amount of cheap beer available through the small outlets that get it through the grey market would be beneficial to the Department of Health through reduced alcohol-related illness. The increased revenue from duty stamping could be used by the Department to increase awareness of alcohol. I hope that, in the consultation on duty stamping, we look not so much at whether it is taken forward by the Government, but at how.
Multi-packs are a particular issue for the beer industry. How can duty stamping be done cost-efficiently and effectively and deliver what we want without it preventing the industry from exporting its product? I appreciate that there are some technical issues and I hope that, working with the industry, the Government will be able to deal with them, so that we can have increased revenue for the Treasury of about £1 billion and also a beneficial impact on health.
The measure may well go some way towards dealing with the issue that police in Norfolk have outlined to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire mentioned it, and I know that the Economic Secretary reads about such things. The huge number of issues that the police deal with on a weekend evening, when people are out and about, are not due to alcohol consumed in public houses and clubs, where people are generally more responsible—certainly the landlords and owners are—but to preloading with cheap alcohol, much of which is bought on the grey market at a lower price than should be allowed. I hope that the Government will move forward with duty stamping. It is something that could be welcomed, and it would help not just the Treasury but the health of our nation.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Dorries, and I apologise for being a couple of minutes late. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this important debate, which ensures that the Government and the world at large continue to see that parliamentarians across the political divide are determined to do more to discourage smoking in our society and to act on the illegal trade in both alcohol and tobacco. I want to concentrate entirely on tobacco.
I am proud to say that the Labour Government did a great deal to reduce the illicit trade in tobacco. Better enforcement by Government agencies and strict curbs on the tobacco industry’s activities paid dividends but, as the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire has outlined, more action is needed. Although all tobacco is harmful and costs lives, illegal tobacco makes it easier for children to start smoking, and brings crime into our neighbourhoods.
As a school nurse, my wife Evaline gave talks to children about the dangers posed by smoking. I remember her telling me about deploying an economic argument, highlighting the money that would be available for other things if a person did not smoke. I was surprised to hear that the children told her she had her figures wrong. She quoted retail prices, but they quoted “local” ones, which were considerably lower. Therefore, we know where they were getting the cigarettes from.
I am pleased to say that north-east England is leading the way in taking a stand against this blight on our society. In 2007, Fresh, the UK’s first dedicated regional programme, which was set up in the north-east to tackle the worst rates of smoking-related illness and death in the country, hosted the UK’s first summit on illicit tobacco, and in 2009 the three north of England regions introduced the world’s first pan-regional tobacco action plan: the north of England tackling illicit tobacco for better health programme. The programme aims to improve the health of the population by reducing the supply of and the demand for illicit tobacco, much of which is more poisonous than retail products, which are bad enough.
The innovative partnership approach aims to break the intergenerational cycle of health inequalities, which is caused by our poorest young people’s early addiction to freely available cheap tobacco. In some parts of the north-east of England, the sale of illegal cigarettes from tab houses, car boot sales and workplaces has threatened to undermine efforts to tackle smoking, and most people—even smokers—want something done about it. The 2010 “smokefree” survey by YouGov found that 89% of adults in the north-east wanted tougher sentences for tobacco smugglers, while a major survey of 6,000 adults in every local authority in the north of England found that nine out of 10 people believe that illegal tobacco is a danger to children. That is not surprising, given that I am told that some tab houses in the region specialise in selling to children.
However, good progress in tackling the problem is being made in many areas. The north of England tackling illegal tobacco for better health programme has resulted in less illegal tobacco being bought and sold on estates in our areas, fewer people turning a blind eye and more action aimed at bringing sellers to justice. The volume of illegal tobacco bought has gone down by 39% in the north-east. The percentage of smokers buying illegal tobacco has fallen from 20% to 18%, and the number of 16 to 34-year-olds buying it has reduced by between 5% and 6%, but 23% of 16 to 24-year-old smokers say that they still buy it. It is vital that the kind of partnership that we have in the north-east of England is replicated around the country, as it demonstrates that the illicit trade can and will be beaten.
What makes me angry is the idea propagated by the tobacco industry that introducing plain packaging for cigarettes, which would do so much to stop young people starting to smoke in the first place, will somehow increase the illicit trade in tobacco. That is simply untrue. The existing packs are already so easy to forge that they have covert markings to enable enforcement officials to distinguish illegal cigarettes. With those markings and large pictorial warnings, the so-called plain packs—we all know that they will be multicoloured—will not be easy to forge. What plain packs will do is reduce the attractiveness of tobacco products to children, thereby curbing demand, which I am sure everyone here will agree is key to stopping the illicit trade in tobacco.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this debate. I want to make some brief remarks as chairman of the all-party group on smoking and health. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) is chairman of the all-party group on beer, and I want to make it absolutely clear that my group is against smoking whereas his, I believe, is in favour of the consumption of beer.
Stephen Williams
Absolutely. I saw my hon. Friend just last night responsibly consuming beer in the Strangers Bar downstairs.
The UK is a leader in tobacco control, and I want our country and the coalition Government to remain at the forefront in that area. We have seen huge progress over the past couple of decades in the limitation of tobacco companies’ opportunities to market their products. Checking carefully around the room, I think that all of us, perhaps with the exception of the Economic Secretary, remember popular television tobacco advertising, with catchy tunes. They are now a thing of distant memory, and we will see further changes shortly. I am sure that many of us will visit supermarkets in our constituencies during the Easter recess, and we will no longer be able to see displays of tobacco products because all large shops will have to cover them up. Some shops in my constituency have already pressed ahead with doing so, including the Tesco superstore in Eastville on the edge of my constituency.
The next necessary stage in tobacco control is introducing what has been called plain packaging for cigarettes, although that is to some extent a misnomer. The design of plain packs shows that they are anything but plain, but they would be of a standardised design in order to remove what is essentially the last opportunity available to tobacco companies to promote their products: the design of packs, of packaging within the cardboard pack and of cigarettes, which now come in many shapes, sizes and colours to attract the next generation of gullible young people attracted by glitzy products that they think it is cool to consume. Of course, it is anything but.
I am sure that tobacco companies will fight tooth and nail to prevent standardised packaging from being introduced in the United Kingdom. The Department of Health is about to start a consultation exercise on plain packaging on behalf not only of central Government but of the devolved Administrations. I am sure that tobacco companies will come up with all sorts of reasons why plain and standardised packaging should not be introduced. One reason will be that it could increase the opportunity for the sale of illicit and counterfeit cigarettes, which is the topic of this welcome debate.
I doubt whether the introduction of plain packaging will increase the opportunity for counterfeiting. If it does, it will only do so because the tobacco industry inflicts that problem on itself. Most or all tobacco companies already put covert markings on their packs to protect their legal sales from illicit sales in a market where their brands are clearly visible. Their brands will no longer be clearly visible on packs if plain packaging is introduced, as I hope it is. Instead, the packs will have prominent health warnings and standardised colours and fonts. The fact that they will still have covert markings, bar codes and other measures to counteract the best efforts of those who wish to smuggle cigarettes into our country should mean that moving from branded packs to standardised plain packs will not increase the opportunity for illicit sales.
Brandon Lewis
I am not a cigarette smoker, but surely one potential problem with plain packaging is not whether experts and officials can check a code to see whether the product is illegal but whether the public who buy the packs can spot it easily. With plain packaging, the codes will be less easy for the public to spot. Therefore, it will be less easy for them to report counterfeit packs, increasing the opportunities for illegal and counterfeit sales.
Stephen Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I mentioned, the Government are about to embark on a consultation exercise about the various issues that must be considered before we move ahead to a plain packaging regime for the sale of cigarettes. I am sure that that point will be tested with all the current enforcement agencies to see whether it is indeed a legitimate worry and concern. If so, we will have to take measures to ensure that the design of standardised packs makes it easy for the public to distinguish a bona fide, legally sold product of a tobacco company from a bootleg or imported product that does not meet UK standards.
I have just thought of a direct answer to my hon. Friend’s point. At the moment, there are few regimes in the world where plain packaging is the norm. To the extent that the UK follows Australia’s lead, we will be the first in the European Union to adopt it. People who currently import lorry loads or white van loads of tobacco and other products, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire mentioned, and who make enormous profits as a result, will not be able to import branded products from the rest of the European Union, because those products will not be legally saleable in this country unless they have a standardised pack design. It could be argued that standardised packaging will limit the opportunities for people to import van loads of material supposedly for their own personal consumption, much of which we must suspect is diverted into the illicit market.
It would be wrong of us to assume that the trade is rampant at the moment. It is certainly highly profitable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire said, but the various Government agencies, working together, have driven down the share of illicit tobacco over the past decade. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that 10 years ago, in 2000-01, the share of tobacco packs sold on the illicit market was just over one fifth, at 21%, but by 2009-10, that market share had been halved to 10%. Unfortunately, the market share of hand-rolling tobacco, which is easier to counterfeit, is still shocking. Some 46% is sold on the illicit market, without any control and at a tax revenue loss to the Treasury.
In closing, I urge the Government, as well as moving to standardised and plain packs, to adopt some other measures. First, all the various agencies that wish to control illicit tobacco should work effectively together. HMRC has a responsibility. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is with us today, has a direct responsibility to work more closely with the UK Border Agency, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire mentioned, also has a key role.
The Government should also work with local authorities. I am all in favour of localism—I have been an evangelist for localism for a long time, and I am pleased that our coalition Government are pressing ahead with it—but we must make it clear as part of the Government’s national public health strategy that local authorities have a duty to use Government public protection officers more effectively in areas of tobacco control. Of course, the police have a role as well. Police and crime commissioner elections are being held in November, and I will certainly ask all the candidates in Avon and Somerset what they will do to stop the sale of cigarettes to underage people and the sale of illicit cigarettes to anybody.
Secondly, there should be a more effective registration scheme for retailers, so that we can separate rogue from responsible retailers. Thirdly, the Government should work with the World Health Organisation to develop more effective tracing of tobacco packs as they travel around the world. The tobacco industry is now global, and many of the cigarettes sold in this country are manufactured elsewhere.
I thank my hon. Friend again for giving us the opportunity to discuss these important issues. Driving down the smoking rate is good for public health outcomes in our country, and driving down illicit cigarette smoking while a legal trade still exists will be good for the public finances.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this important and timely debate.
The House should face up to the reality that the smuggling of and trade in illicit cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol is a multi-million-pound criminal enterprise. It is not some car boot sale nonsense; it is a significant endeavour. The House will have its head in the sand if it does not recognise that fact. It loses the Treasury tens of millions of pounds in revenue, which could be spent on our schools, roads, hospitals and other areas, and we must recognise that.
I serve on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which recently took evidence on the trade in smuggled tobacco and alcohol. One company supplied evidence to show that, in Northern Ireland alone, 170 million illegally gotten cigarettes are smoked every year. That loses the Treasury £42 million every year and has lost the company whose product has been counterfeited £12.5 million. That is a staggering loss in one little part of the United Kingdom.
I thought that it was significantly bad that 17% of all cigarettes smoked in Northern Ireland had been illicitly traded, but in parts of England and the border counties the figure is 24%. In Devon and Cornwall, it is 13%, and in London, it is 20%. This is a massive criminal endeavour and some of the people who make money out of it are the worst, most cantankerous, nasty and evil people imaginable: as quick as they would sell people cigarettes, they would slit their throats. The House has to wake up to the fact that they are engaged in a serious, criminal endeavour. The Government should exercise the most serious measures against them, and we should encourage the Treasury and the Government in that regard.
As I have said, the timing of the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire in securing the debate could not be better. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee today published its report on the smuggling of counterfeit cigarettes, tobacco products and alcohol and on the illicit fuel trade. This massive trade is central, so we need to take off our gloves and get stuck into countering it.
Brandon Lewis
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that evidence from around the world shows that increasing regulation, whether via plain packaging or by putting up duty on cigarettes and tobacco, can simply increase the illegal trade? Ireland’s budget of 2010 recognised that by not putting up duty. Rather than increase duty or introduce plain packaging, the Government should follow the model suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and use the UK Border Agency and other agencies to crack down properly on the illicit trade itself.
Ian Paisley
The hon. Gentleman will find that I am not arguing against his views—he is right—but we need to set out clearly how significant the problem is. Do we tax the product to the extent that it makes the smuggler’s job all the more easy, or do we recognise that there are things that the Government and we as a nation can do to address the problem?
The problem is not helped by the fact that I can drive my car to France or Belgium, fill it to the gills with cigarettes or alcohol and bring it back to this island and sell those products illegally. There should be a complete stop on a person being able to bring back a boot full of wine, alcohol and cigarettes and claim, “These are for me.” That is utter nonsense. Everyone knows that they are being brought back to be sold either on the street illegally or to their friends and neighbours. We have to make sure that such activity is stamped out.
The Government should be rigorous and ensure that, if people buy cigarettes and alcohol, they should buy them in this nation, pay tax on them in this nation and smoke and drink them in this nation, rather than allowing them to circumvent tax policies. It makes sense that I can probably buy twice as much legally in every other part of Europe than I can buy here because our tax policies are so severe. If they are severe, we need to make them work on this island.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I apologise, Ms Dorries, for my late arrival—cable theft means that the railways are in chaos.
I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that, if hundreds more staff were employed by Customs to seal our borders properly and ensure that such smuggling did not take place, they would not just stop criminality, but make many times their own salary for the Treasury?
Ian Paisley
I would have no difficulty with the deployment of more people in the worthwhile work of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other customs and border agencies, but our Committee took evidence from HMRC officials who said that they were satisfied with the money given to them by the Treasury and that they probably have enough people. If HMRC wants more people, it can argue its case, and it will not lack any support from me.
Some people argue that the plain or uniform packaging of cigarettes would solve the problem, but that is utter, total baloney. If people think that by simply uniformly packaging all cigarettes they will suddenly meet a public health objective, they are losing the plot. Plain or uniform packaging will not affect the problem. Every survey tells us that adults do not care if the package is gold, has a camel on it, or if it is red, white and blue. They care about price and taste. A person will smoke Camel lights because they prefer their taste to that of Marlboro. The colour of the stupid package does not matter—that goes in the bin. A person will smoke Benson and Hedges not because the box is beautifully gold with a pair of lungs on it, but because of the product’s taste and availability.
We have to wipe out the nonsense that plain packaging is the panacea to achieving a public health goal and to preventing smuggling. Plain or uniform packaging will just make it much easier for the smuggler, no matter what people say. Smugglers are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect that someone would be so daft as to uniformly package all cigarettes in the same year as we are implementing a display ban so that we cannot see the daft things. We have to recognise that, if we are to have a display ban, we do not need plain packaging. It would infringe people’s rights and on trade laws, and it would jeopardise many legitimate businesses.
I do not hear the same lobby group arguing for the plain packaging of tins of beer, or for the uniform packaging of bottles of wine or spirits. We should remember that diseases as a result of drinking alcohol cause far more damage and create far more costs for our health system than those that result from smoking cigarettes. Moreover, on antisocial behaviour, there are far more fights on the streets of this city on a Friday night, not because someone has had too many fags, but because they have had too much to drink. We have to recognise that the plain packaging argument is, frankly, nonsense. It is not a panacea to solving the problems of counterfeit crime.
Stephen Williams
The hon. Gentleman has made several points that need to be knocked down, but I shall address only one. If he thinks that the introduction of plain, standardised packs is pointless, why does he think that the tobacco industry is going to fight it with all the resources at its disposal, and why does it put so much effort into providing attractive packs, colourful cigarettes, gold wrapping and all the other paraphernalia that goes with the marketing of cigarettes? Surely, it is wasting its money if that has no effect.
Ian Paisley
The tobacco industry is able to speak for itself, but one of the reasons why it is annoyed is that this is an infringement on its trading rights, its branding and all the things in which it has invested over the years. It would be wrong to turn around and say that we can just remove those things overnight.
The industry argues that it would damage the actual trade, so let us look at that and what it costs. In my constituency, more than 1,000 people are directly employed in the tobacco industry. In Manchester, another 800 people are directly employed in the manufacturing of cigarettes. If we are not careful, those jobs will go to eastern bloc countries and to Europe—they will move out of this country. Will that affect the number of people who smoke cigarettes? Not one jot. The same number of people will continue to smoke cigarettes, but they will be manufactured elsewhere. We will be the biggest losers, because we will have lost the jobs, the tax and the pay-as-you-earn tax.
Brandon Lewis
Again, I fully support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The point that he has just made is backed up if we consider the packaging issue. A lot of the cigarette packaging around Europe is produced in this country, and therefore a huge number of jobs would be at risk if plain packaging were introduced. One of the reasons why companies are so protective of their packaging is brand protection. Bearing in mind that cigarette sales are legal and it is a legal product, unless the Government make cigarette sales illegal, companies feel that they have a right to protect their brand, as that is what protects sales and jobs. Companies argue that a clear definition of brand prevents some of the illegal trade that we are trying to stop.
Ian Paisley
The trading issues are very clear. For example, the value of the wage bill paid in my constituency alone to the people who manufacture cigarettes is £60 million a year. That is the figure paid in wages to engineers in the company. People might snigger at that, but if we remove those jobs from the economy, houses will not be sold and people will not buy food in Tesco and Sainsbury’s. The bottom line is that people will move out of the area. I am talking about high-paid, valuable jobs in my constituency that I am delighted about. Anyone would be envious of them and would try to achieve them in their own constituency. We need to recognise the importance of such jobs.
The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire made some very important points about how we should start to address the matter, and I want to pick up on one of them. He said that a cross-cutting Minister should try to take the lead on this. How should the Government go about doing that? If they have to put in place a specific cross-cutting Minister—I hate the word “tsar”—so be it. That is an excellent idea. There needs to be a joined-up golden thread running through all divisions, and we need to recognise that the issue must be tackled head on.
Although hon. Members from all parties have different views on the matter, the fact is that the problem is damaging our country in terms of loss of trade and loss of revenue. The people who lose out are those we all care most about: the ordinary citizens who could have that tax revenue spent on them and their needs. I am more than happy to support the need to deal with the matter.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
This is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and it is an absolute pleasure. I was not intending to speak in today’s debate, but I thought I would take the opportunity as there is a bit of time. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) who, as always, made a passionate speech. Everybody who has contributed to the debate wants the level of illegal tobacco and illegal alcohol to be reduced. We all recognise the damage to British business, the cost to the Treasury and the cost to companies in all our constituencies. We are united in that view.
However, coming from a brewing constituency and being the chairman of the all-party group on beer, I have some major concerns about the Government’s proposals on duty stamping. Of course, such concerns come on the back of last week’s Budget, which continued the duty escalator on beer and resulted in a 5% increase in duty on a pint of beer.
We need to consider the impact that any measure we introduce on fraud will have on the industry. We already pay more duty on British beer than people in any other European country. The facts are that we pay 40% of all of Europe’s beer duty, yet we drink only 13% of Europe’s beer. Our British brewing industry is being penalised by the duty regime. In France, 7p in duty is paid on a pint; yet, in this country, we pay 49p in duty. Hon. Members can see the impact that the duty regime is having on our industry.
I urge the Minister to think carefully about the effect that such a policy will have on an industry that is already reeling as a result of the duty regime. We are talking about requiring British brewers to duty stamp 5.5 billion bottles and cans every year. We recognise that there is fraud and smuggling in relation to beer, cider and wine, but the Government are not proposing to introduce duty stamps for cider or wine. Why is it that yet again the British brewing industry is being penalised in this way?
Kelvin Hopkins
Would it not help the British brewing industry if there were serious constraints on imports of beer and, indeed, we returned to the era when we could tax imports of alcohol to the same level that domestic products are taxed?
Andrew Griffiths
I agree wholeheartedly that the duty regime is encouraging imports into this country. The fact that the British beer industry pays up to four times the duty paid by the British cider industry is encouraging companies such as Stella Artois to produce cider—or cidre, as it calls its brand—and import it into the UK. We are exporting jobs as a result of our duty regime.
Jesse Norman
On a point of information, I would like to make it perfectly clear to hon. Members that the cidre product has nothing to do with Herefordshire.
Andrew Griffiths
I would like to put it on the record that, as well as being a great supporter of the British brewing industry, my hon. Friend is a magnificent spokesman for the cider industry. We regularly do battle over whether beer or cider is best.
Let us consider the Government’s alcohol fraud strategy. In 2010, we introduced a new strategy, which has been successful. We have seen the number of illegal goods being impounded and seized increase dramatically: a 71% increase in beer, a 50% increase in wine and a 67% increase in cider. Those figures clearly demonstrate that the smuggling problem is just as prevalent with wine and cider, yet the Government do not propose to put a duty stamp on them. I struggle to understand why beer is being singled out in such a way.
Let us consider the estimated amount of illegal beer that the Government believe is coming into this country. They estimate that 28,000 articulated lorry loads of beer come into this country every year. That is the equivalent of 538 articulated lorry loads of beer every week, with an estimated profit to the smugglers of £18,000 per lorry. That is the equivalent of £9.6 million of profit to the smugglers per week. Of course, we want to stop that profit and that illegal trade. However, are we honestly suggesting that if our border controls have 28,000 articulated lorries going through them every year, the answer is to bring in duty stamps, rather than to tighten up our border controls?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions. Is it not true that the industry feels that a lot of the trade that is, in theory, coming in on those trucks is not physically coming in, but is merely a paper movement? The product never actually leaves the UK in the first place. We need to overcome that problem as well.
Andrew Griffiths
I agree that that has been suggested. If we are saying that there is a problem with smuggling—importing bottles and cans of beer into the country—let us deal with that. If we are saying that there is a fraud going on in relation to some grand paper chase of virtual bottles of beer leaving the country and coming back in, let us tackle that. We need the industry and the wholesalers to work with us on that. The answer is not to implement a duty stamping of 5.5 billion bottles of beer at a massive cost to the brewing industry, because that may not solve the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. There is the phrase, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they haven’t got it in for you”. From the brewers’ perspective, it seems as if the Government have a desire to ruin the British beer industry, and I ask the Government why.
The all-party parliamentary beer group—I urge those in the Chamber who are not members to join as a matter of urgency—held a hearing recently, in which, I think, Andy Leggett gave evidence to us. He said, at that stage, that duty stamps were not the number one option for the Treasury and Customs in relation to smuggling and fraud. We are therefore concerned to see that proposal in the Budget.
Does the Minister have any idea what cost this will add to the beleaguered British beer industry? Why single out beer? Why not cider? Why not wine? Does she have any estimate of the cumulative effect of the extra burden and red tape on the brewing industry, when adding in the beer duty escalator and this unnecessary extra cost? I ask the Minister to think about British beer. Some 80% of all beer drunk in this country is brewed in this country. The beer industry employs tens of thousands of people in all our constituencies. It is a great British product of which we should be proud. Let us not ruin it with an over-bureaucratic system that is costly and damages the future of British beer.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to have you as Chair this morning, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing the debate, and on giving a very good outline of some of the issues.
We have heard a wide-ranging debate covering the amount of money lost to the Treasury through illegal sales of alcohol and cigarettes, and also issues relating to health, smoking, alcohol and so on. I will not stray too much into that territory. However, I was a member of the Scottish Government when Scotland was the first part of the UK to introduce a ban on smoking in public places. That ban was not universally popular at the outset, but I think it has been proved to be the right thing to do. The idea that some policies on health are unpopular but ultimately turn out to be the right thing to do has run through the debate, and I may return to it.
The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire made the point that this is the tip of the iceberg. People try to avoid paying their fair share of tax in a whole range of areas. Illegal alcohol and tobacco sales are an important part of that, but not the only part. I think the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned that people try to avoid the appropriate duty on fuel, as well as on tobacco and alcohol. The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire talked about shops selling under the counter and the amount of goods seized, and how those shops and premises are back in operation a few weeks later. That not only results in a loss to the taxpayer, but has very little deterrent effect. It almost sends a message to people that they can pretty much do what they like—they can take it as a business loss and simply get back up and running again, rather than changing behaviour. I think that the hon. Gentleman felt that there needs to be a change in legislation.
I was surprised that the issue was seen as one for the Treasury Minister only. Tie-ups happen between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the UK Border Agency, police and local authorities in terms of licensing and trading standards, which indicates that this is a wider issue than just money lost to the Treasury. Many hon. Members have talked about a cross-cutting approach, and that is worth considering.
The hon. Member for North Antrim gave a very powerful description of this serious multi-million pound organised crime industry, if I can call it that. Of course, we will always see situations where some people will try to make a few extra pounds for themselves at a local level by bringing back a quantity of cigarettes or alcohol products if they have been in another country. However, it is absolutely right to focus on those who are seriously involved.
As the hon. Member for North Antrim will be aware, when businesses are shut down as a result of effective action, product substitution occurs: they move on to another product to make money to fund whatever other activities they wish to fund from the illicit gains. Therefore, these issues sit across Departments. I hope that the Minister will say how she will ensure that the Government are able to deal with issues that relate not just to the Treasury—of course, such issues are very important—but that they will begin to consider the deterrent effect of appropriate sentencing for those who persist in breaking the law.
Closure orders were considered in Scotland, particularly in relation to alcohol. For premises that persistently sold to underage drinkers or persistently broke the licensing laws, legislation was introduced to provide the opportunity to shut them down—a message to the retailer and to the local community.
Jesse Norman
To be clear, that would close down retailers who have breached the law by selling to underage drinkers, but are otherwise legal in their operations. I also have it in mind to target retail outlets that are not doing any legal trading—they have been set up simply for the purposes of the illegal sale of alcohol and cigarettes.
Cathy Jamieson
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, which is very important because there are two separate issues. If an operation is set up simply for the purposes of selling illegal products or trading illegally, that should be taken very seriously with the full force of the law, not only with an appropriate sentence when it is brought to court, but with the ability to act quickly to stop these activities. That needs to be considered.
The hon. Member for North Antrim talked about the report published by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I will certainly read that with interest, as I am sure other hon. Members will. His contribution, and the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), highlighted the consideration of smoking policies more generally as they relate to health, as well as to business and trade.
There was a fairly lively debate on the issue of plain packaging. I am not a smoker. I have never been a smoker, and in my former careers I took a fairly dim view of smoking generally. Therefore, I think that the Government should take an interest in anything that can be done to deal with health issues, but it must be done in a way that makes sense and is enforceable. I take the point that many people who work in the industry are worried about their jobs. We have to have some cognisance of that in our discussions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North mentioned some of the work that was done by the Labour Government. I had no wish to make this a party political debate—that is not a criticism of my hon. Friend—because I think all hon. Members share common ground in trying to deal with these important issues.
My hon. Friend also raised one of the more serious issues: the so-called tab houses, which have been the subject of responses to parliamentary questions and on which work has been done previously, with a particular focus on the introduction of children to smoking. We are also concerned about whether children and young people are being introduced not just to smoking, but to crime, drug misuse and other activities in which they should not be involved.
In debating these issues, it is important that we do not focus simply on packaging. There will be different views about how much packaging and branding impact on consumer behaviour—I am sure that there are plenty of PhD theses about that, even if they are not in this room—and that debate will continue. One important point, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is how we deal with the problems of criminality relating to these issues. Again, I do not wish to make this a party political point, but the appropriate number of people must be involved in intelligence-led policing and the joined-up approach between policing, trading standards, licensing authorities and the UK Border Agency. There would be concern that elements of that approach rely on many people who are sometimes described as the backroom staff in police forces. None the less, they are the ones who gather the intelligence, analyse the data and information and do the forensic work to track down some of those involved in serious and organised crime. That will be important as we consider a way forward.
As well as discussions on smoking and the impact on health, we also heard from the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), the chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, particularly about duty stamping. Again, that is controversial and both hon. Gentlemen are putting forward viewpoints on how this would work in practice and what the impact on the industry would be. Will the Minister reply to the hon. Gentlemen’s questions, which I should also like to pose?
We heard about some technical issues in respect of duty stamping and whether it would be the correct option. Have the Minister and her colleagues considered forming a working group, bringing together different industry interests to look at what is technically the best way to work on avoidance of duty and whether duty stamping is the correct way to take this forward? If other options are being considered, perhaps the Minister could lay those out for us today, because we will have to consider this matter in more detail as we debate it, following on from the Budget.
Overall, we have had a useful debate. It is clear that there are different interests and views across the political parties, and within them, particularly on plain packaging on cigarettes. I should like briefly to highlight another issue relating to tobacco. Work done by HMRC on avoidance considered what it called the tax gap. In 2009-10, the spirits duty gap was 3.4%, the beer duty gap was 14%, the gap in cigarette duty was 10% and in respect of hand-rolling tobacco the duty gap was estimated at 46% and had reached a high point of 50% in 2008-09. We have not looked at that in detail this morning. None the less, there could be greater focus on that area as we move forward.
In conclusion, we have had a good debate. We have covered smoking and issues to do with the duty stamp, about which, I hope, we will get more information. We have heard about enforcement issues and about how we have to take health policy into account. We have heard how important this matter is for the Revenue and for business. But the important message that must be taken away by the Government is that we have to find solutions to all the problems that have been identified. I reiterate the point that has been made: having a lead Minister or someone identified to work on the cross-cutting agenda and take this forward would assist the process. I hope that the Minister addresses that point as well as the other questions that have been raised this morning.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)
It is a pleasure for me, as it is for every hon. Member, Ms Dorries, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time.
I am grateful to have—I hope—a relaxed amount of time to respond in detail to the many points that have been raised today, beginning with those presented so well at the outset by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who secured the debate, and then those of other hon. Members who have contributed. I welcome, as my opposite number did, a fairly consensual, constructive debate—if I blur some questions about tobacco packaging—in which hon. Members have sought answers rather than conflict.
I begin by reassuring hon. Members that the Government share the recognition that alcohol and tobacco fraud is serious. We are committed to bringing it down in the ways that I shall describe. Fraud of the kind that we have discussed this morning clearly affects not only public revenues and all the uses we put them to, but the livelihoods of honest businesses, as many hon. Members have said.
Questions have been asked about HMRC’s performance, for which I am one of two Ministers with departmental responsibility. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire asked whether we could do better in publishing numbers of seizures and other such data. Such statistics are available on demand. I should be happy to enter into conversation with him about what he is seeking. In brief, detailed statistics on both seizures and prosecutions are no longer published. There was little evidence that such data were put to any use by those outside HMRC. However, I am happy to assist my hon. Friend if he has particular questions.
My hon. Friend also asked whether it is true that fewer cigarettes are seized today than in 2001-02. On that point, I will open up my description of the work that we have been doing to combat fraud. I assure him that between 2002 and 2011, between 1.7 billion and 2 billion cigarettes were seized every year. In this year, 2011-12, to the end of February—the period for which figures are available—1.7 billion have already been seized.
On HMRC’s broader strategy, starting with alcohol fraud, hon. Friends and other hon. Members will be aware that, in 2005, HMRC first launched its strategy to tackle alcohol fraud, focusing on fraud in the spirits sector. I am pleased to report notable success in halving the size of the illicit spirits market since 2005-06. In 2009, HMRC launched a refreshed alcohol strategy, which aimed at expanding the scope and reach of its compliance work and tackling all forms of alcohol fraud. Since then, its enforcement activity targeting alcohol fraud has been stepped up by more than 50%, which, again, I am sure that hon. Members welcome. However, the battle is not yet won, as all hon. Members have highlighted. We have a way to go. Our commitment to tackling alcohol fraud in all its forms remains strong.
Hon. Members will be aware that, only last Friday, the Home Secretary announced a new alcohol strategy, for which I welcome the support shown here today. That initiative, which is cross-Government work at its finest—I shall come on to the concept of cross-Government work—sets out a wide range of Government action to tackle excessive alcohol consumption and to turn the tide against irresponsible drinking, which, to put figures on it, costs the UK taxpayer £21 billion a year and led to almost 1 million alcohol-related violent crimes and 1.2 million alcohol-related hospital admissions last year alone.
The strategy sets out how local areas will be given more power to tackle local problems, including the ability to restrict opening and closing hours, to control the density of licensed premises and to charge a late-night levy to support policing. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) will support that kind of local approach—he nods to indicate that he does, which is excellent. Such a strategy clearly has the benefit of giving people the information and support that they need to make the right choices—in particular, through the health arena, for example, by asking the chief medical officer to review the alcohol guidelines for adults and by working with industry to take 1 billion units out of the market by 2015.
The strategy also reveals the Government’s determination to get to grips with one of the root causes of the problem by stemming the tide of cheap alcohol. We are doing so through methods such as the introduction of a minimum unit price, which will ensure for the first time that alcohol can only be sold at a sensible and appropriate price. Relevant to the debate, the strategy acknowledges the Government’s role in responding to emerging threats or issues, some health-related, such as the rising incidence of liver disease.
Andrew Griffiths
Does the Minister agree that the new proposal for minimum pricing will not only tackle the problems of binge drinking and preloading and the cost of policing and accidents and emergencies, but will support our community pubs and be good for the pub trade?
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I have made myself several times in recent days. Our proposed pricing, which we are consulting on, will not affect the price of a pint in a pub—I am proud to put that on the record today. For good measure, I note that last week’s Budget added only 3p to the price of a pint in a pub, several of which I enjoyed over the weekend after all the hard work. Perhaps that returns me to the rising incidence of liver disease on a note of bad taste.
Some of the other threats and issues for the Government to look at in their alcohol strategy might be crime-related, such as the increase in alcohol duty fraud, which I am about to go on to, and some might be both health and crime-related, such as the growing availability of counterfeit alcohol, which can be dangerous for consumers. The strategy is targeted explicitly at harmful drinkers and at places such as problem pubs and irresponsible shops, including those that sell cheap or counterfeit alcohol. Over the forthcoming months, the Government will run a number of public consultations on the strategy’s proposals.
Alcohol duties are an important source of Government revenue, raising approximately £9 billion a year in public funds. Alcohol duty fraud, by contrast, costs the country as much as £1.2 billion every year, which takes money away from public services such as schools and hospitals. As has been mentioned, community pubs are facing difficult circumstances in tough economic times, as we are all aware in our constituencies. The Government want to protect community pubs and the tens of thousands of UK jobs provided by the food and drinks sector. Such jobs ought not to be put under even greater threat by the growing availability of illicit alcohol. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of law-abiding businesses throughout the industry, from small brewers to corner shops, that sell alcohol legally are put at a grossly unfair competitive disadvantage as a direct result of alcohol fraud.
Latest estimates show that beer fraud in particular is an acute problem, with losses to the public purse estimated at as much as £800 million in 2009-10. That is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue.
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend might want to ask about cider and wine, and I shall come to them in a moment. I would not dream of failing to answer that question for him, but I will work through a few more points before coming to that strand.
Ensuring that honest businesses can compete fairly is a Government priority. Another priority brings me on to joint working, as mentioned by several hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). I hear the calls for a single Minister in this respect, but let me first outline what we already do, which I hope will assist and which, I am sure hon. Members will agree, takes us fairly close to having accountability in the right places.
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a seat on the board of the UK border force and works closely with it, not only in designing and developing fraud strategies but in operational activity, such as sharing intelligence, tackling the organised criminals who have been rightly attacked in today’s debate and conducting joint exercises. The director of border revenue is accountable to the Treasury through me, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, so hon. Members can see HMRC, the Home Office and the Treasury coming together. The border force was introduced recently, as announced by the Home Secretary; its responsibilities are explained on the website. I have regular meetings with the chief executive and others in that organisation, so that we work effectively together.
I hope that begins to reassure hon. Members that the right parts of Government are working together. Moving on to what we can do together, with the UK border force, HMRC already carries out substantial enforcement activity against all forms of alcohol fraud, successfully disrupting illicit supply chains and penalising those involved in the fraud. However, given the scale of the problem, enforcement alone is not enough to provide the level playing field that we all seek for our legitimate businesses, so I come to the Budget proposals for further ways to bust fraud and to explore all potential enforcement and legislative measures, which include restricting criminals’ access to stocks of illicit alcohol in the first place and tackling the illicit supply of alcohol to wholesalers and retailers. On the table are options including the introduction of fiscal marks for beer, supply chain legislation and a licensing scheme for wholesale alcohol dealers. I heard the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire on licensing more broadly and on the closure of premises, which is definitely one weapon in the arsenal.
I can clarify something for my hon. Friend at this point. HMRC can refer cases to other regulatory authorities for consideration of the revocation of a retailer’s licence to sell alcohol. I am aware of at least one case—from the Hereford and Worcester BBC news, no less, in 2011—in which a shop in Hereford lost its licence after smuggled cigarettes and alcohol were found during two raids.
Jesse Norman
As I mentioned to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, some premises are not licensed at all and therefore not subject to the loss of a licence. In many cases, such premises are not controlled by the people in them, so raiding them, fining them and impounding the goods may deter the individual but does not deter the criminal ring behind the business. What is required is some method of closing the premises for a period.
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point. That will require joint discussion and consideration, but I hope that local authorities will seek to take a role in it under the powers that we wish to allow them through the alcohol strategy and other means.
Questions were asked about fiscal marking. The consultation document was launched yesterday and is available on the HMRC website. In response to the point about how we are conducting the consultation, I welcome the continued engagement of the alcohol industry. There is already a joint HMRC and industry group on fraud and other matters of concern, which I hope satisfies the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun.
Turning to wine and cider specifically, cider revenue losses are not believed to be as substantial as losses elsewhere. On wine, I am well aware of the points about equivalence not only of wine, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) referred, but of cider. Most wine comes from outside the UK, so fiscal marks are less practical than for beer. The consultation refers to how to mark bottles and cans that move through the UK.
Andrew Griffiths
First, I am intrigued that the Minister says that because wine is imported, it is less likely to be controlled. Surely, it is more likely to be smuggled because it is being imported. Secondly, why is there is no publishable estimate of wine fraud? Why does her Department have no estimate of the value and cost of wine fraud into this country?
Miss Smith
I think that I had better come back to my hon. Friend in slightly more detail than I can in the time remaining now. I urge him and anyone else who is interested to take a close look at the consultation paper and the information contained within it, and to reply. I reiterate that I am keen to work with industries of all shapes and sizes, whatever their products, to understand the impact on them and the available data. One of the key efforts that I and my officials have made to date has been to work with several key industry groups, including the British Beer and Pub Association and independent brewers in advance of publishing the consultation document to understand the available data that can be acted on.
We are aware of course that any new measures might attract costs during implementation. The Government are sensitive to that and keen to be on the side of legitimate businesses in drawing out issues of cost and practicality and moving to a solution that safeguards them and jobs.
On tobacco fraud, it is a sad fact that although tobacco duty raises around £9 billion a year, duty fraud costs the UK more than £2 billion a year and undermines the efforts by the Department of Health to reduce smoking prevalence. Trade in illicit tobacco makes cheaper tobacco more readily available to the youngest and most vulnerable people in society, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) ably described. As with alcohol fraud, tobacco fraud takes trade away from honest businesses, so it is a matter of pride that HMRC has halved the illicit cigarette market in the UK since 2000.
I want briefly to introduce minimum indicative levels, which some hon. Members will be aware of. The hon. Member for North Antrim made a point about how to stop and search what is coming in. Since October last year, the Government have reduced the MILs for personal import of cigarettes and tobacco into this country, which reduces the opportunity for fraud and brings us into line with the rest of the European Union. MILs are a guide to personal use, so if someone has more than the level, having already been stopped, they will be more likely to be challenged further on their assertion that the goods are for personal use. There are, of course, points to be made, perhaps in another debate, about the free movement of goods and the fact that all goods imported for commercial purposes must have their excise duty paid.
I turn to what HMRC must do further to avoid complacency and, with the border force, to maintain a strategy to address the source, supply and demand for illicit tobacco in this county. The aim of the tobacco strategy is to intercept as much illicit product as possible before it crosses the border into the UK. The Government are providing more than £25 million in additional funding over the next four years in direct support of that strategy. That is part of the extra £917 million reinvestment in HMRC specifically to tackle organised crime, tax evasion and avoidance, all of which contribute to the delivery of an additional £7 billion per year in tax revenue by 2014-15. That is a sign of our intention, commitment and confidence on reducing fraud.
Details of the strategy and what our increased investment will provide that might be of interest include additional criminal investigators to target criminal gangs and to prosecute more offenders involved in tobacco fraud at all levels, additional intelligence and enforcement staff to tackle smuggling and an expansion of HMRC’s intelligence and enforcement work overseas, to target supply-chain activity in high-risk source and transit countries for illicit tobacco.
I heard the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West for better registration and to work with the World Health Organisation to trace the movement of tobacco products. He will know that the UK is a partner and a signatory to the WHO. The agreement is worldwide and in the form of the framework convention on tobacco control. During the next few weeks, a UK representative will attend a meeting in Geneva, where we hope to obtain agreements to that framework convention, which will provide a wide range of control measures. I shall be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that later if he wishes.
The hon. Member for North Antrim referred to organised crime. I have joined him at a Select Committee evidence session covering some of the issues. In addition to duty losses that we have discussed—illicit production, counterfeiting and the abuse of cross-border shopping rules—the most significant threat that we face in relation to alcohol and tobacco fraud today comes from organised criminal gangs, which smuggle alcohol products into the UK in large commercial quantities, duty unpaid. HMRC is working closely with key partners to tackle organised crime in line with the Government’s strategic approach, which was set out in a paper published in July 2011.
That strategy outlines a comprehensive approach to reduce the risk to the UK and its interests from organised crime by reducing the threat from organised criminals, vulnerabilities to the UK and criminal opportunities. The key players in that work include HMRC, the UK Border Agency, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and, of course, the police. They are overseen in their work by the organised crime partnership board. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that we have a truly multi-agency response to organised crime. All four bodies are represented, for example, in the establishment of the new organised crime co-ordination centre. They are all closely involved in the design and build of the new National Crime Agency.
In conclusion, the Government’s response to alcohol and tobacco fraud is articulated in HMRC’s alcohol fraud and tobacco strategies and was reaffirmed in last week’s cross-Government alcohol strategy. It represents a coherent package of measures to hit back hard against these types of fraud from several directions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and other hon. Members who have contributed to today’s lively but well-informed and wide-ranging debate. I am sure that my colleagues in other Departments who have been mentioned today will be grateful for the comments and insight provided and will take the points made into account in the further development of their work in this area and with industry when appropriate.
16-to-18 Mathematics Education
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Last week, the Secretary of State for Education told the Association of School and College Leaders:
“Lest anyone think we have reached a point where we should slacken the pace of reform—let me reassure them—we have to accelerate.”
I completely agree, and one critical area for reform must be sixth-form provision, especially in maths where we have our largest issues.
Britain’s poor performance in maths is well documented. According to the OECD programme for international student assessment—the PISA study—the UK is ranked in 28th place for maths, although it is in 25th place for reading and 16th place for science. Too often, maths in Britain is seen as something that is nice to have, rather than as the vital tool that it ought to be in our modern society.
Perhaps our weakest area concerns our take-up of mathematics between the ages of 16 and 18. A study by the Nuffield Foundation found that Britain had the smallest proportion—below 20%—of students studying maths between the ages of 16 and 18, when compared with places such as Russia, Japan and Korea where virtually all students in that age group study maths, Canada where the figure is 80%, or France where it is almost 90%. Britain is a massive outlier in terms of maths education for that age group, and that runs contrary to our economic interests and to the interests of individual students who are taking A-levels or a vocational equivalent. A study by Professor Alison Wolf showed that maths A-level has the highest earnings premium of any subject, adding up to 10% extra to the earnings of a maths graduate.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I am following closely my hon. Friend’s important argument. As well as the earnings premiums for A-levels, Professor Wolf also identified the huge premiums obtained by maths and English GCSE. Will my hon. Friend go on to talk about the importance of GCSE maths retakes, as well as the A-level?
Elizabeth Truss
I will come to that point. It is important to give those who do not achieve maths at GCSE the option to retake that course in a different way between the ages of 16 and 18, so that they obtain a good qualification that will be useful for the rest of their lives. The 16-to-18 age group is particularly important, yet it is where this country has a gap. Those are the people who will go on to study maths, physics, information technology and engineering at university, yet we all know from speaking to businesses in our constituencies about the great skills gap in that area.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; she makes an important point. Not only does this issue affect those young people who are effectively devoid of an appropriate education, but it is a serious problem for our competitiveness and business. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that schools and colleges engage more with businesses to understand that gap?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is a huge shame when businesses have to look overseas to recruit quantitative staff, engineers or people to carry out numerical analysis, when this country has so many students who could fulfil those roles if they received appropriate training and qualifications.
Even for those who do not go on to study maths and science at university, a good background in maths is vital. The next generation of primary school teachers, journalists and politicians must ensure that they know the basics of that subject, because if their maths is not up to scratch, we will have a damaged ecosystem. The next generation of children will not get a proper maths education at school, and that will lead to poor quality numerical analysis in our press and media and poor quality statistics in public life.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I am a former A-level maths student and my hon. Friend has my full support. I am determined to see more young people start up their own businesses, and strong mental arithmetic and mathematical skills are an essential component of that. I hope that my hon. Friend will add new businesses to her list.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Our massive problem with maths causes a lack of social mobility and problems with university access. Students who attend comprehensive schools are half as likely to study maths as their private school counterparts and one third as likely to study further maths, but they are equally likely to study history or English. The problems of social mobility in mathematics and science do not exist in arts subjects, and the Government should consider that when looking at how to improve social mobility and access to university. Many students do not have the choice to study further maths, because only 50% of comprehensive schools offer that option. Given that further maths is needed to study maths or physics at top universities, many people are therefore put out of contention for the opportunities that we would wish them to have.
I am pleased that the Government are taking action. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor recognised the existing problems with maths education for 16 to 18-year-olds and announced that new free maths schools would be set up across the country. I am pleased to be backing one of those schools, the proposed Sir Isaac Newton school in Norfolk, which will take those students who are most talented in maths and science and educate them not only in A-level maths and further maths, but beyond that to pre-U level. Academics will support that school and ensure that students learn the cutting-edge mathematic and scientific techniques that will help them get to the top universities.
My county of Norfolk has a particular problem with maths. Nationwide, 33% of students who obtain a grade of A* to B at GCSE maths go on to study the subject at A-level. In Norfolk, that figure is 25%—a massive gap. We want to improve that situation and get more people studying A-level maths.
The development of the new maths schools is positive, and I applaud the Government for that innovation, which has already been seen in many other countries. However, we need further reform in two key areas. First, we must overhaul the sixth-form funding regime, and secondly—one of my hon. Friends alluded to this—we need more varied maths qualifications post-16.
Unbelievably, for post-16-year-olds, the Young People’s Learning Agency currently awards more money per capita for students studying psychology and media studies than to those studying mathematics. It also awards more money to science subjects—there is a 12% funding premium for all those subjects on top of the amount that is given to the school for maths. The justification for that 12% funding premium is that those other subjects need additional equipment. However, as anyone who has been involved with schools will know, the greatest cost is in teaching resources, rather than equipment.
At the moment, our funding formula is based purely on the amount of equipment needed, rather than the cost of recruiting teachers. Maths is the most difficult subject for which to recruit teachers; there are more vacancies for high-school maths teachers than for any other subject, and schools often end up paying a premium. One school in my constituency advertised for a newly qualified maths teacher. It offered £44,000, but received just one application.
Another school has flown in maths teachers from Canada to fill the shortfall in available teachers. Fewer than half of secondary maths teachers in this country hold a maths degree. We have a massive problem with the recruitment of maths teachers, yet the funding formula means that maths is disadvantaged when compared with science subjects and courses such as media studies, psychology and film studies. Furthermore, because the funding system is weighted towards deprived students, there is an even greater funding differential for deprived students doing media studies, as opposed to deprived students doing maths.
We have a completely topsy-turvy system in which the underlying financial incentives are asking schools to get lower-income students to do subjects such as psychology and media studies, rather than subjects such as maths, which has the highest earnings premiums and is known to result in greater lifetime earnings. We need to turn that system upside down. We need a subject premium based on the value of mathematics. I have illustrated why mathematics is a particular case and why reform is needed urgently. We are seriously suffering in terms of international competitiveness because we are not delivering enough mathematics capability.
I suggest that through the YPLA mechanism that I mentioned, mathematics should be given a 30% uplift. That would deal with some of the teacher recruitment issues. I would like further mathematics to receive a 50% premium, so that we can increase the number of state schools that offer further maths from the currently very low 50% and so that all sixth forms eventually offer that important option. That will ensure that every child in this country has the chance to go on to study maths or physics at a top university or, indeed, subjects such as computer science—we also need more people in those areas. What I have suggested would give schools a strong incentive to offer those subjects, and I do not think that it would cost anything additional from the education budget.
At the moment, under the YPLA funding regime, we have a huge range of weightings. Some subjects are rated up to 1.7. Those are not A-level subjects but some of the vocational subjects. We are talking about rebalancing the incentives in the system, so that those subjects that will deliver most for our economy and for the students and in which teacher recruitment is hardest get a premium. At the moment, we have the opposite situation.
I would also like to see a greater number of maths options post-16. Current participation in A-level maths and further maths is heavily weighted towards those gaining an A* at GCSE: 73% of students who get an A* in maths take an A-level in it, but only 6% of those who get a B do so. The number is much lower than for other subjects. One quarter of those who get a B in English and one fifth of those who get a B in history go on to do those subjects at A-level. The reason is that we have a one-size-fits-all maths and further maths course, rather than having different options for young people who will go on to study different subjects.
Neil Carmichael
My hon. Friend is making excellent points, but I want to probe the question of further education colleges. They, too, need to have appropriate provision in maths, because a large proportion—almost 50%—of all post-16s go to FE colleges, and we do not want them to miss out, either.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. To clarify, the funding to which I am referring applies to both FE colleges and sixth forms. It is a single funding pot that applies to the whole lot. Indeed, recently the Government levelled the playing field between FE and sixth forms. The plans that I am talking about would apply to both FE colleges and sixth forms.
For 16-to-18 maths, we need a range of tiers in which some options are harder than others. The Sunday Times reported at the weekend that Sir John Holman is drawing up plans for what those options would look like. When we are drawing up the options, we need to consider the failings of previous attempts to create different maths options for those aged 16 to 18. I am referring specifically to the use of maths A-level. It purported to provide real-world experience, but leading Fields medallist and Cambridge maths professor Tim Gowers said:
“it is blindingly obvious from the sample papers that it is not testing different skills…and is deeply boring, and not even all that relevant to the people who are actually taking the exam”.
The problem with use of maths was that, first, it was laid out as equivalent to A-level maths, which it simply was not. Secondly, it attempted to be relevant, but not in a way that could be applied to the real world.
What is needed is a decent set of qualifications, all of which are rigorous. They need to be on a scale, so that people know exactly where they fit in the qualifications framework. I suggest that that would involve, first, an option whereby students learn the basics of maths. Secondly, they learn the intermediate techniques that support arts and social science subjects. Finally, they get the advanced maths that can lead right through to a technical career.
One of the important elements is that further maths needs to be more advanced than A-level maths. Under the previous Government, there was an effort to make those two subjects equivalent on the ground that all A-levels had to be equal. That is clearly nonsense. We clearly need an option for more advanced students to study, so that those going on to do sciences and social sciences have a mainstream A-level option. Let me suggest an outline for the framework. A-level maths should be a strong preparation for university. We should have a slimline version for those who are majoring in social sciences. Maths should be a core part of the apprenticeship programme. I have recently met apprentices in my constituency who have told me how useful they find studying top-up maths to be in completing their courses and gaining skills on the job. There should also be a new course that provides a fresh approach to the basics for those who have failed to get a GCSE grade C in maths.
All that needs to happen fast; there is a case for dealing with it urgently. We need a sixth-form funding formula that puts a subject premium on maths, rather than the subject discount that we have at present, which has caused a very low take-up of A-level maths. We also need to ensure that there is a full offer for 16 to 18-year-olds. That would have a dramatic effect on take-up, and I urge the Government to act on it as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on raising this subject, which is of great importance to us. She is right to hold the Government’s feet to the fire. Indeed, she has form on that in this and other areas of education. I congratulate her on a very well argued and cogent case.
Secondly, I apologise because I am not the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who is the Minister responsible for schools. That is not something that I find myself doing often, but my hon. Friend had to visit a school elsewhere in the country today; otherwise he would be responding to the debate.
Thirdly, I should declare an interest, as my son has just passed his A-level in mathematics rather well, outpacing my own meagre grade B O-level from all those years ago when we had O-levels.
All of us would agree that mastery of mathematics empowers people. In a world that requires higher-level mathematical skills than ever before, we all want young people to have the chance to develop the mathematical fluency and confidence that they need for study, for work and for their personal lives. That fluency can be achieved only by using mathematics regularly over a sustained period—getting used to it. The reality is that far too many pupils do not achieve the required standard in maths by the time that they leave school, as my hon. Friend pointed out.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk that there is a pressing need to improve social mobility and that an education system that demands high quality and rigour will help us to achieve that. We know that, too often, pupils from low-income backgrounds are steered away from rigorous academic subjects, such as mathematics, in a way that hinders their later success in higher education and employment. England, along with Wales and Northern Ireland, has an exceptionally low rate of participation in mathematics beyond the age of 16, as she said. Fewer than 20% of pupils go on to study mathematics in any form. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Nuffield Foundation has shown that to be the lowest level of participation of any of the 24 developed countries included in its survey. Worse still, only 15% of pupils go on to study mathematics at an advanced level. In addition, about half of young people start post 16-education having failed to achieve a good grade in mathematics.
As my hon. Friend made clear, there is a great deal of evidence that school leavers do not have the mathematical skills that they need to function properly in the workplace and for further study. Lack of good numeracy competence is a frequent complaint from employers; I have heard it in my constituency time and again. There is emerging evidence from universities that students studying non-mathematical subjects, including the sciences and social sciences, often lack the basic numeracy and statistical skills needed to succeed in their undergraduate courses. Skills that could have been developed during sixth-form studies have not been. In some cases, universities have found it necessary to provide additional maths courses to address that knowledge gap and to bring students up to speed. That cannot be right. We must have a system in which all our school leavers have the necessary skills before they start university courses or move into employment.
The low rate of participation in maths is all the more worrying given what we know about the impact of maths achievement on a young person’s life chances. The Centre for Economic Performance found that those who took mathematics to A-level ended up earning 10% more on average than those with similar ability and similar backgrounds who did not.
In its “Mathematical Needs” report, the Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education noted:
“Not only are university courses in many disciplines increasingly quantitative in content, but there is also a steady shift in the employment market away from manual and low skills jobs and toward those requiring higher levels of management expertise and problem solving-skills, many of which are mathematical in nature.”
That is why the Secretary of State last year set out his ambition that, within 10 years, the vast majority of young people should be studying maths from 16 to 19, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging some of the progress the Department is making.
Of course, we must focus on ensuring all young people have a basic level of knowledge and understanding in mathematics. However, even when students gain a good grade—A* to C—at GCSE, there is no guarantee that they have the numeracy skills needed in the workplace and particularly ones that are portable from one workplace to the next. The CBI report “Working on the Three R’s: Employers’ Priorities for Functional Skills in Maths and English” showed that 32% of employers would like to see school leavers’ ability to do mental arithmetic improve.
For many entering further education, apprenticeships or employment in craft and technical areas, the break in their maths education from 16 to 18 is very damaging. The same is true for nurses and primary school teachers, who must go on to use and develop mathematics. It is essential that the mathematical skills developed to age 16 continue to be practised throughout sixth-form study to maintain fluency.
In addition, 25% to 30% of students reach university without the maths skills our universities need—I apologise if my speech seems overly littered with statistics, but it is about maths, so I suppose I can get away with it. Many students go to university to study a subject in which studying maths at a level above GCSE would be advantageous. That includes those who study economics and other social sciences, as well as sciences such as biology and health sciences. However, even students taking fine art may benefit from further mathematical knowledge in their future employment. It is important that such students not only maintain fluency in pure mathematical skills such as algebra, but complement those skills by studying statistics, modelling and the application of mathematics to complex systems.
It is encouraging that the number of pupils choosing to study A-level mathematics and further mathematics is increasing. In 2011, A-level maths had more than 75,000 entries, compared with just under 50,000 in 2006. The numbers entering further mathematics increased from about 6,500 to nearly 11,500 over the same period. However, many more pupils do not continue with their study of mathematics between 16 and 19. Getting more young people to study maths must be our first priority. That means ensuring that young people who have not achieved a grade C in GCSE maths are supported to achieve a good maths qualification post-16. We have been consulting on new study programmes for 16-to-19 year olds, which will include mathematics courses for all such students.
Our second priority is to ensure that all young people can take challenging, rigorous maths qualifications that give them the skills to progress. We are working with mathematics subject experts and universities to make that a reality, because it is clear that their support and engagement are essential if the take-up of advanced mathematics is to increase.
The ACME is calling for evidence from those with an interest in mathematics so that it can advise on appropriate post-16 pathways for pupils who have achieved grade A* to C at GCSE, but who do not currently continue to study mathematics. The ACME is expected to report its findings and propose new pathways at its conference in July. We await its report with interest, and I am sure my hon. Friend will want to see its findings, too.
If all young people are to study mathematics to 18, it is essential that they benefit from excellent mathematics teaching. My hon. Friend is right about the difficulties in recruiting mathematics teachers in some areas. I am glad to say, however, that we are seeing increased recruitment of mathematics trainees. Recruitment targets were met for the first time in 2010-11 and 2011-12, while the quality of trainees, as measured by degree class, increased in both those years.
We know we need to do a lot more. That is why we have launched bursaries of up to £20,000 to attract the best graduates to train as mathematics teachers. By the end of this Parliament, we will at least double the size of Teach First, which has an excellent record in attracting outstanding mathematics graduates. We are also improving the quality of teaching through support for professional development.
We have expanded the further mathematics support programme delivered by Mathematics in Education and Industry. The programme will continue to provide universal support to schools and colleges that want to provide further mathematics. It will focus on those centres that are not currently offering that A-level option, ensuring that more students from disadvantaged backgrounds have the opportunity to study it. I think my hon. Friend will very much appreciate that.
Expanding the programme will allow it to do more to inspire key stage 4 pupils to study further mathematics at A-level, and it will help to ensure that they are better prepared to do so. The programme will focus on equipping teachers with the skills needed to stretch and enrich their pupils’ mathematical education during key stage 4. It will provide more than 2,000 teacher days of development opportunities, enabling it to reach more teachers than previously.
That aspect of the programme will put in place a coherent route for mathematics teachers to progress from teaching GCSE maths, to teaching A-level maths and then to teaching further maths. It will also enable teachers to prepare students for the sixth term examination paper or advanced extension award examinations, which will improve their prospects of getting on to the most competitive maths and science courses at top universities.
We are investing £6 million over three years to fund the activities of the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics. The centre will co-ordinate and quality-assure the training of mathematics teachers across all phases of education, including those delivering new courses developed to achieve the aim of mathematics for all to age 18.
My hon. Friend mentioned free schools. As she said, the Chancellor announced funding in the autumn statement for specialist maths free schools for 16 to 18 year olds, which is a particularly exciting development. She has been generous in her support of the free schools programme, and I am encouraged to hear about her proposals for a free school in Norfolk with a strong focus on science and mathematics education.
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a need to ensure that pupils, parents and schools are aware of the demand for people with high-level mathematical skills and that our funding systems do not encourage schools and pupils to go for the easier options. Currently, schools and colleges receive the same basic level of funding for all students who pass an A-level, regardless of the grade they achieve or the subject taken. As my hon. Friend noted, however, funding for post-16 courses is subject to programme weighting, which is intended to reflect the relative cost of teaching particular subjects. Subjects that are wholly classroom-based, such as mathematics, receive a lower weighting than others, such as science subjects, which have a greater lab-based element, and she gave other examples.
I note with interest my hon. Friend’s proposal that we should establish a subject premium for mathematics and further mathematics. We consulted recently on changes to 16-to-19 funding, and we are currently considering the responses to the consultation. My hon. Friend may hear more about that later.
My hon. Friend will recognise that the funding system is not always the best means of incentivising take-up of one subject above another. We are working with mathematics subject experts to consider the measures that will be necessary to realise our ambition that all young people should continue to study mathematics up to 18.
The A-level system must meet the needs of universities and employers. For far too long, the design of A-levels has been in the hands of officials and bureaucrats, with their range of committees and advisory panels. That has led to a focus on exam structure, at the expense of content and need, and at the expense of young people enjoying and being inspired by maths and wanting to carry it forward. Addressing that issue is part or the challenge.
It is clear that existing A-level maths courses may not develop the full range of mathematical skills required to meet the needs of all students and the wide range of further study and career options they will pursue. As we set out in the White Paper “The Importance of Teaching”, we are working with Ofqual, the awarding organisations and higher education institutions to ensure that universities and learning bodies can be fully involved in the development of A-levels.
The evidence from around the world clearly shows that high-performing nations ensure that children receive a first-class maths education. Head teachers, parents and pupils need to hear a clear demand for mathematics and mathematical qualifications from universities and employers, and we need to support expert mathematicians in their endeavour to ensure that the right range of demanding and rigorous qualifications is available to meet the needs of pupils and the demands of universities and employers.
My hon. Friend has long been one of the most vocal champions of excellence in mathematics education, and my ministerial colleagues are looking forward to working with her in the months ahead. Let me once again express my gratitude to her for raising this important subject with her customary energy and enthusiasm.
Israel and the Peace Process
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
May I say what an unexpected pleasure it is, Mr Walker, to be serving under your chairmanship for the first time today and how delighted I am to have secured this important debate? It is pleasing to see such a good attendance today, especially as the House is about to rise for the Easter recess. I will try to be brief, as many Members wish to speak.
The best political debates are often driven by simple arguments. The Member whose debate it is rises and cuts through a confusing mass of factors and statistics, and then sits down. Everyone then wonders why they have not considered such an obvious and compelling solution before. I am afraid that we will not have one of those debates today.
A false sense of clarity and simplicity risks holding back the international community from making the most positive contribution that it can to the middle east. Over the next 90 minutes, I hope that we can draw out some of the hidden complexity of a situation that is all too often portrayed in black and white terms over here. Many Members will want to set out their own experiences of visiting the region and give their own perspective on the prospects for peace. That was one of the principal reasons that drove me and my hon. Friends to call for this debate today.
First, it is important to set Israel’s place in the middle east, and thus the importance of the peace process, in its proper context. We often hear two polar positions, often simultaneously, and they are both wrong. Both are fuelled by a two-dimensional view of the region that gets filtered through the media here.
On the one hand, we hear that the lack of lasting peace in Israel is inextricably linked to everything else in the middle east and has been the central catalyst of all the unrest in the region for decades. That view has led to the belief that if only the Israelis and Palestinians could agree, all other troubles in the region would melt away. That view was always hard to justify in a region that saw an eight-year war between Iran and Iraq and where regional minorities such as the Kurds have been consistently marginalised and oppressed. The Arab spring surely, finally, explodes the myth of the ubiquity and centrality of Israel in middle east affairs.
On the other hand, there is the view that Israel is an impregnable island that is prosperous, supported by the west and secure in its own borders. It is the plucky hard man to its sympathisers and the oppressor state to its detractors.
However, after a visit to the region, we can appreciate that this is a tiny nation that is bordered on all sides by states that are at best ambivalent and at worst hostile to its very existence. The existential threat to Israel consists not only of the rockets that are fired daily across its southern borders, but of the nuclear ambitions of Iran. It is not a country that is secure within its own borders. Certainly, if that level of threat were posed to the UK, we would not ignore it.
Israel has reached out to its neighbours where it could. Anxiety over the events of the Arab spring led not to a reaction against the welcome prospect of greater democracy across the middle east, but to an uneasiness that the fragile accommodation with its neighbours could be lost in the chaos and uncertainty of those months. It is a country that is focused on reaching out now. In 2011, Israel exported goods worth some $6 billion to its neighbours in the middle east and north Africa. It joined in a campaign with the Palestinian Authority and the Jordanian Government to have the Dead sea declared as one of the seven wonders of the natural world. Such examples show that, at its best, it can work constructively with its neighbours.
Conversely, although Israel is acutely aware of its deep connection to the countries that surround it, it is not prepared to subcontract its basic need for security to anyone. Above all, its innate quest for security has gone hand in hand—from its inception to the present day—with a deep commitment to the progressive values that we hold dear in this country, especially on the Opposition Benches. It is a country where women enjoy equality; the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community flourishes; there is a free press; the powerless are protected from the powerful by an independent judiciary; trade unions are well-organised and strong; educational excellence and scientific innovation are pursued; religious minorities are free to practise their creeds; a welfare state supports the poor and marginalised; and there is a fully functioning, vibrant, participatory democracy.
It would be absurd to suggest that Israel is loved across the middle east. Yet as we look at the hope and uncertainty generated by the Arab spring, the freedoms enjoyed by Israelis are inescapable to anyone in the region with access to the internet and social media. When millions across the middle east are desperate for leaders they can hold to account, Israel’s robust media and the tough stance it regularly takes to senior figures is a genuine beacon for those values.
Alongside the threat of rocket attacks still experienced by Israeli citizens, there is, of course, a real sense of injustice among many Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank. There is grinding economic hardship and rampant unemployment across huge swathes of the population. The genuine fear that the advancing settlements could prove permanent, the claims to return and concerns about integration for Israeli Arabs fuel the frustration at the lack of progress in the peace process. The Palestinians’ suffering and sense of injustice are prolonged with every passing month in which their dream of statehood is not realised.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
In my hon. Friend’s discussion about the injustices towards the Palestinians, what does he say to the accusation against Israel of the imprisonment of Palestinian elected parliamentarians and the continued denial of their right to travel to the west bank to take part in the parliamentary democracy of Palestine?
John Woodcock
My hon. Friend raises a valid point. Israel has taken measures to protect its security in several areas, which has caused deep discomfort to many people in Israel and here. What I am trying to set out in this speech is the context in which some of these decisions are taken.
Viewing from a distance often gives the impression that the principal blockage to lasting justice for both Palestinians and Israelis has been the intransigence of a dominant state, secure in its borders and willing to let every opportunity for peace limp by. If we are to promote peace effectively rather than act as a drag on it, we need to expose that analysis as flawed on every count.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Just to be clear, will my hon. Friend tell the House what Israel’s borders are, including Jerusalem?
John Woodcock
Does my hon. Friend wish me to pronounce them? If only it were that simple. Of course, his question underlines the primacy of negotiations, which I will expand on later in my speech. If colleagues do not mind, I will rattle through the rest of my speech, so that I give other people the chance to contribute.
We must not underplay or be seen to underplay the toll on Israel from the terror and threats from its neighbours, which have been endured by Israelis for decades and up to the present day. Equally, we should not overlook the fact that weighing on the whole of Israel and its politics is the threat that Iran, whose leader vowed to wipe Israel off the map, could acquire the means to do just that.
The fact that Iran continues to channel funding and arms to Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group, gives a wider context to Israel’s determination to maintain its security, if one were needed beyond the sustained campaign of terror that has claimed so many Israeli lives over the years. And let us never hold back from pointing out that the lives lost to Hamas are also counted among Palestinian families in Gaza, where the terrorists maintain their yoke of oppression by murdering political rivals and cruelly using civilians as human shields.
Although times remain far too hard, we should continue to trumpet the economic progress being made on the west bank and recognise the contributions that have been made not only by progressives in Israel but by the Quartet, led by Tony Blair. Most of all, we need to give full consideration and exposure to the complexities of the peace process, which are so rarely reflected in reporting over here.
A peace process capable of lasting success will be achieved only if the realities on both sides are understood and addressed. During the past few years, there has been pessimism on all sides about the peace process, particularly from the Palestinian leadership about the progress of negotiations. However, the international pressure needed for both the Israelis and Palestinians to return to the negotiating table must be applied to both sides alike. That includes pressing the Palestinians to put to one side past failures at the negotiating table, so that they can seek to make some headway now. For all the justified international condemnation of continued settlement building, the fact remains that there is only one side at the table at present, and that is Israel.
Fundamentally, everything we do must underline the message that there is no alternative to returning to talks, in order to make the difficult compromises that are necessary to achieve peace. So I ask the Minister to say in his response to the debate what his Government are doing to persuade both Israelis and Palestinians that peace talks are the only thing that will bring them dignity, prosperity and their own state, which they deserve.
John Woodcock
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way, as I want to get through my speech and allow other people to make a contribution.
We should apply pressure with hope gained from the knowledge that this is not year zero. In fact, at key points in the past it has been Israel that has been prepared to offer up a great amount for peace, only to find that the Palestinian leadership were unwilling or unable to reciprocate. The current Palestinian Authority leadership are a moderate Administration who have achieved much in terms of state-building and reform, but they often say that 20 years of negotiations have brought them nothing. However, that view is fundamentally undermined by the facts, and it also risks undermining what little faith remains in the prospects for a peace process.
There have been huge disappointments for both peoples, and the rapid progress envisaged in the 1993 Oslo accords has certainly not been realised. However, we must also be clear that every time that substantive negotiations have taken place, progress has been made and substantial Israeli offers have been given.
Let us not forget what Oslo achieved and what remains from that agreement today. Oslo was the beginning of a working relationship between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, a relationship that has now been successfully restored despite the violence of the second intifada. Oslo was also the beginning of Palestinian self-governance over the vast majority of the Palestinian population living in the west bank and Gaza strip. And at Camp David, although the final status agreement that had been hoped for was not realised, the offers given and the understandings that were later expressed in the Clinton parameters demonstrated a seriousness about achieving peace.
The details of Israel’s offer to the Palestinians at Camp David were never officially released and there are differing accounts of what happened. According to numerous reports, however, the proposal to the Palestinians by Ehud Barak, the then Israeli Prime Minister, included an Israeli withdrawal from more than 90% of the west bank and 100% of the Gaza strip. However, after the second intifada and the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, no serious Israeli politician can assert that offering land for peace will, on its own, bring peace.
To get back to the table, Israeli Governments have understandably had to take additional robust and sometimes very controversial measures to protect their people from terrorism. There is currently a dangerous pause in the negotiations and pressure is building up to explore alternatives, such as the one-state solution. Let us be clear—that solution would mean both the end of the only Jewish state and the end of Palestinian dreams for their own sovereign state.
In that light, I want to express my support for the universal jurisdiction reforms that have now been completed; they were begun by the previous Labour Government and are still backed by Labour in opposition. Those reforms are vital to ensure that bogus arrest warrants are not issued against visiting Israelis, so that the UK can remain involved in efforts to break the impasse and can continue strengthening bilateral relations.
There are real barriers to a new peace process. Ultimately, there will have to be huge and difficult compromises on both sides. That will require trust, which is thin on the ground at present.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Can my hon. Friend tell us how the Israelis can possibly seriously negotiate the end of settlements while they are still building settlements? Does he agree that that is a huge barrier to the resumption of peace talks?
John Woodcock
It is wrong, unhelpful and should not happen, but it is the responsibility of all sides. Ultimately, the Palestinian leadership are refusing to come to the table to make sure that that is not a fundamental barrier to the resumption of talks, which absolutely has to happen.
If the international community is to help engender the trust that is needed, it must approach both sides equally. That means eschewing the flawed caricature of, on the one side, plucky underdogs desperate for peace but systematically robbed in each negotiation and denied, on the other side, by an intransigent state that is happy to sit tight. The true picture is much more complicated than that and if Britain remains determined to recognise that basic fact, it can be a real force for good in the difficult months ahead.
As we encourage the movements for democracy in the middle east, we should celebrate Israel as a progressive beacon in the region. For all the optimism generated by the Arab spring, it remains beyond our wildest hopes that every country affected will emerge with the kind of liberal constitution that enshrines the progressive values that Israel has upheld since its inception.
However, Labour Friends of Israel is avowedly pro-Palestinian. It is because we want a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure and progressive Israel that we are so determined to remove the blinkers that risk holding back the international push for peace in the middle east. Let us use the ties of history, trade and diplomacy, and the reserves of good will where they continue to exist, to play our full part in seeking a process that will lead to a sustainable two-state solution. For the good of the people of both Israel and Palestine, we cannot afford to let pessimism rule the day.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Time is limited and interest is high, so speeches should be short.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
This is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship in one of these debates, Mr Walker. I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for securing the debate. I must apologise; I cannot stay for the full debate because of other appointments.
This debate is an important step in rebalancing some of the discussions that Members have had in the House. The debate outside the House is fraught with difficulty and nuances, and it is important that both sides here get a fair hearing. Peace and the two-state solution can be achieved only by direct peace talks. I doubt whether any hon. Member would argue for a single-state solution—Palestinian or Jewish. One of the fundamental barriers to such talks is that Hamas, as part of the coalition that forms the Palestinian Authority, refuses to accept the Quartet principles, which are that the state of Israel be recognised, previous diplomatic agreements be abided by and parties renounce violence. Until Hamas accepts those principles, there can be no lasting peace in the region. There cannot be negotiation when one side at the table seeks to wipe the other off the map.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
A Member from Northern Ireland is here. The peace process there went ahead with the Provisional IRA still on active operations, so perhaps one of those principles is not sacrosanct.
Mike Freer
That, of course, is an interesting point of view, but the Governments were able to negotiate with parties that were willing to do so.
Mike Freer
I will in a moment. I do not have any great knowledge of the Northern Ireland peace process. Perhaps my colleague, the right hon. Member for Belfast North does.
Mr Dodds
Before Sinn Fein was admitted to the talks in Northern Ireland, it had to sign up to the Mitchell principles, which were about decommissioning commitments, peaceful activities and a political way forward, so it was clear that it could not come to the table while still avowing terrorism.
Mike Freer
I thank the right hon. Member for that clarification. That is an amazingly pertinent point.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the main difference between the two peace processes is that, to the best of my knowledge, Sinn Fein at no time called for the destruction of Northern Ireland?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. It is difficult to negotiate when one side simply wants to wipe the other off the face of the earth. Both sides will have to make difficult compromises. We have seen that in this country. In any conflict resolution, both sides have to make compromises, but so far the emphasis seems to be on asking Israel to make all the concessions.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly called for an immediate return to direct peace talks and has made a series of significant compromises and unprecedented gestures to the Palestinian Authority to encourage them to return to the table, but to no avail?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Prime Minister Netanyahu is often demonised. I have no doubt that he can be a forceful and difficult character, but would people not want their Prime Minister to be forceful and to stand up for their security when their country was in an almost permanent state of war and they were fielding suicide bombers and missiles fired into their territory?
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness made the good point that we have to remember that Israel is a beacon of democracy in a part of the world where democracy is in short supply. Religious minorities of whatever shape or flavour have freedoms. Minorities have freedoms, to pursue their religion or their sexuality, and even to stand for Parliament. It does not really matter what shape, colour or religion someone is; they have the ability to follow their beliefs, and that is not seen elsewhere.
It is important to acknowledge that no democracy is flawless. Democracies always find unilateral concessions more difficult because public opinion must be taken into account; a dictatorship does not have to deal with a free press, a democracy or opinion polls. It is important to remember that Israel has a record of making concessions on land swaps for peace. I repeat: if peace and a two-state solution are to happen, concessions on both sides will be essential.
An independent Palestine can happen only through direct negotiations, with mutual respect, agreed borders and an agreement to end the conflict. The right hon. Member for Belfast North made a good point: negotiations cannot be entered into without the renunciation of violence in some shape or form. A deal is on the table, but the UK Government must ensure that both sides are asked to return to it without conditions and without one side being asked to concede all its leverage in advance. It takes two sides to negotiate, and Her Majesty’s Government must ensure that both sides return to the table and that both sides are treated equally.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this debate. Given the number of hon. Members who want to speak, there will inevitably be a shortage of time, so although we might disagree on some things today, perhaps we can all agree that it might be appropriate to approach the Backbench Business Committee to request a full debate in the main Chamber on Israel and Palestine.
I had a sneak preview of what my hon. Friend was going to say, because it appeared on epolitix.com earlier today. He called for people to avoid black and white analyses and to recognise the hidden complexities of this part of the world. I agree with him about that. He said:
“But most importantly, the international pressure that is needed for both the Israelis and Palestinians to return to the negotiating table needs to be applied to both sides alike.”
I struggled to understand, or to hear from him, exactly what pressure he felt should be applied to Israel, but perhaps he can clarify that in due course.
My hon. Friend went on to say that this is not year zero and that
“at key points in the past, it has been Israel that has been prepared to offer up a great amount for peace and has found the Palestinian leadership unwilling or unable to reciprocate.”
That is not my understanding, and an awful lot of people around the world would dispute it. He mentioned Camp David, but not Taba, which came afterwards, when the Palestinians did not walk away. What ended those negotiations was the change of Government in Israel. Surprisingly, he did not mention the Arab peace initiative either. It is the 10th anniversary of that initiative, which offered full recognition of Israel and full peace in return for full withdrawal and a just and agreed solution to the refugee problem on the basis of UN resolution 194. This week, Ha’aretz, an Israeli newspaper, described that as Israel’s worst missed opportunity, and that is the view of many around the world.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend support the Palestine Solidarity Campaign? If so, can he tell us why there is no mention of a two-state solution in the campaign’s objectives and why its logo shows a land without the state of Israel?
Richard Burden
I like my hon. Friend a great deal, but that is nonsense. It would be a bit like my standing up and asking whether he would condemn the Israeli tourist board, which was done over by the Advertising Standards Authority only last week because it published a map of what it described as northern Israel, but which included part of the west bank. We should have a better level of debate than that.
More recently, Israel has called for talks without preconditions. Let us remember what provoked the current round of stalled talks: the Palestinians applied for membership of the United Nations, which Israel claims for itself not as something negotiable but as a matter of right. If anybody questions Israel’s right to membership of the United Nations, they are regarded as delegitimising Israel, which is one stage short of anti-Semitism. I fully accept that Israel should be a member of the United Nations and should be recognised within its internationally recognised borders, which are not difficult; they are the pre-1967 borders laid down in numerous UN resolutions. However, if Palestine applies to the United Nations, that is seen as provocative. It is sometimes called a unilateral act. I cannot think of much that is more multilateral than going to the United Nations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness says that there are complexities, but
“viewing from a distance often gives the impression that the principal blockage to lasting justice for both Palestinians and Israelis has been the intransigence of a dominant state, secure in its borders and willing to let every opportunity for peace limp by.”
He is right that it is important that we do not view the issue from a distance, but that we all go to see what is happening on the ground. I do not mean just visiting offices in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem or even Ramallah; I mean going to Sderot and talking to people there about how they live in fear of rockets. It is important to do so, and we do. It is also important to go to Gaza, where 38% of people live in poverty, 85% of schools must run on double shifts and 80 million litres of sewage are dumped into the sea every single day.
It is important to go to the west bank, and not simply to say that settlements are bad without working out the results or to talk to people like me about it. We should talk to Israelis themselves: people in Peace Now who talk about how continuing to build settlements is torpedoing the two-state solution, as its website says. It is important to look at Jerusalem. People talk about the settlement freeze offered and maintained by Netanyahu a few years ago. It is important to understand that it was not a settlement freeze; it was a freeze of some settlements, and it did not apply to Jerusalem.
If hon. Members do not believe me, they should talk to Israeli organisations such as Ir Amim, which says:
“Since the Six-Day War and the change in the boundaries of Jerusalem, Israel’s Governments have tried to maintain the Jewish demographic advantage in Jerusalem. They have done this by controlling the physical space of the east part of the city and increasing attempts to ‘Judaize’ East Jerusalem.”
Ir Amim says that the continuation of settlement building and the restriction of residency rights in East Jerusalem is destroying the two-state solution.
Hon. Members should go to see what is happening in the Jordan valley and Area C. They should not take my word for it; they should talk to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or go there with the Israeli organisation B’Tselem and see what it says about the dispossession of Palestinians, including the Bedouin, in Area C.
Perhaps we should ask a reputable body to investigate, such as the United Nations. It is doing so. It has declared an investigation of settlement building in the west bank, to see what should be made of it. As a result, Israel has cut off contact with the United Nations Human Rights Council and threatened sanctions against the Palestinian Authority. About the initiative to investigate settlements, this was said not by some strange marginal figure but by Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman:
“We are dealing with al-Qaeda terror on the one hand and diplomatic terror by Abu Mazen on the other”.
So now referring something to the UN Human Rights Council is regarded as diplomatic terror.
Freezing settlements is not about imposing unreasonable preconditions. Without it, I do not see how the peace process can go forward. A Palestinian by the name of Husam Zomlot, who is known to many of us—he used to work over here—gave a good analogy: “It’s a bit like saying you should negotiate who gets which bit of the pizza, but while that’s going on, one of the parties is eating the pizza anyway.” That is what is going on at the moment.
In conclusion, I have deliberately used sources that are not Palestinian. Some of them are United Nations sources; in the main, they are Israeli sources, including the newspaper Ha’aretz and groups such as Peace Now, Ir Amim and B’Tselem. Those organisations are not looking at things from afar; they are there, and they are Israeli. Most of their members would say that they are Zionist. They, too, would like friends of Israel abroad, but what they know and say to us is that true friends are not simply cheerleaders. True friends tell home truths every now and again, and they might like friends of Israel groups in the outside world to do a little more of that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Walker. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on initiating this important debate. It is apposite that we consider the issue shortly before Passover and Easter, when the Holy Land will be at its peak in terms of individuals choosing to go and see the holy places of three of the world’s great religions. That must be recognised when we consider that part of the world.
I first visited Israel some 15 years ago as a tourist and went around on buses seeing at first hand how ordinary Israelis live, as well as the tourist sights. Equally, I saw how Palestinians lived alongside Israelis. It is clear that there is an appetite on all sides for a proper and full peace process. I always challenge people by saying that they should not discuss places such as Israel, the west bank or Gaza unless they have been to see them. It is the only country in the world that I know of—I have visited a few, but not all of them—where a person can stand on one side of the country, see the other and know that they are surrounded by hostile neighbours, many of whom wish to wipe them off the face of the map. Unless we appreciate that, it is difficult to understand the security position in which Israel finds itself.
Israel is a special place in the world. It has been under threat, and its borders have been formed by wars, whether in 1948, 1967, 1971 or at any other time in the recent history of that part of the world. It is therefore difficult to know what the settled borders of the state of Israel are, and what the proper borders of a fledgling Palestinian state would be.
I have had the opportunity to visit Israel with Conservative Friends of Israel and to see the security position at various points in the country, and that is terribly important. We must consider the border with Syria. In many ways, the tension has decreased over the years as a peace process has evolved with Syria. Equally, on the borders with Egypt, friendly relations have been built up over a consistent period. On the border with Lebanon, however, the view is that it is just a question of when a war starts, not if, and how bloody it will be. That brings home the problems.
I have also had the opportunity to go via Jordan to see the west bank with Palestinians, meeting many people from the Palestinian community. I believe that it is right to see things from both sides in order to get a balanced view of the issues. Interestingly, when I went via the Allenby bridge from Jordan into the west bank and Jerusalem, there was a huge queue, huge security and huge problems for anyone accessing the bridge, irrespective of their status. We went the day after Yom Kippur last year, and the queues to get in were horrendous. That is important.
Undoubtedly, Palestinian leaders echo the universal condemnation of Tony Blair and his so-called peace mission. They regard it as a total waste of time and money, and would welcome an alternative set of means for promoting peace. They do not see it as a way forward. The interesting thing is that Britain is engaged in assisting the Palestinians and in ensuring that the security forces in the west bank are given the opportunity to have full and proper training so that they can enforce security. That is helping considerably.
The concern is that the mood among members of the Palestinian community is that time is somehow on their side and that the longer they leave things, the better the position that will emerge for Palestine in the long run. That is a very short-sighted view, because the progress of settlements in East Jerusalem will shortly—I would say within the six months—render a Jerusalem that is the capital of Israel and a Palestinian state almost impossible. Those settlements and the motorways—effectively—that link them are proceeding rapidly, which will make a two-state solution difficult.
Sandra Osborne
I, too, have visited many of the areas the hon. Gentleman speaks of. Has he been to Gaza and seen the economic and humanitarian results of the blockade? I can assure him the people of Gaza do not think time is on their side—quite the opposite, in fact.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Lady. I say quite openly that I have not visited Gaza. That is why I am speaking instead about the west bank and why I made the point I did.
The problem that has emerged with the peace process is that we have, for far too long, had talks about talks about negotiations. We need to get both sides round the table to ensure that there are proper, face-to-face negotiations. In that regard, there is a duty on the Government of this country, which is widely respected in the region, where it has deep historical ties, and which is, in many ways, trusted by both sides.
Bob Stewart
The fact of the matter is that good people have been trying since 1967 to bring the two parties together, but all attempts have failed. We can all sit here piously saying that people should get round the table and negotiate, but some Methuselah, perhaps, has to come along and devise a way to bring that about. Until that happens, we will not have progress. That is what we must achieve somehow.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is clear that we need to break the logjam. Mention was made of the peace process in Ireland, and I certainly never thought we would see a peace process there in my lifetime. I welcome what has been done there so that we can have a proper democracy and a proper arrangement between people on that island.
Similarly, we have to break the logjam between Israel and Palestine, but there has to be good faith on both sides. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) rightly reminded us, Israel has, over the years, agreed to put the issue of settlements on the table. To get peace with Egypt, there was an agreement to remove settlements, and they were removed; to get peace with Gaza, settlements were removed; and to get peace with the west bank, settlements were removed. The Egyptian peace treaty was highly successful, but such success has not, sadly, been the case in Gaza, and that is a problem for the Israeli Government.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I do not know how anybody can say that the issue of the settlements in the west bank was somehow solved by a treaty. When was the hon. Gentleman actually in the west bank? Every time I have been there, the settlements have increased, and the settlers’ violence against innocent Palestinians has increased exponentially. What land is the hon. Gentleman talking about? It is not the one I visit.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was in the west bank last October—
Bob Blackman
I saw many settlements. I also saw how the Palestinian people have been sold out by their own lawyers—their own people. Palestinians have sold land to the Israelis and given them the opportunity to build houses on it. They had claims over that land, but, unfortunately, they sold them. They went through the courts, and their lawyers sold them out. It is difficult for someone who has been through a legal process to complain when it has gone against them.
Where we go now is quite clear. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups oppose Israel’s right to exist and they refuse to accept the Quartet principles. Until such time as they openly say, “We accept Israel’s right to exist”, no meaningful peace talks can take place. That is where the British Government have a clear duty. They must ensure that pressure is put on the state of Israel and the Palestinians to enter negotiations in line with President Obama’s excellent speech setting out how the peace process could proceed. The Israeli Government were quite keen to commit to that up front, but the Palestinians seem to want to delay; they do not seem to want to enter talks. They must understand that unless they enter talks rapidly, the prospects for a two-state solution will diminish by the day, and we could end up with a three-state solution—the state of Israel, a Palestinian state in Gaza and a Palestinian state on the west bank.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. His premise is that the situation can be solved by dealing with the Israelis and the Palestinians, but is not the real problem that the bigger split in the middle east is between Iranian-led Shi’as and the rest of the Arab world? Until that issue is solved, Israel and the Palestinians will remain proxies for that debate, and it will not be solved locally.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Clearly, the elephant in the room is Iran, and the United Nations will have to resolve that issue.
I end with the hope that this process will see our Government operating a more level playing field, putting pressure on the state of Israel to negotiate, but, equally, putting pressure on the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinians and emphasising to them that the need to have urgent talks is paramount. Those talks need to be without preconditions and need to come with an expectation that they will result in a lasting peace and a just settlement for everyone. In that way, the issues in this part of the world can be settled in a manner we would all like, and everyone can live in peace and harmony, religions can be respected and people can promote the economic prosperity they want.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this important debate.
Until the events of the Arab spring, it was generally suggested that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the key issue—indeed, the only issue—in the middle east. It is now abundantly clear to everyone that that is not, and never was, the case. Despite that, it is vital that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is resolved. Both peoples have the right to self-determination, and it is a tragedy that Arab and Jewish nationalisms came forward at the same time and became embroiled in such conflict.
Israel, of course, has been under threat since it was set up in 1948. The issue since then has been not its borders, but its existence. In 1948—1947, to be more precise—the United Nations made one of a number of offers of a state to the Palestinians. However, Arab states invaded the new state of Israel and rejected the concept of a Palestinian state at that time.
Much discussion centres around the significance of Israeli settlements. The origins of that settling movement were in the 1967 defensive war, when Israel, whose existence was threatened by all its neighbours, went to war, won that war, survived and as a result ended up occupying lands beyond the boundaries that it had had before. I do not want to go into any long, historical debate, but it is significant for everyone to remember that at the Khartoum conference after the ’67 war the Arab states came together and uttered the “three nos”—no peace, no recognition, no negotiation. It was after that that the settler movement went forward so that we are in today’s situation.
That interpretation of settlements is, of course, valid only for people who accept the existence of a state of Israel, and look at settlements as land occupied as a result of war, which was then not negotiated on. The people who do not think Israel should exist at all use the word “settlements” in a rather different way when they talk about Israel being occupied Palestine. When I listen carefully to people who criticise the state of Israel, it is sometimes clear, sometimes less so, on what basis they are speaking.
We are told that the current major impediment to peace is the existence of the Israeli settlements. The obvious question that must be raised when they are described in that way—not as undesirable but as the major, or only, obstacle to peace—is why Israel’s forcible withdrawal of 8,000 settlers, and its soldiers, from Gaza in 2005 was followed not by peace in Gaza but by the election of Hamas, which declared that it would fight for ever to get rid of all the state of Israel, and by the continuation of rockets being fired from Gaza to Israel—to Sderot and other places.
Hamas has a charter that is blatantly anti-Semitic and talks about Jews ruling the world and being responsible for the Russian and French revolutions—events that I seem to remember took place before the state of Israel was set up. Of course, Hamas was and still is supported and armed by Iran, which also armed Hezbollah in Lebanon and has been moving missiles and arms to Hezbollah there in recent weeks. The forcible removal of 8,000 Israeli settlers from Gaza by the Israeli army did not result in peace at all, so the settlements are not the only obstacle to peace. I support what the Israeli Government of the time did. It was the right thing to do, but it is clear that settlements are not the sole obstacle to peace.
Peace—recognition of the rights of Palestinians and Israelis in two states—can come about only through negotiations, and anyone who wants that end knows that negotiations must be about borders, the status of Jerusalem and refugees. A number of very detailed and protracted negotiations, involving international support, have taken place and come fairly close to resolving some of those difficult issues, but they have never quite been concluded.
Each side will have its explanation of who is at fault. Gilead Sher, a senior negotiator on the Israeli side who has worked extensively with Palestinians, and who to this day is working on the west bank persuading Israeli settlers to prepare to leave, has said clearly that a solution was never reached in the negotiations in which he was involved, because the Palestinians were not willing to signal an end to conflict. They could not or would not do it. That view was echoed by President Clinton who tried so hard to bring about a solution.
What is happening now, and what is there for the future? The past is relevant and important in this protracted and difficult conflict, but people must look to the future if a solution is to be found. In recent years, major progress has been made by the Palestinian Authority on the west bank, working with Tony Blair and the Quartet in developing the economy of the west bank and instruments of government for a future Palestinian state.
That work has been done effectively, but it is extremely disturbing that at this moment, as the Palestinian Authority is talking to Hamas about a unity agreement, the architect of those substantial improvements in security and in Palestine’s economy and autonomy, Prime Minister Fayyad, is being told that as a result of the unity negotiations he should go. There is intense pressure on him. Last week he was going; this week it is a little less clear. That is an ominous sign. The Palestinian who has worked to develop a Palestinian state and economy is now told by Hamas that his services are no longer required.
Michael Connarty
I respect my hon. Friend’s strongly held views on these matters, but she has spent all her time talking about the Palestinians. As we heard from Opposition speakers, at the moment the Israeli state is demolishing houses, surrounding and crushing East Jerusalem, moving large numbers of people out of their homes and, it would appear, condoning an attempt to emasculate the Palestinian community in East Jerusalem. Surely she should talk about what the Israeli Government are doing, because they are obviously not aiding the peace process.
Mrs Ellman
I certainly do not support every move of the current Israeli Government, but I have to remember that under previous Israeli Governments, whom I did support, it was the Palestinians who were the block to peace; whatever policies may be going on that people may disagree with, the fundamental point here is that it is the Palestinians who at this moment are refusing to go to the negotiating table and settle the conflict, when there is an opportunity to do so on the basis of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
The only way forward is a return to negotiations on the basis of two states living in co-operation and peace. I hope supporters of all the parties involved will do their best to bring those negotiations forward, so that there can indeed be an agreement leading to a peaceful future.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for securing the debate.
Ever since the state of Israel was set up it has been under attack, and all of us in the Chamber can agree that there should be a state of Israel. We represent constituencies all over the country, but I suggest that someone who represented a constituency into which rockets were fired daily would want to take pretty strong action.
We all accept that there are faults on both sides. However, given the constant pressure from virtually all Israel’s neighbours, and the fact that the Iranians say that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth, it is necessary to keep a strong, powerful Israeli Government, to try to contain what could happen. Iran is a huge threat not only to the Israelis but to the whole region. I suspect that many of its Arab neighbours are just as frightened of Iran as Israel is. That key matter will need to be sorted out in the future, but I will not go into it now.
It is right for us to have this debate, but we must deal with it in a commensurate manner. We must accept that Israel will retaliate when it is attacked. We may sometimes believe that it over-reacts, but if we were facing such attacks we would probably react in a similar way. In the end, the only way peace will break out in that part of the world is through prosperity and trade. While hostile acts take place, that will not happen. I know that the Israeli President is keen on creating greater trade in the region, but that is a huge problem with the security situation as it is.
We believe in a two-state solution, but that will be difficult to achieve if Hamas and other organisations will not come to the negotiating table. I ask our Ministers and Government not only to take a strong position in the region and to give Israel good advice when she needs it, but to make sure that they are fair in their dealings with Israel and the whole region and that there is a two-state solution and a state of Israel.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I will be brief, Mr Walker, so that the Front-Bench representatives have time to respond. I am grateful for this debate and hope that it will lead to a full day’s debate on the Floor of the main Chamber, because enormous issues are involved.
I have visited Palestine and Israel on many occasions and would characterise Palestinians as under occupation, under siege or in exile. Having visited many Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere, I have felt the sense of anger, hopelessness and depression that people who, along with their grandparents, parents and now their own children—great-great grandchildren—have spent 60 years in refugee camps thirsting for the right to go home. They have been living in poverty, under oppression and with a sense that, for many generations, whole lives have been lived in limbo.
I recall meeting those who were removed from Palestine in 1948 and who went to the Gulf states and Iraq. They were eventually moved out of Iraq into Syria, and I met them languishing on the border between Iraq and Syria. Have a thought for how they feel, think and look at the world. Have a thought for the plight of the 1.5 million people in Gaza who are effectively in imprisonment and cannot travel to the west bank or Jerusalem. Some are elected parliamentarians who cannot go anywhere. Have a think about them and about what the situation does to the psyche of young people growing up in imprisonment, unable to do anything other than watch the world on TV and computer screens. That is the reality for many Palestinians.
Some talk blithely about the need for negotiations and for promoting a two-state solution, which is fine, but look at the criss-cross roads all over the west bank, and look at the settlements and at the water that has gone. I applaud what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has said about the need for an ecological approach to the River Jordan. We could start by not abstracting all the water from it, a practice that is leading to the Dead sea disappearing, literally, before our very eyes.
The march for Jerusalem will take place this month. The campaign is calling on the British Government to do a number of things and I would be grateful if the Minister said what support they can give it. The campaign wants to stop the systematic demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem; stop the building of illegal settlements and their structures; stop the granting of discriminatory and insecure residency rights to Palestinians and their arbitrary expulsion from that city; and stop the expulsion of many from Jerusalem. Homes in Silwan have been destroyed to make way for the city of David.
Jeremy Corbyn
I have never supported anybody who fires rockets at someone, but I ask my hon. Friend to get a sense of reality and to compare rockets with the 1,500 people who were killed during Operation Cast Lead, when F16 jets using phosphorous bombs killed innocent women and children. I am not in favour of rockets or bombing. We will achieve peace only if there is real recognition of the rights of and injustices suffered by the Palestinian people. That includes ending the settlement policy, ending the occupation of East Jerusalem, and ending the whole policy of the expulsion of Palestinians from East Jerusalem.
Israel is a very rich and very powerful nuclear-armed state situated in a region where it is in a position to threaten any of its neighbours at any time. I suggest that the way forward in the region is to end the injustice suffered by the Palestinian people, end the occupation of the west bank and the imprisonment of the people of Gaza, and allow those who have been stuck in refugee camps for so long to return home.
Jeremy Corbyn
No, I will not.
Britain was involved in the original partition and in the Balfour declaration, so we have a duty to help promote peace. That means suggesting to Israel that leaving the United Nations Human Rights Council, running away from international institutions and opposing Palestinian membership of the UN are hardly an indication of a process of peace, or of recognition of or respect for international law. They are very much the opposite.
If Israel cannot abide by international law and if it continues to abuse human rights and imprison Palestinians, why is the European Union-Israel trade agreement carrying on as normal, as though there is nothing wrong? That agreement has a human rights clause and that clause should be respected. We should, therefore, enter negotiations and tell Israel that if it cannot abide by the trade agreement’s human rights clause, the agreement itself will be suspended.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. I believe that Mr Corbyn has finished his speech. I call Mr Slaughter.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Walker. In the few minutes that I have, I will first declare an interest. My entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests notes that I went to Egypt last March with the Council for European Palestinian Relations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has usefully introduced the debate and I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss the issue at greater length on the Floor of the House. The picture painted by my hon. Friend and Government Members, however, is not one that those of us who regularly visit Gaza, the west bank and Israeli Arabs in Israel would recognise. The actual picture is one of occupation.
Mr Slaughter
I am not sure that that is relevant; I wish I had not given way.
The Palestinian people experience occupation, persecution and discrimination. I wish that some of the rights that Israelis give to their own citizens—some hon. Members have rightly mentioned them—were also provided for the Palestinian people. When considering this issue, the judgment of some hon. Members seems to lapse in a way that it would not in relation to other issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has given the example of Operation Cast Lead, in which 1,500 people, the majority of them civilians—many of them women and children—were massacred by bombardment from sea, land and air. I visited Gaza two to three weeks after that happened and saw the devastation that it wrought.
Over the 20 years since Oslo, the number of settlements has doubled from 250,000 to 500,000, irrespective of how the Palestinians were negotiating or of which parties were in government.
Mr Slaughter
No, I will not give way again.
Israel is portrayed as the victim when it is, in fact, a regional superpower, a nuclear-armed state and, above all, an occupying power. It is a power that has occupied a people for longer than anywhere else in the world.
The Minister did not have a chance to answer a question that I asked him during last night’s debate in the House on Jerusalem, so I will ask it again. What stance will the Government take when the Palestinians go to the United Nations, again, in April for recognition? Could the British Government please take a different attitude?
We cannot expect the Palestinians to negotiate while settlements are being built at their current rate. On 18 December, the Israeli housing Minister announced that another 1,000 new settler homes would be built in East Jerusalem. That was a punitive response to Palestine’s admission to UNESCO. How can there be any basis for negotiation when settler violence has gone up by 150% in two years; when Jerusalem is being ethnically cleansed; when there are 5,000 Palestinian prisoners—more than 300 of them in military detention; and when a report, published just last week, said that child prisoners were being tortured and ill-treated in Israeli prisons?
Those are the offences that have to be addressed. It is time that those who rightly support the state of Israel’s being able to live in peace and security, as we all do, opened their eyes to the crimes being committed against the Palestinian people on a daily basis throughout Gaza, the west bank and, indeed, in Israel. Until we have that—
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this important and valuable debate. I wholeheartedly support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) that we should have a longer debate.
As we have touched on in this brief debate, the question of Israel and the peace process has been of immense—possibly unique—importance as a political issue for 60 or 70 years and longer. We are, of course, in a very novel situation because of the democratic developments that have taken place in the middle east since the Arab spring. Although I accept that Israel-Palestine is not the only political issue in the middle east, my discussions with new parliamentarians who will be engaged in the issue in countries such as Morocco and Tunisia have shown that it is very important to them. When I have spoken to them, they have asked for Britain to play its role in making progress in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. It is important to recognise that Britain has a role to play in this changed world.
At the moment, the situation in Israel is very fluid. Israeli elections are likely within the next year, and elections to the Palestinian Authority are also due. We know that negotiations are going on politically between Fatah and Hamas that will have a major impact on Israel and its perception of working with Palestinian representatives.
From the discussions that I have had, I am very aware of the importance of Iran in terms of the perceptions of Israel. When I speak to Israeli representatives both in Israel and here, I hear about the sense of insecurity that exists within the minds of Israelis in relation to that very important issue. I accept that Iran is not simply an issue for Israel. The proliferation of nuclear weapons in breach of agreements is an issue for the world and for the United Nations. That is an extremely important matter.
Of course, I have had the benefit of visiting Palestine and Israel on two separate occasions: first, in 2007, and secondly, last November in the company of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary, when I was privileged to have discussions in not only Israel, but Ramallah. On that occasion, I was visiting as a guest of Labour Friends of Israel, and I intend to visit as a guest of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding. I hope to visit places such as Gaza later this year.
I thank hon. Members who are here today and who have been engaged with the issue for many years. It is important that the breadth of view that we have heard expressed in the debate today is reflected in the positions that are adopted by the Opposition and by Her Majesty’s Government. Britain has an important role to play in the middle east peace process. We are respected. I do not know to whom the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke, but Tony Blair is respected. I have had important disagreements with the former Prime Minister on middle east policy at different times, but I have spoken to representatives of both the Palestinian Authority and Israel who appreciate the work that Tony Blair continues to do in the region. It is unfortunate that that partisan point was made in what has been a good debate.
What struck me on my two visits to Israel was that there has been progress in the west bank between 2007 and 2011. Economic progress has taken place, which is welcome and is part of the process of Israel and the Palestinian authority being able to work together. That will change individuals’ lives. We touched on the issue relating to Northern Ireland, which sometimes casts a fog but sometimes sheds light on the middle east peace process. Unless people see that, individually, their lives will be changed by progress in the peace process, they will not buy into that process. There are areas where progress has been made.
Mrs McGuire
Does my hon. Friend recognise the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court to instruct the Government to clear the settlement area of Migron? That is one of the largest settlement areas in the west bank and it has very clearly been identified as land owned by the Palestinians. That decision was endorsed on Sunday.
Ian Lucas
It is very important to recognise that Israel is a democracy and that it has an independent judiciary. We applaud those types of decisions and the fact that, within Israel, those decisions are being taken. However, pressures are coming from the Israeli Government. In the past year, they have talked about withdrawing funding from non-governmental organisations that do not support Israeli Government policy. That sort of thing does not help Israel, but the independent judiciary, to which my right hon. Friend refers, does. It is important that that is preserved. We have a situation in which some progress is being made, but that progress is not within the peace process at the present time. That is intensely frustrating.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ian Lucas
I am sorry, but I must make some progress. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
From my observations, the position of the peace process on the ground is intensely difficult. It is true that there had not been negotiations for a long time when I visited in November and that some meetings have occurred this year. We must, of course, welcome the fact that those meetings are taking place, but the settlements are a major barrier to any progress on securing peace. I should like to ask the Minister what efforts we are making to convey to the Israeli Government the importance of stopping settlement building. Unless that happens, the prospects for progress in the peace process are very limited.
I should also like to highlight the issue of UN recognition, because although the Labour party agrees with the Government position on many areas, we fundamentally disagree with their position to date on UN recognition. That is a matter of principle. If we really support a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine, we should establish the relevant mechanism in the United Nations. It is very disappointing that the Government took the view that that was not the correct approach.
As no real negotiations were going on, should we not have made an approach to the United Nations, which is a multilateral and respected organisation that had a major role in the establishment of the state of Israel? The state of Israel was, of course, granted recognition in 1947 and 1948 by UN resolutions on which the United Kingdom abstained. Should we not have gone to the UN to try to secure progress? It seems extraordinary that, when progress was not being made, the UK Government were resistant to using multilateral agencies and the most important multilateral agency of all—the United Nations—to secure progress.
I have been privileged to meet some hugely impressive individuals: Dan Meridor, the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, who was in the Palace only last week, and Salam Fayyad, who has been mentioned. Anyone can do business with them and, most importantly, they can do business with each other. Those individuals are clearly people who can bring and achieve peace in the right circumstances, with pressure brought to bear by the international community.
We all want to see progress in the middle east. It is one of the great political issues of our lifetimes. Progress can be achieved only through a two-state solution. We need to exert pressure from the international community to get the two parties to the negotiating table to seek a solution. If a solution is reached in the Israel-Palestine conflict, we will have a more secure and stable middle east, and an Arab spring that will bring wider democracy to us all.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to conclude this short but important debate, Mr Walker. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this important debate. I strongly agree with him that Israel, certainly by the standards of the middle east, is a force for social progress. He lost me a little bit when he argued that socialism had proven to be the greatest international guarantor of religious freedom, but let us move on to wider issues that are specific to the debate.
Israel is an important ally of the UK and a valued friend. I am pleased to note that our bilateral trade increased by 34% last year. I am also pleased to note the continued high-level exchanges on issues of national security, including the current threats from Iran and Syria, and instability elsewhere in the region. We are also expanding our ties in the fields of science, education and cyber issues. These are signs of a strong relationship being made stronger yet between Israel and the UK.
Our relationship with Israel is crucial for our national security and prosperity objectives. However, just as we are building a strong partnership with Israel, we are continuing to enhance our relationship with the Palestinians. That is reflected in high-level visits, including by President Abbas to the UK in January, our flourishing education links, and in parliamentary and cultural exchanges, some of which we have heard about this afternoon. Our open relationship with both Israel and the Palestinians allows us to have frank discussions with both. We do not always agree with each other, but, by ensuring robust partnerships, we will be more able to find ways to address each other’s concerns. I agree with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas): the UK is a voice that is heard loudly and clearly in this debate.
Hon. Members will be pleased to note that our recent changes to legislation on universal jurisdiction have been welcomed. We know the Israeli Government felt that this had previously been used inappropriately to target Israeli nationals. Where we identify such issues and can act on them, we will. We will continue to raise UK concerns strongly with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities.
This afternoon’s debate has demonstrated the high levels of interest, which rightly exist in the House, in the middle east peace process. The goal of the UK Government remains a two-state solution. We believe firmly that it should be based on 1967 lines with equivalent land swaps, incorporate a fair and realistic solution for refugees, include security arrangements respecting Palestinian sovereignty and protecting Israeli security, and be based on Jerusalem as a joint capital for both states. We remain fully committed to this strategic goal.
Jonathan Reynolds
I do not think that anyone would object to, or oppose, the statement the Minister has just made. Each one of those issues is so intractable that it prevents progress on any of the others. Is there any scope to try to make an intervention on just one of those issues—perhaps refugees or settlements—to at least push the peace process forward in a way that has not happened for quite a few years?
Mr Browne
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. In the remaining time available, I will try to illustrate precisely how we are advancing those objectives.
We are clear that a solution cannot be imposed from outside. Our current priority remains bringing the parties back to negotiations. We believe that it is only through negotiation and agreement that a sustainable two-state solution can be achieved. The UK will continue to be one of the principal supporters of Palestinian state-building efforts, assisting them to tackle poverty, build institutions and boost their economy. We will also continue, however, to emphasise to all parties the importance we place on direct negotiations, without preconditions.
What we believe is most needed is not a push for Palestinian statehood within the UN or its specialised agencies—that could push Israel and the Palestinians further apart—but a renewed commitment to the peace process. That must involve a demonstration of political will and leadership from both sides to break the current impasse.
Mr Browne
No, because lots of hon. Members have made contributions and I wish to try to respond to all of them if I can.
We remain deeply concerned by ongoing settlement activity, an issue raised by many hon. Members. Settlements are illegal under international law, and in direct contravention of Israel’s commitments under the Quartet road map. They make a two-state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, physically harder to achieve. This is made worse by the Israeli Government’s policy of connecting settlements to already stretched water supplies, and of restricting Palestinian movement and access in the occupied territories, including establishing a secondary road system to separate Palestinian and Israeli traffic. The Government have consistently called on Israel to halt all settlement activity and to reverse its recent announcements about expanding existing settlements.
We urge all sides to exercise restraint and avoid civilian casualties. It is unacceptable that Palestinian militant groups continue to threaten ordinary Israeli citizens—a point powerfully made by many contributors to our deliberations. It is also unacceptable that Israel continues to launch strikes that affect, and on occasions kill, ordinary Palestinians. We remain concerned by conditions in Gaza. It is deeply troubling that Gaza, which should have a thriving economy, is currently one of the highest per capita recipients of aid funding in the world. We will continue to press the Israeli Government to ease the movement and access restrictions that make life so difficult for the people of Gaza and are doing ongoing damage to its economy. Such restrictions do not help the peace process.
The UK has been providing valuable support to Palestinians through our programmes. In Gaza and the west bank, we help to support 5,700 children through primary school, and immunise 2,000 children under five against measles. This type of work—there is much more I could put before the House—is vital to the Palestinian people and helps to keep the prospects of a two-state solution alive, and we will continue to do it.
We continue to follow developments on Palestinian reconciliation closely, including recent meetings between Hamas and Fatah officials. We have been clear that any new Palestinian authority, including any technocratic Government formed to prepare for elections, must be composed of figures committed to the principles set by President Abbas in Cairo in May 2011; must uphold the principle of non-violence; be committed to a negotiated two-state solution; and accept previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. We will judge any future Palestinian Government by their actions and their readiness to work for peace.
In the context of the dramatic changes in the wider middle east, we continue to encourage all groups to espouse the principle of non-violence and to join mainstream democratic politics, thereby contributing to peace and stability in the region. Hon. Members have spoken about the significance to Israel, and to the peace process, of changes in the wider middle east in the past year or so. The encouraging aspects of the Arab spring highlight the enormous benefits that could follow for Israelis and for Palestinians, and for the region as a whole, were lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians achieved. The opportunity to conclude an agreement based on a two-state solution that is acceptable and beneficial to all parties will not exist indefinitely. It is of the utmost importance to all parties that this chance is taken while it exists. As a result, the UK Government recognise that there is a degree of urgency involved in the process.
I assure hon. Members from all parts of the House that the UK remains fully committed to developing our partnerships with both Israel and the Palestinians. We will continue to work tirelessly in support of the effort to achieve a long-term, durable solution to the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As long as we judge that a two-state solution remains obtainable, we will do all we can to encourage all parties to obtain it. That remains our objective. I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate, and the wide interest shown in this vital issue of our times.
EU Directive on Animal Experimentation
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.
The transposition of the European Union directive on animal experimentation into United Kingdom law provides an opportunity to celebrate and protect the UK’s proud record of pursuing the best standards of animal welfare. It was initially thought that the new directive would have little effect on the operation of the seminal Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. However, the process has turned out to be much more comprehensive and complicated than expected.
In response to a call for comments issued in 2011, the Home Office received more than 10,000 responses from individuals and almost 100 from organisations, illustrating the high level of interest in this issue.
In October 2011, the Home Office said that a report on the outcome of the consultation would be published early in 2012, as would a draft code of practice and draft guidance on the application of the revised UK legislation, and that these documents would be accompanied by an indication of the Government’s intentions in making the transposition of the requirements of the directive into UK law. It later became clear that Parliament would have to consider the Government’s proposals in yes/no votes, without the opportunity to make amendments, before the summer recess in July 2012. It is now expected that regulations to transpose the provisions of the directive will be published in May, giving little time for meaningful, effective consultation.
It must be recognised that there was a need to harmonise protection of laboratory animals within the EU member states. The new directive has a number of positive, welcome provisions. For example, it requires that upper limits of pain and distress should be laid down and should not be surpassed; that the weighing of likely benefit and likely suffering should be conducted before any project work begins; that there should be retrospective assessments to evaluate whether the stated objectives were achieved and what harm was inflicted on the animals used; that there should be personal records from birth for individual cats, dogs and non-human primates; and that all personnel involved should be adequately educated and trained.
The Government have attempted to reassure interested parties that high standards of laboratory animal protection, which have operated in the UK for many years, will not be relaxed. However, there is concern that the UK legislation might be watered down to harmonise with an EU minimum. This concern is not expressed only by animal welfare groups. Comments published in February’s edition of the British Medical Journal indicated that organisations representing some of the main users of laboratory animals, including the UK Bioscience Coalition, the Association of Medical Research Charities and the Institute of Animal Technology, are also apprehensive.
The fear expressed in the BMJ article was that the Government will not take advantage of article 2 of the directive, which permits member states to maintain higher standards than those required by the directive, but will merely copy out those standards word for word into UK law. Recent experience indicates these concerns may be justified.
The use of great apes as laboratory animals in the UK has been banned since 1997, but it is not in UK law. I wrote to the Minister earlier this year, on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group for the replacement of animals in medical experimentation, which I chair, suggesting that there were compelling ethical, scientific, logistical and economic reasons for making the ban a legal stipulation in the UK. Unfortunately, the reply was disappointing, saying the intention was indeed to copy out the paragraphs in the directive that allow member states to apply to permit the use of great apes in certain circumstances.
The case against using chimpanzees is unanswerable, since, even if their use were ethically acceptable, scientifically justifiable and affordable, where would animals be obtained from in the necessary numbers, if an unforeseen threat to humans arose that could not be dealt with in any other way? Surely the Government should seize the opportunity to put protections into this legislation.
The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, which provides the secretariat to the all-party group, and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection presented a joint submission to the Minister, which spelled out the case for making the ban on using great apes in the UK permanent and legally binding. The answer they received again repeated the Government’s view that they did not envisage any circumstances in which the UK would claim that there was a compelling need to use great apes. So why not make it clear in this legislation?
Unfortunately, the Government’s approach to great apes fuels concerns about their overall approach to the transposition, giving credence to concerns expressed by bodies such as FRAME, the BUAV, Animal Defenders International and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as well as those listed in the BMJ article, which I mentioned earlier.
The Minister knows that there is particular public concern about the use of any primates, highlighted by the recent Bateson report, showing that at least 9% of experiments, and probably more, have no discernible potential benefit for humans. In transposing article 8, will the Government clarify the meaning of “debilitating clinical condition” to make it clear that the use of primates can only be considered where a serious human disease is involved, not simply a mild or temporary deterioration, such as baldness or the common cold?
I am particularly concerned that we take the opportunity to put animal experiments on a more transparent footing. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act needs to be reconsidered to meet the transparency requirement of the directive. The simplest way to do that would be just to remove it, while leaving in place the protection of personal data, safety and commercial confidentiality provided for in the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In fact, if the Government published anonymised project licences centrally, together with the findings, whether positive or negative, that would remove any remaining risk of individual researchers being harassed, while allowing a mature public discussion of the costs and societal and scientific benefits of experiments, as well as enabling researchers to check that they are not duplicating previous research. Will the Minister confirm that university research will still be open to freedom of information requests, within the existing FOIA safeguards?
Of grave concern is the possibility that the current financial situation could be used to reduce the effort put into the administration of the UK legislation, including the licensing system and the work of the Home Office inspectorate. The system of licensing, consultation between licensees and inspectors, unannounced visits and regional administration has worked well for many years and is strongly supported by the scientific community. However, there are fears the number of inspectors will be allowed to dwindle, that inspectors will interact less with licensees, as advisers and unannounced visitors, and that the whole system will be run electronically from one site, probably at the Home Office in London.
Such changes could undoubtedly be made to fit with the requirements of the directive, but they would have a serious, deleterious effect on the standard of protection of laboratory animals in the UK, which, we are regularly informed, is currently the highest in the world and is something that we in the UK can rightly be proud of.
Given the high regard in which it is held and the key function it plays in ensuring compliance with the law, the implementation of the three R’s—replacement, reduction, refinement—and the maintenance of best possible practice, the Home Office inspectorate should be maintained at its current capacity and its advisory role should be kept intact.
Furthermore, there are concerns that UK housing and husbandry standards might be reduced to the lower EU standards, including for the floor area of cages for dogs or the height of cages for rats, which are greater in the UK than would be required under the directive. Many in the scientific community would find that undesirable. In order to maintain good public relations and perceptions of research and to ensure the continuation of the UK’s established reputation for high standards of animal welfare, lower standards should be avoided, by recourse to article 2 if necessary.
In addition to possibly lowering technical standards, the transposition could weaken the current, successful ethical review process, by substituting it with the “animal-welfare body” stipulated in the directive. Although the Home Office indicated in the consultation that the two were similar, there are important differences in function and emphasis. For instance, it is important to retain the “ethical” aspect of the name, as that more accurately reflects what the role of the body should be. A great deal of effort has been invested in improving the effectiveness of the process, and the general consensus is that it is useful and desirable, and that, where there are problems, they are about effective implementation, rather than with the process per se. There are strong arguments, therefore, for retaining function 2 of the process, namely project evaluation, which would be lost in purely animal welfare considerations. That is particularly important in considering local factors that impact on projects, and in facilitating communication and dissemination of information to the various people involved.
In summary, the recent media coverage concerning the unwillingness of internal transport companies to carry laboratory animals shows that animal experimentation remains high on the public and scientific agenda. Therefore, very great care should be taken to ensure the transposition of the directive does not in any way weaken the UK’s hard-fought reputation for maintaining the highest standards in preserving the essential fine balance between science and animal welfare. In a joint response, the British Veterinary Association and the Laboratory Animals Veterinary Association emphasised that the responsible use of animals in research has improved human and animal welfare through the advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of safer and more effective medicines. They went on to say:
“animals should only be used in research when no alternative is available and the work is justified through independent ethical scrutiny, and we continue to support the traditional principles of the ‘Three Rs’. We strongly believe that higher standards should be retained under Article 2 of the Directive even without clear evidence of benefit to animal welfare, unless there is evidence to show that no reduction in welfare will result.”
That is a clear message from the professional bodies. They conclude:
“The high level of public confidence in the robust regulation of scientific procedures using animals in the UK should not be compromised by the reduction of requirements without this evidence.”
I will be grateful if the Minister could clarify a number of issues in his response. How will he ensure sufficient parliamentary time to scrutinise the proposals when they are brought forward? Will he take the opportunity to put the protection of great apes in legislation? Will he clarify the meaning of “debilitating clinical condition”? Will he clarify how the transparency of access to information will work, so that researchers do not duplicate their research? Will he give reassurances that the current successful approach to licensing and inspection will not be weakened? Finally, will he commit to retaining a robust ethical review process?
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing the debate and on his energetic chairmanship of the all-party group. I may not be able to give him as much detail as he might like because, as he will appreciate, I am standing in—no doubt inadequately—for the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), and because she and the Home Office more widely are still looking at the details of the transposition, but I will try to answer as many of his detailed questions as I can.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government recognise that the regulation of animal experiments is of significant public interest. We are strongly committed to ensuring the best possible standards of animal welfare and protection for animals used for scientific purposes.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
My last report in the European Parliament, before I retired from it, took the directive through to First Reading. One of the problems in getting the agreement of 27 countries is that the regulations often have to be reduced in order to get them agreed by all member states. I would like to put it on record that I believe that we have some of the best research, done under the best welfare requirements in the world, and I do not want to see that watered down. In many cases I like to see the reduction of regulation, but on this occasion it is essential to keep our strong rules in place, because we are dealing with animal welfare and the quality of the science. I want that reassurance from the Government.
Damian Green
By the time I sit down, I hope that I will have provided my hon. Friend with that reassurance. He, too, deserves congratulations, on taking legislation to that stage in the European Parliament, which I suspect is more complex and difficult than anything we try to do in this Parliament.
The Government are strongly committed to ensuring the best possible standards of animal welfare. Current legislation, as was rightly acknowledged by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, provides that high level of protection: work cannot be licensed if it could be carried out without using animals, and the procedures must cause the minimum possible suffering to the smallest number of animals of the lowest sensitivity. That approach reflects closely what the public want. At the same time, animal experimentation continues to be a vital tool in developing health care improvements and in protecting man and the environment. The potential health and economic benefits from new and innovative treatments are dependent on providing the right framework for the UK’s life sciences sector and university research base, which are vital national assets and critical to our long-term economic growth, so we are determined to provide the right framework.
The transposition of the new European directive for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes provides us with a valuable and timely opportunity to review our own legislation governing experiments on animals. As has been pointed out, many requirements of the directive are similar to current UK legislation and practice. For example, it places a strong emphasis on minimising the use of animals and the promotion of alternatives. Some requirements go further than current UK legislation, most notably the introduction of mandatory minimum standards of care and accommodation for animals. Other requirements are potentially less stringent; the directive does not, as UK legislation does, provide special protection for cats, dogs and horses. Article 2 of the directive allows us to retain current stricter UK provisions as long as they do not inhibit the free market. The directive thus provides us with an opportunity to confirm the best aspects of current UK regulation and to make improvements where we can do better.
During 2011 we held a public consultation on options for transposition. I have slightly different figures from the hon. Gentleman, so I hope they are accurate. More than 13,000 individuals and 100 organisations responded, which clearly confirms a very strong interest in the topic. We are currently completing our analysis of the responses and will announce our decisions shortly—I hope shortly enough to leave proper time for parliamentary scrutiny, which the hon. Gentleman reasonably mentioned.
The directive clearly offers some opportunities, such as helping the work that we are already doing to promote the development of alternatives. The programme for government includes commitments to end the testing of household products on animals, and to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. The new directive assists with those objectives by strengthening the protection of animals used in scientific procedures, and promoting the three R’s: the development, validation, acceptance and implementation of methods and strategies that “replace, reduce and refine” the scientific use of animals.
The directive will also allow us to remove unnecessary bureaucracy where it still exists, and to build on the significant improvements we have already made in our day-to-day implementation of current legislation. We are planning to focus on simplifying the details of personal licences, and making further improvements to the project licence application process and to the format of the project licence. The directive requires member states to inspect animal research laboratories and breeders, but the minimum frequency of inspection is less than we currently practise. Many of the responses to our consultation commented on the strengths of our current inspection system, and clearly that is an issue of great interest to the hon. Gentleman.
We are committed to maintaining a strong and properly resourced inspectorate, and a full, risk-based programme of inspections. The relationship between inspectors, licence holders and animal care staff is crucial to the effective implementation of the regulatory framework, and we will not jeopardise that relationship. The hon. Gentleman referred to the current move to centralise the operation of the administrative part of the legislation in London. That does not apply to inspectors. Indeed, it has been confirmed that inspectors will continue to be located close to those they inspect. I hope that that provides the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance.
We are aware of the concerns that have been expressed that transposition will lead to a lowering of welfare standards for laboratory animals in the UK. That is not our intention, and we are determined not to weaken UK standards, but that does not mean retaining stricter UK standards when there is no clear evidence that they translate into better welfare, nor does it mean that we must put everything into the legislation if we can achieve the right outcomes by encouraging good practice. What we are looking for is the right balance. We must ensure that we can maintain and further enhance our high standards, but at the same time we must avoid putting UK research at a competitive disadvantage compared with our counterparts in other member states. For the Government, both are objectives for the transposition of the new directive.
I shall give some specific examples of our approach to transposition. We intend to retain higher UK standards when there is strong and broadly-based support or good evidence for their retention. I mentioned some of those earlier, but it is important to put them on the record, not least to reassure the hon. Gentleman. One example is that we propose to continue to provide special protection for cats, dogs and horses, as well as non-human primates, and will allow their use only when no other species is suitable or available. That was widely supported in our public consultation.
I turn to the specific subject of great apes. We will continue to prohibit the use of great apes. There has been concern—the hon. Gentleman expressed it earlier— that the directive weakens the protection of those animals by providing a derogation allowing their use in exceptional circumstances. I can assure him and the House that we foresee no circumstances in which we would use that derogation, and we will put the ban in the legislation, as he asked. That is a full assurance such as he sought.
We propose to retain protection for foetal and embryonic forms of birds and reptiles during the last third of their development. That is not a requirement of the directive, but we received persuasive evidence from the public consultation of the welfare benefits of giving the same protection to those species as will be given to mammals during their development stages. I hope that that will also be welcome. We were persuaded that the burden of providing that additional protection is proportionate to the benefit. That is the test we are operating. We also propose to retain a system of personal licences as a means of monitoring and ensuring the competence of those working with research animals.
The directive lists methods of humane killing that may be used without project authorisation. Our current UK legislation takes a similar approach to that of the directive in this area, but there are significant differences between the UK list of methods and that in the directive. Some methods listed in the directive are not currently permitted in the UK without specific authorisation. The differences have caused widespread concern, and we are minded to maintain the best of our current approach to humane killing. To take that forward, we have recently published a revised list of humane killing methods for consultation, and will incorporate only the best methods in our updated legislation. Again, I hope that that provides reassurance to the many people who are particularly concerned about this part of the directive.
Another issue of particular concern to many people is animal care and accommodation standards, specifically those examples in which current UK cage and enclosure sizes are greater than those required under the directive. For some, when there is good supportive evidence, we are minded to continue to mandate the UK dimensions. For others, the difference in dimensions may be so small as to make little difference to the welfare of the animals, but sufficient to add significantly to the costs for the life sciences community if they were retained, which would risk making the UK less competitive than other countries in Europe and beyond. Instead, we are considering ways of using the revision of our current UK code of practice on care and accommodation to encourage voluntary improvements in standards of housing.
The UK has a long tradition of housing animals in conditions that are better than those mandated in regulations—for example, the housing of non-human primates in the UK has significantly exceeded the minimum requirements for many years. Our approach has been driven by sound evidence from our welfare scientists, together with a willingness on the part of both the academic sector and industry to provide the best environment for our animals. We want to support that approach by encouraging the work of welfare scientists and the research community. As scientific evidence for higher standards emerges, we will expect our research community to respond.
On freedom of information, which the hon. Gentleman brought up at the start of the debate, most responders to the consultation recognise that section 24 in its current form is not compatible with the directive’s commitment to transparency, and many also recognise that it may be a barrier to the sharing of best practice and information on the three R’s. At the same time, personal details, intellectual property and commercial information will continue to require protection. We will consider how best to provide that protection under the new legislation, at the same time as meeting the aspiration to greater transparency.
The hon. Gentleman also brought up the issue of weighing pain against benefit. UK legislation already requires the Secretary of State to weigh the likely pain against the expected benefit, and in that regard the directive confirms current UK practice.
The hon. Gentleman referred to transport disruption. We have been working actively with the life sciences community and the transport sector to broker a commercial solution to provide a sustainable and resilient supply chain. That will be important to the future of the life sciences industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the use of non-human primates, and particularly the definition of a debilitating condition. We do not intend to define further what a debilitating condition is because we believe that that should be done on a case-by-case basis for each project licence application received. Using the current UK code of practice in that way to encourage voluntary improvements, particularly for housing, will lead to better standards. Overall, in addressing these sensitive issues, we believe that good welfare is fundamental to good science.
Animal experimentation is an area in which Government policy must recognise a wide range of opinions. Our current policy is based on the belief that there are real benefits to man, animals and the environment that can, at present, be achieved only with the use of animals, but it reflects the need for all animal use to be fully justified, and for animal suffering to be minimised. Any suffering must be carefully weighed against the potential benefits. Those are the foundations of our current legislation, and the directive provides us with the opportunity to build on them.
As I have said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities and others will consider carefully—
British Expatriates (Punjab)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate under your chairmanship and wise guidance, Mr Walker, and I wish to highlight an issue that has important implications for British citizens living and working in India. This debate was inspired by one of my constituents, Mrs Tejinder Soor-Hudson, who contacted me in the summer of 2010 to express her concerns about the death of her mother, Mrs Mohinder Kaur Soor, a British national who owned a house in Jalandhar in the Punjab region of India. Jalandhar is part of the so-called NRI—non-resident Indian—belt of the Doaba region. Many Britons of Indian origin own properties there, and it has become an affluent hub of investment.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but this debate concerns not only those who work or live in India, but visitors and people who live in Britain but travel to India, particularly to that region. I must declare an interest because I was originally a resident of Jalandhar, so I know the area well. People and visitors there are afraid for their properties, as well as for other business in the area, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will mention not only people who work there, but also visitors.
Mr Raab
As usual, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. I am not seeking to narrow the confines of this debate; this is clearly a serious and substantive issue that affects those who live in the area and those who travel to it.
My constituent’s mother, Mrs Soor, travelled to India in June 2009 with the intention of selling her home in Jalandhar. Instead, she was found dead later the same month. Mrs Soor-Hudson contacted me because she is convinced that her mother’s death was organised by a criminal gang in order to facilitate the theft of her property. Worse still, she believes that the Indian authorities were complicit in a cover-up of that appalling murder.
The objective evidence is striking. The resulting post-mortem, carried out on tissue samples from Mrs Soor’s body, concluded that she had been the victim of insecticide poisoning. That, however, was in stark contradiction to the official police report, which stated that no poison had been detected in Mrs Soor’s body, which was then cremated before the results of the post-mortem were made available. On top of that, the official police report did not give any indication about what—if any—investigation was carried out at the home where the body was discovered.
The most basic details that one might reasonably expect from the scene of a suspicious death, such as what time the police entered the premises, whether there was evidence of forced entry, and the condition in which the body was found, were not properly recorded. Subsequently, Mrs Soor-Hudson discovered that a key suspect in the case is related by marriage to an officer working under a deputy commissioner, who may well have the means and motivation to influence proceedings.
There is ample evidence to suggest corruption in this case. Mrs Soor-Hudson was told that if she wanted the suspect brought in for questioning, she had the option to pay an unidentified individual to make false statements about that suspect. That individual would then commit perjury if necessary. Unbelievably, that suggestion was even endorsed by my constituent’s then solicitor, although I hasten to add that Mrs Soor-Hudson, of course, rejected any notion of becoming involved in such improper or criminal behaviour. However, it is not difficult to see why she believes that such a dark shadow of suspicion lies across the local police investigation into her mother’s death.
I met Mrs Soor-Hudson at my constituency surgery at the beginning of the year in order to get an update on the case. She is resolute and passionately committed to uncovering the facts about what happened to her mother in June 2009, and after a number of years of bureaucratic frustration, we appear to be making some initial modest progress in the investigation. As the Minister will be aware, over the past 18 months I have written several times to Foreign Office Ministers on behalf of my constituent, and I wish to thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for its help and assistance in pursuing Mrs Soor-Hudson’s concerns in this distressing case, and for taking it to the Indian authorities via the high commission.
As I understand it, a fresh inquiry into the matter has now been ordered by the commissioner of police, who will report to the Indian high commission in due course. I am not aware of any progress beyond that initial statement of intent, but belated though that is, it is a welcome development even if it is a point of departure rather than of arrival. Will the Minister undertake to do everything within his power to press the Indian authorities to ensure that a proper, robust, rigorous and independent investigation is carried out into this tragic case?
While particularly distressing to the family, this case is all the more alarming because, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) pointed out, it is by no means an isolated incident. A number of other hon. Members have become involved in similar cases that have affected their own constituents, and there is every reason to believe that those cases are only the tip of the iceberg. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) will soon attest, there was also the horrific murder of Surjit Kaur, a 67-year-old mother of three from Chatham, who was kidnapped and beheaded in March last year while visiting the Punjab region. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tenacity in raising that terrible case with the Prime Minister, and for his support in helping Mrs Kaur’s family get an independent investigation into that appalling crime, and a measure of justice.
Sadly, there are many other cases of similar nature. Mr Mohan Singh Biring, a Leicester businessman who had gone to India to oversee a property deal, was murdered—again in the Punjab—after a vicious and unprovoked attack in August 2005 by a gang wielding baseball bats and iron bars. Two men were jailed for life for his murder, but only after intervention from the local Member of Parliament, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and I pay tribute to his efforts. Mr Charanjit Singh ran a business in Plumstead but was shot dead while visiting Jalandhar in 2009, the apparent victim of a financial dispute over a property purchase that had taken place in England.
Those are tragic cases in their own right, but they also tell a wider story and demonstrate a broader trend. A worrying number of murders and other serious crimes are being committed against British citizens of Indian origin, the so-called NRIs, and visitors to the area, particularly in the Punjab region. There are major concerns regarding the allegations of incompetence and—let’s face it—corruption within the Indian authorities, which seems to feature in so many of these cases. I commend the support that the Foreign Office has given to the victims and their families, but I feel that we must do more to protect British citizens, and others, who are travelling to or residing in the Punjab region.
What advice does the FCO offer to British non-resident Indians who are travelling to or living in the Punjab region but who may have real and objective grounds to fear for their safety? What is the FCO’s support mechanism for dealing with cases such as those I have described today? Does the Minister feel that that support mechanism is adequate, or is it time to review the current arrangements?
I am, of course, acutely aware that primary responsibility for investigating crimes committed overseas must rest with the police and the judicial authorities in that country. However, we can work with India on a bilateral basis to keep our citizens in that region safe from harm. What, if any, formal arrangements are currently in place with the Indian Government to facilitate such a co-operative approach? Is any or could any of our bilateral aid be focused on co-operation? How does the Minister think that we can work with the Indian authorities to ensure that we offer our citizens, and others travelling to the region, the same protection when they travel abroad that Indian nationals would rightly expect to receive in this country?
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this important debate on an issue that has real ramifications for British nationals who visit India. I also pay tribute to his excellent work in representing the concerns of his constituents.
Like my hon. Friend, I have encountered a tragic and horrific case. It involves the mother of a constituent of mine. Surjit Kaur was a British national who visited India in February and March 2011. I am led to believe from the little information that the family and I, and the Foreign Office, have been provided with by the Indian authorities that Mrs Kaur was murdered on 31 March 2011.
Mrs Kaur’s tragic case was highlighted in The Guardian on Friday 8 April 2011. It is that newspaper’s reporting of the facts of the case to which I will refer. As I said, the Indian authorities have not provided the full facts, which were sought by the family and me in our meeting with the Foreign Office. At this point, I thank the Foreign Office Minister, who was very kind in meeting the family, taking on board their concerns and coming back with a number of points that needed clarification. Despite his best efforts, I was very disappointed with the response of the Indian authorities in not providing that information.
I will set out briefly the facts of the case. The report in The Guardian stated:
“The decapitated remains of a British woman have been recovered by Indian police who claim she was murdered after a bungled attempt to extort money from her children in the UK.
The head and body of Surjit Kaur, who is believed to have been in her 60s, were found separately this week. Two local men, one a relative of the victim, have been arrested and police said they had confessed to the killing. The two arrested men, named by police as Harbhaghan Singh and Gurwinder Singh, visited the home of a close relative of Kaur after her disappearance to express their concern, according to reports.”
The Guardian report goes on to say:
“Sandip Sharma, the deputy superintendent of…police, who is investigating the murder, told the Guardian the attack took place after the two suspects lured her away under false pretences…He said they strangled Kaur, cut off her head and threw it into a river. Her body was dismembered and scattered in nearby fields, he added.”
In the light of that, I asked some specific questions of the Indian authorities in the meeting with the Minister. I have a response from the Foreign Office, dated 21 December 2011; it followed the meeting between the family and the Minister on 23 November. The first question was this: did the two accused plead guilty to the murder of Mrs Kaur? The answer in that letter was yes—they pleaded guilty to the murder of Mrs Kaur. The second question that I asked specifically was whether they were sentenced for the murder of Mrs Kaur. The answer in the letter was that they were not:
“The trial collapsed before it reached a conclusion and so the accused were not sentenced.”
When two people have confessed to a murder, how can a trial collapse? It defies logic to hear that two people have admitted guilt for the murder of an individual and then to be told that the trial has collapsed. But it gets worse than that, which is why I think that there needs to be a full, thorough investigation.
On page 2 of the letter is a question that I asked:
“Why did the case collapse and what can be done now?”
The answer comes back from the Indian authorities that the police have now confirmed that the case is closed. How can it be closed if Mrs Kaur has been murdered and we have two people who admit to the murder? We are told that the case has collapsed. If it has collapsed, the authorities should reopen the inquiry and try to find out who committed the murder, but in this case the Indian authorities are saying, “Sorry—case closed”. That causes me real concern.
I say this to the Minister. We have so many people, including expat nationals, who travel to India and want to be safe. India is a booming economy, but it also has a moral and ethical obligation for the safety of our constituents. Look at the case to which I am referring. If individuals who have accepted that they committed murder are walking away from a court, that leads me—and, indeed, any reasonable person—to come to the following conclusions. The legal system is defunct and illogical; the investigation is incompetent; there are corrupt practices; or there is a combination of all three.
I urge the Indian authorities to reopen this case. They say that the case has collapsed. In any civilised legal system, if a case has collapsed, the authorities reopen it to get the people who have committed murder. In this case, that is even more imperative because the two individuals had previously pleaded guilty to the horrific murder of Mrs Kaur.
The authorities need to carry out an independent and thorough inquiry, so that my constituent and his family can get the one thing that they want—justice for their mother. They want nothing but justice for their mother. I urge the Foreign Office to make the strongest possible representations to the Indian authorities to reopen the case and ensure that those who carried out this horrific murder are brought to justice.
I again pay tribute to the work that the Minister has done and how he dealt with the family. I pay tribute to the work done by the consular staff and all the others involved, including the family liaison officers from Kent police in my constituency who worked with the family. But despite all that, what this comes down to is the will of the Indian authorities. In this case, it is clear that there is no will. If they want the Indian legal system to be taken seriously, they must reopen the inquiry and bring the people responsible to account.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
I am grateful for the opportunity to conclude this short but important debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Walker. I start by commending my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for their extremely powerful and persuasive speeches. I hope and believe that those speeches—indeed, the whole debate—will be read by the Indian authorities and that it will be clear to them just how seriously this issue is treated in the House of Commons.
I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton for securing this debate on a subject of great importance to his constituent, Mrs Soor-Hudson, and to him. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to his specific concerns, and I hope that I can go some way towards addressing the issues that Mrs Soor-Hudson has been dealing with during the past three years. My hon. Friend is concerned not just with the difficult situation that faces his constituent, but with the wider issue of the delays in the Indian and Punjabi justice system that can often affect British nationals and that were powerfully articulated a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham as well.
First, I extend my condolences to Mrs Soor-Hudson and to her family for the tragic loss of her mother in Jalandhar three years ago. Mrs Soor-Hudson’s courage and tenacity in taking forward her subsequent campaign to try to establish the facts behind her mother’s death are truly admirable. I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can continue to be of assistance to her during this difficult time.
Let me set out what contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has had with Mrs Soor-Hudson since her mother passed away and what action has been taken to assist her. The consular directorate in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was first contacted by Mrs Soor-Hudson regarding her mother’s death in December 2009. Since then, consular officials in India have contacted the Indian police on numerous occasions, including at senior levels, to seek progress reports and ask for contact details on behalf of the family. The Indian authorities have responded in writing to the British high commissioner in Delhi, as well as directly to Mrs Soor-Hudson.
Consular officials in London also met Mrs Soor-Hudson to discuss the case in February of this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton has written to, and received replies from, two of my ministerial colleagues, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), on this issue.
Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton is aware, Mrs Soor-Hudson’s case is not unique. The British high commission regularly raises issues in relation to a number of cases that involve the deaths of British nationals in India. Many of those cases are complicated. Some of them are concerned with deaths in suspicious circumstances, and others with murders. In some cases, the cause of death remains unknown. In others, the bereaved family have had strong concerns about the investigations into the death of their family member, as in Mrs Soor-Hudson’s case.
Such cases illustrate the fact—this point was powerfully made by my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton and for Gillingham and Rainham—that the Indian authorities need to have a justice system that not only enjoys the confidence of their own population but is seen to perform at standards in which people around the world can feel confident.
In an effort to assist all families affected by the cases, I have, on two occasions, raised these issues with my Indian counterparts. Last July, I spoke to the Union Minister of Home Affairs and passed over a note listing a number of outstanding cases that involve British nationals in India. In February, during a visit to India, I met the Minister of State for External Affairs and passed over another note of outstanding cases. I hope that hon. Members will realise that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the whole British Government attach importance to representing individual cases of British nationals who have been involved in terrible circumstances in India and that the families feel that the justice system has not treated their case with sufficient efficiency or, in some cases, seriousness.
However, as I am sure my hon. Friends are aware, the investigation into the deaths of British nationals in India is the responsibility of the Indian authorities. Unfortunately, just as in the UK, such processes can take a number of years. The British Government will not interfere in an Indian investigation. Similarly, we would not accept the interference of a foreign Government in an investigation in the UK. I know that my hon. Friends will feel frustrated by that, but it is the only basis on which we can reasonably proceed. The country within which the incident took place has the sovereign authority over the investigation and prosecution of the case.
Mr Virendra Sharma
I apologise for not congratulating the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing such a wonderful and important debate. Does the Minister agree that in the light not only of these cases but of the many cases of murder and kidnap in the state, especially of those people from Britain, that the Department should look into providing information detailing the kind of support that can be secured from the British high commission and others before people leave here? While they are in the country, they need security, guidance and adequate legal support. Such help does not directly interfere with the state, but it would be useful for individuals.
Mr Browne
I will come to that point later in my speech. Although it is an important intervention, the House and the wider public must understand the limitations that we in the Foreign Office face in our jurisdiction and our staffing and budgetary restraints. Literally millions of British people travel abroad every year, and we provide a service that is as good and as comprehensive as we can within the constraints that exist.
I was talking about the role of the sovereign Government—in this case, the Indian Government—in investigating a case. We recommend to the families involved that it is imperative to retain the services of a local lawyer at the earliest opportunity. That lawyer will be best placed to advise the family on how best to proceed within the existing local legal framework and to address any concerns the family may have about any aspect of the investigation. To that end, each British embassy, high commission or consulate maintains a list of English-speaking local lawyers, to which consular officials will refer family members. However, we do not claim to have an expert knowledge of the legal system of every country in which we operate.
Rehman Chishti
Just to clarify the point about not knowing the exact legal systems of the country, does the Minister agree that in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world common sense would dictate that, if someone pleads guilty to murder and it is an agreed fact, that person should be sentenced rather than walk free from court?
Mr Browne
Perhaps I should not be drawn on that specific case. All the cases that have been raised both inside and outside this debate suggest that the Indian justice system is failing to provide satisfactory justice to a number of citizens and that must surely give the Indian authorities cause for reflection.
Mr Raab
The Minister is treating this in a serious and methodical way. I understand his point about resources. We know that there was a dumbing down of bilateral relations under the previous Government and that this Government are trying to address that. May I just challenge his strict approach and focus on sovereignty and the idea that the investigation and the approach of the justice system must be left solely to the domestic authorities in India? Under the Vienna convention on consular relations and as a matter of India’s own human rights obligations on torture or fair trials guarantees and given the endemic corruption that he has rather lightly alluded to, we have every right and it is every bit the British Government’s business to raise these issues and to press the Indian authorities to behave properly.
Mr Browne
I am grateful for that intervention. I certainly accept that we have a legitimate role, which we exercise with vigour and enthusiasm, to press on countries around the world our desire to see them operate an effective and balanced justice system. Where we feel that improvements can be made, we make that point. However, it is worth pointing out that British police have no jurisdiction to investigate crimes overseas. If a bereaved family suspects that British nationals were involved in the planning or committing of a crime, I urge them to report their concerns to their local UK police force. There may be occasions when it is appropriate for that force to act, but it is not the decisive and final actor, because that responsibility rests with the host country. FCO officials have met their Indian counterparts to discuss the wider issues that we are discussing today, and we will certainly look for opportunities for future co-operation. As the Minister, I give that undertaking personally, but I also make it on behalf of our high commissioner and his team in Delhi and in other posts across India.
Consular officials in India and in London will continue to monitor Mrs Soor-Hudson’s case and will keep her informed as and when we receive updates from the Indian authorities. I am aware that Mrs Soor-Hudson is concerned about the financial implications of continuing to work on her case in India. Although I appreciate the pressure that that concern must bring, I am afraid that the FCO cannot provide her with financial assistance in that regard. It is not our policy and, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) a few moments ago, given that there are literally tens of millions of overseas visits by British nationals each year, it is not financially viable for us to provide that service in all cases where it might be thought desirable.
The FCO’s role in such cases is to ensure that the family receive information about local police and legal procedures. Where there are concerns that the investigation is not being carried out in line with local procedures or there are justified complaints about discrimination against the person who has died or their family, the FCO can make appropriate representations to the local authorities.
To summarise, I am confident that consular officials are doing all that they can, within the remits of our consular assistance policy, to assist Mrs Soor-Hudson in her efforts to establish what happened to her mother. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton and all hon. Members are assured that we will continue to raise her case with the Indian authorities at the appropriate times.
The British Government take our consular responsibilities extremely seriously; consular responsibilities are one of our three foreign policy priorities. Although we have a long-standing and close relationship with India, based on a broad range of mutual interests, we will continue to push our consular interests in support of British citizens in India without fear, because we see this as an important area for the Indian authorities to focus on when British nationals and their MPs feel that a shortcoming needs to be addressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Companies House (Public Targets 2012-13)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2012-13:
Public Target | Target |
|---|---|
Customer | |
Achieve a score of more than 86% in our customer satisfaction survey | >86% |
To achieve an average compliance level for accounts of 99% | 99% |
To achieve an average compliance level for annual returns of 97.8% (new public target) | 97.8% |
Resolve complaints within five days | 98.8% |
Web filing services are available 99.5% of the time | 99.5% |
Software filing services are available 99.5% of the time (new public target) | 99.5% |
Companies House Direct Service is available 99.5% of the time | 99.5% |
WebCHeck Service is available 99.5% of the time | 99.5% |
Document images ordered by search customers are available in the Companies House Direct download area within 40 seconds (new public target) | 98% |
CEO to respond to all letters from MPs delegated to him to reply within 10 working days of receipt | 100% |
Process | |
Electronic transactions received are available to view on the public record (image format) within 72 hours | 99.9% |
Images placed on Companies House image system are legible and complete | 99.8% |
To achieve an average electronic filing target for accounts (new public target) | 53% |
To achieve an average electronic filing target for all other transactions (new public target) | 80% |
People | |
Ensure that the average work days lost per person is no more than 10 days | <10 |
Reduce carbon emissions by 5%, based on the previous financial year | 5% |
Finance | |
To achieve taking one year with another, a 3.5% average rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets | 3.5% |
Achieve by 2013-14 a reduction, in real terms, of 15% compared to 2010-11 in the operational monetary cost of the organisation’s operational costs (2nd year of a three-year target) | 5% |
Payment of invoices within five days of receipt (the 80% target set for last year is a statutory Treasury target) | 90% |
Bursaries for Initial Teacher Training
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
I am writing to update the House on the level of bursaries for initial teacher training in academic year 2012-13.
On 23 February I announced funding of £11.5 million for bursaries to support initial teacher training undertaken by teachers in the FE sector in 2012-13. As I said then, it is a powerful demonstration of the Government’s wholehearted commitment to the FE and skills sector that despite the current financial pressures and in challenging times, we are looking to secure the talents and skills of potential FE teachers.
Recruiting the best talent is central to making the sector as good as it can be, and a key element in our approach to driving up standards and increasing professionalism in the sector. Further education is at the heart of economic revival; at the core of social renewal.
In my written answer of 1 March, Official Report, column 446W, to a question from the my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), I promised further details of that bursary scheme, which are outlined below.
FE Bursaries
Two levels of bursary will be available:
(a) a bursary of £1,000 available for up to 10,000 applicants seeking to teach in the FE and skills sector and following an HEI-accredited route; and,
(b) a bursary of £1,500 available for up to 1,000 applicants seeking to teach basic maths and English (including functional skills) and also following an HEI-accredited route.
Bursaries are open to both in-service and pre-service trainees who will be following a Diploma in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector (DTLLS) at level 5 or a post-graduate qualification such as PGCE at level 6 or 7. Bursaries will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis.
BIS officials are discussing the most effective administration of the bursaries with the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS), who will need to discuss with key stakeholders further details of the administration of the scheme.
The bursaries are currently for 2012-13 only. Funding arrangements for teacher training beyond 2012-13 will be reviewed in the light of the recommendations announced today in the independent review of professionalism, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Lingfield, and changes to FE and skills funding that will introduce loans for training at this level from September 2013, aligning it more closely with arrangements in higher education.
Other related arrangements
(a) Fee grant: there are currently in excess of 2,500 part-time ITT trainees in the first year of their teacher training and who have received their fee grant of £400 from the Institute for Learning (IfL.) These trainees will not be eligible for the FE bursary. However, those continuing into their second year will be eligible for a further £400 fee grant, to be administered by IfL.
(b) Awarding body provision: ITT qualifications accredited by awarding bodies and on the qualifications and curriculum framework will continue to be funded in 2012-13 by the Skills Funding Agency.
(c) Priority subjects: I am reviewing whether more needs to be done specifically within the FE and skills sector to support priority subjects such as STEM.
Her Majesty's Land Registry (Performance Targets)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
The Land Registry vision is:
“Putting the customer, quality and innovation at the heart of land registration services”.
To meet this vision, the following four strategic objectives have been adopted with associated key performance indicators and objectives, plus two equality objectives:
Customer |
|---|
To identify, anticipate and satisfy customer needs by constantly refining and developing products, services and channels |
Key Performance Indicators |
C1: The percentage of customers who rate our overall products, services and channels as good, very good or excellent 96% |
C2: Average external e-service availability level at 99.5% or higher |
C3: Net promoter score 40% |
Key Performance Objective |
C4: Launch electronic document registration service (eDRS) in September 2012 with at least six business gateway customers. Launch eDRS to portal customers by March 2013 |
Quality |
|---|
To continually improve operational delivery to drive efficiencies, quality and value |
Key Performance Indicators |
Q1: 97% of completed registrations that meet internally defined quality standards |
Q2: 96.5% percentage successful changes applied to electronic services at 96.5% or higher |
Q3: 80% speed of completion—substantive registrations completed within 12 days |
Key Performance Objective |
Q4: All free market trend data released in line with our day 1 transparency commitment to be made compliant with level 4 of the HMG star rating system by 31st March 2013 |
People and Innovation |
|---|
To identify and implement opportunities for the development of our people and Land Registry business, to the benefit our customers and stakeholders |
Key Performance Indicators |
l1: Improve the number of employees positively engaged to 50% |
l2: Environmental: Reduce carbon emissions by 5% compared with emissions for 2011-12 |
Key Performance Objectives |
l3: Successfully introduce performance and innovation into a complete operational office by 31st March 2013 |
l4: Develop a new business strategy for approval by the Minister by 30th September 2012 |
Finance and Productivity |
|---|
To be flexible and efficient and responsive to market fluctuations whilst funding our future investment needs |
Key Performance Indicators |
F1: To increase add value revenue by 20% (to £6 million) and achieve 14% net profit on add value revenue |
F2: To achieve a unit cost of £28.41 for 2012-13 based on 9 million units |
F3: Make a 4% reduction in adjusted running costs |
Key Performance Objective |
F4: Develop an infrastructure investment plan taking into account the impact of the Public Data Group, Data Strategy Board and the new business strategy by 31st March 2013 |
Equality Objectives:
Internal Equality Objective
To drive a culture of inclusion and respect within Land Registry and positively seek to improve engagement with staff from protected characteristics.
External Equality Objective
To equip our staff to identify, anticipate and satisfy our customers’ diverse needs by delivering products, services and channels at a cost we can both afford.
We will monitor our progress in delivering against these through how well we succeed in it meeting the actions via the diversity steering group.
Financial Reporting Council
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
In October 2011, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) launched a joint consultation on proposals to reform the FRC. The proposals were designed to clarify the FRC’s scope, streamline its governance and structure, and give it greater independence from the accountancy profession and a proportionate range of sanctions against poor quality auditing. The Government continue strongly to believe that these are the right objectives.
The response to the consultation helped the Department and the FRC refine the proposals. In particular the proposals have been amended to enhance the status of the expert groups that will advise the FRC board on accounting, auditing and actuarial issues and to make clear the procedural safeguards that will be put in place as part of the FRC’s monitoring and enforcement work.
This recognises the important and valuable work that the recognised supervisory bodies (RSBs) and the recognised qualifying bodies (RGBs) undertake. The overall reforms will give greater clarity to the boundaries between the professional bodies and the FRC.
BIS is today publishing a response to the consultation, which sets out the Government’s intention to introduce legislative changes to enable the FRC to implement the finalised reform proposals. The proposed changes will delegate most of the powers to the FRC board rather than its operating bodies as at present, apart from the financial reporting review panel (FRRP) powers which will move to the new conduct committee, and will provide the FRC with powers to:
determine and require, rather than request, an RSB to impose proportionate sanctions in respect of poor quality work;
conclude disciplinary cases without a public hearing where this is in the public interest and subject to appropriate publicity; and
take proportionate action against and RSB or RQB for shortcomings in discharging their regulatory responsibilities.
These changes will ensure the UK has a powerful, joined up voice on the international stage, which involves high quality and informed technical expertise to continue to strengthen our significant influence.
Taken as a whole, the proposals are expected to reduce the costs associated with FRC regulatory activities.
The Government intend, subject to Parliamentary approval, to bring forward secondary legislation for the changes to come into force from Monday 2 July 2012.
The consultation response (which is published jointly with the FRC), and the final stage impact assessment are available on the BIS website at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/consultations
Regional Development Agencies Operational Closure
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The Public Bodies Act 2011, which received Royal Assent on 14 December 2011, contains a provision which, when commenced later this year, will abolish eight regional development agencies (RDAs). That provision will be brought into force by a commencement order. I can now confirm that the RDAs will achieve full operational closure on 31 March 2012.
Following the eight individual transfer schemes BIS made which came into effect on 1 January 2012 under the Public Bodies Act, transferring the majority of the RDAs’ remaining projects and contracts, a further eight schemes will come into effect on 30 March removing all remaining operational assets from the RDAs’ balance sheets. These schemes will be available with those which took effect on 1 January in the Libraries of both Houses.
In the period since RDA closure was announced in the Budget on 22 June 2010, those functions that the Government have decided should continue have been transferred to new delivery bodies. This included European regional development fund delivery reverting to DCLG, the rural development programme for England moving to DEFRA, the grants for research and development programme migrating to the technology strategy board and venture capital funds transferring to BIS to be managed by Capital for Enterprise. Residual activity for the grants for business investment scheme has also come to BIS. The majority of RDA land and property assets not already disposed of, valued at in the region of £300 million, transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency on 19 September 2011. As part of the functions transfers, over 500 staff have been transferred in accordance with the requirements of either the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations or the broadly equivalent terms of the Cabinet Office statement of principles on staff transfer, while the remaining 2,200 staff employed when abolition was announced in June 2010 have or will resign, be made redundant or retire.
Formal abolition is anticipated at the end of June 2012 but when this is finally confirmed I will make another statement. A third set of transfer schemes in the summer concurrent with abolition will remove from the RDAs any outstanding assets, liabilities and obligations that emerge during the final closure processes.
From April 2012 RDAs will concentrate solely on matters relating to financial closure, primarily accounts for the financial year 2011-12, which will be laid in both Houses in the summer of 2012 in the usual way, and clear line of sight consolidation of accounts with BIS for 2011-12. Accounts for the period from 1 April 2012 to the date of abolition will also be laid later in the year by my Department.
Since Budget 2010, when abolition was announced, the RDAs have worked diligently with my Department and other bodies to protect the taxpayers’ interest by securing value from their portfolios. I am grateful for the professional approach shown by both their boards and their staff in achieving an orderly closedown.
Planned Tax Consultations (Publication)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Budget 2012 announced a number of tax policy changes that will be subject to consultation. HM Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs are today publishing the following documents:
Simpler income tax for the simplest small businesses— A consultation on proposals for introducing a voluntary simplified cash basis for income tax and simplified arrangements for certain expenses for small unincorporated businesses. The Government are also today publishing the response to the Office of Tax Simplification’s “Small business tax review: final report”.
Consultation on an “above the line” credit for research and development—A consultation on proposals for implementing an above the line research and development tax credit.
Proposed changes to the tax rules on manufactured payments—A consultation on proposals to simplify the tax rules on manufactured payments, including the rules on manufactured overseas dividends.
Possible changes to the income tax rules on interest— A consultation on proposals for changes to income tax rules on the taxation of interest received, and rules on the deduction of tax from interest paid.
The following consultations are due to be published before Parliament returns from recess on 16 April:
Week commencing 2 April 2012
Real estate investment trusts (REITs)—A consultation on (1) the role REITs can play in supporting the social housing sector; and (2) the tax treatment of REITs investing in REITs.
Remote gambling—A consultation on the design characteristics of a place of consumption based taxation regime for remote gambling.
Herbal smoking products—A consultation on bringing the tax treatment of legally available herbal smoking products in line with the treatment of those containing tobacco.
Details of these and other planned consultations are included in a consultation tracker, available from the HM Treasury website:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_updates.htm.
The tracker includes specific anticipated launch dates wherever possible, to help representative groups and others manage their engagement with the Government on tax policy development. HM Revenue and Customs and HM Treasury will discuss the timing of consultations with these groups. Any changes to the dates mentioned above will be publicised on the tax consultation tracker.
Royal Mint Advisory Committee
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)
In accordance with the Cabinet Office’s guidance on public bodies, I have launched a review of the Advisory Committee on the Design of Coins, Medals, Seals and Decorations, also known as the Royal Mint Advisory Committee. This review will examine the Committee’s functions and whether it should exist at arm’s length from Government. If it does, the review will go on to examine whether the Committee’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. I will inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed.
UK Convergence Programme
(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)
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires the Government to report to Parliament for their approval an assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. This assessment comprises the Budget report and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR’s) economic and fiscal outlook.
This then forms the basis of the UK’s convergence programme, which is therefore based entirely on information already presented to Parliament. The UK is obliged to submit a convergence programme annually to the European Commission under article 121 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the “Lisbon” treaty).
Article 121, along with article 126, is the legal basis for the stability and growth pact, which is the co-ordination mechanism for EU fiscal policies and requires member states to avoid excessive Government deficits. Although the UK is bound by the stability and growth pact, by virtue of its protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro, it is only required to “endeavour to avoid” excessive deficits.
Subject to the progress of parliamentary business, debates are expected to be scheduled in both houses before the end of April in order for both Houses to approve this assessment before the convergence programme is submitted to the Commission. While the convergence programme itself is not subject to parliamentary approval or amendment, copies will be made available to Members through the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.
The Budget report and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR’s) economic and fiscal outlook were laid on 21 March 2011. All of the information the convergence programme will contain has therefore already been published and made available to Members.
The UK’s convergence programme will be published in late April. Copies will be deposited in the Library of the House and the document will be available electronically via the HM Treasury website. It will be submitted to the EU by 30 April as required by the European Commission.
Election and Referendum Guidance
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Guidance has today been issued to civil servants in UK Departments and those working in non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) on the principles which they should observe in relation to the conduct of Government business in the run up to the forthcoming elections to local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, to the London Assembly and for the London, Salford and Liverpool mayors. The guidance also covers the referendums on directly elected mayors in several English cities. These elections and referendums are taking place on 3 May 2012.
The guidance sets out the need to maintain the political impartiality of the civil service and the need to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes. The period of sensitivity preceding the elections starts on 12 April.
Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Cabinet Office website at:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/election-guidance
Post Public Disturbances (Payments to Local Authorities)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
On 12 August 2011, as part of a concerted, cross-Government action, the Government announced a series of measures to help rebuild communities following the riots and public disorder in the summer of 2011.
The package provided immediate and ongoing support to open up shops and rebuild buildings which were damaged, make sure people who lost their homes were re-housed, and to help councils get their areas back to normal as quickly as possible.
Under these schemes, local councils were placed in the lead in providing support to local firms and local residents. Central Government committed to reimburse local councils for their incurred costs retrospectively (in a similar way to how the Bellwin scheme has operated historically).
As made clear when the schemes were launched, central Government are not funding affected firms or residents directly. Payments are linked to the claims submitted and the costs incurred.
In answers to previous parliamentary questions, I committed to update the House on the payments being made. I am now able to confirm the payments paid out by my Department in respect of the following funding schemes:
High Street Support Scheme
Jointly funded by the Department for Communities for Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the scheme helped councils to reduce business rates, finance emergency building repairs and encourage customers back to the affected areas. At the request of councils and businesses, the Government extended the payment deadline from 7 November to 3 January to cover the run-up to Christmas.
Some £7.4 million has been paid to 24 local authorities for their claims. Examples of the expenditure claimed by each authority include:
Birmingham City Council—£1,217,435—Includes grant to 219 businesses in the affected areas to help improve security measures. The other major element of expenditure is associated with the marketing and delivery costs of the backing Birmingham campaign. There was also support for business rate hardship relief. Overall, 900 businesses have benefited from the funding provided through the scheme.
The London Borough of Bromley—£14,198—Most of which relates to small grants to local shops to help with minor repair costs.
The London Borough of Camden—£174,277—The expenditure claimed largely relates to marketing and promotional activities to encourage local residents and visitors back into town centres.
The London Borough of Croydon—£1,376,951—245 individual businesses received grants to support their clean-up costs. Wider support for business was provided through nine local schemes and included security measures, communication support, free parking, business loans, promotional activities as part of the Croydon recovery action plan and improvement works around London Road designed to increase footfall in the area. There was also support through business rate hardship relief.
London Borough of Ealing—£429,901—61 individual local businesses received direct grants to help with repairs and minor losses. Wider business support included security measures, “shop local” marketing campaign and free parking initiatives. There was also support through business rate hardship relief.
London Borough of Enfield—£202,794—18 local businesses received direct grants. Wider business support was largely for marketing and promotional campaigns and business recovery advice.
London Borough of Greenwich—£833,315—65 local businesses received direct grants. The wider support for businesses was provided through eleven local projects targeted mainly at Greenwich, Eltham and Woolwich town centres and included retail support initiatives, environmental improvements and security measures and Woolwich town centre works to increase footfall. There was also support through business rate hardship relief.
London Borough of Haringey—£1,081,712—Over 300 local businesses were granted hardship relief from business rates and nearly two hundred received direct grants. The wider support for businesses was provided through 15 projects and included one off events and campaigns, assisted car parking initiatives marketing and communication and other services to the business community.
London Borough of Hackney—£176,145—The major element of the claim is for business hardship relief, which was provided to over two hundred businesses.
London Borough of Islington—£66,985—The major element of the claim is support to groups of businesses and promotional and marketing activity. It included an event to increase footfall in the “Nags Head” area in the run-up to Christmas.
London Borough of Lambeth—£74,860—The major element of the claim is support to groups of businesses and promotional and marketing activity. The funding supported special one off events in Brixton, Streatham and Norwood in the run-up to Christmas.
London Borough of Lewisham—£33,859—The major element of the claim is £26,000 for direct grants to nine individual businesses.
Liverpool City Council—£112,040—The major element of the claim is support to groups of businesses and promotional and marketing activity through seven projects.
Manchester City Council—£205,879—The major elements of the claim included business rate hardship relief for 85 businesses. Wider business support included funding support for a two-day street festival for 40 businesses around the commercial district and marketing material in support of the “I love Manchester” campaign.
Nottingham City Council—£6,124—This provided a direct grant to one local business and some advertising costs.
Salford City Council—£92,115—Nine local businesses received direct grants. The wider business support included security measures benefiting 80 businesses and support for an “open for business” retail festival.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council—£44,301—The major element of the claim was for promotional and marketing activity.
London Borough of Southwark—£148,318—Thirty-two businesses received direct grant support and 27 received business rates hardship relief. There was also wider support for businesses through promotional and marketing activity.
London Borough of Sutton:—£71,410—The major element of the claim is for wider business support and included event funding for activities to increase footfall in the run-up to Christmas.
London Borough of Waltham Forest—£85,000—Which is all in respect of an “open for business” marketing campaign.
London Borough of Wandsworth—£737,674—The major element of the claim is £722,000 for wider business support and included: improvements to the commercial attractiveness of the area around Clapham Junction, assisted car parking initiatives, promotional events in the run-up to Christmas and various marketing and miscellaneous costs such as vinyl coverings for empty shops, signage and websites.
Westminster City Council—£30,998—The major element of the claim is for promotional and marketing activity for events based in Bayswater and Pimlico and a campaign to encourage people to “visit and shop”.
Wirral Council—£7,246—Which is all in respect of wider support to businesses. It is made up of works to make shopping areas more attractive and assisted car parking funding.
Wolverhampton City Council—£130,676—Fourteen businesses received direct grants. Wider support to business included event funding to increase footfall in the run-up to Christmas assisted car parking and other activities to rebuild business confidence.
Recovery Scheme
The recovery scheme was funded by DCLG to meet councils’ immediate costs of making their areas safe, clear and clean again. £2.9 million has been paid to 28 local authorities for their claims. Examples of expenditure for each local authority include:
The London Borough of Enfield—£122,029—The bulk of the expenditure relates to emergency repairs to roads and other structures and security.
Birmingham City Council—£91,649—The costs include emergency works to highways, clearing debris and staff overtime.
The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham—£81,726—The expenditure being claimed relates to emergency repairs, demolition works and associated costs.
Liverpool City Council—£58,706—The expenditure being claimed relates to emergency road repairs and the clearing of debris.
London Borough of Greenwich—£34,204—The expenditure being claimed is for agency and staff overtime costs for cleaning and building security measures.
Medway Council—£11,687—The expenditure being claimed relates to additional staffing, overtime costs and waste removal.
Wolverhampton City Council—£11,078—The expenditure being claimed relates to street cleansing and minor emergency repairs.
Leicester City Council—£10,985—The expenditure being claimed relates to security measures and some minor emergency highway repairs.
Bristol City Council—£5,968—The expenditure being claimed relates to staff overtime costs for the clearance of debris and rubbish.
London Borough of Waltham Forest—£4,249—The expenditure being claimed relates to security measures and some very minor emergency repairs
London Borough of Sutton—£3,730—The expenditure being claimed relates to staff overtime costs around security issues.
West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service—£2,264—The expenditure relates to staff overtime costs.
London Borough of Croydon—£993,749—This includes funding for works to deal with dangerous structures, site clearance and emergency works to highways and footpaths, council tax discounts, street lighting and cleaning.
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority—£194,484—The majority of this claim is for staff overtime costs.
London Borough of Lambeth—£64,989—This relates to additional staff costs for youth custody services and the clearing of debris.
Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service—£33,143—In respect of overtime and incidental expenses.
Nottingham City Council—£28,482—For costs relating to overtime, cleaning and emergency control centre operations, legal costs and youth activities.
Salford City Council—£5,466—The expenditure relates to emergency repairs, street cleaning and staff overtime.
Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Combined Fire Authority—£2,206—For overtime costs.
London Borough of Lewisham—£2,083—Relating to clearing debris.
London Borough of Haringey—£478,564—This includes emergency works to highways and street lighting, emergency building control and community centre set up costs.
London Borough of Southwark—£292,058—This includes emergency building repairs, staff overtime, community staff and street cleaning.
London Borough of Ealing—£142,548—The major eligible costs relate to emergency repairs to highways and a bridge.
London Borough of Wandsworth—£40,627—It largely relates to emergency works to secure dangerous buildings and overtime for employees.
London Borough of Redbridge—£23,589—It largely relates to street cleaning and removing debris.
Manchester City Council—£15,534—This expenditure relates to emergency traffic management costs and street clearance.
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority—£12,646—The expenditure relates to minor vehicle repairs and staff overtime.
London Borough of Havering—£10,717—The expenditure being claimed largely relates to overtime and agency staff costs.
Homelessness Support Scheme
This scheme met the immediate costs of re-housing those made homeless by the disturbances up to a maximum payment threshold of £5,000 per household, with discretion applied for exceptional costs.
A total of £380,255 has been paid to the six councils that submitted claims. This figure included £35,000 for two caseworkers to work exclusively with displaced families in Haringey, to ensure they accessed the services to help them to start to resolve their housing issues and rebuild their lives.
New Homes Bonus
Over and above the commitments made on those three schemes. Ministers also want to ensure that the affected local councils do not lose out on the new homes bonus.
We are making payments of £175,118 to five local authorities in riot recovery grant to address losses in new homes bonus arising from the riots last summer. The payment will be made shortly.
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham | £ 1,119 |
London Borough of Croydon | £30,066 |
London Borough of Ealing | £5,757 |
London Borough of Haringey | £130,499 |
London Borough of Wandsworth | £7,676. |
I would like to put on the record the thanks of Ministers for the sterling work of local councils in supporting and championing their local communities.
Research Commissioned by the Previous Administration
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
Today the Government are publishing the 10th group of reports presenting the findings from research projects commissioned by the previous Administration.
There is a significant backlog of unpublished reports that were produced by the previous Government and we have been publishing these in groups themed on a particular topic.
The reports and findings are of general policy interest, but do not relate to forthcoming policy announcements. We are publishing these documents in the interests of transparency and as part of our freedom of information commitment to publish the results of all commissioned research.
The 14 reports published today represent the findings from nine research projects at a total cost of £708,000. These findings cover the topic of communities.
(i) Engaging Behaviour: Behavioural economics and citizen engagement. This study considered the application of behavioural economics to explain the motivations for people to take part in civic activities such as petitioning and volunteering, particularly among people who ‘buck the trends’ among their peers.
(ii) Quirk asset transfer demonstration programme. This report examines the attitudes of councillors, council officers and community organisations involved in the Advancing Assets for Communities demonstration programme. It explores actual and potential benefits of the programme; perceptions of the risks associated with asset transfer; and how success can be evaluated.
(iii) Process evaluation for Communitybuilders. This process evaluation assessed the implementation and operation of the £70 million Communitybuilders fund. It aimed to look at whether the programme was working as planned, understand the early successes and failures, and identify lessons for the programme as it progressed.
(iv) Sharing data to improve local employment outcomes: Evaluation of the local data share pilots. This report considers the impact and implications of a project to test ways of sharing data in order to tackle worklessness at a local level, conducted jointly between Department for Work and Pensions and DCLG in 2009-10. The report focuses on the factors that helped the three pilot sites progress their data sharing, factors that the pilot sites found to be more challenging and the results of the data share.
(v) Decentralisation outcomes: A review of evidence and analysis of international data. This research reviewed the extensive literature on definitions of decentralisation and empirical research identifying the outcomes of decentralisation. The authors also analysed two large European survey data sets and used econometric modelling techniques to assess the contribution of decentralisation to well-being and satisfaction with Government/democracy/health/education.
(vi) The benefits of meaningful interaction: Rapid review and assessment of the existing literature. This study reviewed the existing literature on successful approaches to and the benefits of meaningful interaction for individuals, neighbours and communities, for example in terms of improvements in health, welfare and life in general.
(vii) Evaluation of the REACH national role model programme.
(viii) Media representations of black young men and boys: Report of the REACH media monitoring project.
These two reports resulted from the REACH programme which was led jointly by the black community and the previous Government and was designed to raise the aspirations and achievements of black boys and young black men. The evaluation and the media analysis project were commissioned in order to support the delivery of the REACH role modelling programme. The media analysis project was based on a survey of media sources in 2008.
(ix)-(xiv) Six reports presenting the findings from a series of projects which tested the feasibility of tracking central Government funding into deprived neighbourhoods. The projects sought to discern whether such neighbourhoods received a relatively greater proportion of mainstream funding. The projects covered liveability, crime, worklessness, health care and Department for Education funding.
(ix) Mapping liveability spend and outcomes: A scoping study.
(x) Mapping crime reduction and prevention funding.
(xi) Mapping the flow of Government spending on tackling worklessness into disadvantaged areas.
(xii) Developing a toolkit to map health care expenditure in local areas.
(xiii) Mapping the flow of Department for Education funding to disadvantaged areas and investigating the outcomes of this funding: A feasibility study and research review.
(xiv) Unlocking Capacity—lessons learned from four connecting communities areas
These reports and findings are of general policy interest, but do not relate to forthcoming policy announcements and are not a reflection of the current Government’s policies and priorities. DCLG is publishing these reports in the interests of transparency.
Copies of these reports are available on the DCLG website and in the Library of the House.
The Government are concerned to ensure its research delivers best possible value for money for the taxpayer and that sums expended are reasonable in relation to the public policy benefits obtained. DCLG has in place scrutiny and challenge processes for research. All new projects will be scrutinised to ensure the methodology is sound and that all options for funding are explored at an early stage. This includes using existing work from other organisations, joint funding projects with other Departments or organisations and taking work forward in-house.
The Tote
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
In my written statement to the House on 14 July 2011, Official Report, column 38WS, I announced the completion of sale of the Tote and stated that Government would enter into discussions with the racing industry to design a scheme to distribute their share of the proceeds which would be compliant with EU state aid laws. I am pleased today to announce the completion of this piece of work.
The conclusion of this process has been the creation of a new racing charity, The Racing Foundation and a grant scheme which will be administered by the British Horseracing Authority. Racing’s share of the proceeds will be distributed between the grant scheme and the Racing Foundation on an annual basis with the split decided by racing in agreement with Government. The first instalment of the proceeds was made on 14 March 2012 with The Racing Foundation receiving £10 million.
I would like to extend my thanks to those representatives of the racing industry who have contributed to the process for their part in establishing what I hope will be a lasting legacy for British racing.
EU Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)
(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 Gerald Howarth)
The EU Foreign Affairs Council met in Defence Ministers formation on 22 March in Brussels. I represented the UK.
The agenda items covered were current and future operations, a discussion on the changing strategic context in light of the recently issued US Strategic Defence Guidance and a European Defence Agency (EDA) steering board.
Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)
The three current EU Operations, Operation ATALANTA (counter-piracy). Operation ALTHEA (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and EU Training Mission Somalia (military training mission) were discussed in the Council.
I was pleased to announce that the UK, as a reflection of our strong political support for the executive mandate in Bosnia and Herzegovina, intended to contribute a Company (approximately 120 troops) to the Operation AUFHEA Intermediate Regional Reserve from mid-December 2012 for a period of at least six months. This contribution to the reconfigured EUFOR Operation, which will not start until after the Olympic and Paralympic games, will demonstrate the UK’s commitment to the maintenance of EUFOR’s executive mandate to help maintain a safe and secure environment in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The company will be held in the UK at an appropriate degree of readiness and would only deploy on operations if called forward by the Operation Commander.
Council conclusions on the pooling and sharing of military capabilities were agreed in the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence). These can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/esdp/129162.pdf
Discussion on changing Strategic Context
The discussion focused on the changing strategic context, in particular, the implications of new US strategic defence guidance and their shift in focus to the Middle-East and Asia-Pacific.
The European Defence Agency Steering Board
An EDA steering board at Defence Ministers level was held immediately before the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence). The steering board agreed the following action points:
Joint procurement initiative on common acquisition of EU battle group logistic support be established as a Cat B project;
Second joint investment programme on innovative concepts and emerging technologies (ICET 2);
Category B “Go Green” Project; and
Mandate to establish negotiations for an administrative arrangement between the EDA and the Republic of Serbia.
Whilst the UK does not oppose these projects we will not participate ourselves. We are fully supportive of the mandate to establish negotiations for an administrative arrangement between the EDA and the Republic of Serbia.
Finally, in addition to these action points, the steering board was requested to agree to a political declaration on air-to-air refuelling (AAR) capabilities, and sign a declaration of intent for the establishment of multinational modular medical units (M3U).
Noting that one of the key lessons learnt from operations in Libya is that there is a gap among other European nations in AAR capabilities and that the declaration on AAR was not for signature, is not legally binding and carries no financial commitment, I agreed this declaration. With regard to M3U, it has been identified as a critical shortfall in European nations capabilities, and it is the EDA’s intention to establish these units which should enhance and improve standards, procedures and interoperability among member states. The UK does not wish to participate in the M3U project, as we believe it duplicates activities currently being undertaken in NATO.
Joint Forces Command
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
Lord Levene published his independent recommendations on the structure and management of the Ministry of Defence in his report on Defence Reform on 27 June 2011. Since then, substantial progress has been made in implementing these recommendations. One of the most significant is the creation of a new Joint Forces Command.
The Joint Forces Command will be established on Monday 2 April 2012. It will be led by Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, whose appointment was announced on 15 September 2011, Official Report, column 52WS, and who took up post as the first commander Joint Forces Command on 1 December 2011. The establishment of the new command at its initial operating capability follows just nine months after the publication of Lord Levene’s report. The Joint Forces Command will manage, deliver and champion joint capabilities to support the success of current and future military operations, and will reach full operating capability by April 2013.
Defence Police and Guarding Agency
(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)
Following the comprehensive spending review and the strategic defence and security review, and in view of the continuing pressure on the defence budget, the Ministry of Defence has carried out a very wide-ranging examination of civil policing and guarding policy and requirements to ensure that they reflect the main security and crime risks faced by the MOD and are being met as cost-effectively as possible. Safeguarding our sites, people and assets—in particular those associated with our nuclear programme—remains a central priority.
We have, however, concluded that we can make sensible and prudent reductions in the number of guarding and civil policing posts at some of our sites, while continuing to maintain effective security. It would not be appropriate to describe in full the specific detail of our future guarding and civil policing requirements or the precise arrangements at individual sites, but I set out below the main elements of the changes we now envisage.
Our approach has been to look hard at our requirements, identify what is essential, and retain it. But reductions are possible in areas where activity, personnel, or expenditure is not absolutely essential to protecting our people, our assets or the delivery of defence outputs. In the current fiscal climate it is our duty to make savings in these areas, both to save money for the taxpayer, and to ensure defence can devote as much resource as possible to the front line.
We have identified areas for reductions by focusing on sites and activities:
where we can safely rely more on physical security measures and less on the continuous presence of the previous numbers of security personnel;
where the regular service occupants of sites can take on a greater role in security while maintaining their operational outputs;
where duties currently undertaken by MOD police officers do not, in today’s circumstances, require police powers, and could therefore be taken on by other staff at lower cost; and
where we can reasonably rely more on support from local police forces, who in any case have primacy in pursuing any incident or investigating any crime.
The measures are being progressed as they are developed. The furthest advanced are changes to the MOD police headquarters and management structure, the cost of which will reduce by 41%. These include: cutting the number of divisions from five to two; simplifying processes, centralising services and reducing complements; and civilianising police posts wherever that is sensible. Consultation with the staff associations and trade unions has begun, with implementation expected to start during 2012. Follow-up studies are planned, with the target of identifying a further 9% saving, bringing the total reduction to 50%. At the same time, there will be consultation on proposals to reduce the cost of the MOD guard service headquarters and regional management structure by 50%.
Other measures were the subject of general departmental consultation with the staff associations and trades unions in 2011, and are now the subject of further more detailed consultation on implementation. These measures are:
a modest increase in the number of sites where we believe can safely rely for part or all of the week on physical security measures, and therefore do not need guards on duty at all times;
changes in guarding policy that make prudent reductions in the security complements at a number of defence sites, and focus effort on the most important security activities;
adjusting guarding numbers at sites where experience has shown that effective security can in practice be maintained with complements lower than previously employed;
continuing to provide support and reassurance to defence communities by focusing a reduced number of defence community police officers on areas of greatest need;
reprioritising the work of the MOD police criminal investigation department on the crimes that most significantly affect the defence interest, yielding a cost saving; and
a rationalisation of the MOD police uniformed operational support capability not permanently allocated to specific sites, with a saving of some posts.
In parallel with the implementation of the changes above, I have agreed some additional measures for departmental consultation with the staff associations and trade unions in 2012. Formal consultative documents will be issued in due course, but the main proposals are:
Making increased use of regular service personnel to carry out unarmed access control duties at (or near) sites where they are stationed, with individuals undertaking periodic duties that will not reduce their operational readiness. At other military sites unarmed access control will be carried out by reallocating existing complements of the specialist military guards of the Military Provost Guard Service. Together these changes will allow the removal of MOD guard service officers from many Navy, Army and RAF sites;
Specific determination of guarding and policing numbers at a small number of sites with unique security features;
In the light of new analysis, some further rationalisation of the MOD police uniformed operational support capability not permanently allocated to specific sites;
Reallocation of security duties at three Navy sites so that, with a small enhancement, the Military Provost Guard Service complements can take over the essential roles of the MOD police complements there;
Maintaining essential armed security by replacing some (but not all) MOD police officers at certain sites with Military Provost Guard Service soldiers, allowing duties for which constabulary powers are not essential to be discharged at a lower cost;
Greater reliance on local police forces for community support activity on defence families estates in Great Britain, allowing the withdrawal of MOD police defence community police officers;
Further rationalisation of the MOD police criminal investigation department in the light of a recent departmental review, to form part of a co-ordinated pan-departmental strategy to combat fraud and other acquisitive crime against defence.
Further consultation will take place on all these proposed changes, during which we will assess their impact carefully in the circumstances of individual sites. In view of this flexible approach to implementation, we cannot yet state with certainty what the eventual impact will be on personnel numbers. However, on the current assumptions, the likely effect would be to reduce the MOD police from its complement in 2009 of some 3,600 officers to a complement of around 2,400 by 1 April 2016 (compared to a current strength of just under 3,100); and to reduce the MOD guard service from its complement in 2009 of some 4,000 to a complement a little under 2,200 by 1 April 2015 (compared to a current strength of just under 3,300).
While consultation on, and implementation of, these measures continues, my Department will continue to seek further efficiencies in guarding and civil policing expenditure. In particular, routine activity to review complements at all our sites continues, taking account of the latest information about specific sites, and seeking improvements in the effective deployment of staff where possible. In addition, we are seeking efficiencies in the use of the defence estate, which may change the requirement for guarding and civil policing. Such changes will be subject to consultation with the staff associations and trades unions in the usual way.
I do not expect staff affected by these changes to welcome them, and I recognise—and very much regret—the uncertainty and anxiety caused to the personnel involved, who have made a vital contribution to defence security over many years.
The fact remains, however, that we must focus our new security requirements, not on the past, but on what is essential for the future.
We can and will make savings in guarding and civil policing, but I can assure the House that effective security arrangements will be maintained at all defence sites.
Nuclear Security Summit
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
Along with the US and France, the UK aims to raise the profile of nuclear security on the international agenda. In the interests of increasing transparency, we have decided to release more information about our own capabilities. This includes our ability to respond to terrorist incidents involving nuclear or radiological material, and to improve international standards for the security of nuclear material.
The following statement will be released today at the nuclear security summit in Seoul:
“The governments of the United States, United Kingdom, and French Republic each understand the threat of nuclear terrorism and share the collective responsibility to inform and strengthen international measures designed to secure sensitive information, technology or nuclear material from access by terrorists and to encourage the development of appropriate emergency response measures. In recognition of these shared principles, consistent with our rights and obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, our three governments are taking the following initial steps:
[1] INFCIRC/225/Rev.5 recognises that nuclear security protection levels are critically dependent upon the attractiveness of nuclear materials to potential adversaries with intent to assemble a nuclear explosive device. We will actively engage in international workshops to address graded approaches for the characterisation of nuclear material attractiveness to further enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of physical protection measures.
[2] We have the specialised knowledge and capability to diagnose, render safe, characterise and dispose of a nuclear terrorist threat device. We each have a focused effort to continually enhance the technical capabilities of our emergency detection and response assets to any such threat. As such we will seek, wherever possible, to engage with the international community to further strengthen worldwide preparedness to contend with the threat of nuclear terrorism.”
Early Years Foundation Stage
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
I am today publishing the reformed statutory framework for the early years foundation stage (EYFS), which will take effect from 1 September 2012.
The new, simpler and clearer EYFS framework is an integral part of the Government’s wider vision for families in the foundation years. It demonstrates our commitment to freeing professionals from bureaucracy to focus on supporting children. Together with a more flexible free early education entitlement and new streamlined inspection arrangements, this is a major step towards a lighter touch regulatory regime. But we need to go further. I will continue to seek opportunities to reduce burdens and remove unnecessary regulation and paperwork which undermine professionals’ ability to protect children and promote their development. Last summer, I asked Professor Cathy Nutbrown to consider how we might strengthen the early years workforce. Her report is due in June, and I will carefully consider her recommendations—along with international evidence on staffing levels and qualifications—as we continue to promote early years provision that is high quality and cost effective to parents.
Improving the support children receive in their earliest years is central to greater social mobility. Young children develop quickly, and they develop better with the help of high quality early education and good support at home—the cornerstones for children’s success in school and later life. That is why the Government continue to invest heavily in early education, including the expansion of free childcare for three and four-year-olds, and the new entitlement for two-year-olds.
The EYFS sets out the standards that early years providers must meet. It has improved quality across the early years sector, but some aspects of the 2008 framework have proved overly bureaucratic and burdensome. The reformed EYFS, which builds on the independent advice of Dame Clare Tickell, will reduce paperwork and bureaucracy for professionals and enable them to focus more strongly on the areas of learning most essential for children’s healthy development. It will also simplify assessment at age five, reducing the early learning goals from 69 to 17, and provide for earlier intervention for children who need extra help.
When we published our response to the main EYFS consultation on 20 December 2011, we launched a further one-month consultation on new learning and development requirements (as required by the Childcare Act 2006). The responses to this additional consultation were broadly positive and I have made no significant changes to the framework as a result. I am publishing the report of this consultation alongside the framework.
I am also laying before Parliament the amended regulations to enact the reformed framework. Together, the Early Years Foundation Stage (Learning and Development Requirements) (Amendment) Order 2012, and the Early Years Foundation Stage (Welfare Requirements) Regulations 2012, give legal effect to the requirements set out in the framework.
I am also laying the Childcare (Early Years Register) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which amend the Childcare (Early Years Register) Regulations 2008. These amendments secure alignment between the conditions which providers must meet for registration with Ofsted, the requirements of the EYFS, and providers’ general responsibility to ensure that all staff are suitable to work with young children.
I am placing copies of the EYFS framework, the statutory instruments, and the report of the learning and development consultation, in the Libraries of both Houses.
Quango Reform
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
As part of the structural reforms set out in the schools White Paper “The Importance of Teaching” (November 2010), I am today announcing that three new executive agencies of the Department for Education will be established on Sunday, 1 April, the same day that their seven predecessor organisations will cease to function.
The Teaching Agency will be responsible for the supply and quality of the majority of the education workforce and for the regulation of teacher conduct. This work was previously carried out by the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the General Teaching Council for England, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Children’s Workforce Development Council.
The Education Funding Agency will be responsible for the revenue and capital funding of education and training, taking over the functions of the Young People’s Learning Agency and Partnerships for Schools.
The national college, which is responsible for improving the quality of leadership in schools and early years, will change status from non-departmental public body to executive agency.
Copies of the framework documents for each agency have been placed in the House Libraries.
Teachers' Powers to Discipline
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
Further to my statement of 7 July 2010, I would like to update the House on the progress the Government have made in meeting a number of the important commitments set out in that statement.
We have taken the steps we promised to strengthen teachers’ powers to search pupils. As well as a more general power to search for items that have been or could be used to cause harm or break the law, teachers can also search for items banned by the school rules. We have also added fireworks, tobacco and pornographic images to the list of specified items that teachers can search for.
We have reduced the bureaucratic burden on schools when giving pupils detentions. Teachers are no longer required to give parents 24 hours’ written notice of detentions outside school hours. Schools are now free to determine their own rules on notice for detentions so that teachers can deal with misbehaviour on the day it occurs.
We revised the advice to teachers on their powers to use reasonable force. This revised advice makes clear that teachers can remove disruptive pupils from the classroom. It provides clear advice that suspension should not be the automatic response of a head teacher when a member of staff has been accused of using excessive force and reminds head teachers that they should support their staff when they use reasonable force.
These are very important changes which, taken together, put beyond doubt the authority of teachers to enforce the school rules and maintain discipline in the classroom. Other important changes, included in the Education Act 2011, will come into force over the coming months. These include granting teachers anonymity when accused by pupils and changing the current system of independent appeal panels for exclusions so that pupils who have committed a serious offence cannot be re-instated by a panel.
Schools have the professional freedom to decide how these powers will work best for them. School governing bodies and head teachers should review their behaviour polices now to ensure they clearly set out the school’s approach to searching, to issuing notice of detentions and to the use of reasonable force.
Carbon Capture and Storage
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
I am writing to inform you that during recess I will launch the CCS commercialisation programme—the Government’s competition for CCS—and publish our CCS road map.
CCS has the potential to be one of the most cost-effective technologies for decarbonisation of the UK’s power and industrial sectors, as well as a significant green growth opportunity.
Launching the competition and publishing the CCS road map will be a major step forward on our CCS agenda. Our CCS commercialisation programme will, subject to state aid clearance, support commercial scale CCS with the £1 billion in capital funding that we have made available. The focus will be on reducing the cost of CCS to enable cost-competitive deployment in the 2020s. The road map will set out the strategic context and describe our approach to enabling commercialisation of CCS in the UK, including the wider programme of interventions which we are putting in place.
I believe that we now have one of the best CCS packages offered by any country in the world and that the launch of the programme and road map will ensure that the UK continues to be a global leader on CCS.
A copy of the road map will be laid in the House on publication.
Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I regret to inform the House that incomplete information was provided in the answer I gave to parliamentary question 98309 on 6 March, Official Report, column 669W, concerning how many cattle have been culled as a result of contracting diseases in (a) England, (b) the North West and (c) Cumbria in each of the last 10 years. My answer to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) did not reflect the full range of notifiable diseases which were relevant to the question.
The information that should have appeared is set out below:
Cattle culled as a result of contracting bovine TB, foot and mouth disease (FMD), bluetongue, BSE and Brucellosis in the formats held by DEFRA, follows:
For bovine TB, the figures can be found on DEFRA’s website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/landuselivestock/cattletb/
The following table shows the number of cattle and sheep culled by DEFRA for exotic notifiable disease control purposes. The 2007 figure for cattle comprises of 982 for FMD and 5 for bluetongue:
Cattle | Cattle | Cattle | |
|---|---|---|---|
2002 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2003 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2004 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2005 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2006 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2007 | 987 | 0 | 0 |
2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2009 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2010 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2011 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The following table shows the number of cattle culled on suspicion of BSE and the number of confirmed cases:
Slaughtered as suspects | Confirmed BSE cases | Slaughtered as suspects | Confirmed BSE cases | Slaughtered as suspects | Confirmed BSE cases | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002 | 687 | 387 | 61 | 28 | 40 | 17 |
2003 | 341 | 141 | 27 | 10 | 21 | 4 |
2004 | 259 | 70 | 35 | 9 | 16 | 4 |
2005 | 122 | 35 | 14 | 4 | 9 | 3 |
2006 | 96 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
2007 | 53 | 7 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
2008 | 28 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
2009 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2010 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2011 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2012 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Totals | 1,619 | 652 | 158 | 54 | 95 | 29 |
The following table shows the number of cattle culled as offspring of confirmed BSE cases and the number of confirmed cases:
Slaughtered | Confirmed BSE cases | Slaughtered | Confirmed BSE cases | Slaughtered | Confirmed BSE cases | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002 | 620 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 24 | 0 |
2003 | 292 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 11 | 0 |
2004 | 200 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 11 | 0 |
2005 | 126 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
2006 | 27 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2007 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2009 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2010 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2011 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2012 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Totals | 1,265 | 0 | 96 | 0 | 51 | 0 |
The following table shows the number of cattle culled as birth cohorts of confirmed BSE cases and the number of confirmed cases:
Slaughtered | Confirmed BSE cases | Slaughtered | Confirmed BSE cases | Slaughtered | Confirmed BSE cases | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2003 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2004 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2005 | 2,428 | 2 | 283 | 0 | 95 | 0 |
2006 | 528 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 16 | 0 |
2007 | 317 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
2008 | 131 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
2009 | 45 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
2010 | 184 | 0 | 123 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2011 | 25 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2012 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Totals | 3,669 | 2 | 464 | 0 | 121 | 0 |
The following table shows the number of cattle culled under the over 30 months scheme and older cattle disposal scheme and the number of confirmed BSE cases:
Slaughtered | Confirmed BSE cases | Slaughtered | Confirmed BSE cases | Slaughtered | Confirmed BSE cases | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002 | 101,790 | 11 | 11,611 | 2 | 6,286 | 1 |
2003 | 149,235 | 13 | 21,905 | 1 | 12,638 | 1 |
2004 | 216,877 | 7 | 32,770 | 1 | 19,153 | 1 |
2005 | 194,243 | 4 | 30,569 | 2 | 18,641 | 1 |
2006 | 29,106 | 2 | 4,335 | 0 | 2,739 | 0 |
2007 | 14,684 | 0 | 1,811 | 0 | 1,202 | 0 |
2008 | 16,645 | 1 | 1,765 | 0 | 1,165 | 0 |
2009 | 280 | 0 | 22 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
2010 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2011 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2012 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Totals | 722,860 | 38 | 104,788 | 6 | 61,828 | 4 |
The following table shows the number of cattle culled as a result of Brucellosis which, it should be noted, is based on the best information available:
Year | England | North West | Cumbria |
|---|---|---|---|
2002 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2003 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2004 | 167 | 0 | 0 |
2005 | 20 (represents whole of GB.; England only figure not available) | 0 | 0 |
2006 | 5 (includes Scotland; England only figure not available) | 0 | 0 |
2007 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2009 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2010 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
2011 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Public Health Workforce Consultation
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
Today I am publishing “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Towards a workforce strategy for the public health system”.
The consultation document aims to:
set out proposals for a work force strategy that would support highly qualified, motivated public health specialists who will be employed in a range of settings including local authorities, the NHS and Public Health England in the future public health system; and
explore opportunities for employers to develop and embed public health knowledge and skills into the wider work force.
The skills of people working throughout the public, voluntary and private sectors are crucial to protecting and improving the health and well-being of the population, and addressing health inequalities. The consultation document considers how future systems for education and training can support the development and use of those skills to help achieve this goal and make the progress we need to address our big health challenges. It considers what roles people working as specialists in public health and in a wide range of other sectors can and should play to make public health everyone’s business and how they can support individuals to promote their own health and well-being and make more informed decisions.
The development of this consultation has been an inclusive process, with involvement from key stakeholders to help us build a work force that can transform public health. The subsequent strategy, which we plan to publish in autumn 2012, will be shaped by a range of views. It will be an important contribution to making the future public health system a success.
Under the proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill, local government will take on a significant new leadership role in public health, employing a substantial proportion of the public health work force. The consultation document has been developed, and is co-branded, with the Local Government Association.
“Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Towards a workforce strategy for the new public health system” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
Police Air Support (Collaboration Agreement)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before the House a draft of The Police (Collaboration: Specified Function) Order 2012.
This order requires the police service to collaborate in the provision of air support through a single collaboration agreement.
I have consulted the police service about the proposed order and, having carefully considered the responses received, I have decided to make the order.
In 2009 Bernard Hogan-Howe, then chief constable of Merseyside, carried out a review of the arrangements for police air support for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). This identified scope to rationalise the current patchwork of provision and make savings, as well as ensuring a consistent level of air support across England and Wales.
On the basis of that review, the National Police Air Service (NPAS) project has been led by Chief Constable Alex Marshall and has the full support of ACPO. The advantages of NPAS include the following:
It will give all forces access to helicopter support 24 hours a day, 365 days a year—in contrast to the current system which sees some force helicopters grounded for days a time while they are being repaired.
97% of the population of England and Wales will remain within 20 minutes’ flying time.
It will also save the police service £15 million per year when fully operational.
Chief constables of all forces in England and Wales have given their support to the proposal for NPAS. The vast majority of police authorities have also given support in principle. However, realisation of the full benefits available through NPAS depends upon the commitment of the whole of the police service in England and Wales. These proposals have been under discussion for over two years. It is time for the police service to move on from considering the principle and to focus on agreeing the details of a collaborative approach. This order will ensure such a focus.
While the Government have removed central targets from the police and are giving elected police and crime commissioners the power to set local strategic priorities, it has also introduced new powers under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act to ensure that forces work effectively together. This is the first use of new powers brought in by the Act.
Police Officers and Staff (Remuneration and Conditions of Service)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On 15 March I issued a written statement to the House to announce that Tom Winsor had published the final report of his review of remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff in England and Wales.
When the review was launched, I said that it is vital that we have a modern and flexible police service to meet the demands placed on it, and this is still true today. We have the finest police service in the world, and our police do one of the most important jobs in the country with great courage, skill and commitment. However, we need to support the service in maximising its potential and in its progress to become the 21st century service the public deserve.
The review has an important role to play in this as part of the Government’s wider police reform agenda, along with other reforms including the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the reduction in bureaucracy, developing professionalism in the service and the creation of the police professional body, and improving service to the public through collaboration between police forces, with other public services and with the private sector. Police officers and staff deserve to have pay and work force arrangements that recognise the vital role they play in fighting crime and keeping the public safe, and enable them to deliver effectively for the public. We also need a work force that can respond to the reality of policing in the 21st century.
The Winsor review began its work on 1 October 2010. Its terms of reference asked for recommendations on how to:
Use remuneration and conditions of service to maximise officer and staff deployment to frontline roles where their powers and skills are required;
Provide remuneration and conditions of service that are fair to and reasonable for both the public taxpayer and police officers and staff;
Enable modern management practices in line with practices elsewhere in the public sector and the wider economy.
The review was asked to report in two stages: the first on short-term improvements and a second on longer-term reforms.
On 30 January 2012 I laid a statement about recommendations made in Tom Winsor’s Part 1 Report. I accepted the recommendations from the Police Arbitration Tribunal and the Police Negotiating Board on these matters. These recommendations represented an important first step in modernising police pay and conditions so that they are fair to officers and to taxpayers.
The Government remain committed to further reform and to the principles set out in the Winsor Part 1 Report:
Fairness is an essential part of any new system of pay and conditions
The office of constable is the bedrock of British policing
The demands of policing should be given full and proper weight
People should be paid for what they do, the skills they have and are applying in their work, and the weights of the jobs they do
People should be paid for how well they work
A single police service—distinctions in pay and other conditions of service between police officers and staff should be objectively justified
Arrangements should be simple to implement and administer
Phased introduction of reform
The final report sets out a further package of specific recommendations for police officers’ and staff remuneration and conditions of service, based on these guiding principles.
These include proposals to reform officers’ pay structures, to change the ways in which they join and leave the service, and for a new system for determining pay and conditions.
The Government have now had the opportunity to consider the final report.
I am minded to direct the Police Negotiating Board and Police Advisory Board for England and Wales to consider as a matter of urgency proposals on pay, a fast-track scheme to the rank of inspector and other matters that are within their respective remits. I am consulting the independent chair of those bodies on this.
I asked Tom Winsor to consider the findings of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, led by Lord Hutton, concerning the normal pension age for police officers. The final report recommends a pension age of 60, in line with Lord Hutton’s recommended pension age for police officers.
This recommendation will be reflected in a proposal for long-term reform of police pensions on which I will now consult the Police Negotiating Board. In common with the reforms which are being developed across public service pension schemes, the Government are committed to ensuring that police pensions are affordable and sustainable for the future. Those who work in the police and across public services will continue to have access to pension schemes that are among the very best available.
Tom Winsor has also made recommendations for entry to the service at the rank of superintendent and, for those with relevant policing experience overseas, at the rank of chief constable. I do not believe it is in the best interests of the service to restrict its ability to appoint officers to senior positions to a limited number of individuals. While police leaders have undoubted strengths, I want to ensure that the police service is able to draw upon the best pool of talent available. The Government believe that the review’s recommendations on entry could support this and I will therefore consult partners on them.
The review also recommends significant changes to the way in which police pay and conditions are determined, including abolishing the Police Negotiating Board, establishing a pay review body for officers, and including the remuneration of chief officers in the senior salaries review body’s remit. The Government will consult on proposals for implementing the necessary changes to the police officer pay machinery.
The recommendations made in the report are matters of serious national importance for the service, which could play a vital role in reform. They represent significant changes to structures for pay, conditions, careers and leadership. I will therefore be taking forward the steps I have described as a matter of urgency.
Migration Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Board
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am announcing today that my Department will shortly commence the first triennial review of the Migration Advisory Committee and the technical advisory board. Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life. I will announce the findings of the review later this year.
Community Sentences and Probation Consultation
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I am today publishing proposals for consultation in two key areas of the justice reform agenda: sentences in the community and the shape of probation services that deliver them. These proposals are set out in full in the consultation papers “Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences” and Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services” respectively.
There is an urgent need to reform our criminal justice system in order to improve public safety. Reoffending rates remain too high despite recent improvements. Almost half of all adult offenders reoffend within a year of leaving custody. Reoffending of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in prison is estimated to cost the economy up to £10 billion annually. Most seriously of all, left unchecked, these rates of repeat crime mean thousands of people are unnecessarily becoming victims.
That is why the Government have embarked on wholesale reform, beginning with the publication of the Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle: effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders”, in December 2010. This set out our ambition to reduce reoffending, deliver better punishment and improve public protection. We have made good progress in delivering reforms in this area, but we need to go further. The next stage of reform is sentences in the community and the operation of the probation service which supervises them.
In these two publications I set out radical plans to make sentences in the community more credible and more effective in reducing crime and to reform probation so that it makes the fullest contribution by extending competition and opening up the management of lower risk offenders to the innovation and energy of the widest possible range of providers.
We propose wide-ranging reforms to the way sentences in the community operate. Our aim is to provide sentencers with a robust community sentencing framework that is effective at punishing and reforming offenders, and in which they and the public can have confidence. Our plans include intensive community punishment to be delivered through a tough package of requirements that would involve community payback, a significant restriction of liberty backed by electronic monitoring and effective financial penalties. We also propose that every community order includes a punitive element. We will build on these options by being creative with the technology available for monitoring offenders’ movements and by exploring the use of asset seizure as a stand alone punishment.
With regard to probation services, our consultation proposals are the result of the Government’s review of the future shape of probation services, aimed at ensuring that they punish and reform offenders, and protect the public more effectively. They also take forward our “Competition Strategy for Offender Services” published in July 2011, which set our intention to compete all offender services unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.
We need to reform probation services to cut crime—by making better use of the innovation, capacity and diversity of different providers. We intend to extend the principles of competition in probation services as envisaged by the Offender Management Act 2007.
The safety of the public is our number one priority. Under our proposals, public sector probation will retain control of the management of those criminals who pose the highest risk, including the most serious and violent offenders. The public sector will also retain responsibility for all advice to court, and for public interest decisions over all offenders including initially assessing levels of risk, resolving action where sentences are breached, and decisions on the recalls of offenders to prison.
Through carefully managed competition, including competing the management and supervision of lower risk offenders, we will bring greater effectiveness and quality to probation services by ensuring that they are delivered by those best placed to do so, whether they are in the public, voluntary, or private sectors.
Under our proposals, public sector probation trusts will have a stronger role as commissioners of competed services, responsible for buying competed services and holding those who deliver them to account for the outcomes they achieve. In particular, we will devolve more responsibility to probation trusts by giving them control of local budgets including, for example, for electronic monitoring of curfews, so they can deliver programmes targeted at local needs and reducing reoffending.
The aim of giving further discretion and responsibility to providers and front-line staff is that public safety can be protected and resources can be targeted effectively, including extending the principles of payment by results where possible. We will encourage the participation of the voluntary, private and public sectors, alongside new models for delivering public services like mutuals. We are also consulting on the potential over time for other public bodies, such as local authorities or Police and Crime Commissioners, to take responsibility for probation services.
This consultation and subsequent Government response will form the basis of stage 1 of the triennial review of probation trusts, as part of the coalition Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability. The triennial review will be aligned with guidance published by the Cabinet Office: “Guidance on Reviews of Non-Departmental Public Bodies”. The final report and findings will be laid in this House.
The Government’s goal is to reform sentences in the community and probation services so that they are able to both punish and reform offenders much more effectively. We will actively consult with stakeholders on these proposals.
Copies of “Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences” and “Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services” will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The documents will also be available online, respectively, at:
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/effective-community-services
and
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/effective-probation-services
Coroner Services
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Government are today publishing the new “Charter for Coroner Services”.
Charter for Coroner Services
The charter sets out for the first time the standards that bereaved family members and others who come into contact with coroner services across England and Wales can expect to receive. It also sets out what someone can do if they are unhappy with the level of service they have received.
The charter has been revised following a public consultation in 2011 and, as proposed in the consultation, is being published in a single booklet with an updated version of the Ministry of Justice’s “Guide to Coroners and Inquests”. Combining the guide and charter in this way will ensure that those coming into contact with coroner services have accessible and concise information on the processes and standards in a coroner inquiry and know their rights under the system. It will also ensure that all coroners’ offices in England and Wales are aware of the standards they should be meeting.
The guide and the charter apply to current coroner services under the Coroners Act 1988. We will update the booklet as and when changes to the coroner system are introduced.
The charter is an integral part of the Government’s plans for reform of the coroner system and, alongside the appointment of a chief coroner and implementation of most of the provisions in part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, will help to ensure much more consistent standards of service between coroner areas.
The charter comes into effect today and we are distributing hard copies of the booklet to all coroners’ offices across England and Wales, as well as publishing it on the Justice and Directgov websites.
Copies of the guide and charter booklet have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office. The guide and charter is also available online at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/burials-and-coroners/coroners.htm
and
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Death/WhatToDoAfterADeath/DG_066713
Appointment of the Chief Coroner
Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, appointment of the chief coroner is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor. Detailed discussions are taking place and I will make a further statement once these discussions have concluded.
Motoring Agencies Business Plans and Performance Frameworks
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I am pleased to announce the publication of the business plans for the Highways Agency and the Department for Transport’s Motoring Agencies—the Driving Standards Agency (DSA), the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the Vehicle Certification Agency (VGA), and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA).
The business plans set out:
i. the services each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make;
ii. the resources they require; and
iii. a framework of measures by which their performance will be assessed.
The measures allow service users and members of the public to assess how the agencies are performing in delivering their key services and reforms and in managing agency finances.
The business plans will be available electronically on agency websites and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses in due course.
EU Transport Council
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I attended the first Transport Council under the Danish presidency (the presidency) in Brussels on Thursday 22 March.
The presidency sought agreement to a general approach on a proposal for a regulation which defines the trans-European transport network (TEN-T). This sets out the actions to be undertaken at EU and member state level to develop the network. I was able to support the general approach after securing a UK amendment that will ensure that progress on the projects required by the regulation would be subject to the availability of financial resources. This amendment received support from Germany, Latvia, Finland, Romania, Ireland, Bulgaria, Slovenia and France. In my contribution to the debate, I also argued that governance structures on corridors should be less burdensome, more flexible and focus on contentious cross-border projects. Most member states supported the compromise text which was viewed as a balance between the Commission’s initial proposals and what they could accept.
The Council also agreed a general approach on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on ground-handling services at EU airports and repealing Council directive 96/67/EC. This proposal is part of the airports package. My intervention emphasised the UK’s reservations about the cost impact and administrative burdens of the original proposal, but I acknowledged that these had been largely addressed in the presidency’s revised text. In particular, I welcomed the removal of compulsory licensing and of the Commission’s proposed powers to tell a member state to close its markets to third country operators that refused to open theirs. Another important point secured in the negotiations in the run up to the meeting was the assurance that service quality would be set locally, with enforcement centred on the contractual relationships between airports, airlines and ground-handlers, with efforts to set homogenised Europe-wide standards removed from the proposal.
In the light of these changes and the fact that the regulation is expected to deliver more competition in ground-handling at airports in other European countries and hence reduce costs for airlines (and indirectly for passengers), I felt able to support the presidency’s compromise text.
Under any other business, the Commission set out their future intentions on the follow up to the Costa Concordia accident in Italy in January. They intend to carry out a review of legislative proposals on domestic passenger ships, to be submitted for consideration at the IMO (International Maritime Organisation). The Commissioner also indicated there may be a revision to the ship stability directive, and work on watertight doors, with a second wave of regulatory activity later in the year. The Commissioner was supportive of renewed discussion both with the EU and the IMO on passenger ship safety. Italy gave an account of the emergency response to the accident and noted there would be an administrative enquiry.
I intervened to stress the need for a considered response that takes on board the outcome of the investigation currently underway before any decisions are taken as to whether regulatory changes are needed.
Also under any other business, the Commission provided an update on the international reaction to the inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading system (ETS). The Commission reported that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) had initiated new work to identify a global market-based measure for the aviation sector. If this work leads to an international agreement on tackling climate change emissions from aviation, the EU could, as set out in the ETS directive, review its legislation. I stressed the importance of maintaining a unified and robust European position and there was clear support from other member states for the aviation ETS.
The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport on which the presidency was hoping for a general approach and the any other business item Galileo and EGNOS programmes on which the Commission was providing information, were not discussed at the Council.
During my visit, I was also able to hold a bilateral discussion with the vice-president of the Commission, Siim Kallas on the main items for Transport Council discussion. A constructive exchange took place on upcoming Commission proposals for airport slots and rail policy. I used the opportunity to highlight the UK’s work with the Commission on the better regulation agenda.
I also met my counterparts from Cyprus and Ireland to discuss plans for their forthcoming presidencies of the EU, in July-December 2012 and in January-June 2013, respectively. The Cypriots’ main priorities focus on re-energising the integrated maritime policy, and promoting ‘Blue Growth’. The Irish are at an early stage in their preparations and sought UK’s views ahead of their presidency. My discussion with the Cypriots and Irish Ministers also included an overview of the important work that the UK is taking forward with the European Commission on the better regulation agenda.
High Speed Rail
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
At the end of this month I will receive HS2 Ltd’s route and station advice for high speed rail lines to Leeds, Manchester and Heathrow. This is an important next step in our aspiration for a truly national high speed network, as set out in our programme for government. Phase 2 of High Speed 2 will spread the benefits of high speed rail further across the country, increasing capacity and enhancing connectivity by extending high speed rail lines to Leeds and Manchester and connecting other major conurbations in the north and in Scotland through seamless transition onto the existing network.
In fulfilment of its remit, HS2 Ltd’s advice will include options for stations in Manchester, Leeds, South Yorkshire, the East Midlands and at Heathrow Airport, as well as advice on the case and potential locations for additional stations. It will also cover the impact of phase 2 of the network in releasing capacity on the midland and east coast main lines, as well as further extending the benefits of released capacity within the west coast corridor.
I will consider this advice objectively and in detail over the coming months, and I intend to publish it in the autumn together with a Government response setting out initial preferred route and station options. An important part of this process will be to consider the views of delivery partners in the cities where HS2 stations may be located, including any underpinning evidence which they have identified. Understanding local desires and plans for development will be crucial in helping me reach initial preferences for station locations. I am particularly keen to ensure that the network best supports the economic potential of the cities and regions it serves, through well-integrated station locations that build on local and regional plans.
Minimising the risk of blight is a serious consideration, and it is for this reason that I expect to publish HS2 Ltd’s advice once I have reached a view on routes and station options. Publishing a detailed range of possible options without an indication of the Government’s preferences would generate unnecessary and harmful blight across areas that ultimately might never be affected by the lines. I will be working with national environmental stakeholders to discuss key sustainability issues and how best to consult on lines of route going forward to help meet the needs of different stakeholders and the public.
Following publication, the input of interested parties, including MPs and their constituents, will be valuable to help further develop the proposals that will go forward for subsequent formal public consultation. Only once a full public consultation has been launched and completed will any decisions be reached.
When preferred route options are published in the autumn we will consult on and introduce an exceptional hardship scheme to assist property owners impacted by the proposals. Further, in order to reduce uncertainty for those affected by the proposals, and to ensure that the benefits for passengers and business of a national high speed rail network are realised as soon as possible, I have asked my officials to explore options for bringing forward formal public consultation on phase 2 of High Speed 2 to 2013, and I will set out my proposed timetable later this year.
Driving Tests (Taking Testing to the Customer)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
Last year I asked the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) to consider arrangements for delivering practical car driving tests from premises other than traditional driving test centres such as local authority buildings or leisure centres to provide a more local service for candidates.
Early indications from a limited pilot are encouraging and I am pleased feedback so far has been positive.
I have now asked the agency to further develop the model. Five additional areas have been identified in and/or surrounding: Kettering, Glasgow, Manchester, Worcester and Watford. These will be centred on an existing driving test centre “hub”. They represent a mix of urban and rural locations. Examiners based at the hub will conduct tests from additional satellite locations within the zone. Subject to finding suitable premises and the availability of driving test standard routes I have asked DSA to explore the possibility of providing tests from the following satellite locations:
Kettering—Corby, Market Harborough and Wellingborough
Glasgow—Johnstone, Renfrew, East Kilbride, Cathcart and Bearsden
Manchester—Cheadle, Altrincham, Salford, Middleton, Ashton-under-Lyne and Oldham
Worcestershire—Kidderminster, Droitwich and Bromsgrove
Watford—Hemel Hempstead, Harpenden, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City.
I am also pleased to announce the publication of a prior information notice in the Official Journal of the European Union for public and private organisations to work in partnership with the DSA to identify and provide locations from which the practical car test could be delivered. DSA will encourage engagement by a wide section of the business community, including retail and hotel groups to provide premises from which the agency could operate.
Tests will continue to be conducted by DSA examiners.
Universal Credit (Passported Benefits)
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
In May 2011, the Department for Work and Pensions commissioned the Social Security Advisory Committee to undertake an independent review of passported benefits and their interaction with universal credit.
The Committee has completed the review. Later today I will publish its final report which includes the Government’s response. I will place a copy in the House Library.
The Committee’s report does not make specific recommendations on the future design of passported benefits but suggests a number of high level principles that may help guide the direction of travel in future. These principles are focused on simplification and making work pay.
We recognise that the immediate priority is to determine how passported benefits will operate when universal credit is introduced in 2013. The Government’s response to the Committee’s report therefore sets out how various organisations are considering new eligibility criteria for individual passported benefits.
In the longer term, our aim is to explore a generic approach for the current suite of passported benefits. This approach could enable people to claim universal credit, but with added components for a range of other benefits and public services. The total award, including the additional components would then be withdrawn gradually as income rises. We will consider this alongside other priorities for the next spending review.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Alcohol: Strategy
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce legislation to implement their alcohol strategy.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the Government will launch a number of consultations in the forthcoming months on key proposals in the alcohol strategy. This includes consultations on the level to be set for a minimum unit price for alcohol and a proposed ban on multibuy discounts in supermarkets and off-licences. Following the outcomes of those consultations, the Government will consider the necessary legislation to take those proposals forward.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
In thanking the Minister for that reply and welcoming both the strategy and the commitment to a minimum unit price for alcohol, I ask the Government to undertake to continue to resist the blandishments of the drinks industry and to make every effort to move forward quickly with introducing the minimum alcohol price.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I cannot give any commitment about when and how we will do that. Obviously, primary legislation will be necessary to bring forward a minimum unit price. However, I can make it clear that the Prime Minister has given his own personal commitment that we will bring in a minimum unit price. That is why we are consulting on what the proposed and proper level should be.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, can the Minister tell me what the situation is? It is reported in the press that a minimum unit price might be illegal under European Commission rules as being anti-competitive. Does he have any views on that? What procedures would we have to follow to deal with that? We are very concerned on health grounds and support the idea.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am not going to give my views on the legality. That would obviously be a matter for the European Court of Justice to decide in due course. I understand that the level at which we set the minimum unit price would be relevant. That is a factor that we will take into account in the consultation.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that just to convey the message of sensible drinking is not enough to raise awareness? What are needed are very clear messages. How will those clear messages be targeted at the general public?
Lord Henley
My Lords, minimum unit pricing is just one part of the whole strategy announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in her Statement late last Friday. Unfortunately, I was not able to repeat the Statement in this House because the House was not sitting. There will be other parts of the strategy, and the noble Baroness is right to talk about education and getting the message across. That is something that we will have to consider very carefully. We will consider not just direct education in schools but all other forms of education as part of that process.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Do the Government plan to consult on legislative controls for alcohol home delivery services, particularly at night to a party which has run out of alcohol and during the day to those who are already inebriated? I understand that these services do not fall under the current licensing controls.
Lord Henley
My understanding is that any sale of alcohol falls under the control of the licensing laws. I appreciate that it is very difficult to deal with these matters, particularly when it comes to home deliveries of pizzas or whatever the noble Baroness is referring to. Again, that is something that we will have to consider if there is evidence of abuse because, as the noble Baroness is right to point out, it is illegal to sell alcohol to those who are inebriated.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, we have plenty of time for this Question, and the fourth Question is on the same subject. I think that we should hear from my noble friend Lord Taverne first.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the Government on abandoning their previous preference for banning below cost sales of alcohol and on adopting a policy that was strongly recommended by the previous Chief Medical Officer, by Sir Ian Gilmore, who is a great expert on this, and by a very convincing study of drinking in Newcastle, which is not known for its abstinence. I suggest to the Minister that this is only a first step, because a higher price could be even more effective. Does he not agree that it is rather sad that the shadow Home Secretary in another place, instead of welcoming something of great importance for the future, should have used the occasion of the Government’s announcement for making party-political points?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I shall not comment on my noble friend’s last remark. However, when my right honourable friend announced the strategy on Friday, other than objecting to the date of the announcement, I did not notice much that the party opposite objected to in the Statement. As regards my noble friend’s other points, I know Newcastle and have seen some of the problems that city centres such as that in Newcastle can face on Friday and Saturday nights as a result of excessive drinking. That is what we are trying to target. As I said, minimum pricing per unit of alcohol is just one part of it but I commend to the House other parts of the strategy, which will be available in the Printed Paper Office.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, given that those aged under 18 make up as much as a third of alcohol-related A&E attendances in some areas, does not more need to be done to inform schoolchildren of the dangers of alcohol abuse? Will the Minister consult colleagues in the Department for Education, including the noble Lord sitting next to him, to ensure that there is an improvement in the information given to schools?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I assure the right reverend Prelate that my noble friend from the Department for Education heard that. However, he is right to draw attention to the problems of underage drinking and particularly to the prevalence of underage drinkers ending up in A&E departments. In my own part of the world in west Cumberland, I have seen some very good work being done by schools in Workington, which, sadly, has the highest rate of admissions to A&E in the country. However, as a result of the work being done there, I hope that in a few years’ time we will see those rates fall, and fall considerably.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I have a brief question. Will the Government legislate to show energy and calorie levels on the labelling on alcohol products?
Lord Henley
My Lords, that is not part of what we are proposing at the moment but we will no doubt consider it when the legislation comes forward. I look forward to discussing the amendment that the noble Lord will put forward on that occasion.
Lord Flight
My Lords, perhaps I may counsel that describing something as bad and telling adolescents that they should not do it is about the best way of encouraging them to do it. That needs to be borne in mind when providing guidance.
Lord Henley
My Lords, that argument can be put forward but I am not sure that it is necessarily always the case. I still think that we have a duty to offer appropriate warnings. If those warnings are made in the right way by the right people, the right message can be got across to young people. That is why I referred to what is taking place in west Cumberland.
Schools: Satellite Sites
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent the expansion of grammar schools on to satellite sites.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
The legislation governing the establishment or expansion of grammar schools has not changed. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 and the Academies Act 2010 effectively mean that there can be no new grammar schools and we have not proposed any changes to that legislation. Any school can seek to expand by opening another site, as has been the case since 1944, but to do so it must be a continuance of the original school.
Baroness Walmsley
I thank my noble friend for restating government policy. However, I do not see how that stacks up with the potential for doubling the number of school places for which selection operates in certain areas. As we know, under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, no new grammar schools can open, so can my noble friend tell me the criterion for a new school and why the planned satellite grammar school in Sevenoaks can claim not to be a new school but part of Tonbridge Grammar School many miles away? If the new school is given the go-ahead, what will that do to the catchment area of the original school? Could we see a school stretching right across the county as it extends its catchment area by opening a whole chain of satellite schools?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As I said, my Lords, the fundamental position on opening a satellite school has not changed. There is a process in place if people want to come forward with a proposal to open or expand a satellite school, they can apply to the local authority, and to the Secretary of State in the case of an academy. Those proposals would be looked at on a case-by-case basis. The bar on new provision is absolute and clear, and it is not the case that the Government are seeking to shift that position either by the front or the back door.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, in the circumstances described by the noble Baroness, it would appear that simply by calling a new school in essence a satellite extension, from what the noble Lord has said, it looks like it might be permitted. Is it not a fact that the Government’s policies are leading to much more selective education? How will we ensure fair admissions to our schools?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, it is absolutely not the case that this Government’s policies are leading to more selection. It is not happening everywhere. There was a big increase in the number of selective places between 1997 and 2011 when the number went up by 35,000 within the existing framework. Wherever it would have been possible for the Government to have sought to increase selection—for example, through new free schools or through the academy conversion programme—we have been absolutely clear in the Academies Act that we have taken the opposite view and have not permitted or encouraged the expansion of selection within the maintained system. We have said—this is the point about the admissions code—that all schools, whether maintained, non-selective or selective, should have the ability, in response to parental demand, to increase their published admissions number. That is the only change that has been made.
Lord Jones of Birmingham
Does the Minister agree that there is increased selection? It has happened under all Governments for at least a quarter of a century. It is now selection on the basis of money—whether you can afford a house in a certain area with a good school, or whether you can afford to send your kids to a public school. Governments of all parties have pursued a policy of selection by money, as opposed to what it should be—selection on ability.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I hope that I have already made clear the Government’s views on selection by ability. The noble Lord is right that one of our big challenges is to make sure that we do not continue to have the consequences that he outlined. That is one reason for our drive and focus on raising standards in the maintained sector. We will try to make sure that more good places are offered to children where money is not an issue.
One reason why we removed the limit on the ability of a good and popular school to expand was to make it possible for more children to go to the school. One reason that we want free schools is to increase choice in the system. Many of those schools are being set up in areas of the greatest deprivation. I agree with the noble Lord that overall we should make sure that, rather than talking about selection for a small number of people—which is a historic argument that we have had in this country for a very long time—our emphasis should be on trying to raise standards for the greatest number of children, of all abilities, and on doing what we can to narrow the gap between rich and poor.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Will the Minister tell me what consultation takes place in a community to advise on the nature of a school in that area?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The statutory processes around selective schools that we discussed have not changed at all. Proposals are put forward, and there are consultations, representations and so on. That has not changed.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
Does my noble friend agree that many of us in this House would not be here today had we not gone to a grammar school? What exactly is wrong with grammar schools?
Lord Hill of Oareford
It is nice to hear the contrary view put by my noble friend. Clearly, for the people who benefited, a grammar school education acted as an extremely powerful rocket booster for their opportunities in life. However, there were large numbers of children for whom that was not the case. The Government are trying to focus on raising standards for all children, recognising that children of differing abilities need a good education—whether it is a core academic education or a core technical and vocational education—and that we need a range of schools that will meet those needs.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the point put so succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham—I never expected to be saying this—is very widely shared in this House?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am sorry—I did not catch the beginning of the question.
Lord Lea of Crondall
The point put so succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, is shared very widely in this House. Is the Minister aware of that?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am now more aware than I was a moment ago. My answer is the same. I recognise that there is that perception—and that in some cases it is more than a perception, it is true. However, that is something that all of us want to get away from.
Elections: Registration
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that every eligible United Kingdom citizen between the ages of 18 and 25 registers to vote.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Government are committed to doing all that they can to maximise registration, including among 18 to 25 year-olds, and are looking to modernise the system to make it as easy and convenient as possible for people to register to vote. We have commissioned research to explore the registration of groups whom we know are underregistered —which certainly includes those between 18 and 25. We are also closely studying the experience in Northern Ireland, where promising work is being done to get young people registered.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He knows as well as I do that if people are not encouraged to take part in the democratic process through the ballot box, there are other ways that have horrendous consequences. What plans have the Government for the coming year and elections to encourage people to register to vote? I declare an interest as grandfather of the Bite the Ballot movement, which encourages young people to engage with democratic institutions. Will the Government enable registration forms to be made available in schools, colleges, workplaces and places where young people spend their leisure hours, and also online? Could that be an immediate action?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, there are two problems with registration for 18 to 25 year-olds. One is the question of how far they are motivated to register. The other is simply how good the Government are at catching these people and making sure that they fill in forms. I am informed that the number of young men registered with a doctor is remarkably low. This is the biggest single hole in our registration. The percentage of 18 to 25 year-olds registered to vote is around 56 per cent. The percentage of people over 25 who are registered is well over 90 per cent.
Lord Wills
My Lords, the Minister will recall the debate that was held in your Lordships’ House at the beginning of January about electoral registration, where there was widespread concern from all sides of the House about the Government’s approach to individual registration and how it will cause a decline in electoral registration, including among young people. There was also concern that that decline in registration would benefit only one political party—the Conservative Party. In the light of that, the Minister will recall that there was widespread support from all sides of the House, including from the Conservative Benches, for a cross-party approach to addressing these problems. The Minister then undertook to go away and discuss with his colleagues such a cross-party approach. Can he update the House on how he has got on with his discussions, three months later?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That is a very good question. I have discussed that with colleagues, and we are continuing to discuss it, and I thank the noble Lord for maintaining the pressure on it. We have a real problem with how to get 18 to 25 year-olds caught up within the general system of interaction with government agencies. They move around much more frequently; they move between home and university; and they tend not to get caught up by a number of the ways in which government interacts with people.
Lord Tomlinson
May I suggest to the noble Lord, in the most helpful of ways, that he send a copy of the draft Bill on House of Lords reform to every 18 to 24 year-old and see how many are thus motivated by the democratic impulse of the Deputy Prime Minister to come out and vote?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, only this morning I was told by one Member of your Lordships’ House who spends time going out to schools that when talking with school students, one gets a very strong commitment to House of Lords reform. I recall that the Labour Party’s last manifesto committed it to House of Lords reform. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and others will maintain that strong commitment when they discuss the Bill this time next year. It seems to me sometimes that there is nothing else on the minds of noble Lords opposite.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in a debate among young people in this House last year, there was a very strong vote against House of Lords reform? However, that is not my question. My question is: what progress is being made on the institution of citizenship education in schools as a compulsory subject?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, successive Governments have struggled for some time with the whole issue of citizenship education in schools, and as the noble Baroness knows well, schools have struggled with how well PSHE as a whole is taught. I have asked about citizenship education and students tell me that they have had a bit on the European Union and a bit on Parliament in between the instruction on how they should behave in relations with the opposite sex. We all know that citizenship education remains a problem. It is a problem with which the Department for Education and others are grappling, but I encourage the noble Baroness to keep pushing.
Lord Addington
My Lords, it seems, as my noble friend will undoubtedly be aware, that the young are interested in single issues in politics. Would it not be a good idea to encourage those single-issue groups to inform the young of just how important it is to get involved in the political process in order to get anything done, and that voting is part of that?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the localism agenda—and, indeed, reviving local democracy—is clearly one very important part of getting young people re-involved in democratic politics, because it is easier to understand how they interact with local politics. I have to say to all Members of the House that the way in which we handle the issue of constitutional reform over the next year will send a signal to young people about how responsible we are, at Westminster, in reacting to constitutional reform issues.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the Minister seemed to indicate earlier in reply to my noble friend’s question that it has taken until now, three months later, to discuss within the department or the Government the issue that my noble friend raised. How much longer do we have to wait for it to become an all-party, cross-party discussion that might lead to the sort of positive results that the Minister seems to want?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I welcome the noble Baroness’s commitment to cross-party approaches to all aspects of political and constitutional reform. On the question of motivating people under the age of 25 to be involved in politics, we very much need an all-party approach, and that is one of the areas in which we all need to take a rather more responsible attitude than the circus of Westminster sometimes provides.
Alcohol: Minimum Pricing
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what practical issues they considered with respect to the establishment and regulation of a minimum price for alcohol.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, as I said in my earlier Answer, the Government will launch a consultation on the level to be set for a minimum unit price for alcohol. The Government will consider a range of issues in detail as part of this consultation.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister. Perhaps I might add to the points made very usefully in answers to the earlier Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I understand well the need to combat binge drinking, but does the Minister agree that the minimum unit price proposals are very hard to understand or measure? For example, I read in the Guardian last Thursday that one unit is 10 millilitres of pure alcohol and that is equivalent to half a glass of wine. There are big glasses, large glasses and small glasses, and that does not tell us nearly enough. Does the Minister accept that more explanation is needed of this public intervention that is so very important?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am sorry if my noble friend finds these matters hard to understand and measure. That is one of the reasons why we are mounting this consultation. It depends what my noble friend drinks, but he might be aware that it is possible to buy a can of lager in a supermarket for as little as 20 pence, or a 2 litre bottle of cider for as little as £1.69. We think that those sorts of prices, charged particularly in the off-trade, are encouraging drinking that can lead to very severe anti-social behaviour. That is why we think it is important to look at the possibilities of a minimum unit price and consult on the appropriate level.
Lord Snape
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the main beneficiary of the Government’s proposals for unit pricing will be the drinks retailers? Does he agree that the issue of excessive drinking involves all social classes in the United Kingdom? Could he perhaps tell the House how doubling the price of White Lightning in supermarkets would affect the activities of organisations such as the Bullingdon Club?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I accept that it is possible that a minimum unit price could lead to extra profits for the retail industry, particularly for the supermarkets, but I am sure that they will find other ways to compete. We do not think it is right that they should be competing by means of low-priced alcohol that leads to the disorder of the sort we discussed earlier.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
Does my noble friend agree that the Government are to be congratulated on their strong stance on the obesity epidemic, declaring that the answer was to eat fewer calories and drink less alcohol? Will they go further and declare openly that although alcohol is a very pleasant poison to drink, it is nevertheless a poison?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we do not want to stop people drinking alcohol in a perfectly legitimate manner. I accept my noble friend’s medical advice that it is a poison, but it is one that we have grown accustomed to over the years. What we want to avoid is excessive consumption of the sort that leads to disorderly scenes in some of our town centres, which I referred to in my answers to the earlier Question.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, does the Minister recollect that in replying to the first Question, he very sensibly said that the price of alcohol was only one weapon in the armoury of the Government in seeking to tackle alcohol abuse? Is it the case, as I believe it is, that for the last 100 years or so it has been a criminal offence on licensed premises for drink to be sold to or for a person who is already inebriated? If that is the current law, has it not fallen into desuetude? Will the Government concentrate on that? It could be a very potent weapon.
Lord Henley
The noble Lord understands the law very well. He is absolutely correct in that. These are matters for enforcement and we think that they should be taken up by the police and, subsequently, the licensing authorities. It is possible to remove the licence from an individual or a pub if it sells alcohol to someone who is obviously inebriated.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, have the Government considered achieving the minimum price by raising the tax rather than the price? If you raise the tax, we all benefit. If you raise the price, it is a windfall for the drinks industry.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I have to be very careful about what I say about changes to the taxation regime. It is slightly more complicated than that in that you would have to even out the tax rates on different forms of alcohol, which vary a great deal. That is one of the reasons why sometimes you find the two-litre bottle of cider that I mentioned earlier being so much cheaper than equivalent forms of alcohol. At this stage, we are looking at minimum pricing but no doubt it would be possible to look at other matters as well.
Lord Roberts of Conwy
My Lords, have the Government considered the 24-hour drinking introduced by the party opposite? Is that not partly to blame for what we are suffering socially now?
Lord Henley
My Lords, certainly the consequences of the changes made under the previous regime were not exactly what we were led to believe would be the consequences. It did not lead to the European-style drinking culture—the cafe culture—that the then Prime Minister thought that it would lead to. That is why we made a number of changes to the licensing regime, which, again, is part of our overall strategy on alcohol.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, we all know the dangers of excessive use of alcohol, which is a terrible thing. However, in the interest of balance of all these questions, does the Minister agree that sensible consumption of alcohol, or “poison” as it was called, can be very enjoyable and has been an integral part of western civilisation for millennia?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord in those remarks. He will remember from his naval experience—I do not know how far he goes back—that originally a tot of rum was provided to all serving naval officers and ratings. That was removed because of the increasing complexity of ships and the technology on board, and the thought that it might not be a sensible thing for them to continue to drink. But, quite rightly, the Navy did not go dry in the style of the United States Navy. The noble Lord is right to make the point that there is a sensible balance to be drawn on this matter.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the amendments for Third Reading be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 9, Schedule 1, Clauses 10 to 24, Schedule 2, Clauses 25 to 31, Schedule 3, Clauses 32 to 38, Schedule 4, Clause 39, Schedule 5, Clause 40, Schedule 6, Clauses 41 to 63, Schedules 7 and 8, Clauses 64 to 69, Schedule 9, Clauses 70 to 90, Schedule 10, Clause 91, Schedule 11, Clauses 92 to 106, Schedule 12, Clauses 107 to 111, Schedule 13, Clause 112, Schedule 14, Clauses 113 to 121, Schedule 15, Clause 122, Schedules 16 and 17, Clause 123, Schedules 18 and 19, Clauses 124 to 126, Schedule 20, Clause 127, Schedule 21, Clause 128, Schedule 22, Clauses 129 to 133, Schedule 23, Clauses 134 to 136, Schedule 24, Clauses 137 to 142, Schedule 25, Clause 143, Schedule 26, Clause 144, Schedule 27, Clauses 145 to 155.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I beg to move the order of consideration Motion.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, I apologise. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whether the removal of the boards which have recently been erected in Parliament Square will have to wait until the Bill supported by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is passed. If so, I consider that the relevant authorities are wet.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am not sure of the answer to that question. I know that I have just moved a formal Motion. In case the noble Baroness thinks that she will have to wait until about 11 o’clock to get an answer, I should say that all the Motions between this one and the Report stage of the Parliament Square (Management) Bill are formal. Perhaps she will let me move this formal Motion, and we can then move on very quickly to Parliament Square, when she might want to intervene again.
Schools (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the draft regulations and order laid before the House on 19 January and 1 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 39th, 40th and 41st Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 20 March
Parliament Square (Management) Bill [HL]
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:44 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 220 - Amendment 3 agreed.
17:00 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 215 - Amendment 4 agreed.
17:15 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 206 / Noes: 229 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
18:04 - Division on Amendment 16 - Ayes: 199 / Noes: 224 - Amendment 16 disagreed.
18:36 - Division on Amendment 19 - Ayes: 201 / Noes: 201 - Amendment 19 disagreed.
19:17 - Division on Amendment 21 - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 206 - Amendment 21 disagreed.
19:40 - Division on Amendment 24 - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 195 - Amendment 24 disagreed.
20:28 - Division on Amendment 25 - Ayes: 120 / Noes: 194 - Amendment 25 disagreed.
21:18 - Division on Amendment 31 - Ayes: 69 / Noes: 123 - Amendment 31 disagreed.
23:40 - Division on Amendment 41 - Ayes: 26 / Noes: 107 - Amendment 41 disagreed.
Lord McNally
(a) add services to Part 1 of Schedule 1, or(b) vary or omit services described in that Part,”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government have tabled government Amendments 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 18 following the commitment I gave on Report. The Government have listened to the reasoned arguments presented by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and other noble Lords, and we have brought forward these amendments accordingly.
Amendment 1 to Clause 9(2) would give the Lord Chancellor the power to omit, but in addition the power to add or vary the services in Part 1 of Schedule 1. He would be able to do so by modifying Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Schedule 1. The power to vary a service allows us to amend the existing services within the schedule where they need to be altered, but without the need to omit a service and then add a new service. For example, if the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 were amended in the future, any such amendment might not mean that services need to be added to the schedule, but it might be necessary to vary the provisions in paragraph 31 of Part 1 in order to reflect any such changes to those regulations.
The provisions of Amendment 1 mean that the power in Clause 9(2) would be similar to that which exists in Section 6(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. We consider that this is the correct and sensible approach to take. The powers in Clause 9(2) would be exercisable by the Lord Chancellor when making an order. Clauses 41(6) and 41(7)(a) mean that such an order would be subject to the affirmative procedure and so subject to debate in and approval by each House of Parliament.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, would allow services to be added but not to be omitted. As I have said, the government amendment provides for balance to the existing Clause 9. Amendment 2 seeks to go further and actually removes the ability to omit. I firmly believe that that power to omit is necessary and gives the Bill a welcome flexibility. An example of where this may be necessary is where the governing legislation behind an area of law is repealed or otherwise altered and we need to alter civil legal aid provision accordingly. Another example would be where particular court proceedings are moved to a tribunal. It may cease to be appropriate to provide funding for advocacy for those proceedings, so an amendment to Part 3 of Schedule 1 would be needed.
As a result of Amendment 1, we no longer consider that we need certain powers in Schedule 1 to make secondary legislation. The purpose of this is not to reduce the categories in which legal aid will be available but are more technical in nature. To ensure that this is clear, let me explain in detail the powers which will be removed. First, Amendments 6 and 7 relate to paragraph 4(1)(k) of Part 1 of Schedule 1, which concerns the care, supervision and protection of children and provides for further orders or procedures to be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph. In the light of the power to add services proposed by Amendment 1, we consider that the power at paragraph 4(1)(k) of Part 1 of Schedule 1 is no longer necessary.
Secondly, Amendment 8 would omit paragraph 9(3)(n) of Part 1 of Schedule 1, which relates to community care. Paragraph 9(3) defines community care services as services,
“which a relevant person may provide”,
under a number of listed enactments. Heading (n) of that definition allows other enactments to be prescribed for the purposes of that definition. With the power to add services under Clause 9, this is no longer necessary.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment 2 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the amendment. He knows that we on these Benches raised this issue before Second Reading. It is necessary to have flexibility brought into the Bill for two reasons: first, because economic conditions may improve and it may be possible to revert to a more generous legal aid scheme; and, secondly, because those of us with experience of litigants in person know they can clog up the courts and that, consequently, it may be necessary for urgent amendments to Schedule 1 to introduce legal aid to enable people to be legally represented. It is not fully appreciated by the public that legal representation shortens cases and leads to justice, rather than litigants in person trying to fight their own cause.
Lord Bach
I thank the Minister for the concession that the Government have made today. The clause as it stands before we pass the Government’s amendments should never have been in that form when the Bill was published and was always crying out for amendment. Indeed, members of my party in the Commons did their best to ensure that that happened. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and other noble Lords for persuading the Government that the clause needed changing. I shall not, of course, press my amendment; I will not move it.
I know the Minister and all other noble Lords will agree that the House seems somewhat empty today because our noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree is not with us in our deliberations. He took an active part in all the debates on the Bill for many months and, even though we could all see that he was not in good health, insisted on coming here, speaking his mind and voting in the way his conscience told him to vote. He took a real interest in the Bill and—I know all noble Lords will agree—it was a delight and privilege to work with him. It does not seem right or just that he is not here listening and speaking his mind. Having said that, I thank the noble Lord for the concession.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, as a Cross-Bencher, I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has just said about the death of a man who was a great friend to many of us. Lord Newton was an adornment to this House, who stood, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has already said, for his conscience rather than for what his party, or any party, might wish. It is easy for me as a Cross-Bencher to examine my conscience, and I am well aware it is not so easy for members of political parties. He will be enormously missed. His name is on a number of today’s amendments, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for saying something about this before I move to Amendment 1.
I congratulate the Government. I do not do it terribly often but am going to do it three times today. This amendment, as the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Bach, have said, is overdue. It is splendid that the Government have recognised the importance of having the ability to increase legal aid. I also very much support the fact that they are putting in “vary or omit”. All of us who have had anything to do with legislation know that from time to time it becomes redundant and has to be got rid of or needs a tweak here and there, and therefore needs a variation. I support this amendment as it is.
However, if the Minister will forgive me, I will make one or two points about what has happened as a result of this Bill so far as family cases are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has already mentioned this but I will add to it. I strongly urge the Government to review the impact of the legal aid changes no later than a year from now, to see what happens to the family courts in the light of the removal of nearly all private law cases from legal aid. I am not sure the Government really quite accept what a number of us have been saying, to the Ministers in this House and the other place, about the impact on the courts. There will be longer lists. I know the Ministry of Justice is already aware that the lists in the courts are too long, and they will be increased substantially.
There will be longer hearings. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said—entirely accurately—without lawyers to keep a case under control, two litigants in person will spend an absolute age. The sort of case that takes a day, or possibly a day and a half to two, will take not less than a week. I have a vivid recollection of one litigant in person who took a week to give evidence and cross-examine. Every time I asked him to hurry up, it added another hour or two to the case. I am afraid I sat scribbling nonsense, because nothing he said was of any value to the conduct of the case.
It is going to be very difficult for district judges and magistrates to manage people totally caught up in the emotions of a failed relationship and fighting over money, a house or particularly children. They will have to do it but it will clog up the courts to an even more significant degree.
It will have an impact in children’s cases. One example in child protection issues is the fact that drink or drug abuse is sometimes detected only during the hearing of a private law case. It is crucial that the person who is drinking or taking drugs to excess is tested to see what should be done as to whether that parent is fit to have care of the child, or even to see the child. The Minister will be aware that in the Norgrove report that point was made about the very thin line between the private law cases and those that tip over into child protection issues. On Report, we discussed whether the mediator would identify cases where there might be abuse. There is a hard core of 5 per cent of cases that cannot be settled between the parties—and, of course, that 5 per cent of cases will carry on regardless and may not ever come to the attention of the mediator.
I ask the Minister, in congratulating him on proposing the amendment, to have a real look at the impact on the family courts within no later than a year to see what is actually happening.
Lord McNally
My Lords, of course I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy on the untimely death of Lord Newton.
On the matter raised by the noble and learned Baroness, we are committed to undertaking a post-implementation review of the specific policies set out in the Bill. As she acknowledged, we have just replaced a ratchet by a regulator, which should also help in seeing whether some of her predictions come true, and how we react to that.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“Children under 181 (1) Civil legal services in relation to advice and proceedings where a child is, or proposes to be, the applicant or respondent in proceedings, or where the child is represented by a legal guardian, including—
(a) private family law;(b) any benefit, allowance, payment, credit or pension under—(i) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992,(ii) the Jobseekers Act 1995,(iii) the State Pension Credit Act 2002,(iv) the Tax Credits Act 2002,(v) the Welfare Reform Act 2007,(vi) the Welfare Reform Act 2011, or(vii) any other enactment relating to social security; (c) all areas of education law not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(d) all areas of housing law not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(e) all areas of debt-related disputes not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(f) all areas of immigration and asylum law not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(g) all areas of clinical negligence law not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(h) all areas of consumer law not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(i) appeals to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority;(j) civil legal services relating to a review or appeal under section 11 or 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007; and(k) civil legal services relating to an appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I speak to the amendment in my name and in those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Benjamin. I am also very proud to say that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, was included on this amendment, and I know that I speak for all those in this Chamber when I say that he will be greatly missed.
This amendment would make legal aid available for children in all current cases, including when they are victims of medical negligence. At present, legal aid helps just over 40,000 children every year who have civil justice legal problems in their own right. If the Bill is left as it stands, legal aid for around 35,000 children every year will continue, but legal aid will not be available for around 6,000 children under 18 who would qualify if the current rules remained in place. The Government have so far not explained why those 6,000 children will be treated differently from other children who have problems under the same categories of law.
This is now the 40th day of debate in your Lordships' House and in the other place. I do not believe that the Government have been able to explain the criteria that will decide, for example, why 220 children will continue to receive legal aid support in cases about their education but 110 will not. This is from among the numbers remaining after the Government conceded last June that legal aid would be kept for cases involving children with special educational needs—numbers obtainable only through a freedom of information request by the Children’s Society.
When put on the spot about which children will lose legal aid, the Government say that they will be able to apply to be treated as exceptional cases under Clause 10. I do not believe that there should be any confusion or delay as to whether a child under 18 is entitled to legal advice and representation in British civil justice. Children are not adults—they do not have the capacity to represent themselves or to interpret the thousands of pages of laws and regulations that affect them.
The question of a child’s capacity to represent themselves is explicitly recognised and provided for in international law. The Children’s Commissioner for England, Dr Maggie Atkinson, wrote to the Lord Chancellor to warn that denying children a voice in legal proceedings would be in breach of the European convention. She said:
“Children, by virtue of their age and capacity, will not be able to present their case effectively in the majority of proceedings … Children’s need for legal aid in civil cases where they are a party should not be viewed as ‘exceptional’”.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendment which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Eaton and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Before doing so, I would like to add my tribute to those that have already been made to the late Lord Newton of Braintree—Tony Newton, as I knew him for almost 40 years. I was in the House of Commons when he joined us. He immediately made his mark as a man of calm determination who was never, even when he was in high office, tied to a particular political line. He always sought to follow his own conscience. I shall have great cause always to be grateful to him because when I was a lone voice on the Conservative Benches in speaking out at the time of Bosnia, he was Leader of the House yet he made sure that every week I was able to make my points, and he always responded with a degree of care, concern and empathy which endeared him to me then.
When I came into your Lordships’ House, we immediately became allies on a number of issues, not least those which concern us this afternoon. Lord Newton was tenacious and determined, and nobody in this House will ever forget the courage of that man, standing with his oxygen machine either by the Throne or at the Bar of the House, then leaving the machine to come and speak—most recently from near the Cross Benches—on subjects which concerned him. His name was on both the amendments that I am talking about, so in tribute to him I want to say a few words about Amendment 4. In doing so, I in no way dissent from what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has said but my amendment is more narrowly focused. I had an opportunity, along with colleagues from all parties, to discuss some of these issues with my noble friend Lord McNally last week. I thank him for the care and concern that he displayed when we discussed these extremely sensitive and important issues. What I said to him then in private I say now in this Chamber: I do not for a moment question his commitment or his concern, and I know that he is as anxious to do right as we all are. However, he is a member of the Executive.
The Government have decided to make a number of cuts in all departments. One understands why, and I am not going to cheapen this speech or this House today by trying to score points about the deficit. I say to my noble friend that of course the Government have to cut, but that does not mean that they have to cut in every department when in some departments, as in his, the sums are relatively small. Those small sums, though, can make such a difference to a great many extremely vulnerable people.
My amendment concentrates on the subject of clinical negligence and children. I stress one point in particular: those who are damaged by an agency of the state have a right to expect the assistance of the state, and the National Health Service is precisely that. If, in the care of the NHS, someone is damaged through clinical negligence then there should be an automatic right of redress. That is more particularly the case when we come to children, and that is what the amendment focuses on.
We had a debate a fortnight ago about those who had suffered brain damage from clinical negligence. They were to be treated differently from those who had been damaged physically in other ways. That is wrong. One should not discriminate in that manner between those who suffer physical damage, which may be with them for the whole of the rest of their lives, and those who suffer brain damage. I am not suggesting for a minute that there should not be assistance for all—indeed, that is the substance of the amendment—but it could be argued that those who suffer physical damage, be it paralysis or whatever, and who are conscious of that are in more personal need than those who suffer brain damage and may not be personally conscious of that.
It is wrong that we in this House should be passing any legislation without pointing that out and asking another place to think again, unless of course my noble friend can accept the amendment today, which would give us all great pleasure. If he cannot, although I hope very much that he will, then this amendment should be pressed to a vote in the event of the noble Baroness’s amendment not being approved. It may well be—I certainly shall not oppose it—but, if it is not, I will then wish to press my amendment unless my noble friend has accepted its form and substance. If this House has any truly lasting point and purpose, and I believe as strongly as any Member of it that it has, then we have a duty to say, “You haven’t got this quite right. You have got to rethink”.
I suppose that I cannot be too greedy and expect the same sort of majority that we achieved yesterday, but I hope that if it is necessary to put this amendment to the vote then it will carry. Here, we are concerned with those least able to help themselves. This really is a case of, “Suffer the little children”, and I very much hope that your Lordships’ House will ask the Government to insert an amendment along these lines in the Bill before it finally becomes law.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, should like to add to the laments that we all feel at the death of Lord Newton. On both sides of the Chamber, we all picture him standing stalwart, despite his obvious disability and discomfort—determined, as always, to give a fair view of the legislation.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for the concessions that he made, particularly his government amendment regarding the victims of trafficking. It is most welcome. I also thank him as I was one of those at the meeting—of all parties and none—at which we all put our views to him. However, there remains a need to provide greater protection for vulnerable children and young people. My Third Reading amendment, Amendment 5, is very similar—almost identical—to that of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson. The difference is mainly that it raises the upper age from 18 to 24 for this very vulnerable group. It would protect only the most vulnerable people—around 12,000 out of 69,000 18 to 24 year-olds who will lose access to legal aid, specifically those with a disability and those who have been in care.
It is hard to think of groups of people who are more vulnerable than those covered by this amendment. Generally, young people are rarely equipped with the knowledge, skills and legal capacity to resolve their problems without expert advice. This particularly applies to these vulnerable young people, who are far more prone to experiencing multiple and severe problems and are therefore far more likely to require this specialist legal intervention to prevent their situation escalating and spiralling out of control. How are these young people expected to cope when they have problems if they cannot obtain legal aid?
The House will not need reminding, particularly in this economic climate, that the country is experiencing record levels of youth unemployment, rising youth homelessness and increasing levels of adolescent mental health problems. These young people need special help to get them through to a more fulfilled adult life at less cost to the community. It cannot make any sense to deny them this access to the legal advice that they desperately need to help them resolve their problems and turn their lives around.
The Government have said in their new cross-departmental youth policy that they believe in providing additional and early help to disadvantaged and vulnerable young people, including those in care and those with disabilities. Our amendment would help the Government to meet this commitment. It would protect young people who have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, according to the definition of disability that is used in the Equality Act 2010. Many of this group’s problems are in the area of social welfare law, being to do with housing, debt and welfare benefits. The considerable changes that many of your Lordships in this Chamber debated during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill will undoubtedly mean that more young people with disabilities will face social welfare problems and will need that help to understand and gain from the new benefits regime. It simply cannot be right to leave disabled young people without the support they need to enforce payment of their entitlements.
As I have said, the amendment would also protect care leavers under the age of 25. This group is also highly vulnerable. Care leavers are far more likely to end up unemployed, homeless or in prison—alas, this will happen to too many of them—and to experience high levels of common social welfare problems. They will need good legal advice to avoid poor outcomes. The amendment would cost around £4 million, a figure far lower than the cost of not providing access to legal aid for these young people.
Research by Youth Access shows that legal advice which is targeted at vulnerable groups is particularly cost-effective and that this group is more likely to experience stress, violence and homelessness if they do not manage to get good legal advice at an early stage. Each year, 750,000 young people aged between 16 and 24 become mentally or physically ill as a result of their unresolved social welfare problems. That is costing the NHS at least £250 million a year. Much of that cost could be avoided if those young people received better and earlier support. Research by JustRights shows that any savings made through denying young people civil legal aid are likely to be outweighed by increased costs in the criminal legal aid budget alone. The Local Government Association has said that it has concerns about the extra costs for local authorities arising from the withdrawal of legal aid from care leavers.
This amendment not only makes economic sense but is the right and fair thing to do if we are serious about protecting these most vulnerable members of society. I very much hope that, when the time comes, everyone, including the Minister, will support it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, when I first looked at the Bill, I was pleased to see how much vulnerable adults and children are protected by the provisions of Schedule 1. One has only to look at the paragraph headings to see the protection that is given: for example, “Care, supervision and protection of children”, “Special educational needs”, “Abuse of a child or vulnerable adult”, “Working with children and vulnerable adults”. All these groups will remain within the scope of legal aid. Further headings comprise: “Mental health and mental capacity”, “Facilities for disabled persons”, “Inherent jurisdiction of High Court in relation to children and vulnerable adults”, “Unlawful removal of children from the United Kingdom”, “Family homes and domestic violence”, “Victims of domestic violence and family matters”, “Mediation in family disputes”, “Protection of children and family matters”, “Children who are parties to family proceedings” and “EU and international agreements concerning children”. Over and over again the emphasis is placed on keeping the needs of children and vulnerable adults within the scope of legal aid. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend what proportion those headings represent of all the cases involving children. Those children’s and vulnerable adults’ issues will continue to be within the scope of legal aid.
There is one aspect of Amendment 3 with which I entirely agree—I spoke about this in Committee and on Report—which is that legal aid should be maintained for a review or appeal on social welfare issues and for,
“civil legal services relating to an appeal to the Supreme Court”.
That is so for children, but my position is that it is important that legal aid for appellate processes should be available to all adults and children.
I listened with a great deal of sympathy to the exposition of Amendment 4 by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but he should bear in mind that conditional fee agreements with one-way costing, which is the new way in which conditional fee agreements are to be entered into, will be available for people who are not covered by legal aid, and the new changes will be much more acceptable. For example, there will be protection against the defendant’s costs for a losing claimant—a losing child or adult. They will not have to pay those costs. We have discussed those issues at length. The noble Lord should also bear in mind that the Government have announced that if you are legally aided and you obtain damages in a personal injury case, 25 per cent of those damages will be taken for the supplementary legal aid scheme to fund other people who are deserving of legal aid. Therefore, entitlement to legal aid will not mean that a person gets their damages in full. It is probably better in many of these cases to have a conditional fee agreement as it has been refashioned than it is to receive legal aid. I am sure that that is the way in which the legal profession will go.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I speak in support of the children’s amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lord Cormack. I should like to add my thoughts on Lord Newton, who kindly supported the amendment. I know that we will all miss his integrity and compassion in all our debates, particularly around these sensitive subjects. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, because I and other noble Lords have had a number of conversations with him, and he has been most gracious in his dealings with us. However, I still find myself in the unhappy position of being unable to support the Government’s intention to remove the clear and straightforward right to legal advice for children under 18 generally, and for all children who are injured in clinical negligence cases.
The Bill as it stands draws a distinction between, on the one hand, any child who suffers brain damage as a result of medical negligence before the age of nine weeks, and, on the other, any child suffering injury of any other kind caused by medical negligence—including a child who suffers from brain damage when they are nine weeks and one day old. Let me tell noble Lords about a Plymouth boy who suffered brain damage at the age of one when doctors at the Frenchay Hospital in Bristol failed to follow up a suspected aneurysm. Months later, he suffered a devastating bleed in his brain, which would have been avoided if the correct procedure had been followed. The boy will require care for the rest of his life; he cannot talk and will never be able to work. A settlement with North Bristol NHS Trust at the High Court in November 2011 will help to provide care for the rest of the boy’s life. He is now 10. The case could not have been started without legal aid, which would not be available if the Bill were to pass unamended.
I simply do not see how children who have been injured in these often heartbreaking circumstances can be divided into two groups in this way. We would allow legal aid for a baby suffering brain damage at birth, but deny legal aid to a baby suffering brain damage in hospital at the age of one. Or we would prevent a child who has been paralysed from seeking help. Just imagine two babies at two weeks old in the same hospital. One is brain damaged and the parents can seek support on their behalf, while the other is paralysed and the parents cannot get legal aid.
Are we really saying that a brain-damaged child who can walk needs more care and support than a child who has to be carried to the bathroom and turned in bed during the night? The severe difficulties facing the child’s parents will be exactly the same in both cases. They will be desperate for help. They will want to know whether they have a legal case and, first and foremost, they will be giving their child the day-to-day care and love that all parents must, whatever the difficulties.
Are we really going to ask half of those parents to appeal to the director of legal aid casework to see whether their child qualifies for legal aid as an exceptional case—as if that would be a satisfactory way to organise legal aid for children even from the Government’s point of view? I ask noble Lords to consider the expense, bureaucracy and delay that will result from such an approach.
I have highlighted medical negligence but, as a former leader of a local authority, I could go through each subject heading and make a similar case. The simple truth is that children are defined as minors in law because they cannot represent themselves and sometimes need protection and redress from their families and from the state. It is not good enough to suggest that a social worker can apply for their legal support as an exceptional case. Social workers are not legal executives and have no legal training. Inherent in that suggestion is a misunderstanding of the nature of the legal actions that may be taken. In most cases, the child will be challenging a decision or action taken by the local authority. Do we really believe that every social worker will apply for a child to have legal aid in cases which challenge his or her decisions or those of his or her employer?
All of us in this House understand that in a healthy democracy, it must be possible to challenge the state, particularly where children are concerned. We also understand that there are lots of terrible cases where children’s voices have not been heard, which is why we need to ensure that they can take independent legal advice that is accessible directly, not via a social worker or any other arm of government.
I support the amendments because I believe that they will save an enormous amount of trouble and wasteful expenditure for the Government, whom I support. I want to help the Government to pull back from what would be a regrettable and avoidable mistake, and they will save a great deal of anxiety for parents who are already coping with more than anyone should have to bear.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I would have been inclined to support the amendment if I had not been here to listen to the debate and heard what my noble friend had to say, which appears basically to contradict the argument just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. She was saying that in the case of the infant who died at Frenchay Hospital, the case could not have been brought if legal aid had not been available; but my noble friend said that it was preferable, in terms of the amount that the litigant would receive, to conduct a case of this sort through the conditional fee arrangements which are now available. The litigant would have ended up with more money than would have been available to the child under the arrangements that prevailed at the time of that terrible accident.
I should like to hear from my noble friend when he winds up whether it is a general principle that can be accepted on all sides of the House that people who were formerly legally aided would have done worse than those who are now to be conducting their cases under the CFA. Saying that we do not need an arrangement of the sort put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is a very powerful argument.
I also thought that perhaps the noble Lord had failed to notice that in all these cases involving children there is a litigation friend, who has to be approved by the court. Therefore, his comment that we are looking at people who are least able to help themselves may not be altogether valid. The parent or a suitable adult always appears on the child’s behalf and the child does not have to go into the court without that support. Therefore, although children may be apparently less able to conduct litigation, they do not have to deal with these matters in the court; litigation friends appear on their behalf.
Lord Cormack
I am well aware of that but the point that I was seeking to make in a very brief speech was that those who are damaged by an agency of the state deserve the help of the state automatically if they are seeking redress.
Lord Avebury
I am not sure that that proposition is right. I do not think that my noble friend had borne in mind the possibility that the child would do better financially under the CFA. That is a very important consideration. In fact, in my mind it is the determining consideration in how I approach this amendment. If the argument of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is correct, it is conclusive that we should not support the amendment but that we should allow cases to go forward under the CFA, under which people will be better compensated than they would have been.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I have put my name to an amendment in this group—that in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and others. I simply make one appeal to the Government concerning their commitment to protect vulnerable children and young people.
I declare an interest as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children. Over the past year our theme has been vulnerable children. We have heard about the problems that such children and their families have in dealing with complex systems such as education, health and the law, and we have heard many passionate and committed speeches about these young people today. In my experience, this House has never been party-political on issues regarding children; it has always considered the well-being of children to be above party politics. That spirit has been shown today on the Benches opposite, and long may it continue.
The Minister for Children, Sarah Teather, for whom I have the greatest respect, made a commitment in 2010 to assess legislation against the needs of children, as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and I find it ironic that we are now considering legislation that will potentially damage vulnerable children and their families. The Government, in their report Positive for Youth—I shall not go into that but the commitment is there—made commitments to protect disadvantaged and vulnerable children, and the Liberal Democrat youth policy Free to be Young makes commitments to improve young people’s access to legal advice. I think we should all remember those commitments today. I trust that the Government will recognise that intervention at an early age, particularly for the vulnerable, is not only humane; it also benefits well-being and is cost effective. I hope that the Government will look again at the commitments to vulnerable children and young people.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, as the first speaker from these Benches in this debate, I add my gratitude for all the work of Lord Newton of Braintree. It seems strange to be sitting here without his advice from behind me, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said earlier in the debate. He had immense care and concern for children’s needs and rights, which was evident right up to last week. Not to have his sharpness here in this debate is a loss for all of us, so our thanks to him.
The amendments would go a long way to providing security of legal aid for some of our most vulnerable children, at minimal cost. We seem now to have reached a point where legal aid will be provided for many children. I have listened carefully to what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Avebury. It seems to be almost accidental whether a particular child will come under the provisions of the Bill. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, gives us the opportunity to treat all children in difficulties equally, with particular concern for education and sanctuary issues.
We all recognise the importance of education for all, so we must be concerned that Black Caribbean pupils, for example, according to the children’s commissioner, are four times more likely than others to be excluded permanently from school. Those children will often be vulnerable, frightened and very unsure about their future. They need the structure of the legal system to provide them with support at that point in their lives. Equally, we continue to affirm that we have an immigration system that deliberately provides sanctuary for children who have been victims of abuse of whatever kind. They may have been trafficked into this country—and I, too, welcome the Government’s changes on that issue. However, many will not have been trafficked; trafficking is extremely difficult to define. Nevertheless, they may have suffered sexual exploitation, domestic slavery or abuse. They may have been brought into this country as domestic slaves and will often have been abused. Some will be the subject of custody cases, which may lead to abuse or separation from a parent. Others would be in danger of abuse if they returned to a country where exploitation would continue.
Justice demands proper legal representation and the amendments provide a way of securing that at minimal cost. They would demonstrate our concern for the most vulnerable young people in our society. They are absolutely in accord with the Government’s aims and purposes, and I hope, therefore, that they will accept them
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and apologise for missing her opening remarks. However, before briefly addressing the amendment, I would like to associate myself with the words in remembrance of Lord Newton. In another place I worked very closely with him, as Tony Newton, when I was vice-chair of the parliamentary All-Party Disablement Group. Even when he could not meet us in all our demands, he was always very positive and looked for ways to come at least some of the way towards us. He will be a great loss for all of us in this House as well as for the many thousands outside the House for whom he worked so hard.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for some of the concessions that he has been able to make at other times—particularly for those with learning difficulties—which I was unable to acknowledge earlier.
On this specific amendment, all of us who have had reason to work on behalf of disabled children will be aware of the need to ensure that they get fair play within the system. If there is any danger of them losing out and not being able to go to appeal on benefits then there need to be safeguards in legislation.
Many of us served for weeks on end on the Welfare Reform Bill. We hoped that some amendments would strengthen it and make it more easily understood. In reality, the amendments failed. There will be challenges to the interpretation of the legislation that will need to go to the courts. Unless provisions such as those in the amendment are included in the Bill, people will miss out. Therefore, even if some aspects—to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred—are already covered elsewhere, others are not. Therefore, let us give another place a chance by agreeing the amendment. If there is then a need to pare it back, all well and good—but at this point, unless we agree the amendment we will lose everything.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I was the constituent of Lord Newton of Braintree—Tony Newton—for nearly 20 years, and he was a close friend for the rest of his life. If I need a little courage in order not to follow the Whip today on at least one of the amendments in this group, I will get it from his memory. He was an extraordinary man of both first-class intellect and a really big heart. I do not know anybody who managed to marry intellect and heart in quite the effective way that he did.
I have practised law for more than 50 years. The memories that stick with me most are of trying to help—and often to help young people under 18 and their worried parents get fairness from a barbarically complicated legal system. I understand the extraordinary difficulty faced by my noble friend Lord McNally—and by the Government. They have the hugely difficult and unwelcome task of cutting back and saving on public expenditure. However, we are faced here with a balance between £6 million to £8 million, and justice for the particularly vulnerable and needy group of our fellow citizens who are under 18.
Looking down the list of issues that Amendment 3 covers, it is almost impossible not to believe that they are all essential elements of justice in the 21st century. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, made the point that the downstream costs of not addressing these sorts of issues with at least timely advice are likely to exceed any up-front savings. The King’s Fund report made that clear.
On balance, I am persuaded by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford that I need not support Amendment 4. In the same way, I will be able to compromise on Amendment 5, even with the shadow of Tony standing over me. To extend the age limit to 24 would have a dramatic effect. Those in the 18 to 24 age group are more likely than the younger group to be able to look after themselves when it comes to advice and a limited amount of representation.
Finally, I wish that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, was in his place. Those of us who have been practitioners in the law will remember the happy days ushered in by the Conservative Government of 1980, and the noble and learned Lord’s creation of the green form scheme, which meant that we could advise on all these things automatically, without reference to anybody and with a cap on how much we could charge. I wish we could get back to those happy days. In the mean time, I fear that I may be forced at least to abstain on Amendment 3 unless my noble friend Lord McNally comes up with a wholly unexpected concession —and I hope that he will.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, bearing in mind the wish of the House, I imagine, to move to a speedy conclusion in this debate, I shall say one sentence in support of my noble friend Lady Howe on Amendment 5 with regard to children leaving care. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, just spoke of 18 to 24 year-olds and of his doubt that there is a necessity to protect them in law in this way with regard to legal aid. However, I would draw the House’s attention, and his attention in particular, to the experience of young people in care leaving care. A quarter of young people in care leave their foster carer or children’s home at the age of 16. These children have been traumatised—they would not have been taken into care unless that was the case.
Very few of them can stay with their foster carer or in their children’s home beyond the age of 18, so past that age most of these traumatised young people have to fend for themselves. They get some additional support, but they are pretty much on their own. The average age at which most of our children leave home and have to fend for themselves is 24, so I hope that your Lordships will keep in mind the particular vulnerability of young people leaving care. It is recognised in the Children (Leaving Care) Act, which gives them special consideration until the age of 21 and until the age of 24 if they are in education or training. I hope that the Minister will give that a sympathetic ear.
Lord Crisp
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I would like to speak very briefly following on from his eloquent speech and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and others. First, like others, I am appreciative of the concessions that have already been made, but I think that they do not go far enough on clinical negligence. I recognise that it is a relatively small number of children who are left out by the concessions that have already been made.
As a former chief executive of the NHS, I add my simple tribute to Lord Newton of Braintree. He was chair of one of our great hospitals and, like others, I benefited from his wise and useful advice on many occasions.
Like others in your Lordships’ House who are associated with the NHS, I know very well the distress to all concerned that is involved in these clinical negligence cases. It obviously affects the children and their families, but also the staff and the institutions. What is most important here is to make whatever processes that are available as simple and quick as possible.
The Government’s proposal fails on three key points. First, what impact will these changes have on access to redress for this vulnerable group? I do not think from anything we have heard in this and earlier debates that they will improve access in any way but will undoubtedly damage it. Secondly, will it save the Exchequer and the NHS money? It will save the Exchequer money in the sense of saving money on legal aid, but all the evidence I have seen is that it will cost the NHS more through the processes that are being introduced. Thirdly, will it speed up and simplify the process for all concerned? I stress “all concerned”, including the staff of the NHS. I think the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, made it clear that it simply will not. For all those reasons, I urge the Minister to reconsider and to accept this amendment, which will bring into scope a relatively small number of children to the benefit of us all.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I speak as a practitioner in clinical negligence. Doctors who work in the NHS might be slightly surprised to find themselves described as “agents of the state”, but I take the point that the noble Lord makes that they should be accountable. Of course, they are accountable, and they can still be sued under the CFA system. The difference between the children in cases that are still outside scope unless this amendment is allowed and the children who will be within scope because of the concession made by the Government is, as I understand it, because of an assessment of the complexity of the cases. The Government have taken the view that because brain-damage cases require an enormous amount of investigation, there is a real risk that no one will take them on a CFA basis, whereas these children cases are, by and large—and I admit that the lines are not always hard and fast—less complex than that. I would respectfully suggest that although these are hard choices, it is a reasonable choice for the Government to have made in the circumstances.
I conclude by saying that I, too, received a great deal of assistance from the late Lord Newton as a new arrival in your Lordships’ House. I know that he would regard these brief observations of mine as—as he would describe it—very loyal, and I fear he would not have regarded that as a compliment.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I support Amendments 3 and 5. I also pay tribute to Lord Newton. In the short time I knew him, he always showed integrity, dignity, compassion and a smiling face right till the end. He was a true gentleman. I also thank my noble friend Lord McNally for meeting with me, and for showing compassion and making it clear that children and vulnerable young people will continue to be covered by legal aid—and I believe him.
It therefore makes no sense for the 3 per cent of children and young people covered by these amendments to have to apply for legal aid from a fund that is called “legal aid for exceptional cases”—by definition, there will not be any exceptional cases as all children and young people are covered. Neither does it make sense to be applying for funds through a social worker or a local authority when the person or organisation being challenged may well be the young person’s own social worker or local authority. Even an adult would have difficulty with that process.
Therefore, the House has two options before it today, which are about the system and not the scope of legal aid. Option one is what Amendments 3 and 5 are all about. It would keep the current system where a child or vulnerable young person or their legal guardian can go to an independent lawyer, where they will be means-tested on the spot and their case reviewed. If they qualify, they will be given legal aid to cover them for legal advice and representation where appropriate.
Option two is the new system proposed by the LASPO Bill, in which a child will need to ask their social worker, who is not legally qualified, to make the time to apply for funding from the Ministry of Justice. However, no details have been given as to how long this will take, what legal training will be given to the social worker, how much the new system will cost, what happens if a social worker has not yet been allocated to the child or young person or how they will even find out how to do this.
I believe that the new system being proposed will be bureaucratic, expensive and time-consuming, and could lead to many miscarriages of justice. Even my noble friend the Minister says in his letter that this system will be challenged and end up in expensive cases of judicial review—meaning more money for the highest- paid lawyers, paid for by the taxpayer. This is not common sense.
I ask the Government to think again, to bridge that narrow gap, and include not just the 97 per cent already accounted for in the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Thomas highlighted, but all children, including that last 3 per cent of vulnerable children, who may be living independently from their parents, living in care or escaping difficult family circumstances. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime and these early experiences will have a fundamental effect on their lives. For the sake of these children, I ask the House to support Amendments 3 and 5, which would establish an independent process understood by all.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, in supporting these amendments I give an example concerning Amendment 4. Recently, I had a letter about a tragic case. A baby had a boil on his behind. When his mother took him to have his polio vaccine, she queried the fact that he had a boil with the nurse. The nurse queried it with the doctor who said, “Go ahead and give him the vaccine”. The baby developed polio through the urine in his nappy. Now, years later, the boy is paralysed but the family have had no help and are still trying. Many cases need to be sorted out early to save years of anguish.
Lord Bach
From the opposition Front Bench I can be extremely brief, as I should be because this is Third Reading. These are very important amendments which the House will have to decide on shortly. JustRights has done some number-crunching on the issue of children. It points out that, while 95 per cent of funding may be protected, only 74 per cent of children are protected likewise. Therefore, the 6,000 mentioned by the noble Baroness who moved Amendment 3 will be left to navigate the legal system alone. These children will have no adult to help them—no litigation friend, in parlance.
It is absurd to think that in social welfare law cases, a conditional fee agreement is any substitute whatever for basic legal aid for getting legal advice for the kind of problems that affect these children. In effect, we are being asked to abandon some of these children— 16 year-olds perhaps—to a legal system that is far from understandable. They will be mainly children in care who have fractured relationships with their parents. The House knows so well that these are exactly the kind of children who, if they do not get early legal help, may end up in young offender institutions or secure children’s homes at enormous cost to the state, which would be much more than the small amount that the Government claim will be saved by not giving them legal aid. How much wiser would it be to spend that money early? Surely, for children, legal aid is greatly preferable to a CFA right across the board. We support the amendments.
Lord McNally
My Lords, in debates like this, I am always a little worried that noble Lords not in the Chamber when the Division Bells ring will come along and say, “What is this about?”. They may be told, “Oh, we are voting on legal aid for children”. Let us be clear, these amendments and this debate are not about whether we provide legal aid for children and vulnerable people; nor is it about not being willing to help those least able to help themselves; and nor is it about denying help to the most vulnerable in our society.
As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford pointed out, the core principle of our reforms is to ensure that civil legal services will continue to be available in the highest priority cases; for example, where a person’s life or liberty is at stake or where children may be taken into care. The application of this principle has led us to protect the vast majority of funding and cases involving children. They include child protection cases, civil cases concerning the abuse of a child, special educational needs cases and cases involving children who are made parties to private family proceedings. Noble Lords will also recall that we have moved to make funding available for clinical negligence cases concerning brain-damaged infants. It is simply not true therefore to suggest that there will be no funding or very substantially reduced funding for the cases involving children and young people.
In addition, as indicated earlier, we have moved the amendment ratchet to “regulator” which will enable us to test whether some of the more dramatic warnings that have been issued about our reforms can be looked at. We are committed to undertake a post-implementation review of the specific policies set out in Bill. We believe that these safeguards are sufficient to ensure that children do not fall through the net. Our approach will mean that 97 per cent of current spend on cases involving child claimants will continue, and that is the overwhelming majority of current support. Spending reductions are never welcome, but I hope these figures put it beyond doubt that we have made a genuine endeavour to ensure that children are protected, even as we push on with the wider objective of our reforms, which is to focus scarce resources on the most serious cases, to contribute to savings and to reform the system.
Lord Beecham
That is on top of the £80 million of cuts to citizens advice bureaux.
Lord McNally
Citizens advice bureaux operate in a country that is 10 per cent poorer than the last Government gave the country to understand. It is absurd to pretend that citizens advice bureaux or any other sector—local government and national government —should not face this reality.
In civil cases, it is already a requirement of the rules of civil litigation that a child or other protected party who lacks capacity must have a litigation friend to conduct a case on their behalf. In the case of a child, this is usually a parent unless the court specifically orders otherwise. It will only be in exceptional circumstances that the court will make an order permitting the child or protected party to conduct proceedings on their own behalf. Any step taken before a child or protected party has a litigation friend is of no effect unless the court makes such an order. There is no requirement that a litigation friend must act through a solicitor. It is therefore open to a child’s parent or other person caring for the child, for example, to act as the child’s litigation friend in proceedings where the child is a party. We believe that this provides a clear safeguard for children and vulnerable young people who lack capacity to conduct proceedings on their own behalf.
We recognise that Amendment 5 also covers the 18 to 24 year-old category. As I said earlier, we have provided for those who are most vulnerable. However, we have also been clear that, in what is a complex area, there must be flexibility. The exceptional funding scheme therefore provides a mechanism whereby the director of legal aid casework can grant legal aid in areas of scope which would normally be out of scope, where necessary, to ensure the protection of the individual’s right to legal aid under ECHR and EU law. In cases engaging Article 6 of the ECHR, the director of legal aid casework must take into account a person’s ability to represent themselves, the complexity of the proceedings, the importance of the issues at stake and all other relevant circumstances. An individual’s age as well as their capacity will be a key consideration in determining a person’s ability to represent themselves. The exceptional funding scheme will clearly be an important safeguard for children and vulnerable young people who would otherwise be unable to present their case.
Amendment 3, in particular, seeks to bring all cases back into the scope of legal aid where a child is a party, but the Bill already provides for child parties to be within scope of legal aid in family proceedings. The amendment is therefore in part unnecessary and seeks to replicate what is already in scope. The rest of the amendment seeks to keep funding across the board for children in all civil disputes without regard to the relative priority or alternative methods of resolving them. The majority of children will already fall within the scope of legal aid as provided for by the Bill. However, there are additional safeguards to provide further protection through exceptional funding powers and, should it prove necessary, the power to add to civil legal services.
The Archbishop of York
The Minister has not yet answered the question which I think the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised—and had I had the chance, I would have raised the same question—on Amendment 3, in relation to proposed new paragraph 1(1)(k), which specifies:
“civil legal services relating to an appeal to the Supreme Court”.
I have not seen that provision in the Bill as drafted, but it is quite important. What will happen to it? I agree with the Minister about the other provisions, but I do not think that he has answered the question on that one.
Lord McNally
It is always a pleasure to see the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in his place. I shall give him a definitive answer as I sum up and come to my peroration, as there are a number of other matters that I wish to cover.
Amendment 4 seeks to bring into scope children for all clinical negligence cases. I have already set out my arguments on how we have protected children in the Bill. On clinical negligence, in particular, we recognised the concerns that serious and complex cases involving brain-damaged babies may not be able to secure a conditional fee agreement, and we therefore brought forward an amendment on Report that will provide certainty for families and make the application process straightforward.
The amendments we have made will allow funding for cases where the negligence occurs in a period of time beginning with the point of the mother’s pregnancy until eight weeks after birth. This does not mean that the symptoms have to become apparent during this period. They could become apparent beyond this period and still be in scope providing that the relevant negligent act or omission took place during that period. We also moved to include an additional safeguard in respect of babies who are born prematurely. We recognised that these children are particularly vulnerable in the post-natal period and have therefore provided that where a baby is born before the 37th week of pregnancy, the period of eight weeks will not run from birth but will be taken to start from the first day of what would have been the 37th week of pregnancy. I hope noble Lords will recognise that the Government have listened and acted to introduce back into scope the most serious clinical negligence cases involving children.
Amendment 5 seeks to bring into scope civil legal services in relation to advice and proceedings for any person who is 24 years old or under and has a disability, is a former care leaver or is a vulnerable person as specified by regulations. We have provided for those who are most vulnerable, as I have said, under Amendment 3, which covers those under the age of 18. However, we have also been clear that there must be flexibility in this complex area. The exceptional funding scheme therefore provides a mechanism whereby the director of legal aid casework can grant legal aid in areas that would normally be out of scope, where necessary, to ensure the protection of an individual’s rights to legal aid under the ECHR and EU law. In cases engaging Article 6 of the ECHR, the director of legal aid casework must take into account a person’s ability to represent themselves, the complexity of proceedings, the importance of the issues at stake and all other relevant circumstances. An individual’s age as well as their capacity will be key considerations in determining a person’s ability to represent themselves. The exceptional funding scheme will clearly be an important safeguard for children or vulnerable young people who would otherwise be unable to present their case.
I am told that we have lost the vote about retaining legal aid for appeals to the Supreme Court.
Lord McNally
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York may be disappointed to know that he may have been absent to defeat us on that point at an earlier stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has indicated, the Government will look at these matters between now and consideration in the other place.
The only outstanding point that I wanted to cover was that made by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Avebury, about the balance between CFAs and legal aid in injury cases. Although I am not a lawyer, I would say that, on balance, CFAs are the most effective way of taking these cases. It is worth remembering that 82 per cent of cases are already covered by CFAs. People are not left abandoned on a lonely sea—the process works.
It is always difficult to draw lines and easy to say that the lines have been drawn in the wrong place. As I said in opening, the amount of coverage for young people in this area is completely different from what was suggested in some speeches today. We believe that between the coverage of scope that we put into this Bill, the workings of exceptional funding and the availability of wider advice, there will not be the kind of consequences that have been suggested. I also make it clear that we do not think that Amendments 3, 4 and 5 are consequential, so if noble Lords do press them, we would want to test the opinion of the House on each. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and consideration. The House appreciates that he has perhaps been given little or no room for manoeuvre. I would also like to thank all Members who have tried to ensure that children’s interests are safeguarded in this Bill. Most of all, I thank Members on the government Benches who have understood the problems with this legislation right from the start and have been prepared to raise them. We all understand that this is a very difficult thing to do. However, because of the very nature of the legislation and its impact on those unable in law to represent themselves, we need to ask the other place to take another look. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Cormack
“Children and clinical negligence(1) Civil legal services provided in relation to clinical negligence in the course of the provision of clinical services which took place at a time when the individual was a child.
(2) In this paragraph—
“clinical negligence” means breach of a duty of care or trespass to the person committed in the course of the provision of clinical or medical services (including dental or nursing services);
“clinical negligence proceedings” means proceedings which include a claim for damages in respect of clinical negligence;
“child” means a person under the age of 18.”
Lord Cormack
My Lords, the House has just approved an amendment which I felt included my own. I am reluctant to ask the House to vote again but, since my noble friend said that Amendment 4 is not consequential, I have something of a dilemma. It is my view that what the House has decided embraces what my amendment contains. However, since my noble friend is shaking his head vigorously, I must, with great reluctance, therefore test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
“Vulnerable young people(1) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings under this paragraph where the applicant or respondent is aged twenty four or under, and—
(a) has a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010;(b) is a former relevant child (care leaver) by reference to the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000;(c) is a vulnerable person as specified by regulations; or(d) otherwise falls within the categories of vulnerable young people which the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations.(2) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to any benefit, allowance, payment, credit or pension under—
(a) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;(b) the Jobseekers Act 1995;(c) the State Pension Credit Act 2002;(d) the Tax Credits act 2002;(e) the Welfare Reform Act 2007;(f) the Welfare Reform Act 2012; or(g) any other enactment relating to social security.(3) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of employment law not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(4) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of housing law not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(5) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of law related to personal debt not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(6) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of immigration and asylum law not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(7) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of clinical negligence law not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(8) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to all areas of consumer law not otherwise covered in this Schedule.
(9) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to appeals to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
(10) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating a review or appeal under section 11 or 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
(11) Civil legal services provided in relation to advice and proceedings relating to an appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, wish to test the opinion of the House. We are talking about a small group who, as my noble friend Lord Listowel put it so well, are highly likely to come from very deprived, disrupted backgrounds and are clearly in need of help. Over and above the success of the previous amendment—I am delighted with the result—I want to test the opinion of the House, and I hope that noble Lords will support my small amendment.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, this is an important government amendment on an issue that has been the subject of considerable debate in your Lordships’ House and, indeed, in the other place, on legal aid for cases of domestic child abduction. We have always been clear that legal aid should be available to both prevent and remedy international child abduction and, as indicated on Report, we have been listening sympathetically to the powerful arguments about legal aid for domestic child abduction. We agree that the unusual nature of these cases, including the terrible impact on those involved, means that legal aid is justified to find a child who has been unlawfully removed within the United Kingdom.
We think that our amendment, which has been worked up in the light of discussion with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, achieves this. One point that the noble and learned Baroness has asked the Government to put on the record, which I am happy to do, concerns what we mean by unlawful removal. Unlawful in this sense has a civil rather than a criminal meaning, so if a parent with contact tried to take a child permanently from the parent with residence, that would be unlawful.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government and also to express my very deep gratitude to the Ministers in this House and in the other House for achieving a very sensible solution. I am also particularly grateful to the government lawyers who have done an enormous amount of work both for me and for those behind me, and who took the trouble to deal directly with the former chairman of the Family Law Bar Association and the chairman of the ILPA in relation to a later amendment. I really am very grateful.
However, I have a wish list—I might refer to it when the first government amendment that was accepted today enables a little more money to be provided—for two groups of left-behind parents. They are generally fathers, but sometimes they are mothers. The first situation concerns preventing a threatened abduction in a family where both parents are still living together because neither parent has yet applied for a court order. The left-behind parent may be warned by another member of the family that the mother, generally, will take off with the child and that the father will never see the child again. That would require a prohibited steps order. I understand the thinking of the Government on why they will not deal with the matter now. However, I would like them to put it on the waiting list because it needs to be done at some stage.
The second is where the mother—it is generally the mother, but sometimes the father—removes a child in a situation where there is not yet a residence or other order. That internal parental abduction case is not covered, either. I would like to put both those matters on the wish list and I hope that one of these days the Government will be sympathetic to them. However, the work that has been done, and the recognition by the Government that this should be dealt with, is splendid news, and we are all extremely grateful.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, it is only a few weeks since the noble Lord, Lord McNally, described Lord Newton as a national treasure except when he voted against the Government. I intervened somewhat mischievously to say that that was what made him a national treasure. In fact, of course, he was a national treasure for a long time before that. I have good memories of working with him when he was a very approachable Minister and I was the leader of my local authority. I also had the pleasure of serving under him as a member of the Local Services Honours Committee, which he chaired with great care, always exhibiting great thoughtfulness and fairness. He was a man of great conviction and great courage, as he demonstrated fully in your Lordships' House for so many months. We will all miss him, as other noble Lords rightly said.
I turn to the amendments in this group and join the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in acknowledging that the Government have made significant improvements to the Bill and in congratulating the noble and learned Lord on doing that. I also congratulate the noble and learned Baroness on initiating these very welcome changes. I endorse what she said about further developments. Now, of course, the Government have the capacity to bring them about without primary legislation. The Opposition look forward to that in due course and certainly support the amendments in this group.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I start by associating myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about Lord Newton. I first encountered him in 1983 when I was a newly elected Member of Parliament and he was the Social Security Minister. I had a particular constituency issue and he could not have been more helpful or understanding. That was my experience of him as a Minister throughout my time in the other place.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, outlined her wish list. I think that she understands why the Government are unable to accept at the moment that legal aid should be available for these prevention matters. We find it difficult to see how the orders covered would be used in practice for prevention of removals in situations of urgency for which a case for funding is made, rather than for securing return after removal. If a child was in the process of being abducted and the situation was an emergency, legal aid would be available for the purpose of securing their return. It is more difficult to see why legal aid should be available to fund applications that are more contingent in nature, where there is no imminent danger of abduction or associated emergency but the measure is being sought on a precautionary basis. Very often those cases will be the stuff of general private family law proceedings, and we see the risk of such orders being sought for the benefit of funding in what are general disputes over where a child is to live and with whom—which, as we made clear in other areas, we will not fund.
Having said that, I welcome the co-operation that there has been, and very much appreciate the comments made by the noble and learned Baroness about the officials who worked on this and productively engaged with her and with those who advised her. I hope that what we brought forward meets the concerns raised. I have no doubt that we will be reminded of the wish list when we have had a bit more experience of the Act in operation. Again, I thank all those, both inside and outside the House, who worked toward a constructive solution on this matter.
“( ) an order under section 34 of that Act for the child’s return;”
“(1A) Civil legal services provided to an individual in relation to the following orders and applications where the individual is seeking to secure the return of a related child who has been unlawfully removed to a place in the United Kingdom—
(a) a prohibited steps order or specific issue order (as defined in section 8(1) of the Children Act 1989);(b) an application under section 27 of the Family Law Act 1986 for registration of an order relating to the child;(c) an order under section 33 of that Act for disclosure of the child’s whereabouts;(d) an order under section 34 of that Act for the child’s return.”
“Victims of trafficking in human beings33A (1) Civil legal services provided to an individual in relation to an application by the individual for leave to enter, or to remain in, the United Kingdom where—
(a) there has been a conclusive determination that the individual is a victim of trafficking in human beings, or(b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is such a victim and there has not been a conclusive determination that the individual is not such a victim.(2) Civil legal services provided in relation to a claim under employment law arising in connection with the exploitation of an individual who is a victim of trafficking in human beings, but only where—
(a) the services are provided to the individual, or(b) the individual has died and the services are provided to the individual’s personal representative.(3) Civil legal services provided in relation to a claim for damages arising in connection with the trafficking or exploitation of an individual who is a victim of trafficking in human beings, but only where—
(a) the services are provided to the individual, or(b) the individual has died and the services are provided to the individual’s personal representative.Exclusions(4) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Parts 2 and 3 of this Schedule.
(5) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) are subject to—
(a) the exclusions in Part 2 of this Schedule, with the exception of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of that Part, and(b) the exclusion in Part 3 of this Schedule.Definitions(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual is a victim of trafficking in human beings if a competent authority has determined for the purposes of Article 10 of the Trafficking Convention (identification of victims) that there are such grounds.
(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) there is a conclusive determination that an individual is or is not a victim of trafficking in human beings when, on completion of the identification process required by Article 10 of the Trafficking Convention, a competent authority concludes that the individual is or is not such a victim.
(8) In this paragraph—
“competent authority” means a person who is a competent authority of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Trafficking Convention;
“employment” means employment under a contract of employment or a contract personally to do work and references to “employers” and “employees” are to be interpreted accordingly;
“employment law” means an enactment or rule of law relating to employment, including in particular an enactment or rule of law conferring powers or imposing duties on employers, conferring rights on employees or otherwise regulating the relations between employers and employees;
“exploitation” means a form of exploitation described in section 4(4) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (trafficking people for exploitation);
“personal representative”, in relation to an individual who has died, means—
(a) a person responsible for administering the individual’s estate under the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, or(b) a person who, under the law of another country or territory, has functions equivalent to those of administering the individual’s estate;“the Trafficking Convention” means the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (done at Warsaw on 16 May 2005);
“trafficking in human beings” has the same meaning as in the Trafficking Convention.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, Amendments 15 and 17 bring into the scope of legal aid cases in which the victims of human trafficking seek damages in either the civil courts or an employment tribunal. They would also provide legal aid to this group for immigration advice. The Government have always anticipated that legal aid would be available under the exceptional funding scheme for these damages claims, where such cases met the test for exceptional funding under what is now Clause 10 but which we came to know as Clause 9 during the earlier passage of the Bill. However, we listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords about whether in practice this would always be appropriate. I am pleased to say that we have responded positively to the concerns, and not least to the case made at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
The House should be aware that paragraph 40 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 already provides for legal aid to be granted to victims of sexual offences to bring damages claims in relation to the offences. People who have been trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and who wish to claim damages through the civil courts will already be able to get legal aid.
As I indicated on Report, we also considered whether legal aid should be available for the immigration aspects of trafficking. We listened to and accepted the arguments on this, given the particular vulnerabilities of this group of people. We plan to set out in regulations further provision on when it is appropriate for a victim of human trafficking to qualify for civil legal aid for immigration matters. Our intention is not to restrict numbers, and we will ensure that all victims for whom it is appropriate to provide advice will receive it. However, we cannot have a completely open-ended commitment for all immigration matters; otherwise, it is conceivable that victims of trafficking who, for example, apply for a student visa 15 years down the line will continue to qualify for legal aid for no good reason. The regulations will limit eligibility to a period relevant to the experience of being trafficked. We are discussing the most appropriate period of time, but we intend that it will be no less than an individual’s discretionary leave to remain, which can be up to three years.
I am pleased that we have been able to have a constructive engagement and hope that these amendments address the concerns that have been raised. This amendment includes legal aid for immigration advice for victims of trafficking. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
As the co-chairman of the All-Party Group on the Trafficking of Women and Children, I again congratulate the Government and express my gratitude not only to Ministers in this House and in another place but to the government lawyers and officials. The people who were so helpful on the previous set of amendments have been equally helpful on this, and I and those behind me are enormously obliged to them for the care with which they have gone through this and their ability to recognise, listen to, take on board and accept the points that have been made which are now reflected in this excellent amendment.
I wonder whether I might again produce a wish list for consideration at some later stage. There are four points that I would like to make. First, there are those who have been trafficked who do not know that they have been trafficked and will need advice about whether they have been trafficked. Secondly, there are implications for referral to the national referral mechanism. That point was discussed with the government lawyers. I understand why Ministers do not want to help those who do not refer themselves, but there will be a group or groups of people who will fall through the net. Thirdly, there are those who do not know whether they may have an entitlement to leave to remain other than by an asylum claim, such as discretionary leave to remain. That group will also not be covered. The fourth group is rather different. It is those who would wish to challenge a decision by the Home Office that they do not come within the NRM. Those are perhaps matters for another day. At the moment, those behind me and I are enormously grateful for what we have already got.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I, too, welcome these amendments and add my thanks to the officials who have dealt with them. My file of print-outs of e-mails last week is quite large. I thank the Minister as well. I know that his experience in Scotland means that he was already alert to the issues surrounding trafficking. I think the whole House owes the noble and learned Baroness enormous thanks for keeping us at it and for keeping at it herself.
The Minister mentioned conditions, and I understand the concern about possible overuse—abuse would be the wrong term here—of the category of victim of trafficking for immigration applications far in the future. During the discussions last week about what has ended up as these two amendments, there was a suggestion that there might be a reference to prescribed conditions and then a decision that what is now Clause 11 could cover matters, as the Minister said. Will he tell the House whether there are any other concerns that the Ministry has in mind at the moment—it may find others—apart from the time limits?
The noble and learned Baroness mentioned concerns about the workings of the national referral mechanism and time limits. Like her, I hope that that will be kept under review. I have two other areas of concern around this. If legal aid is not available until there has been a reasonable-grounds decision, will the Border Agency put the immigration case on hold? In the mean time, what happens if the individual is in detention or is without housing and food? At the previous stage of the Bill, I referred to the complex needs of trafficked people and mentioned housing and benefits. Immigration is often the gateway to them. Article 12 of the convention refers specifically to accommodation and generally to subsistence, and I suspect the Government would prefer to be clear about this rather than find themselves with claims under what is now Clause 10. The importance of identifying victims of trafficking is a moral matter, but it is also important because of their role in detecting and prosecuting traffickers, and it may take some time for a victim to be identified or to self-identify, so I am adding to the list of considerations. The Government have said that they will keep matters under review and they now have a mechanism to do so. Therefore, I welcome the amendment, although there may still be work to be done.
Baroness Gale
My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have brought forward these amendments that give the victims of human trafficking the same support as that provided for the victims of sexual exploitation, as set out in Schedule 1. There is support around the House today for these government amendments and we, too, support them. They will make sure that the victims of human trafficking will be treated fairly and given the support that they need. The Minister has listened to your Lordships’ House and responded to the arguments which were so well rehearsed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on Second Reading, in Committee and at Report in trying to convince the Minister of the need for these amendments. I am sure that the Minister will listen to the wish list as well as he has to the other arguments put before him. He promised that he would address these matters and we are all grateful that he has tabled these amendments. We fully support them.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am grateful for the general welcome that has been given to the amendments, and indeed for the work that has gone in behind the scenes to get us to where we are today. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has indicated that she will continue, and that she has a further wish list. The fourth point in her wish list was to find out how to challenge a decision of the national referral mechanism. I am advised that that would be done by way of judicial review, which is within the scope of legal aid.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee raised more detailed questions about the operation of the provision. I will look at those matters and try to write to her with an answer. She also asked whether there are any plans to limit immigration legal aid in this context, apart from the time limits under regulations. The answer is that there are currently no plans to do so. In referring to the progress of these amendments and this issue through your Lordships' House, my noble friend also remarked that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has kept at it. I have no doubt that, even after this legislation becomes law, those who take a keen interest in the serious—appalling—issue of the abuse of individuals will keep a watchful eye on the issue and keep at it, and I am sure that the Government will certainly be made aware of any concerns that arise. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.
“( ) Civil legal services provided for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) include legal advice and assistance in respect of that individual’s financial circumstances, including any eligibility for housing benefits, where those circumstances have led or directly contributed to the relevant court order for sale or possession, or eviction.”
Lord Best
My Lords, Amendment 16 consolidates earlier amendments that I have brought before your Lordships to keep within the scope of legal aid the legal advice and representation that can prevent homelessness. I am now trying one last time to convince the Government that it would be a costly mistake to remove key components of this work from the scope of legal aid. These are the components of the current legal assistance, including negotiation on welfare benefit matters, that prevent homelessness by addressing the cause of the arrears which otherwise lead to a household losing their home.
This kind of work currently accounts for 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the funding for cases where the home is at risk. Removing the opportunity for legal aid to embrace these matters is likely to make the remaining 75 per cent to 80 per cent of expenditure far less effective. Without this amendment it will not be possible to continue to support a client by handling negotiations with housing benefit officers at the local authority or those at the Department for Work and Pensions dealing with support for mortgage interest. If such representation can happen only in the context of the courtroom, the invaluable work in sorting out the complexities of the benefit system prior to the matter reaching the courts cannot continue.
Even more frustratingly, where a case is adjourned for four weeks—as it often is—it will not be possible to use the time to straighten out the issues by expert negotiation with the relevant officials on behalf of the household concerned. When the matter returns to the court four weeks later, none of the work that currently goes on will have been accomplished. The only way to get the benefit officials into a dialogue at that stage would be to issue witness summonses to bring those officers to the court, taking them away from their other work, probably for the day. This is a very inefficient way of proceeding, wasting the time of officers and achieving a much less satisfactory dialogue. The chances of saving a family from the horrors of homelessness are much reduced, all because the change in legal aid funding stops the matter being resolved during the adjournment.
I promised the Minister that I would study his comments on Report with care. I have noted that,
“legal aid would be available on reaching agreement with a landlord to delay threatened possession action pending the resolution of a welfare benefits issue”,
but not to take the action that resolves that welfare benefits issue. The Minister made clear that,
“legal aid could be used to argue for an adjournment”,
so that the individual could,
“make the necessary payments if the benefits dispute is resolved in their favour”—[Official Report, 12/2/12; col. 103]—
and they now have the money due to them. Again, it is clear that help in actually reaching that position and resolving the benefits dispute will not be available.
The Minister explained that “general advice” will be available from various sources but he underlined the point that legal aid will not be available to negotiate on welfare benefit issues on behalf of a client. I cannot believe that this is a sensible approach, not least at this time of huge changes to the housing benefit system, which will inevitably mean mistakes by the administrators that will require technical experts to unearth and sort out. The value of this legal aid work will become of even greater importance in the future with the transition of benefit support for housing costs to the Department for Work and Pensions from local authorities, and a whole new system of universal credit, which undoubtedly will take some time to bed down.
I was grateful for the Minister’s clarifications but I fear they confirm the essence of the problem with this part of the Bill. Restricting the scope of legal aid to exclude assistance with these matters will clog up the courts with more and longer cases, and more adjournments, that could and should have been handled outside the courtroom. There will be costs to the state from an inevitable increase in the numbers who become homeless for lack of the legal assistance that could have sorted out the problem. Worst of all, there will be the injustice of people losing their homes unfairly or unnecessarily.
I hope that this amendment, which compresses and consolidates our earlier discussions on this matter, will prove acceptable even at this late stage. I dedicate it to a man who became a mentor and hero for me, Lord Newton of Braintree. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Best, in his Amendment 16. Like him, I am a refugee from the Welfare Reform Act and, like him, I am deeply concerned that the new system of universal credit, which I strongly support, is coming together with huge cuts in housing benefit. This will produce uncertainty and complexity at the same time as withdrawing legal aid—unless the Commons supports the amendment previously passed by your Lordships’ House and unless the House supports the noble Lord, Lord Best, today.
To introduce a new system, with the implications for the tenants of my housing association of losing up to £1 million a year, means that some will face homelessness, eviction and bed and breakfast accommodation, or alternatively will flood the tribunals and the courts system. To withdraw legal aid at the time of introducing these cuts and changes to housing benefit, as well as universal credit, creates a perfect storm that no Government should wish to whirl up. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will respond positively to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hollis and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Best, in moving this amendment. They have made a very powerful case, which was rehearsed on Report. At that time, I quoted Shelter and the Nottingham Law Centre, two separate organisations from the not-for-profit sector, which strongly urged the Government to change their position on this. They are the organisations that provide legal help and advice, not necessarily extending to court proceedings, on the benefits side as well as the remainder of the housing issue—some of which, in fairness, the Government are including within scope.
This is a classic case, as my noble friend has implied, where there is a potential modest saving to the Ministry of Justice budget but a potential extra cost to other departments. If homelessness ensues, particularly where children are involved, very substantial costs are imposed on the budgets of the local authority, and maybe also on the Department for Work and Pensions, which in certain circumstances may be devolved; for example, special needs payments or crisis loans, which a family on the streets may clearly require.
In this context, cost is a consideration which, if anything, tells against the Government’s proposals rather than the other way round. I hope that the Government will recognise the strength of arguments from those dealing with this directly—not from the legal profession in this case, but from the advice sector—and provide for the possibility of timely advice being given to avoid worse consequences for the individuals and their families and, for that matter, the public purse. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the position the Government have hitherto adopted.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Best, acknowledge that this is one more time on which we have discussed these matters. We had detailed discussions in Committee and on Report. Amendment 16 is intended to bring into the scope of legal aid advice and assistance in relation to an individual’s financial situation, such as debt and housing-related welfare benefits issues, where they are linked to the loss or threatened loss of the individual’s home under paragraph 34 of Part 1 of Schedule 1. The House will be well aware that our proposals ensure that legal aid continues to be available to an individual in relation to the immediate risk of losing their home, through possession or eviction. This includes cases where the underlying cause is a debt or welfare benefits issue.
It may reassure noble Lords if I reiterate a few brief examples of where legal aid will be available under the loss-of-home provisions in paragraph 34 of Part 1 of Schedule 1. First, legal aid will continue to be available before a case is brought to court. It will be available where possession or eviction action is contemplated. Where an individual receives a letter which threatens possession action, legal aid will be available at that point. For example, legal aid will remain available to a person threatened with possession action for mortgage arrears to negotiate with their mortgage lender.
In the context of welfare benefits, it is important to recognise that, where a landlord threatens their tenant with possession proceedings, legal aid would be available to the tenant to reach agreement with a landlord to delay the possession action pending the resolution of the welfare benefits issue. If possession proceedings are issued, legal aid will be available to an individual to argue for an adjournment—for example, if they are likely to be able to make the necessary payments if an underlying benefits dispute is resolved in their favour. Where an individual loses a welfare benefits appeal and subsequently faces possession action for rent or mortgage arrears, legal aid will be available in relation to that action. We will also retain legal aid provision for judicial reviews about welfare benefits decisions and for welfare benefits matters which relate to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010.
This amendment would go much wider and would generally provide for legally aided advice and assistance on the financial circumstances of an individual—such as for underlying debt or welfare benefits issues—where these are linked to loss of home. This would run contrary to our approach. At a time when the country is recovering from a genuine fiscal crisis we need to focus limited resources on the highest-priority matters. As I have said before, we cannot agree that legally aided advice and assistance should be generally available in relation to a person’s financial circumstances—such as for debt or welfare benefits issues—in the situations covered by the amendment.
There is no doubt that people, including those in potential loss-of-home situations, find advice useful in areas such as debt and welfare benefits. But we are firmly of the view that what those affected often need is practical advice rather than legal advice funded by legal aid. Individuals who have debt problems often need advice on managing their finances better and on practical measures to resolve their situation, and can access that advice through a range of specialist organisations. It will come as no surprise to the House to hear me repeat that the Government greatly value the not-for-profit sector and the good-quality free advice which it provides to people in their communities on these sorts of matters.
My department is working closely with the DWP to improve the quality and effectiveness of initial decision-making in applications for social security, reconsideration within the DWP and the system of subsequent tribunal appeals. This work should make it easier for claimants to receive the right benefit provision. Moreover, welfare benefits appeals matters are resolved through a tribunal which is designed to be accessible without legal assistance, and general advice on welfare benefits is available from a number of sources.
I know that this issue has been raised at every stage. After these debates, we do not just close the book and not take any notice. We go back to the department and the Ministers and advisers have a discussion. There is also a discussion about the issues raised with other departments. This is not a decision taken lightly but we believe that the loss-of-home proposals in the Bill get the balance right in terms of focusing limited public funds for legal advice and assistance in the most appropriate circumstances. We have listened to the appeals made by the noble Lord and considered them. At this point, we cannot agree with them. I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best
I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. I am also grateful to my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who put his name to this amendment but has had to leave us. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for talking of the perfect storm at a time of housing benefit change when advice will be incredibly important to people. Things will change dramatically on the benefit front and mistakes will be made by the officials concerned. Experts will be needed for support and assistance. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who reminded us that Shelter, Citizens Advice and such bodies are behind this amendment rather than the lawyers. He also mentioned the extra costs that homelessness always brings.
This is a cost-saving amendment. The noble Lord is right that much remains within scope. Some 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the work currently being done remains within scope, which is great, but a lot of that is wasted if the remaining 20 per cent to 25 per cent is cut out. Where possession is threatened is the bit where the argument can be taken up with the administrators, the housing benefits officers. With their negotiating skills and expertise, they can fix it and sort it. Cutting that out renders a lot of the rest of the expenditure much less worth while.
Before the hour gets any later and without further ado, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
Lord Pannick
(c) that—(i) it is necessary to make the services available to the individual under this Part to prevent specific injustice in a particular case; and(ii) it is appropriate to do so, in order to prevent such injustice, from the funds (if any) which the Lord Chancellor in his discretion makes available to the Director for the purposes of this paragraph.”
Lord Pannick
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and in the names of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Woolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton. Its purpose is simple—to implement more effectively the Government’s proposal to include an exceptional cases category for legal aid as set out in Clause 10. The problem which this amendment seeks to address is that Clause 10 is too narrowly drafted and will prevent the very flexibility that it is designed to provide. That is because the exceptional cases category set out in the clause applies only if the refusal of legal aid would amount to a breach of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights or would create a risk of doing so.
The difficulty, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, stated when moving his amendment at the Report stage, is that it is inevitable that:
“All of a sudden a case will obviously require, in the interests of justice, to be supported by legal aid because of the wider interest that is involved”.—[Official Report, 12/3/12; col. 119.]
The case may concern a difficult and important question of statutory interpretation in the Court of Appeal or in the Supreme Court in a type of case generally excluded from the scope of legal aid. This amendment would confer a power on the director of legal aid to fund litigation if both of two conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the director considers that funding the litigation is necessary—a strong term—to avoid injustice. I have adopted in the amendment the suggestion made in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that the discretion should be defined not as a power to promote justice, but as a power to avoid specific injustice, a much narrower concept. The noble and learned Lord has asked me to express to the House his apologies for not being able to be here today.
The second condition which would need to be satisfied before the power could be exercised by the director is that the director considers that the case is an appropriate one for use of the funds, if any, made available for this purpose by the Lord Chancellor. That wording is designed to ensure that funding remains entirely within the discretion of the Lord Chancellor. The amendment, I emphasise, does not require additional funds to be found. The amendment leaves it to the Lord Chancellor to decide what funds, if any, to provide for this purpose.
If then the Lord Chancellor is not required to provide funds for this exceptional category of cases, your Lordships will wish to know what is the purpose of the amendment. The answer is that even if the Lord Chancellor were to say that no money is currently available for this exceptional category of cases—I hope that that would not be the case—it is vital to include a discretion in the Bill so that a statutory power exists to fund exceptional cases which can be exercised with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor when the economy improves.
Noble Lords should not approve a Bill confining legal aid in the manner proposed by the Government without including in it a provision which at least allows the Lord Chancellor, in his discretion, to provide some funding for the exceptional cases about which I am concerned. Parliament may not have a chance to address legal aid issues again for some time. I very much hope that even at this late stage the Minister will be able to accept the amendment, which confers power on the Lord Chancellor to allow funding for exceptional cases but imposes no duty on him to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Hart of Chilton
I support the amendment, which is also in my name. Interested bodies such as Citizens Advice, Justice for All and the Law Society have all pointed out that the Government’s exceptional funding safety net does not stretch wide enough for the reasons so clearly given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I emphasise that the amendment of itself imposes no extra financial burden on the Lord Chancellor; it simply provides an opportunity for a discretion to be exercised if it is necessary—I emphasise the word “necessary”—to prevent a specific injustice occurring. If it was decided to use this power, the costs would be provided from discretionary funds made available to the director by the Lord Chancellor.
The amendment should be seen as a simple, practical and positive act of assistance to the Government, who, if they accept it, will have the flexibility to act in the circumstances provided for. Legislative opportunities for any Government are few and far between. In my view, this opportunity should be seized and the helpful amendment accepted.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, in the courts, many cases have three judges involved in determining what should be the outcome. If one judge gives a judgment on the provision which the other two judges think is totally convincing and where they have nothing useful to add, they just say, “I agree”. I agree with the speeches that have been made in support of the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the House had the opportunity to debate issues similar to those raised in the amendment during detailed discussions in Committee and on Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern came up with the phrase “in the interests of justice to prevent injustice”, which I said at the time had a certain seductive charm and that I would think about it. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, moved the amendment and argued his case with seductive charm, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hart. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was very much to the point, as was, very briefly, the noble Lord, Lord Bach.
I can assure the House that we have thought about these points. The Government believe it is right that there should be an exceptional funding scheme to provide an essential safety net for the protection of an individual’s fundamental rights of access to justice, and Clause 10 achieves this important end. It will be necessary to provide services to an individual under Clause 10(3)(a), where a failure to provide some measure of legal aid would, for example, clearly amount to a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees an individual’s right to a fair trial and access to the courts.
As has been said on a number of occasions when we have debated exceptional funding determinations under what was Clause 9 but is now Clause 10(3), they will be made in accordance with the factors that the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights have held to be relevant in determining whether publicly funded legal assistance must be provided in an individual case.
In considering whether legal aid should be provided in an individual case engaging Article 6, the director will need to take into account, for example, the importance of the issues to the individual concerned and the nature of the rights at stake; the complexity of the case; the capacity of the individuals to represent themselves effectively; and the alternative means of securing access to justice.
It is not lost on me that the noble and noble and learned Lords who tabled the amendment have carefully mirrored the existing formulation of the clause in their proposed addition. I thank, particularly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for triggering this discussion and this line of thought in Committee. I again assure the House that I have considered the alternative formulation carefully. However, as I said on Report, we are satisfied that the provision that the Bill currently makes in respect of excluded cases is both appropriate and sufficient.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his consideration of this matter and to other noble Lords who have spoken. The noble and learned Lord raised two points, as I understood him. His first concern was that this amendment would somehow politicise the functions of the director. It would not. The Lord Chancellor would remain responsible for funding questions and would decide whether it was appropriate to provide additional funding. It would be entirely a matter for the director to decide on the allocation of such funding, if any. There is no question of any politicisation of these responsibilities.
The noble and learned Lord also suggested that it was satisfactory for the exceptional cases category to be confined to those cases in which an issue arises pursuant to the European Convention on Human Rights. In my view, that is not adequate. The exceptional cases category should be sufficiently broad to cover exceptional cases whether or not an issue is engaged under the European convention.
I suggest to noble Lords that there is no basis for resisting this amendment. The Government agree that there should be an exceptional cases category—and they are right. This amendment would ensure that the exceptional cases category is sufficiently broad to enable the director to deal with exceptional cases, if and when the Lord Chancellor provides funding. This amendment imposes no duty whatever on the Lord Chancellor and requires no funding to be provided. It is purely permissive, and I invite noble Lords to support it on that basis. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
My Lords, the House will recall that my noble friend Lord Macdonald was most persuasive in Committee so that during Report a government amendment was agreed that removed the power to introduce means testing and make regulations setting criteria for determinations in relation to advice and assistance for individuals in custody. Amendment 20 is a government amendment that removes references to determinations under Clause 13, on police station advice and assistance, from Clause 21, which concerns financial resources. This is a consequential amendment in light of the Government’s amendment accepted on Report to remove the power to means test police station advice and assistance. This technical amendment is required to remove from Clause 21 the reference to regulations under Clause 13. I beg to move.
Baroness Coussins
“Exception for international human rights cases
The changes made by sections 46, 48 and 49 of this Act do not apply in relation to proceedings which include a claim for damages for international human rights cases as defined in section 58(C)(2B) (Recovery of insurance premiums by way of costs) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, as inserted by section 48 of this Act.”
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, the other amendments in the group are clearly consequential, in the case of Amendments 22, 23 and 26, and directly consequential, in the case of Amendment 27. These amendments are designed to preserve the status quo in our justice system for victims of international corporate human rights abuse. I am very grateful to the Minister for the further meetings he has had with me and with others since Report, and for the correspondence we have had. I readily knowledge that he wants to achieve the same things as do I and my co-signatories to these amendments, who are from all sides of the House. Indeed, I had very much been hoping that at this stage we would be announcing an agreement of some sort, and I am very disappointed that this has not turned out to be the case. I am afraid that I have not even been able to persuade the Minister to see it as acceptable to put corporate human rights abuses on the same footing as clinical negligence, as Amendment 27 would do.
I do not believe that the Government have adequately understood the impact of the Rome II regulations, which are binding on the UK as an EU member state, let alone the additional restraint and restrictions that this Bill would provide. Figures to illustrate this are very hard to come by, because of the small number of cases of this sort that have been settled over the past decade, so many have included a confidentiality agreement as part of the settlement.
However, I will illustrate the impact of the Rome II regulations with one brief example that is in the public domain: the Trafigura case, which is probably also the most well-known case, where toxic waste was dumped on a large community in the Côte d’Ivoire. There were 30,000 claimants in this case, who shared £30 million in damages—£1,000 per head. It is estimated that under the Rome II regulations, the damages would have shrunk to £6 million, making it £200 a head. Yet the “after the event” insurance premium would still have cost over £9 million. If £200 a head seems a very small amount of compensation for loss and damage to life, homes, health and community, how much less compensation would there be under the provisions of this Bill? It makes it far too costly and risky to bring the cases in the first place.
It is a question of straightforward arithmetic, added to which there is no cost to the taxpayer whatever as a result of these amendments. We have a very good system in place already, which is the envy of many other countries in the world that are looking to us to build their own system to deal with international corporate human rights cases. I appeal to the Minister even now to accept my amendments, but if he cannot then I hope that the House will support me in trying to prevent the clock being turned back for poor and vulnerable victims of human rights injustices at the hands of UK companies, which should remain accountable in practice as well as in theory. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, if the Government think it appropriate that the private disputes of Russian oligarchs should be settled in our courts, how much more appropriate is it that poor people in countries such as the Côte d’Ivoire, who have been treated utterly disgracefully by a large international corporation, should also be able to seek remedy in the British courts? Should we not be proud to make that a possibility?
Lord Judd
My Lords, the noble Baroness is to be congratulated on having persevered so well and firmly with this cause, right up to Third Reading. I remember in my early days as director of Oxfam that I was in north-west Brazil where, having travelled overnight in a rickety bus, I arrived in this very poor town. Around the tower of the church, there was a banner in Portuguese which said, “Prison bars will not prevent the truth escaping”. When I, together with the field director, probed to try to find out what had happened and what was wrong, evidently a greedy land grabber had been bribing the judge with cattle and the judge had repeatedly ordered these people off their land. They had no social insurance—nothing. They had no means of surviving but to go on farming the land they traditionally farmed. In the end, because they resisted, he threw them and the local secretary of the peasants’ association into prison for good measure.
I had gone with my colleague to discuss agriculture—wells, tools, seed and irrigation—but what became very clear was that these people were preoccupied totally with justice. They wanted to have some resources to be able to go to the regional court and put their case before it. I can remember us sitting over some beer and doing some rough calculations, and reckoning that we could find a bit of money to help support them to go off to the regional court. One of my best moments in those formative years as director of Oxfam was when I heard at headquarters in Oxford that having taken their case before the regional court, the local judge was in prison and they were back on their land.
I tell this story because I have repeatedly found in my work with the Third World that what holds people back is a lack of justice and fairness, and what they are wanting is a fair crack of the whip. If this is true within the context of their own societies, when we move into a globalised society—with the vast power of the biggest international companies and the almost limitless resources that they have at their disposal for legal undertakings, cases and the rest—the case becomes even more obvious. I am very unhappy with this whole Bill, and have been from the beginning, because it is about limiting access to justice when surely a cause in a civilised society is to increase access to justice. If we have a serious commitment to the people of the Third World, as the Government keep demonstrating that they want to have, nothing is more important than ensuring that they can get access to justice. I really will be very despairing if the Government, even at this 11th hour, cannot respond to what the noble Baroness has argued.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I have huge sympathy with the claimants in the Trafigura case, who received £30 million in damages, and if I thought that access to justice for people in their position were being blocked by this Bill I would be entirely with the noble Baroness. Unfortunately, the costs in that case were £100 million, reduced on taxation to £40 million. I do not feel particularly proud of a legal system which produces such a disparity between the damages that were actually received by the claimants and the lawyers who acted on their behalf.
Lord Brennan
My Lords, the topic under debate appears to involve general agreement that this class of case is a proper one to be brought in the courts of this country. The critical question therefore is: is it financially possible to bring such a case under the proposed reforms in this Bill? These are long cases, which take years, and they are complex and very expensive. They involve defendants with economic might who are prepared to take on the claimants remorselessly. I remind the House that the Trafigura case actually reached the stage where this Parliament was debating whether that company’s obtaining of a super-injunction meant that Parliament could no longer debate the issues raised by the case. That is might.
The idea that such a case can readily be brought and financed under these reforms is one with which no one whom I know in the law agrees. I have been involved in four of these 10 or 12 cases in the past decade and they have all involved millions of pounds on both sides. In Trafigura, the published costs of the defendants without a trial were £14 million. I await with interest to hear from the Minister any mathematics or economic analysis that explains to this country how lawyers here under these new arrangements—a reduced success fee and no “after the event” insurance—could fund such a case. Everyone I speak to says, frankly, that it is impossible.
If the Minister comes forward with some mathematics that are realistic and not ethereal, and if he gives us financial analysis that is not far distant from reality, the House might still be persuaded. As yet, no one in public has produced such material. The result is that we expect the developing world to open its doors to our great companies to make large profits for the benefit of our country but, when those investments produce adverse consequences, we in this country close our doors of justice to the people who have suffered. That cannot be acceptable, and the Government should think again.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has introduced this group of amendments with her customary fluency and passion, and she has been joined by other speakers who have made the case well. As has been pointed out, this measure risks damage to the UK’s reputation for justice to those people who have suffered damage to their human rights caused by companies based in the United Kingdom. I am sure that none of us wishes to see that happen.
We have support from all around the House, and we are grateful to those who have joined in on these amendments. The settled view of your Lordships’ House is clearly that there is a real danger that, if this Bill goes through in its present form, the changes that it makes to the way in which international human rights cases are to operate, combined with the restricted damages that the Rome II regulations impose on the level of damages that can be awarded to claimants, will make it impossible for such cases to be mounted in the UK in future.
As the House has heard, several very important independent charities have been lobbying hard on this issue. Several meetings have been held with the Minister and correspondence has been exchanged. We hoped that an accommodation could be reached, and we went to see him yesterday in the hope that that might be possible. He e-mailed us today to say that he could not accept our amendments.
It is clear to me that while on the one hand the Government do not want to be responsible for preventing these cases continuing in future, they have not so far been convinced that it is highly probable that they will occur in future. Why is that? The arithmetic, as has been said, is very clear. We seem to be in a situation where the department’s overriding concern that the architecture of the Bill should be retained is working here against good legislation. What other arguments can there possibly be? We have heard from those directly involved in these cases and we know what the figures are. It is clear that the facts outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and my noble friend Lord Brennan that the Government are wrong. I hope that when the time comes the noble Baroness will test the opinion of the House, and we will be supporting her in the Lobby.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I confirm that we have been in regular discussions about these amendments, and I regret that I am not able to accept them today.
There have been a number of comments about costs and indeed about the Trafigura case. What strikes me most about that case is that the £30 million that was won in damages worked out at about £1,000 per victim—against, as has already been accepted, legal costs that at one time, until they were beaten down, were running at £100 million. To me, that is an obscene system.
With regard to the reforms that we brought forward, we have said that we believe CFAs will continue. We are also introducing damages-based agreements. Far from welcoming them, though, the CBI and others worry that those may well provide funding in this area. So, it is not that the Government are opposed to bringing companies to account for their behaviour. I just do not believe in the rather broad claims by the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Judd, that this issue will dramatically affect the lives of people in developing countries. There are other areas of policy that are going to do much more than that.
I make clear that the Government strongly support claims arising from allegations of corporate harm in developing countries being brought, and we support the protection of damages for personal injury. Where we disagree with the supporters of the amendment is that we do not believe that our plans would prevent such cases being brought or ultimately damage the ability of NGOs and others to hold big business to account.
An exception along the lines proposed is in our view neither necessary nor justified. It is not necessary because reformed “no win no fee” arrangements will still allow cases to be brought. It is not justified because it would undermine the wider rationale for the Jackson reforms in Part 2 of the Bill, which should apply across civil litigation without any exceptions. In doing so, it would introduce unfairness between different types of claimant.
We recognise, however, that, following the Rome II regulations, damages in these cases can be relatively low, and they will not be subject to the 10 per cent increase available for other claims. The costs awarded can nevertheless be extremely high, as was demonstrated by the Trafigura case. The question is whether any exception should be made for these cases either on a wider basis, as proposed in Amendments 21, 22, 23 and 26, or on a narrower basis, as proposed in Amendment 27. I concede that in putting forward Amendment 27, the movers tried to put forward a narrow-based solution.
The Government have listened to this debate and those that went before, and we have reflected carefully on the points raised. We have held many meetings with interested stakeholders and NGOs over the past months, and the Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. I have looked again at the evidence that has been presented, including reports by Professor Rachael Mulheron of the University of London and Mr Smith of First Assist. Both reports make the general case for recoverable success fees and insurance premiums to continue in these cases, but they do not present any figures showing why these cases could not be brought in future. During our discussions with the NGOs we have asked for such evidence but it has not been forthcoming, even though we have asked them for more detailed figures.
The truth is that the available evidence shows that these cases, though few in number—about 10 in a decade—have historically been highly profitable for the legal firms involved. Although under our plans the margins available would be reduced, they are still likely to remain attractive. I remind noble Lords of the sums involved. Since the previous Government introduced the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums in 2000, we know that there have been only around 10 of these cases, mainly undertaken by a single firm of solicitors. Most of these cases have succeeded or settled, but some claims have been pursued in which costs have not ultimately been recovered. The figures suggest that in those cases that were not pursued to trial, there were disbursements of some £131,000 and legal costs in the region of £1.4 million. I appreciate that those figures will not cover all costs in all cases but they should be a fair ball-park indication. £1.4 million sounds like a lot of money for a firm to bear in what are effectively losses on a case not pursued and won until the substantial sums that have been received in success fees are considered. We know that in the case of Trafigura alone, success fees—intended to cover the costs in lost cases—of around £29 million were allowed by the Court of Appeal. Those figures amount to a net gain for claimant lawyers from these cases over the past decade of more than £27 million from the success fees for Trafigura alone. That does not include all the success fees in the other successful cases.
These figures speak for themselves. They cast all emotion aside and demonstrate the substantial gains in legal costs from these cases and the proportionately much lower costs expended. When the ratio of earnings to losses is more than 10:1, the current system can, to put it mildly, bear some reform. Therefore, while I recognise that claims against multinationals can be complex, the changes that we are making to the CFA regime will not prevent these cases being brought in the future. They can still be brought but the costs will be more proportionate. As Lord Justice Jackson recognised, a greater incentive for claimants’ lawyers to work more smartly is needed so that they incur only costs that are justified when bringing a claim, rather than allowing costs to escalate.
It is worth pointing out, as I have previously in the House, the criticism by the Court of Appeal of the costs claimed by the claimants in the Trafigura case. In that case, the court itself questioned whether some of the work undertaken by the claimants’ lawyers was necessary. It criticised them for seeking costs of £100 million in a case that resulted in payment of £30 million in damages. It is not for me to question the conduct of those involved, but it needs to be borne in mind when looking at the extraordinary costs claimed in that case alone. I should add—again, as I have pointed out to the House previously—that in that case the defendant’s costs were approximately £14 million, which is around one-seventh of the costs claimed by the claimants.
I turn now to Amendment 27, which seeks to allow for the recoverability of “after the event” insurance premiums to pay adverse legal costs, including expert fees and other disbursements. In doing so, the amendment goes much wider than just the cost of funding the expert reports for which we have provided in the special situation of clinical negligence cases. The amendment would potentially cover paying the other side’s costs, too, but this is not necessary because we are introducing a system of qualified one-way cost shifting in personal injury cases, which will protect losing claimants from having to pay the other side’s costs. We have discussed making exceptions in relation to expert reports in other contexts, but we do not believe that an exception is more needed here than in other cases. As I have said, the costs recovered in successful multinational cases have been substantial and could provide funds towards paying up front for reports where needed.
As I indicated on Report, on several occasions my officials and I have met representatives of the NGOs that support these cases. However, we have not been persuaded that such cases cannot continue to be brought when our changes are implemented. Nor are we persuaded that they justify an exception in the Bill that would be unfair to other, no less deserving claimants.
The House will be aware of all the arguments that I have rehearsed today, in Committee and on Report. We have treated subsequent discussions with the seriousness they deserve, and we have listened carefully. However, the Government continue to believe that reform is unavoidable, necessary and overdue. In this case in particular, we should not mix up a challenge to overgenerous costs with a denial of access to justice. Access to justice is precisely what the reformed CFA regime will protect, but as part of a more proportionate and balanced system. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and the Minister for his very detailed and thoughtful reply. I am only sorry that, although we started from the same place, we have not reached the same conclusions.
There has been much reference in this debate to costs running into millions of pounds. However, the Rome II regulations provide for damages paid to successful victims to be calculated according to the costs in the country where the abuse took place, whereas legal costs are calculated according to what they are in the UK. Therefore, vast disparities are bound to occur. It was the UK Government who signed up to this, not the South African miners or the Peruvian campesinos. We need to take responsibility for that and for the additional restraints proposed by the Bill.
In a case with thousands of claimants, of course the costs will run into millions. If there are 1,000 claimants, there will be 1,000 medical reports and 1,000 toxicology reports to get. There will be travel and translation costs. Of course it will be expensive. The firm of solicitors to which the Minister referred, Leigh Day & Co, which has conducted most of these cases, routinely cross-subsidises its human rights work by taking on many other types of case. That enables it to take on those human rights cases. In the case of Trafigura, for example, in which each victim was awarded £1,000, it was not extraordinarily disproportionate for the company to have achieved £3,000 in costs, given the kind and amount of work and the length of time that such cases involve.
The disparities and the inequalities are too great. Justice is justice, whatever the cost. I want to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Pannick
“(7) To the extent specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument, the amendments made by subsection (4) and section 48 and the repeal made by section 49(1), do not apply in relation to a costs order made in favour of a party to proceedings of a description specified in the regulations.
(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Pannick
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. It seeks to confer on the Lord Chancellor a power to disapply provisions of Part 2 in particular categories of case. Noble Lords will know that Part 2 removes the power of the court to make unsuccessful defendants pay success fees and “after the event” insurance. Successful claimants would need to make these payments out of their damages. Concern has been expressed in your Lordships’ House that this may deter or prevent claimants bringing meritorious claims and may operate unfairly by effectively reducing the damages which they obtain. This concern has been expressed in a wide variety of legal contexts from industrial injuries to insolvency claims.
The Minister’s response to these criticisms has been to express the hope, and sometimes the belief, that Part 2 will not have the adverse consequences for access to justice which critics of these provisions fear. The reality is that neither the Government nor the critics of Part 2 can be sure what effect it will have on access to justice in practice. The Minister will, I hope, accept that it is possible that after the Bill is enacted and comes into effect, experience may show that in specific contexts the concerns expressed by those of us who are worried about the implications of Part 2 are justified, and that access to justice is being impeded.
This amendment would confer a discretion on the Lord Chancellor to respond to any problems that are seen to occur after enactment by excluding defined categories of case from the statutory provisions if he thinks it appropriate to do so. The new provision would confer a power in Part 2 equivalent to the Lord Chancellor’s power in Part 1 under Clause 9(2) to modify Schedule 1 in relation to the scope of legal aid—a power for the Lord Chancellor which the Government accepted was appropriate in Part 1. I cannot see why the Lord Chancellor would not wish to have such a discretion in Part 2 equivalent to that which is given by the Bill in Part 1. In neither context does the discretion impose any duty on him.
Parliament is unlikely for some time to have another opportunity to look at these important matters. Given the importance of the changes that we are making in Part 2, given the concerns that have been expressed about their impact on access to justice, and given that these matters may look very different indeed in some legal contexts in the light of experience after these changes are made, it is surely wise to add to the Bill a power for the Lord Chancellor whereby it would be entirely within his discretion to modify the effect by excluding categories of cases. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I shall be brief. I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Pannick. Just over a week ago, your Lordships were reminded by no less a person than Her Majesty the Queen that during her time as monarch she had signed more than 3,000 pieces of legislation enacted by Parliament. All of us who have been Members of this House and the other place know that we have a penchant for passing vast swathes of legislation that we never revisit subsequently. We all know that we sometimes legislate in haste and repent at leisure. I have had the feeling during the passage of this legislation that we will later regret some of the measures we have passed.
The problem then is what we are able to do about it. Although we sometimes add sunset clauses, and Select Committees can revisit legislation and make recommendations, we often do not put in the kind of belt-and-braces provision that my noble friend Lord Pannick has placed before your Lordships’ House this evening. It is eminently reasonable. It is perfectly good for Parliament to say that if things were to work out in the worst-case scenarios in the way that your Lordships at various stages in Committee and on Report have suggested may happen, and if the Minister is proved not to be correct in what I am sure he sincerely believes regarding the way in which this legislation will be interpreted in due course, there ought to be some way of doing something about it if it is to be found wanting.
Giving this discretionary power to the Lord Chancellor and making it consistent with Part 1, as my noble friend has just described, seems to be the perfect way of dealing with the problem. It is eminently reasonable and, like my noble friend, I cannot see any good reason why the Government would want to resist something that requires no expenditure and does not place on them any duty but simply gives them a discretionary power. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to your Lordships.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the Opposition certainly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his customary and eminently reasonable way. He clearly draws the analogy between the changes that the Government, to their credit, accepted in relation to legal aid and what is being advocated here. It adopts the precautionary principle whereby if things went wrong—they may not of course—there would be a fairly simple way of correcting them if the amendment were to be accepted. If it is not accepted, we would presumably be in for a long delay while primary legislation was enacted, as both noble Lords have made clear.
In this case, discretion is the better part of legislative valour, and I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It does not bind them to anything but provides an opportunity for corrective measures to be taken, if that should prove necessary, in precisely the same way that they have accepted in relation to legal aid.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has tabled his amendment along the lines he suggested on Report. He suggested then that it might be sensible to have a power to disapply the effects of Part 2 in relation to the abolition of recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums in respect of particular categories of case. The amendment now seeks to achieve that.
I have referred on several occasions during the passage of the Bill to its central architecture. The Government’s view, quite simply, is that the current recoverability regime is wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle to impose substantial additional costs on losing parties, whether in relation to success fees or insurance premiums. Those costs add to the already significant costs of civil litigation and allow for risk-free litigation by claimants and what I earlier described as inflation in our legal system.
I have explained the rationale for our proposals and why we consider that they should apply across the board without exception, and I do not propose to repeat those arguments now. The amendment seeks to allow different recoverability in different classes of case. We are implementing a package of reforms, not all of which are contained in the Bill. This package has been carefully put together to be fair between claimants and defendants.
I understand the noble Lord’s intentions. I understand that he thinks it sensible to allow for exceptions to be made at a later date. However, we are legislating now on what we consider to be a fair and overdue basis. Funding arrangements need a degree of certainty. Claimants and defendants need to be able to plan and adapt to the new regime. The amendment would only create uncertainty. Will an exception be created? For what and when? Rather than settling the issue of CFAs, as this Bill seeks to do, the amendment would open the door to constant campaigning and calls for individual exceptions. The amendment may be well intentioned but it is fraught with difficulty. It would provide uncertainty and confusion where we are seeking to introduce clarity. It would provide increased costs where we are seeking to reduce costs. It is wrong in principle and unnecessary. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I simply do not understand how the amendment undermines certainty any more than does the equivalent provision in Part 1. I repeat that it would simply confer a discretionary power on the Lord Chancellor. I understand that the Government believe that the architecture in Part 2 is correct, but the Minister should accept that experience may show that in some contexts, the architecture does not work. The amendment would, importantly, ensure that if those concerns prove to be justified, the Lord Chancellor will have a power to do something about it.
This is an important matter. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Prescott
“( ) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to proceedings that include a claim for damages or other relief in relation to—
(a) interference with personal information or breach of privacy; or(b) defamation.”
Lord Prescott
My Lords, Amendment 25 stands in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Bach and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neil of Bengarve.
This is a simple but important issue. However, I do not want to delay the House, as we have had a number of debates on these matters. The amendments in this group would retain the recovery of success fees and “after the event” insurance premiums from the losing side in privacy and defamation cases. The Bill removes these costs and puts them on to the complainant, and I consider that to be fundamentally wrong, particularly in view of what we have seen of late in the way of actions by the press.
It is argued that such recovery of fees may prevent defendants—normally powerful and wealthy people in the media, and in this case the press—defending themselves against a complaint of breach of privacy. I understand that point but I would give more weight to an individual complainant who had suffered breach of privacy from the media or the press. The absence of conditional fee arrangements will prevent the complainant with no personal financial resources seeking legal redress in a case of breach of privacy. Indeed, in this type of case the defendant and complainant are not on an equal footing, and we have to take that into account.
I have benefited from the current no-win no-fee arrangement in pursuing my case against the Murdoch press and the Metropolitan Police. I would not have been able to pursue that case without such an arrangement because, quite simply, I would not have been able to afford it. This Bill strengthens the media’s case by reducing their costs, even if they are found guilty and damages are awarded against them. However, not only does it reduce their costs but it transfers the costs to the successful complainant. However one looks at it, it is not justice for the person who wins the case to be penalised by further costs.
Perhaps I may take my case as an example, although this is not just about me; it would apply to most people in the same situation. The average level of damages awarded in these cases is approximately £40,000. So, in my own case, £40,000 was awarded in damages, there were £40,000 of costs on my side and £40,000 of costs on the media’s side. Put together, that is a considerable cost to be carried by the complainant. However, added to that is the success fee, which is compensation for lawyers taking on difficult cases. In a case such as mine, the success fee would be carried by the people who lost the case. The other type of cost is insurance. If you are going to gamble on winning a case, you have to take out insurance so that it is the insurer and not you who pays the costs. Those success fees and insurance costs are now to be transferred in some form to the side that wins the case, so in a case like mine the damages would not completely cover the costs.
If there has clearly been a serious breach—in my case, it was phone hacking, criminal acts and all the things that we are aware of from the Leveson inquiry—it cannot be right for the complainant who has suffered from those acts to be poorer. More importantly, it cannot be right that the press should have their costs reduced. I understand that it is a heavy cost but that is part of the penalty. The situation is almost like that of the polluter pays. You should think very carefully before you say some of the things that you say and you should not carry out what are clearly criminal acts. If you commit the offence, you pay the price of legal action against you, and the current no-win no-costs arrangement allows many people to sue in such a situation.
The Government are shifting the balance of payments and costs on to the complainant, even when the complainant is found innocent and the defendant is found guilty. I do not think that that is right. I have tried to think of the Government’s reasons for doing this. In some of the debates it has been argued that it is down to the cost to the public, but no evidence has been given for that. What is the cost to the taxpayer? I agree that there are probably heavy legal costs and I have referred to some of them, but if you want to do something about that there are plenty of regulations and powers that can be used. It could be argued that in some cases that is what is happening now. The burden should not be put on those who make the complaint. The defendant in this case should carry the full costs.
Then one wonders who is demanding this change. Clearly, the Government agree with it but who is pressing the Government? The answer is: a very powerful body of media. I know that because they tried to get the previous Labour Government to make this change in the law but they would not agree to it as they thought it was unfair. I see a look of puzzlement on the Minister’s face. Jack Straw may have felt that there was something in it but there was no government decision on it. I leave it at that—we refused to go along with it. However, when this Government came in, I do not know whether it was at a dinner at No. 10 but they obviously got together with some very powerful people and said, “Right, we’re going to do this for you”. It is clear that they want this change and I have given some of the reasons. The innocent parties who have suffered from breach of privacy or phone hacking are not calling for these changes. To be frank, they could not have taken up their cases without the no-win no-fee arrangement. The only people who seem to have argued powerfully for it are the media, and I am not just talking about the red tops or Murdoch. I have referred before in this Chamber to a survey of all the media—the press and television—in which they said unanimously that they wanted their costs to be cut. They did not argue that those costs should be transferred to the claimant; they just wanted their costs cut, and they were unanimous in that.
The people who have certainly not asked for this change are the McCanns, the Dowlers or Mr Jefferies. They sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking him not to do this as it would disadvantage people like themselves who had been injured by the actions of the press. We should take that into account. I noticed that in the Naomi Campbell case, curiously, the British press argued that a change should be made to human rights law. That is not usually their line on human rights but in this case they claimed that their human rights had been damaged by Naomi Campbell. She is a very rich lady and could certainly afford to bring a case. However, that is not the norm. We have to think of people such as the McCanns and the Dowlers, who have been greatly affected, as has become clear from the Leveson inquiry.
The issue is clear; it is about justice. On which side will we apportion the change? Where does the balance lie between the strong and the weak? That is what we do all the time in legislation. This loads it against the weak in favour of the powerful, which is fundamentally wrong. This legislative framework does not follow what we normally try to do. The Minister is talking about whether this can be put into the Defamation Bill. If it is right to put it in that Bill, why wait? I fear that when the Defamation Bill is debated it will be all about defamation costs but there will be very little about privacy breaches, which is what the amendment is concerned with. If the Minister wants to leave the defamation issue, he should leave it to the Defamation Bill, but if the issue is important, he should do it now and change it, or at the very least send it to the other place to consider it further. To duck behind the Defamation Bill and say that it will be dealt with then is frankly not giving the issue the justice that it is entitled to. I am saying that we should side with the weak in this case, not the powerful. Let us have justice. That is what this place is about.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I know that it is Third Reading and at this point I shall speak to process and not to substance. We already have in the Bill two exemptions from certain provisions relating to success fees and cost recovery via insurance—Clauses 44 and 45. The existing exemptions for those two clauses relate to respiratory disease and industrial disease, particularly when there has been a breach of a duty of care.
Amendments 25 and 28, to which the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, has just spoken, and to which I am speaking, seek to establish parallel exemptions for proceedings that include a claim for damages or other relief that relate either to personal information or breach of privacy or defamation. This is simply not the moment to try to alter the costs regime in actions pertaining either to privacy or defamation. The tectonic plates are shifting in this area. We have around us many cases that relate to criminal breaches of existing legal protections of privacy as, after all, not all have been settled. We also have a report by the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions from only a fortnight ago to which nobody has yet been able to give much attention, but it deserves some attention. We have notably Lord Justice Leveson’s ongoing inquiry and we have a number of parallel inquiries going on into other aspects of the phone-hacking scandals that came to light last summer.
In some quarters, it is an expectation that defamation legislation will have a place in the Queen’s Speech. Is that a rumour? I do not know, but in some cases I think that it is a firm assumption. I know that nothing can be said about that, but in short, this is simply not the time to alter the costs and fees regime relating to cases in this area. If defamation legislation is coming forward in the Queen’s Speech, then will be the time to think about that. If not, there will be time to think about these other things that are ongoing.
I believe that there would be one other way that might seem to offer the Government a route for dealing with this difficulty of timing, which I accept is not something that could have been anticipated, but it is a severe difficulty. That would be to take advantage of Clause 152, which permits different parts of the Bill for different purposes—that is an unusual way of putting it—to be commenced at different points. It would be open to the Government to delay commencement on those issues. I accept that that is a way of avoiding making commitments now that might have to be reversed if there were a Defamation Bill. However, that is simply not satisfactory from the point of view of litigants—both claimants and defendants—in privacy and in defamation where the stakes are too high and the uncertainty is too great. At this stage, an exemption parallel to the exemption in Clauses 44 and 45 would be the appropriate way forward.
Lord Bach
My Lords, we have heard two powerful speeches on this matter. I say from the Front Bench that we support the amendment in the name of my noble friend. Legal aid has never been available for redress in this field, so no-win no-fee has become an essential bulwark for the impecunious citizen of moderate means against for the main part much more powerful media corporations. Such actions, as the House knows, recently led to the exposure of systematic wrongdoing at News International that saw innocent people’s lives just taken apart. We have heard reference already to the Dowlers and the McCanns, and to Mr Jeffries, too. But even politicians, such as the right honourable Simon Hughes, has been a victim, and have relied on no-win no-fee to get justice.
The Jackson reforms on road traffic accident personal injury cases, which we welcome very much on this side, comprising 75 per cent of all claims, are recognised as having a potentially devastating effect on this area of law. The Liberal Democrats in the other place agreed with us when they tabled amendments exempting privacy and defamation actions. I very much hope that they will be consistent if the matter is taken to a vote tonight. That is what they proposed in the other place, so will they really vote against it tonight? The Joint Committee is looking at the draft Defamation Bill. Everyone owes a huge debt to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who I am delighted to see in his place. He is unusually silent on this matter tonight but perhaps I can understand why.
Lord Bach
That is a first. I am delighted to hear it. The Joint Committee looking at the draft Defamation Bill agreed with the point that I am attempting to make now. It said of the Government’s proposals that,
“we are sufficiently concerned about them to ask the Government to reconsider the implementation of the Jackson Report in respect of defamation actions, with a view to protecting further the interests of those without substantial financial means”.
The Government are trying to stay the House’s hand—many Members of this House are concerned about the impact on these cases—by saying that they will deal with the issue in the Defamation Bill. That is not good enough. In some ways, we will break the civil justice system in this Bill and the Government are saying, “Don’t worry; we’ll fix it later”. That is not good enough. Even if the Government change the definition of defamation, what will they do to make litigation viable for those of limited means? The fundamental problem, as the House knows, is that damages are low in these cases. Indeed, Lord Justice Jackson recommended increasing them substantially in a part of his report, but not the only part, which has been ignored by the Government. The costs of bringing them in are quite a lot higher.
The Government are doing everything they can to make these cases impossible to bring in the future. They are even refusing to put qualified one-way cost shifting in the Bill, which is an essential protection against adverse costs should a litigant lose in this kind of case. The House should not think that it is good enough for the Government to say, “Trust us; we’ll fix it all later”. The amendment should be supported because, as the noble Baroness said in her thoughtful and impressive speech, it is not good enough just to rely on some Bill that may or may not appear in the next Queen’s Speech whose contents we know not.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I listened with great interest to the speech of noble Lord, Lord Bach. He will remember that when he was a Minister in the previous Government, his master, the right honourable Jack Straw, decided that the present regime of costs was oppressive and unfair because it imposed a chilling effect on the publishers of newspapers and other media. Mr Straw decided that it was an abusive system because of the effect that it had on free speech. The effect arose from the fact that unscrupulous, greedy or perhaps simply normal lawyers acting for claimants were taking advantage of success fees and running up enormous legal costs that dwarfed any claim for damages, leaving a publisher defendant, for example, with a damages claim for £20,000 accompanied by a costs claim for £250,000.
In the Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers case, the European Court of Human Rights found that the circumstances breached the right to free speech enshrined in Article 10 of the European convention. In that case, exactly what I described happened in a gross and abusive way. Mr Straw and the previous Government recognised that the system was an abuse and proposed a rather crude mechanism to cut down success fees to an arbitrary figure. Although this House passed the measure, the other place refused to do so and it fell.
As I shall explain in a moment, I have great sympathy with the problem. However, at the moment I am dealing with the existing abuse. I begin by dealing with it because the amendments in this group, which refer to defamation, privacy and breach of confidence, would leave in place precisely the scheme that has been held to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, on free-speech grounds. They would leave in place the exact conditional fee agreement and success fee scheme, with all its capacity for abuse. For that reason, the amendments should be resisted.
Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, and others who spoke, that there is a problem in defamation and privacy cases. It is that the normal costs regime does not work very well in those cases, where often what are sought are not massive damages but other forms of remedy that cannot be dealt with under the scheme in the Bill. That is why at a previous stage I tabled an amendment to introduce what I hoped would be a proportionate way of dealing with the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, put his name to the amendment. I am entirely at one with him in saying that there needs to be a special and proportionate regime that applies to defamation and privacy cases. We are entirely at one in our aim, and that is exactly what our colleagues in the other place indicated in the view that they took on the matter.
The question is: what is the best way of meeting this legitimate aim? A means must be found of dealing with the David and Goliath problem—both ways. In one case there may be an extremely rich and powerful claimant and an impoverished defendant—let us say a citizen critic, or a little NGO, who cannot afford to pay the costs of the claimant. In another case the claimant may be a weak or impoverished individual who is up against a powerful newspaper or other big corporation, and the same problem will arise. We need to find a scheme that ensures equality of arms—a level playing field—between the strong and the weak in these cases such as privacy and defamation claims where the remedy in the Bill is not suitable.
Lord McNally
My Lords, my noble friend is catching something that perhaps I should not call Pannick disease. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has a habit of asking questions and then giving the answers. We will have to see whether I will be able to satisfy my noble friend on the questions that he raised.
As I explained, the basic rationale for the proposed reforms to no-win no-fee conditional fee agreements is to squeeze the inflation out of our legal system. It is to rebalance the system to make it fairer as between claimants and defendants. They do this by correcting the anomaly whereby those who bring cases have no incentive to keep an eye on the legal costs. Right now, the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums from the losing side can have the perverse effect of preventing defendants fighting cases, even when they know they are in the right, for fear of the disproportionate legal costs involved if they were to lose.
High and disproportionate costs have a negative impact not just because they can deny access to justice but more broadly because they can lead people to change their behaviour in damaging ways because of the fear of claims. Nowhere is that more true than in relation to responsible journalism, as well as to academic and scientific debate. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, to which my noble friend Lord Lester referred, in January 2011 in Mirror Group Newspapers v the UK—the so-called Naomi Campbell case—found the existing CFA arrangements with recoverability in that instance to be contrary to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the convention. Editors and journalists have long warned of the chilling effect of the current libel regime and argued that part of the problem is the huge costs that no-win no-fee cases impose. However, defendants are not always rich and powerful newspapers; they are also scientists, NGOs, campaigners and academics.
I have already made the general argument that any exception to reforms intended by Lord Justice Jackson to apply across the board is invidious and likely to lead to unfair anomalies with special treatment for some areas of law but not others. In the case of defamation, I additionally argue that these amendments are premature because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, explained, these issues need to be considered in the context of the defamation Bill, which we aim to introduce as soon as a legislative opportunity arises.
Lord McNally
The noble Lord will have to wait and see. One thing is certainly true: I have made every effort to make sure that defamation is not engulfed in a tsunami from Leveson. If we really want to reform defamation and not get caught up in a much wider privacy law, what I am trying to do is the way forward. Stunts like dividing the House tonight will show that, on this Bill, the noble Lord is still more interested in short-term political gain than in making progress.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
As a member of the committee that has just reported, I should remind the noble Lord that it advised against a privacy law.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
Before the Minister finishes winding, will he explain to the House why he does not think that these exemptions—the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may be entirely right—are the right way to go? Does he not think that two successive changes in the regime are the very worst thing for litigants in this area? In so far as we are leaving the Bill as it is, one change will happen now and another will happen down the road if there is legislation on defamation.
Lord McNally
We are talking about a Bill that does not come into effect until 2013. Given that defamation legislation is in process, I do not think the fact that there is a slight lacuna is a major problem in terms of the issues that the Bill will deal with. If it takes a little longer, that is a problem, and I will return to that.
That Bill and associated measures seek to reduce the costs of litigation and discourage unnecessary litigation in the area of defamation. We seek to do so, very broadly, by introducing a range of substantive and procedural changes and also by focusing on alternative dispute resolution, which is quicker, at lower cost, and offers more meaningful redress.
Any exceptions for defamation or privacy cases from the changes in Part 2 are unnecessary because our CFA reforms should not prevent strong cases being brought. I share the concern that individuals who are not wealthy or powerful sometimes need to bring defamation or privacy cases. Nothing in our proposals should prevent that where a case is a good one.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, sometimes makes me gasp when he starts lecturing our Benches on consistency. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, asked why this was happening now. Perhaps I may quote an expert on these matters:
“CFAs will remain available for defamation cases; thereby, lawyers will still be able to use them in deserving cases”.—[Official Report, 25/3/10; col. 1157.]
Those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, as Justice Minister, when he rushed attempts to reduce success fees before this House just before the election. We have already heard what happened in the grand coalition that was the Labour Government when the proposal went down the other end. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, told this House:
“There is a substantial body of opinion that 100 per cent recoverable success fees should not continue in defamation cases”.—[Official Report, 25/3/10; col. 1156.]
He was backed up by a consultation which said,
“immediate steps are needed in respect of defamation proceedings”.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I stand by those remarks. If the Minister thinks that there is something wrong—for example, the difficulty in relation to damages where, under his Government’s scheme, claimants will have to pay up to 25 per cent of the damages they get—what is he going to do to change that? He is in government now.
Lord McNally
We are doing what they did not do. We are bringing forward a Defamation Bill that will address many of these problems. The noble Lord says that he does not know what is in the Defamation Bill. A Defamation Bill was brought into this House by my noble friend Lord Lester two years ago, when this Government first came in. In reply to that, I said from this Dispatch Box that we would take up this Bill. We went into a consultation, which has been published. We produced a draft Bill, which the noble Lord may have noticed. We also had pre-legislative scrutiny under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, and we have responded to that.
We have played this by the book. We have not tried to rush through legislation, as the noble Lord did in the dying days of his Government. We have carried out a sensible look at defamation. The noble Lord knows the conventions. I am very hopeful that we will find parliamentary time in the very near future.
As I have already said, the legislation in this Bill does not come into effect until 2013. The Defamation Bill and the procedural reforms that we intend to take forward with it are of course about reducing the complexity and therefore the expense involved. In order for those aims to be achieved, we will look at the rules on costs protection for defamation and privacy proceedings for when the defamation reforms come into effect. I can give the House the assurance that we will do so. Bearing that in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw these amendments. We are on course for a reform of our defamation laws.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My noble friend the Minister accused me of asking questions to which I knew the answer, but this question I do not know the answer to. Is the Minister saying that there will be adequate powers, either under existing law or the future legislation, to create any cost changes that are needed to secure a level playing field and equality of arms? If that is what he is saying, I am completely satisfied.
Lord McNally
That is precisely what I am saying. I have not brought this Bill this far to score such an enormous own goal. Noble Lords, particularly those who have been in government, know full well how these processes are carried forward. Nothing will happen that will not be fully and thoroughly debated in both Houses of Parliament. I know that various groups have been briefing and arguing for action now. I do not think that these amendments carry us forward in any way.
I give noble Lords as full an assurance as I can. Bills have to go through Cabinets and Cabinet committees, et cetera, but they also have to go through two Houses of Parliament, where this issue is extremely live. I cannot imagine that the kind of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, has raised tonight will not be dealt with fully in that Defamation Bill. With that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Prescott
I certainly do not withdraw the amendment and I hope that the House will vote on it.
Lord McNally
“( ) the legal services relate to any other claim or potential claim for damages arising out of circumstances involving personal injury or death,”
Lord McNally
My Lords, I committed on Report to bring back at Third Reading amendments to address issues raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral in respect of Clause 57. Amendment 29 addresses situations where the referral fee for an ancillary claim, such as for damage to a motor vehicle involved in a road traffic accident, in addition to a personal injury claim, may be inflated to include a payment for a referral fee for the personal injury claim. Amendment 30 makes it clear in the Bill that the payment of referral fees to a third party, whether or not they are regulated, will not avoid the prohibition on the payment of referral fees. This gives both practitioners and regulators a clear marker and removes doubt as to the effect of the clause. We do not wish to place additional burdens on regulators and these amendments will remove the potential for confusion on what is and what is not covered by the ban.
I wish to put on record my thanks to my noble friend for tabling his amendments, which have enabled the Government to strengthen and clarify the ban on referral fees in personal injury cases. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
My Lords, I thank the Minister and declare my interest as a partner in the international commercial law firm, DAC Beachcroft LLP, and my other interests in the register.
I warmly applaud the coalition Government’s intention to ban referral fees in personal injury cases. The amendments establish greater clarity around the operation of the ban on referral fees to ensure that there must be no side-stepping of the intention to ban them. I thank him warmly for bringing forward these amendments at Third Reading.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, it is with some relief that I return to the question of referral fees for positively the last time in the course of the Bill. The Opposition have no objection to these amendments in the circumstances and we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on having suggested them to the Government.
I do not know whether the noble Lord read the Daily Telegraph last Monday— which I think informed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, with its suggestions about the Labour Party’s alleged scheme for referral fees, about which I spoke at our previous meeting—but there is a certain irony in the amendment. He may not know—I did not know until after the event—that no less a body than the Daily Telegraph runs a referral scheme, including for personal injuries. It is interesting that that newspaper should have run a story criticising the Labour Party for something that does not exist when it has precisely the same scheme. Apparently it has a scheme with a firm called Irwin Mitchell, of which the noble Lord will have no doubt heard, which levies referral fees. Oddly enough, the Daily Telegraph did not disclose that in the piece that it ran.
However, the Opposition are quite content with the amendment.
Lord McNally
Lord Woolf
“Restorative justice
(1) In section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (purposes of sentencing), in subsection (1)(e), at end insert—
“including, where the person affected agrees to this, reparation by means of restorative justice”.”
Lord Woolf
My Lords, the amendment is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Beecham, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I am afraid the hour is such that I am not sure that those who put their name to the amendment, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, are in their places. It is a modest amendment, which has benefited considerably from the discussions that have taken place on the subject of restorative justice through the earlier stages of this Bill. Indeed, this is my third attempt to find an amendment to which the Government could not possibly object. I have had discussions with the Government and all I can say about this amendment is that I have not yet heard—although I look forward to the Minister’s speech—any reason why they can possibly take any exception whatever to the amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, earlier in the day in this debate, many tributes were paid to Lord Newton of Braintree. I wish to be associated with all of them. Early on in the passage of this Bill, when we had the initial skirmish about access to justice, he noticed that I had tabled an amendment questioning the fact that this Bill referred to punishment rather than rehabilitation of offenders. We had a discussion about the core values of the criminal justice system. Reflecting on that, I looked at the core values that the Ministry of Defence reckons are the values of this country: liberty, fairness, transparency and the rule of law. Lord Newton and I had a very interesting discussion about that because, although that may be a direction to the military, it applies to the whole direction of the criminal justice system in this country.
I support this amendment so strongly, and hope that the Government will take the wise words of my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf seriously, because both this Government and the previous one have set great store by the need to look after victims. Restorative justice helps suitable offenders to address the harm that they have caused to their victims, so it is at the heart of what both the main political parties have been saying on this issue. My noble and learned friend mentioned the fact that 85 per cent of the victims were satisfied with the process. However, there is also another factor, which is that 78 per cent of those victims said that they would recommend the process to others. In other words, this process enjoys their support.
If one has a vastly expensive and overcrowded prison system, it only makes common sense, quite apart from economic sense, to do everything possible to reduce the numbers in it so that what is done there can be made more effective for those who need the treatment that it can provide. Restorative justice has shown that it can result in a 27 per cent decrease in reoffending rates. Therefore, it must be a cost-effective contributor to the process.
I find it extraordinary that here we are at Third Reading with those of us who support the rehabilitation revolution feeling that we have had, during this process, almost to fight the Government to get rehabilitation included as part of the purpose of the Bill. We have had to fight inclusion of the word punishment which the Government added and which would increase the expense. We are trying to reduce expense by proposing all the things that have been proven to be able to do so. Nothing that I have seen in recent years has given me more encouragement than the possibilities of restorative justice. I hope that the Government will consider very seriously the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I have not spoken on the whole of this Bill and I only do so now because I have seen the good effects of restorative justice in Belfast, in London and at home in Somerset. It is right that it should be one of the things that are taken into consideration in sentencing, and I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I very much support my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf’s amendment because his amendment seems absolutely right. I have twice attended such meetings, with quite a long distance in between, where both the victim and the offender were present and able to exchange their views. Both meetings were extremely impressive in the effect which the victim and offender had on one another and in terms of the satisfaction they felt. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, the very fact that this process has produced something like a 27 per cent drop in reoffending rates speaks for itself. I make that point because I entirely agree that there can be no real, logical reason for not accepting the amendment—linked, as it is, superbly in this way. A great deal of research by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf has gone into it. I therefore hope that, on this occasion, the Minister can accept the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I support the amendment. Restorative justice is an important tool to have in your kitbag when trying to prevent or mend the effects of crime. It is not a soft option; rather, it is an economic option with extremely good, tried-and-tested results.
In Somerset, where I come from, we had a scheme that ran for five years, from 2005 to 2010. The plan was that the scheme would expand and spread to other communities but, sadly, its funding was cut by around 90 per cent due to central and local authority cuts. In the five years that it operated and the 940 cases that it dealt with, the reoffending rate was less than 5 per cent compared with our more normal courts and probation service reoffending rate of 65 per cent to 70 per cent. Among the 940 cases there were 90 cases of first-time offenders who were thus diverted from the criminal justice system, the likely establishment of a criminal record and the inevitable ongoing costs and negative social impact of that. In terms of pure economics, 30 per cent of the cases referred would have gone to court and thus cost the Somerset taxpayer some £612 per case, compared with £139 per case for the restorative panel.
As everyone knows, restorative justice saves police time, has immeasurable social benefits and brings a new perception of crime and safety into the community, which is important, as well as the re-education of potential criminals. The object of restorative justice is to repair harm and thereby strengthen the community. The process treats the harm, not the individual who caused it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, it allows the victim a voice and a part in the decision-making about the best way for the harm that they have suffered to be put right. It is not adversarial but rehabilitative.
Frequently the offender has never had the education, whether from life or from a parent, necessary to understand the effect of their actions. Invariably, when they hear, either from the victim or from the victim’s friends and family, about the detailed and personal effects on the victim of what they did, they feel intense remorse, which is very uncomfortable. The context of the discussion enables them also to realise that they themselves actually count, the people around them care and what they do matters and has an effect. They are given a choice that can change their lives and that of their community for the better. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I can be brief, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has said, setting out the facts about what works well in the county next to the one where I live. It is very impressive.
It is right to say that restorative justice is not for everyone. There is a sort of case where it would be quite wrong: someone who has been a victim of serious domestic violence, for instance, would seldom find it possible to meet the offender, who is often another member of the family. In suitable cases, though, and there is no shortage of suitable cases, it is good for the victim—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has said, it gives them a voice—but it is extremely salutary for the offender, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has said.
I have had instances where offenders—young offenders in particular; those just grown up—have ended up in floods of tears because they had not appreciated the impact of the way in which they had behaved, particularly in something like burglary or theft when they took from someone elderly some not very valuable things that had enormous personal value for that victim. Being told, with the victim in tears, that a great-aunt’s cup that had been preserved through the family had been stolen and thrown on the ground can lead to the offender being in tears too, and this shows that there is a real value.
The figures from Somerset showing the high degree of non-reoffending, which is a great deal more than the noble and learned Lord said was the average of 27 per cent or 28 per cent, shows that restorative justice is a real tool. I find it utterly astonishing that this Government, who have been listening throughout so much of the Bill, have failed to listen on this issue.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I have been involved in restorative justice through a charity called Why Me? for some years. I became involved because it offered a victim-oriented strategy, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Restorative justice offers an opportunity for the person who has been offended against to address the trauma that they have suffered, to see how and why it came about and, in that way, to achieve some sort of closure. On the other side, it has had significant effects on reoffending. As the noble and learned Baroness has pointed out, offenders will say, “There was just a name on a charge sheet but when I see that it belongs to a person with a home and a family, which I have broken into or broken up, I begin to see some of the dreadful things that my actions have done”. Therefore, I am anxious that the Government should accept this amendment.
There are only two reasons why they might not accept it that I can see. First, there might be a need to restrain public spending. I accept that there is a need for this sort of activity to be carried out by well trained people to be effective. However, there will be a net benefit. If we can continue to achieve the reduction in reoffending rates that has been achieved in the past, there will be a reduction in costs as we avoid some of the costs of reoffending. Secondly, the Government have said that this amendment is overly prescriptive but I have some difficulty in understanding why. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out in his opening remarks, this just adds to the menu of options available. Therefore, it is not prescriptive in my reading of how the amendment has been drafted.
In conclusion, my concern is that if we are not careful, the idea of RJ will fall victim to what I call the Daily Mail effect. Restorative justice is not an easy thing to defend. It can appear a bit touchy-feely. One or two cases that led to difficult headlines in the newspapers could lead to the Ministry of Justice saying, “This is a bit difficult. We had better back off from this one”. Therefore, my reason for strongly supporting the noble and learned Lord’s amendment is that if we get it into the Bill, we will then have something that can be used in the future and cannot be brushed away by some unfortunate event that might lead to public opinion turning against it and putting temporary political pressure on the Government of the day.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, from the opposition Front Bench I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. I do so not just because he was a distinguished judge and a most eminent Lord Chief Justice, whose words should be weighed very carefully by all sides of this House; not even because he is a fellow Novocastrian and a fellow honorary freeman of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; but because what he proposes makes such eminent sense, as several of your Lordships have pointed out. The record of restorative justice is one of success. It is not universally successful but, as we have heard, it has made a significant impact on reoffending rates, is cost-effective and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, is an alternative to other forms of punishment that are generally more expensive and often less efficacious.
I cannot think of any reason why the Government should resist an amendment phrased in the way that this is. There is an analogous process called “justice reinvestment”, which is a rather more collective way of making reparation, whereby offenders put something back into the community through a community payback scheme or something of that kind. Justice reinvestment is not part of this amendment, although it is a valuable process. If the Government reject the amendment, we will not see justice reinvestment but, in effect, justice disinvestment. That would be a mistake, from which only the victims of crime—and the taxpayer, for that matter—would suffer.
I hope that the Minister, when she replies, will see the enormous persuasive logic of the case made by the noble and learned Lord, supported as it has been on all sides of the House. I hope that the Government will recognise that to incorporate an amendment of the kind that the noble and learned Lord has moved will strengthen, not weaken, the Bill. I hope that they are prepared on this occasion, as they have been on other occasions, to listen to the sense of the House and accept the amendment.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Amendment 31, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, returns to restorative justice. I thank him for bringing this important issue before the House and for his tenacious support for its principle.
The amendment is very timely as this morning we published our consultation on community sentences, Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences, which includes a chapter on reparation and restoration. I am very pleased that the noble and learned Lord has welcomed this publication. The consultation offers us an important opportunity to seek the views of practitioners, sentencers, magistrates, probation officials, victims and victims’ groups about the use of restorative justice as part of our response to tackling more serious offending through the use of community sentences. It asks questions about the use of pre-sentence and post-sentence restorative justice, what more we can do to strengthen and support the role of victims in RJ and, crucially, what might be the right approaches to building capacity and capability and boosting a cultural change for RJ. We want to gather all views on how to do this, and through what means, so that we can develop the most effective approach. Noble Lords have emphasised their experiences of how restorative justice works and have cited research to back up those experiences.
We are anxious to ensure that innovative and effective restorative practices continue to be developed and are driven by local areas and tailored to local need. We certainly want to support initiatives by building capacity in the criminal justice system so that we can deliver the restorative process that this amendment champions. I believe, therefore, that we need to undertake the important consultation exercise that we have initiated today before we can give consideration to whether further specific legislation is necessary for restorative justice, taking into account all the options for how we intend to widen its application.
Noble Lords have made a very powerful case for the use of RJ. My honourable friend in the other place Crispin Blunt, my noble friend Lord McNally and I very much welcomed the meeting that took place earlier today, to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. I hope that it reassured him that we are making progress in this area to increase the use of restorative justice across the criminal justice system. We hope that he will contribute his enormous wisdom and experience to the consultation that we launched today. I assure noble Lords that everything that they have said will be fed into that consultation process and what emerges from it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness but she has got to a point where I need to ask a question. Here is a vehicle of primary legislation into which something about restorative justice can be placed. If she and the Government wait for the results of the consultation, where on earth will they find the vehicle of primary legislation into which to slot restorative justice?
Baroness Northover
I think that I am being invited to comment on what might be in the Queen’s Speech, as was my noble friend. That is way above my pay grade.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I merely wanted to say that here is a piece of legislation into which this measure can be placed. However, if it is not included in this legislation, there is a danger that it will not go in anywhere. In the absence of primary legislation, there is a danger that the Government will have difficulty in implementing the measure. That is the point I am making; I was not trying to get an idea of what is in the Queen’s Speech.
Baroness Northover
I understand what the noble and learned Baroness is saying. As we discussed in Committee and on Report, the use of restorative justice can already be taken forward under current legislation. The question is whether further legislation is required. The noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords have made the case that restorative justice is useful, as has the noble and learned Baroness. However, as I say, RJ can already be taken forward and is being developed. We hope—
Lord Woolf
Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for also interrupting her, but I should like her assistance. Am I right in assuming that she intends restorative justice still to be supported by the courts? Does she agree that there is no express reference to restorative justice in legislation setting out the power of the courts to make use of it? Although there are references to similar matters, they do not clearly permit restorative justice.
Baroness Northover
I hear what the noble and learned Lord says, and he makes his case very cogently, as he and others have done at other stages. However, he, too, will recognise that the courts can use restorative justice and are doing so. That is happening. However, the Government take seriously the need to develop this area further, and noble Lords have made that case very clearly. The consultation has been brought forward. We expect that what has been said here will be fed into that consultation, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feed his own experience and expertise into that process. The important thing here is to make sure that the practice is taken forward and provision is expanded. That commitment I can certainly give him. Given the consultation and the process that is being carried forward, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment but continue with his commitment, which we very much support.
Lord Woolf
I thank the Minister for the way in which she presented her case. She has said everything possible to support deferring the inclusion of the reference to restorative justice, which I think is important because it makes it clear to judges up and down the land that restorative justice is part of the purposes of sentencing. That message can then be incorporated into the process.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his helpful remarks. He was obviously concerned about resources. In the present situation, everyone is concerned about resources. The amendment does not require the Government to put one penny into restorative justice. It does not deal with that subject, so he need not have that concern.
I know that there is every probability that, if we do not do it now, one day this will be done, but this is an excellent opportunity to do it. There is no reason why we should not. With respect to the comments of the noble Baroness, I did not identify any reason why we should not, other than the fact that consultation is to take place, but consultation can go on irrespective of whether or not we do this. We all support the consultation process. In those circumstances, albeit that the hour is late and that we have had a long day on the Bill, I propose to divide the House.
“Guidance for Probation Trusts
The Lord Chancellor shall publish guidance for Probation Trusts concerning how Probation Trusts publicise to magistrates arrangements for magistrates to claim reimbursement for contact with Probation Trusts including reimbursement for the costs of visits undertaken in connection with community programmes.”
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, following our debate on Report, I return to an amendment which concerns a new clause that I propose to insert into the Bill. I feel that there is something very familiar about this exercise, as my hero, my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, has just argued a very simple amendment with huge implications, which is what I feel I have been trying to do during debate on this matter.
I have been careful to follow the rules governing amendments at this stage of the Bill, and I am grateful for the Public Bill Office’s advice and help in drafting this amendment. It has meant focusing on one particular aspect which I did not fully explore earlier—namely, expenses—and seeking clarification on some of the Minister’s remarks.
In this redrafted amendment, I am requesting that the Lord Chancellor should publish guidance for probation trusts on how magistrates can claim reimbursement for the costs of visits to community projects and programmes. I wonder whether this could be done through Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, as has, I understand, been under consideration lately. If there is to be no statutory liaison for the time being between the magistracy and the probation service, which is what I was seeking, it is still essential that the costs of visits should be reimbursed so that magistrates can see and believe for themselves what local community projects and programmes consist of. There is, quite simply, no better way, even if only one or two visits are made each year. Given that the role and work of magistrates in the courtroom is entirely voluntary, they really should be supported in informing themselves, through local visits, of what their sentencing options are. I cannot emphasise how important engaging with the participants is in understanding what is being delivered. We all want and need magistrates to make informed decisions if the goal of reducing reoffending is to be realised, so this sort of engagement is really important.
I should like to seek clarification from the Minister on some of the sympathetic remarks that she made on Report. She mentioned, without specifying them, meetings between probation trust boards and magistrates and pointed out that “they”—the magistrates—
“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”.
This comment caused an immediate debate the following day between magistrates and probation about the meetings she was referring to. They concluded that they are the meetings of probation trust boards which magistrates can attend and for which they can claim expenses. Guidance has been carefully laid down by the senior presiding judge Lord Justice Goldring on this: magistrates can attend but solely as advisers or observers—nothing to do with visiting projects or even talking about them.
The exception is when magistrates sit exclusively in the Family Proceedings Court and may become formal members, but only in a private capacity, not representing the judiciary. Furthermore, he advised that there should not be more than two members on a trust, which means a total of 70 magistrates throughout the land from the 35 trusts, which is hardly a significant number out of 29,000 magistrates. This is the only formal contract that results in any payment of expenses that they could think of. It is also quite a different process from any arrangements that magistrates might be able to make to visit programmes, which are custodial alternatives and my chief concern. If I have misunderstood, I should be grateful if my noble friend would clarify the point.
I would also mention that the National Sentencer and Probation Forum—another body—is a management forum consisting of three senior magistrates, two chiefs of probation, two judges and some civil servants. I believe that it discusses issues of performance, commissioning, et cetera, and meets quarterly. Until I had read the briefing for this debate, I did not know of this body’s existence. As a somewhat remote management group, does the Minister think that this is the appropriate body to carry forward magistrates’ engagement with their local provision of programmes, or deal with expenses?
When the Minister said that,
“it is important that magistrates see for themselves the work of probation trusts”,
it seemed that my argument had been heard in part. For that, I am truly grateful. However, she went further and said:
“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”.
Will she also clarify that comment? I presume she meant that it is brought to the attention of magistrates, as it is the trusts which provide the programmes that magistrates may find suitable for disposal once they have seen them. Could she also say exactly what she means by “best practice”, which is at the heart of the matter if we are to improve understanding and prevent reoffending, which is seriously important? She said:
“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”.
Will she clarify what sort of meetings they might be? That has the potential to be helpful. When she noted that,
“the amendment does not ensure that magistrates attend these meetings … it instead places a duty on probation trusts to provide information”.—[Official Report, 20/3/12; cols. 789-90.]
I am not clear about the nature of the meetings she has in mind. However, I am, of course, aware that probation trusts can only provide information and the option to visit, for magistrates to get information that way. They could not be expected to require magistrates to attend any meeting.
This discussion made me wonder inter alia what would happen if the existing training arrangements for Crown Court judges, called continuation courses, and which of course are compulsory, were voluntary and left to individual choice. What would happen then? Perhaps something similar in terms of dropping attendance? However, it is unimaginable that these courses should not be required for judges, and I believe that they should be for magistrates.
Given the positive assurances that my noble friend gave in her earlier responses, will she now confirm the timescales for what she suggested the Government have in mind? We all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions—and I am quite sure that the Government have no intention of going down that road. It is important that we should all be given a clear indication of what to expect from the practical suggestions that she made.
I was grateful for the receptiveness of her responses on Report, and I hope that we will hear more, bearing in mind that not a single substantial argument against my case was raised in the House or outside it, except by the Government, who appeared to feel that my amendment was not necessary because of the obstacles that they discerned. The rest of us beg to differ—and I beg to move.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I support the intent of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. I will admit to some subversion. When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, the Magistrates’ Association one day brought me a large blue book containing the guidance issued by the Prison Service for visits paid to prisons by magistrates. The association asked me whether I would support it. I read it and advised the association to put it in the bin immediately, because it advised that when magistrates went to prisons, they should accept the programmes laid on by the governor that would show them all the things in the prison that they did not need to use or see.
I advised the magistrates instead that when they went to prisons, they should say: “I want you to do three things. First, show me what would happen if I was a prisoner arriving for the first time, so that I can see the reception arrangements. Secondly, I want to discuss the arrangements that might be made for sentence planning and conduct during the time I am in prison. Thirdly, I want to see what arrangements will be made as I come up to release from prison”. Within a month, I had the Magistrates’ Association back saying, “Thank you so much. That has given us a purpose when we go on a visit”. Then, when I went into prisons, I had a response from the staff who said how refreshing it was to have magistrates coming in who were interested in what they were doing with and for prisoners.
What I like about the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, is that this process should be followed by magistrates showing an interest in what probation is trying to do in the community with and for prisoners. If there is that interactive relationship between the organisations involved, you will get a much more cost-effective and proactive organisation. Everyone will feel that they are working together rather than feeling that they are being shown something for the sake of being shown it because that is an exercise that they go through. Therefore, I entirely support the spirit of the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a persuasive case to encourage the Government to invest not money but a modest degree of guidance to assist the process of magistrates effectively learning more about sentencing options, about what happens when they institute different forms of punishment and about what happens, in particular, in relation to community sentencing. This is not a huge burden. When one thinks of some of the legislation that has passed through your Lordships’ House in recent months —a Localism Act that with its impact analysis weighed in at something over 8 pounds, as I recall, and contained 225 clauses, a health Bill that had 1,000 amendments en route to your Lordships’ House and all the rest of it—one cannot imagine that it would take very much effort on the part of those responsible to produce fairly simple guidelines on a very narrow topic, which is the subject of this amendment, that could facilitate greater awareness of what is available to magistrates in terms of sentencing options. It seems to me an overwhelmingly simple matter and one that the Government could graciously concede without any damage to the Bill. On the contrary, it would enhance the intentions of the Bill and the intentions of government policy, to which we have referred and which, no doubt, we will shortly hear again from the Minister. Along with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I would be at a loss to understand what could possibly persuade the Government that this is not a simple and desirable course to follow. I hope that the Minister will not feel that she is constrained to remain rigid on the position that has hitherto been adopted, which produces nothing to assist magistrates or, indeed, anybody else.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this amendment returns to the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Linklater throughout the passage of the Bill. As I said on Report, my noble friend Lady Linklater has considerable experience of bringing together magistrates and those working in probation and of building trust in alternatives to custodial sentences. That is the key area here. That is exceedingly important. We agree with my noble friend about the merits of what she is trying to achieve. However, we do not feel that there is need for legislation to reach that goal. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talks about guidance.
As I said on Report, we will look to promote best practice on liaison and information sharing and to make clear that there are already arrangements available for magistrates to claim expenses from probation trusts to encourage such close liaison. We have already begun that process. The national sentencer probation forum has agreed to look at this issue. That forum brings sentencers, including magistrates, together with probation trusts and Ministry of Justice officials to discuss national issues of common interests, including liaison arrangements. We want to gather from sentencers and probation trusts any issues of which they are aware in relation to local liaison arrangements, along with examples of good practice in information sharing. I am pleased to say that the forum has agreed to consider these issues at a forthcoming meeting. I hope that my noble friend is reassured by that. It may be that as a result of that examination of the issues, it emerges that there is indeed a need for guidance in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, indicated, or some other clarification of existing procedures. However, I stress again that there is no need for new primary legislation to enable that to happen.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I thank those who have contributed to this short debate. I am grateful to the Minister for replying in the way that she has, which I acknowledge was an attempt to be helpful.
As I pointed out earlier, the reality is that there are 35 probation trusts. Lord Justice Goldring says that no more than two magistrates should attend, and then only as observers and advisers. The forum that she referred to meets quarterly to discuss major management issues, with three senior members of the magistracy, two judges and two senior probation officers present.
I have been addressing the issue that involves 27,000 magistrates visiting the important projects in the areas in which they work so that they can make more informed disposals and understand what is going on. This is also in the interests of good sentencing, good decisions and safer communities. We have not touched on this, but the magistrates do a great deal of work to help keep the standard of these projects very high so that the best possible practice can be realised. I was hoping to hear a bit more about that.
I was terribly interested in the “blue book” story from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. It is another example of what this is about; namely, that seeing is believing and engaging with people, rather than talking about an issue once a quarter or having the occasional visit from probation officers with some information. You cannot get the same insight. I do not think that anything can supplant the actual experience.
As my noble friend mentioned, we have two reviews coming up—one on the magistracy and another on probation. Perhaps the underpinning of the work we have done on this subject during the passage of this Bill will inform a much more focused debate than we have been able to have with my one small amendment. Given the lateness of the hour and in the hope that that is where we will get some positive results, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“(9) In Schedule 9 to that Act (transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland)—
(a) in paragraph 1(5), after “require” insert “an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement or”, and(b) in paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The court may not by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) require an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement to be complied with in Northern Ireland.” (10) In Schedule 13 to that Act (transfer of suspended sentence orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland—
(a) in paragraph 1(5), after “require” insert “an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement or”, and(b) in paragraph 6, after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The court may not by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) require an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement to be complied with in Northern Ireland.”(11) In the Armed Forces Act 2006—
(a) in section 180 (transfer of service community order to Scotland or Northern Ireland), in subsection (2), after “3(1)” insert “and (4A)”, and(b) in section 204 (transfer of suspended sentence order to Scotland or Northern Ireland), in subsection (2), for “6(5)” substitute “6(4A) and (5)”.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, Amendments 33, 34, 35, 42 and 43 are minor and technical consequential amendments, which provide clarification of the provision of the alcohol, abstinence and monitoring requirement introduced by an amendment on Report. Our intention is that new requirements should be available to the courts in England and Wales but not to the courts in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The amendment therefore ensures that the new requirement will not be capable of being imposed by a court in England and Wales on a person who is resident in Scotland or Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I welcome these amendments. I am grateful to the Government for addressing an area that I overlooked in the amendments that I had drafted. I also should like to place on record my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who, with me, met the domestic violence groups, as we had promised in the previous proceedings. We had a very useful and fruitful meeting with open discussion. At the end, everyone agreed that it was very clear that there was never any intention that the pilots should involve domestic violence, particularly not at the beginning, because the issues around domestic violence are so complex. The organisations involved in domestic violence very much want to be consulted at every stage of further development and the programmes in place to help people cope in situations of domestic violence are very important in trying to provide a safer and more stable society.
Lord McNally
(a) ”
(b) may not enable a court to provide for an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement to be complied with in Scotland or Northern Ireland.”
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, during the passage of this Bill we have learnt that there is no need for this clause because squatting in people’s homes is already criminal. We have learnt that there was a big need for guidance and we would not be where we are today unless there had been an abject failure of successive Governments to issue any guidance on the use of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. If enforcement of those more reasonable measures in that Act had been properly understood, duplicating the legislation in this much harsher way would not have seemed necessary; nor is there a demand for it.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for our two meetings. She also wrote to me after the Report stage to say that the Government consultation was evidence of demand, so I looked again at the results of the consultation. In fact, out of the 2,217 people who responded, 96 per cent did not want to see any action taken to criminalise squatting, and even more surprisingly, only 10 people, 0.5 per cent of all the respondents, wrote in to say that they had been the victims of squatting. I do not feel that either need or demand has been demonstrated.
We have also learnt that this is going to cost a good deal. In a Bill that is all about cost cutting, even the Government’s own impact assessment suggests that the cost of this measure will be between £5 million and £10 million, which is a pretty wide estimate. However, those figures are probably optimistic. If the clause is enforced, it will cost the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office many tens of millions in enforcement, court time, rehabilitation, curfew monitoring and so on, and that is before we get to the costs of rehousing.
I am still against this clause in every way but, on the basis that the Government are determined to push it through, I must look at mitigating in any way I can the injustices being perpetrated against the homeless, and that is the purpose of the amendments I have tabled. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will go into greater detail on the definition of “residential”, which we feel is still inadequate. I will address my comments to the commencement of the clause. What will happen to those individuals who will be affected when the law is changed? I need to know about the practicalities of how individual homeless people who are currently squatting will get to know about the change in the law, or will they simply be criminalised overnight? Could there be a system of warning them and offering help to find alternatives? Are local authorities actually prepared to do that?
With nothing set out in the Bill, how will the Government ensure that appropriate help is offered? Evidence given to us by the charity Crisis, which has researched this issue, shows that when squatters who want to leave a squat present themselves to their local authority for help with housing, they are given a home-finder pack that at best contains a list of landlords, but since they have no money, the pack is of little help. They may be given a list of hostels, but some 2,000 hostel beds have been lost in the past year, so the hostels are likely to be full. Can my noble friend tell me what should happen then? There is nothing in the Bill to suggest even consultation with local authorities, let alone powers to make them act. Can squatters be deemed to be intentionally homeless, because then local authorities have no obligation at all to house them? They would automatically be denied help. Will the Government invite representatives of Crisis, a charity which does so much for the homeless, to work with officials on potential transitional measures? They might be able to offer some practical suggestions for measures that could be put in place to support homeless people who are squatting.
Finally, I should like to ask my noble friend about empty dwelling management orders. The number of empty homes is staggering, at over 720,000 across the UK. In London alone, there are some 74,500 empty homes. Some of them are owned by local authorities and housing associations, which is a bit of an irony since those bodies are meant to be in the business of housing people. However, by far the greatest number of empty homes are in private hands. If the Government think it is criminal to squat, they should also think it is criminal to leave properties empty, denying them to society year after year. What are the Government doing to ensure that the scandal of all those empty homes comes to an end?
I challenge the fact that this clause is still needed, but it is before us. These modest amendments try to make the position clearer and a little more just. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I preface my remarks with the comment, “Better late than never”. I add my tributes to those made earlier to Lord Newton of Braintree. Back in the 1980s when I worked with the Child Poverty Action Group, I knew him to be a fair and open-minded Minister. On the day of my introduction to this House, he welcomed me from the Benches opposite in a very warm and generous way. Like so many other Members of your Lordships’ House, I thought of him as my noble friend. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, once again, for her perseverance in ensuring that we debate this important issue at not exactly a reasonable hour but at least a slightly less unreasonable hour than the last time. I am pleased to add my name in support of the amendment. As I made clear on Report, Clause 145 is wrong in principle. It is unfair because it treats what is a homelessness and welfare issue as a criminal justice issue, and it is unnecessary because residential home owners are already protected in law.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with what has been said by all speakers on this matter. For any new criminal offence to be created, or for any existing criminal offence to be extended, there is a heavy onus on the Government of the day to show that that is reasonably necessary. It is against that template that Clause 145 fails completely. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the matter, which may very well have been deliberately fomented by the right-wing press. It is said to people, “What would you do if you were on holiday and came back to find that there were 20 people living in your house and having every intention of living there for ever?”. Of course, you would say it would be absurd for such a situation not to be visited by a criminal sanction—but it is already visited by a criminal sanction.
The civil law has catered for this situation—whether it be developed property or not—for a long time, since the early 1970s. Those of us who belong to the noble calling of the law will realise that Order 24 and Order 113 apply and provide a procedure that is swift, effective and cheap, provided it is competently carried out. There is no problem whatever so far as the civil law is concerned.
In 1977, with the Criminal Law Act that the noble Baroness has referred to, it was realised that there were situations where owner-occupiers were in fact trespassed upon in their own homes, normally when they were away for a day or two or where people were expecting to move into property but found that they could no longer occupy it. Section 7 of that Act said very clearly that it did not apply to non-residential property. A clear distinction was drawn and deliberately considered in detail by Parliament. That seems to have been a boundary of common sense, fairness and justice.
Why is that boundary being transgressed now? What is the case in favour of changing that boundary? It is my submission that there is no case whatever for doing it. The civil law amply provides for civil sanctions. If those are not obeyed, then of course the courts can always act on the basis of contempt of court. The punishments are severe, as we know. The criminal law deals with those cases when it is right, proper and inevitable that there should be a strict criminal sanction. It does not apply to non-residential property because it was never thought necessary that it should do so. The Government of course have issued a consultation paper on this matter, to which a substantial number of people responded—96 per cent of whom said there is no need to change the law at all. This is not a case of softness towards people who defy the law but a case of looking in a mature, fair, just and proper way at a problem. The conclusion of so many people in an excellent position to judge is that there is no need whatever to do anything. A letter in the press signed by 163 distinguished petitioners, jurists and academics, supported that view. The Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society and the Metropolitan Police supported that view. In relation to the consultation, the Metropolitan Police said:
“The Metropolitan Police, responding on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, considered that the law was broadly in the right place and that the existing array of offences allowed them to tackle the worst cases of squatting (e.g. where squatters cause the rightful homeowner to be displaced) … They warned that new offences could have an impact on policing in terms of community relations, local policing objectives and cost”.
On the question of cost—and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will deal in some detail with this matter—it is abundantly clear that the Government’s own estimate of a cost of some £25 million to the public purse over a period of five years is woefully inadequate and entirely unrealistic. They have not taken into account the fact that tens of thousands of persons squatting do not apply for housing allowance. These cases, if people are ejected from their squats, will find their way into the courts. There will be massive expenses adherent to that situation. Again, there is little doubt that the figure of £25 million— I would not seek to try to set a specific figure—can probably be multiplied by 10 or 20, leading to a massive non-saving in a Bill that is dedicated to saving expense to the public purse.
I ask the House to consider one further matter. This is retrospective legislation. Clause 145(1) applies to a situation when a person, the defendant, has trespassed in the premises, knowing that he is trespassing. He may have entered 10 years before, when there was no such thing as a criminal sanction in relation to that type of trespass. That is retrospective legislation and that is what Parliament abhors and resorts to only in the most drastic of circumstances. It is the very thing that is condemned, as the House knows, by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
All in all, this is a wholly unnecessary piece of legislation. It is utterly merciless, utterly unfeeling and utterly costly, and it is likely to be a heavy and unnecessary burden on the time and energies of the police. The next best thing to rejecting it would be to accept the amendments, which I support wholeheartedly.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her persistence in dealing with this matter and provoking some very powerful speeches from your Lordships, as well as making her own.
The issue is homelessness and housing supply. Whatever is being done now by the current Government, the stark fact is that at this moment the housing needed is just not there and cannot be created in an instant. Ordinary, decent, desperate people, whose motive is not envy, or to deprive others, or to make a political statement, are simply seeking a roof. Many of them would be regarded as vulnerable, in any normal sense of the word. Like my noble friend, I am interested in and concerned about the interface between these provisions and local authorities’ housing responsibilities —in particular, whether a conviction is needed for someone who has been squatting to be unintentionally homeless. How does all that fit together, and what guidance will be given to local authorities on this?
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, it is unfortunate that the amendments tabled on this important subject by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, should have been reached so late at each successive phase of our consideration—in Committee, on Report and now at Third Reading. It is unfortunate because the House is less full than it might have been, and it is much more difficult at this stage of the evening to win a vote on an amendment opposed by the Government. If it is unfortunate for her, though, how much more unfortunate is it for homeless and vulnerable people all across the country? They will be deeply grateful to her for the passion, determination and eloquence with which she has pursued this subject, and we ought also to thank her.
We face a housing crisis in this country, and that crisis is deepening. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for the letter that she wrote to a number of us following a debate on Report on squatting. She herself has acknowledged that while the nature of the case means that it is difficult to know precisely how many people may be squatting in this country, the best estimate by academics, homelessness organisations and people who provide advice services to squatters is that there are no fewer than 10,000 people squatting and possibly as many as 50,000. Those are large numbers and those statistics, uncertain as they are, underline the gravity of the issue all the same.
What are the Government doing to respond to this problem? It so happens that today the Government have published the national planning policy framework. It is an important document with an extended two-page section in which the Government offer their thoughts on:
“Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes”—
words that may sound a little hollow to those who are homeless and those who are squatting. However, there are good intentions in the document. It is a vigorous exhortation to all concerned to act to increase the supply of housing in this country. There is a section at paragraph 51 that is very relevant to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness:
“Local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings in line with local housing and empty homes strategies and, where appropriate, acquire properties under compulsory purchase powers”.
If local authorities were to act on that exhortation, that would be helpful. I would be grateful if the Minister would say how much more the Government intend to do to translate that aspiration and exhortation into an effective and practical reality. I am concerned that even where local planning and housing authorities will wish, as I am sure they will, to increase the supply of housing available for people in desperate need and to follow the particular advice that I have just quoted, it may not be easy for them because their resources have been much reduced and we are now just entering a phase in which local authorities are having to face the first and biggest part of a reduction of some 30 per cent in available resources. If they decide that they would like to use compulsory purchase powers, it is not clear to me how they are going to be able to afford to do so.
The Government’s broader economic strategy has, unfortunately, squeezed both growth and confidence, as the Chancellor was driven to recognise last week. The upshot is that the housing market is pretty well dead in the water. People do not have the confidence to apply for mortgages and bankers do not have the confidence to offer them, so house builders cannot find a market. While the private sector of housing development is stagnant, the Government have seen it as appropriate drastically to reduce funding for social housing construction. In the face of a rising population and rising demand, particularly at the lower end of the market, we are seeing reduced supply. The consequence is that rents are rising, and in the face of rising rents the Government have also judged it right to cut housing benefit severely.
The Government have also introduced their new policy for council tax benefit—a fixed budget for each local authority to limit the total that it can spend on the benefit. Our late friend and colleague, Lord Newton of Braintree, whom we all miss so much, spoke on that very topic in our debates on the Welfare Reform Bill. He asked what the position would be if there was a fixed budget for council tax benefit in a local authority area but a factory closure meant that it had to be spread across a larger number of people. He said that it was mad—that was the word that he used—and I think it is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is absolutely right to pull us up on this and to insist that, in the face of these circumstances and against the background of these other policies, now is not the time to criminalise people who may be driven by circumstances to fairly desperate actions, and to squatting in particular. It is not the time to criminalise them if they squat in a residential premise that has been unoccupied for 12 months and for which there is no planning application. She is also right to ask the Government, at the very least, to postpone implementation of this clause until they have conducted a thorough consultation with people across the country and on the ground who understand these issues. It is of course late. However, if the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, I will enthusiastically support her.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I shall add only a few sentences to what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said about the undesirability of creating new criminal offences unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Surely that argument is doubly important when the offence carries a term of imprisonment, in this case of up to 51 weeks. We all know—I thought that there was general agreement on this—that short sentences are harmful, leading to greater recidivism on the part of those so imprisoned.
If we are to create these new offences, there have to be extremely powerful arguments in their favour, whereas here the exact opposite is true. I will not rehearse all the reasons that have already been given by noble Lords as to why these provisions are unnecessary and harmful. However, keeping houses empty for more than a year is to be discouraged. People whose homes are occupied by squatters already have effective remedies. In the consultation, not only were 96 per cent of respondents against the clause, but that included the substantial opinions of such organisations as the Law Society, ACPO, the Criminal Bar Association, Liberty, Shelter and Crisis. There is also the fact that homelessness is increasing rapidly. For all these reasons, I hope that the Government will see reason and accept my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on her persistence in pursuing this issue. Over time, she has opened our eyes to just what is involved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of homelessness and housing supply. One of the things that worries me a lot is the number of blocks of flats that are blocked up over huge areas and have been, I should have thought, for a good 12 months. They are areas of housing that could have been redeveloped much earlier if there had been any sense of urgency about getting on with that sort of building. We all know that there is a great deal of replacement of existing buildings in this country; it goes on the whole time. We know that we are in a financial crisis and that there are many people out of work who do not have the money to pay rent. I commend noble Lords to remember that just outside our own door, at the entrance to the Underground, one can find signs of people sleeping there at night. They sleep on the cold stone with their tiny bits of property literally outside the entrance to the Underground and cover themselves up with cardboard boxes as best they can. It is hardly a good advertisement for what we are doing to help those who are genuinely homeless.
I would like the noble Baroness who is responding to the amendment to concentrate on how many premises remain empty when they could be inhabited by families. That is no doubt a factor that increases rents. I will leave it at that. However, I have certainly begun to think rather more seriously about the issue than I did when the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, first raised it.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her determination to challenge what I still take to be the unintended consequences of Clause 145 regarding the further criminalisation of squatters, which is simply unnecessary. I do not want to repeat arguments that have already been made but this measure will have an impact on the care and support that the voluntary sector seeks to provide for the homeless in our cities. Like most cities, Leeds is seeing a steady rise in homelessness. The reasons for this are complex and the voluntary sector and the local authority are working hard to mitigate its effects, at least as regards providing mental health help for the homeless. However, we simply cannot provide accommodation for all street sleepers. Many homeless people are squatting in empty houses to avoid sleeping on the streets. This clause criminalises squatting, thereby affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I hope that these amendments can be accepted to provide context and support for those people as the voluntary sector and local authorities seek to provide them with help and encouragement for the rest of their lives.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I wish to intervene briefly in this debate. I have come into the Chamber for the scrap metal debate but it seems to me that we may be overlooking a major flaw in the amendment. Clause 145 states:
“A person commits an offence if”,
and then lists various conditions. However, the amendment seeks to add to the statement in the Bill that,
“The offence is not committed by a person”,
the phrase,
“if the building has been empty twelve months or more and is not subject to a current planning application”.
So what happens if a building has been empty for marginally longer than 12 months and is being improved? Perhaps it is being improved to meet building regulations, or the person improving the property might be awaiting a mortgage payment to fund improvements, which might mean that they go over the 12-month period.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I will be corrected if I am wrong but I believe that that matter is adequately dealt with by Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which covers not only persons who are in occupation but persons who anticipate occupation. I think, therefore, that the category of persons listed by the noble Lord will be covered by that provision.
Lord Campbell-Savours
That is the noble Lord’s judgment, but perhaps I may finish my contribution. Perhaps the Government intend to comment on the interpretation that he has just given. They might also take into account my further point that a planned improvement which has not taken place over a 12-month period could be the subject of an argument with neighbours, who may well be preventing the completion of the improvement to the property. All I am saying, basically, is that to introduce a current planning application as a way of stopping it could lead to unfair treatment of those carrying out improvement programmes. Let us hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Strasburger
My Lords, I should start by declaring an interest, or at least a former interest. In a previous life, I was a shareholder in and director of a company that made its money—in fact, quite a lot of money—from keeping squatters and others out of empty properties. You might conclude, when I have finished my short speech, that I am a bit of a gamekeeper turned poacher.
This clause was added late to the Bill, which might explain why it is a rather clumsy and blunt instrument. I am not sure who this new offence is aimed at. Is it aimed at squatters in vacant properties, who are not currently committing a criminal offence, or is it aimed at squatters in occupied properties that might be temporarily empty while the occupiers are on holiday, or even shopping? As we have heard, squatting such as that is already a criminal offence. I am not sure which situation this clause is intended to address. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.
This clause is a blunt instrument because its unintended consequence—and I sincerely hope that it is an unintended consequence—is to protect unscrupulous property owners who keep properties vacant for years for purely speculative reasons and, in the process, prevent homeless people having somewhere to live. The amendment deals with that by limiting the period of that protection. This clause is a cuckoo in the nest because such a provision has no place in the Bill and has no connection with any other part of it. Squatting should not be considered in isolation, as we have heard, but should be considered in the context of housing and homelessness.
Lord Bach
My Lords, the House will be delighted to hear that I intend to be brief. It owes a huge debt of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for having persistently come back with her amendments on this absurd clause, which, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said, does not fit in. “Cuckoo in the nest” is a polite way of putting it. The clause does not fit into the Bill at all and makes one wonder why on earth the Government ever included it.
If the noble Baroness were to test the opinion of the House, we, the official Opposition, would support her because she is clearly right. Everyone who has spoken on the substance of these amendments has said that the current clause is unsatisfactory, wrong and completely unnecessary. Why is it there? There is no need for it to be there in terms of criminal offence. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and others that legislation already exists that covers the point completely. The clause is there to placate the right-wing press and right-wing prejudice. That is something that the House should bear very much in mind when considering this issue.
The Law Society, the Bar Council, ACPO and the Metropolitan Police—all those groups who have had the courage to speak out, as has the noble Baroness against the clause—are not exactly groups associated with squatters. They are independent, able groups that have come to a view about a brand-new criminal offence that is planned. Unless we do something about it this evening, it will almost certainly become law comparatively shortly.
The irony of our proceedings is that if the noble Baroness were to test the opinion of the House this evening, it would very likely be her own side who made sure that she did not win.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, at Report, I explained the role of the new squatting offence in giving greater protection to owners and occupiers of residential property who encounter squatters living in their properties. Various noble Lords have asked whether that is needed. Interestingly, only yesterday I received a letter from the deputy leader of the London Borough of Redbridge. He states:
“In one recent case in Ilford, a house owned by someone who had died became a squat during the eighteen months it was taking for lawyers to resolve her estate. In a second case a homeowner was no longer able to manage their own affairs and had been taken into care. In neither case was there an ‘owner’ able … to address the problem”.
The noble Lord is quite right to say that there is protection for a level of squatting, but, as I explained at Report and put in a letter, so I will not go into it again, the provision covers a number of additional areas where it is difficult to deal with squatters.
I know that many noble Lords, especially my noble friend Lady Miller, are concerned about the impact that a new offence might have on vulnerable people who squat. I thank my noble friend for meeting me last week, and my noble friend and my noble friend Lady Hamwee for meeting my honourable friend Crispin Blunt, my noble friend Lord McNally and me earlier today. Then and at the earlier meeting, my noble friend Lady Miller expressed concern about the possibility of a rise in demand for local authority homelessness services when the new offence comes into force.
We have already given assurances on the Floor of the House that we will work closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government to liaise with local authorities and the enforcement agencies prior to commencement to ensure that they are aware of the new offence. That is extremely important. We take very seriously mitigating any problems and we share my noble friend’s concern about the welfare of vulnerable people. However, allowing squatting to continue, sometimes in dangerous and unhealthy premises, cannot be the answer. Instead, we intend to continue to work with other departments, local authorities and homelessness services to ensure that vulnerable people are given the help and support they need to find alternative forms of accommodation.
Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, emphasised, a number of those in that situation are suffering from mental or other problems. We have an obligation to them, as vulnerable members of society, to be properly housed. In squats, they have no protection. That cannot be right. The Government have already demonstrated our commitment to preventing homelessness by maintaining investment, with £400 million available over the next four years. We recognise the issues that single homeless people, in particular, face, and we are prioritising improvements in the help that they receive. The ministerial working group on homelessness has for the first time pledged that no one should spend more than one night out on our streets, supported by the new £20 million homelessness transition fund. The working group will publish its second report on preventing homelessness more broadly later in the spring.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Will the Minister answer my question? Will the transition fund be ring-fenced?
Baroness Northover
Most of the money that goes to local authorities is not ring-fenced. The emphasis is on devolving to local authorities the responsibility for the people in the area. Given the lateness of the hour, I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness more specifically on that point if I have not got it right. I do not think that the money would be ring-fenced but, if I am wrong about that, I shall correct it in a minute or write to her. Nevertheless, that money has been identified to provide funding to address homelessness.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
If this money is not ring-fenced, how can the Minister know that it will be spent on single homeless people?
Baroness Northover
There is an ongoing debate about what you ring-fence and what you leave as the responsibility of local authorities. If you give them a responsibility to house their vulnerable local residents—or non-residents—they have to fulfil that obligation. It seems that a bit of clarity of thought is needed here. It is not appropriate to place the responsibility for a squatter on the shoulders of an individual who happens to have an empty property. If that person is well off, he should be paying his taxes, those taxes should go to society and society should look after its vulnerable people. Squatting is not the answer; nor is placing such a responsibility on the shoulders of an individual in that way. That is why it is important that we address squatting but, when a problem such as this is picked up, it is also important that we address the transition issues that my noble friend rightly identified. It is important to see what the implications are and that is why we have placed the emphasis on tackling homelessness. As I said, we have announced the first ever £20 million—
Lord Strasburger
I thank the Minister for giving way. Did I hear her argue earlier that one motivation for this clause is to improve the health and safety of squatters?
Baroness Northover
Yes, I would say so. I do not think it is right that people should live unprotected. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, flags up monitors for heating systems and the dangers involved there. How can anybody be protected or have tenants’ rights if they are squatting? I think we owe it to our citizens to make sure that they are housed properly and that they do not live without that kind of protection, as is the case with squatting. Perhaps I may continue.
On preparing local authorities for commencement, we plan to do a range of things, including working with the National Homelessness Advice Service to provide training for local authorities, raising awareness through regional seminars and websites, and working with Citizens Advice to ensure that home owners and squatters are informed of the changes.
One or two noble Lords asked about the consultation. The vast majority of responses—1,990 out of 2,216—were received via the website of the campaign group Squatters’ Action for Secure Homes. That is fair enough. However, the remainder came from landlords’ associations, local government associations, law firms and so on. We also received responses from individual property owners who had first-hand experience of squatters in their buildings. I have just mentioned the letter that I received yesterday from the deputy leader of Redbridge Council which referred to a couple of cases and the impact on the areas involved.
I was asked by my noble Friend, Lady Hamwee, whether squatters who vacate their squats will be considered intentionally homeless. That is obviously a very important point. Section 191 of the Housing Act 1996 provides that a person becomes homeless intentionally if it is a consequence of something that he or she has deliberately done or failed to do. The accommodation that he or she has left must have been available for their occupation and reasonable for them to continue to occupy. Therefore, it is unlikely that a squat being occupied illegally could be considered as accommodation that is available to be occupied. I hope that my noble Friend is reassured on that point.
I was also asked about whether we could commit to working with Crisis, and we certainly will. We will involve Crisis when we are liaising with the local government department and local authorities on the implementation of the offence. It is very important that that is taken forward. I was asked about the empty dwelling management orders. In January 2011 the Government announced that we would be making changes to those orders. These proposals will limit the authorisation of interim EDMOs to those properties that have been wholly empty for at least two years. They will require local housing authorities to give property owners a minimum notice period of three months before applying to a residential property tribunal for an interim EDMO. They also require the local housing authority to provide all the information that it has on the empty property that is causing a nuisance to the community, and that the community supports the proposal for the local housing authority to take control.
I was asked by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about guidance for the police and the CPS. We will liaise with ACPO prior to commencement on the provision of appropriate guidance, including how the new offence will interact with existing offences in Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. There were various other points but I shall move on to Amendment 36 and the point about occupying buildings that have been left empty for a year or so.
As I explained, this amendment is problematic for a number of reasons. I explained this on Report and in my letter. There are many reasons why a residential building might be left empty for a year or more, and I have just referred to the letter from Redbridge. Clearly, if a property is inherited following a death or probate is taking a while to sort out, those kinds of issues may mean that a property is empty. Reference was made by my noble friends Lady Miller and Lady Hamwee to the definition of a building. I note that my noble friend has proposed a definition that would sit alongside the current definition in the Bill. We are concerned that that would introduce unnecessary confusion and complexity. We talked about this at our meeting this morning. I am happy to expand on that if required but it is five minutes to 11, so unless noble Lords want to come back to that, I urge them to accept the simplicity of what is there at the moment, which is the right way to go.
I commend my noble friend for her concern for a very vulnerable group of people. As I have just said, it is important to look at this with some clarity in terms of the social responsibility to individuals and how society should ensure that the vulnerable are cared for and housed properly, and that squatting is not the answer. I understand why my noble friend has tabled the amendments and her concerns about unintended consequences of legislation. I hope that she is reassured that we have looked very carefully at the issues that she has raised and that we have sought to address them, in terms of assisting vulnerable people. I therefore hope that she will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I am tremendously grateful to all Members of the House who spoke in this debate—which finally had the airing that it deserved, even though it was late—and to all Members of the House who stayed to hear it. It was an incredibly important debate about whether we should choose to criminalise a section of society. Many extremely good points were made and I will not rehearse them all at this hour. One theme that ran through all the speeches was that of unintended consequences.
I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is society’s responsibility to look after the vulnerable—and, I would add, the homeless. That responsibility does not include criminalising them; that is where we part company. However, I see that Amendment 36 is problematic, and I accept the criticisms around the definition of “residential”. We were trying to offer something that was slightly better than what was in the Bill.
Noble Lords concentrated on the issue of what people will do. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, the housing is not there and cannot be created in an instant. Therefore, there will be a group of people who will face very difficult decisions about whether to stay in a squat and be criminalised, to sleep rough or to present themselves to their local authority. We keep coming back to the issue of local authorities and consultation. I think that the Minister accepted that consultation with local authorities was the key. The House would feel very reassured if that were put in the Bill.
While accepting that my other amendments are faulty, I will seek in due course to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 41. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 36.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, Amendment 38 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. The Minister will recall that in the debate on Report on the exemption of itinerant collectors, exactly one week ago almost to the minute, he said:
“It might be that we will have to come back to this at Third Reading”.—[Official Report, 20/3/12; col. 878.]
This amendment gives the Government the further opportunity to think again about the exemption.
I need not repeat how pleased I am that the Government accepted the principle of cashless transactions and agreed with me that the LASPO Bill offered the means to implement it. Having got that right, however, why are they running the risk of undermining their own policy by creating this huge potential loophole?
The Minister will be aware that the exemption caused a mixture of bafflement and dismay—not just in the House, where the only noble Lord to speak in its favour on Report last Tuesday was the Minister, but throughout the scrap metal industry. Operators are almost unanimously of the view that the Government’s proposal to mandate cashless payment for the purchase of scrap metal must apply to all dealers, with no exemptions. They pointed out to me—and I suspect to many other noble Lords—that this view is strongly endorsed by sectors that are especially hard hit by metal theft: transport, the energy industry, local government, the Church of England, the War Memorials Trust and law enforcement agencies.
I shall not go over the same ground that noble Lords covered in last Tuesday’s debate but will confine myself to one or two observations. First, the exemption is unfair and discriminatory. It grants special privileges to those members of the industry who are most responsible for the problems of metal theft. The itinerant collectors do not all sell on what they have collected to reputable scrap metal dealers; some of the material is shipped abroad in containers. Others will launder the scrap metal they take to registered dealers, and there will be no way of knowing where it came from or whether it was stolen.
Ian Hetherington, the director-general of the British Metals Recycling Association, wrote in the latest issue of the trade magazine, Materials Recycling Week, that,
“the bill sends out a message that itinerant operators can operate outside the law. It provides a loophole for other unscrupulous operators and serves to undermine a legitimate industry that has spent hundreds of millions of pounds complying with environmental legislation”.
I shall ask the Minister three questions. First, is he able to give us any news tonight on the Government’s plans for replacing the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 and will we see a Bill to do that in the next Session? Secondly, how will the five-year review of the offence of buying scrap metal for cash, as contained in Clause 148, work? Thirdly, can he give an assurance that applications for itinerant trader status will be monitored and, if there is an upsurge in them in order to get around the cashless provisions, that the Government will do something about it? If we do not get satisfactory answers, the Government are in danger of losing much of the good will that their welcome policy on cashless transactions has created by granting an exemption that pleases almost nobody and perpetuates the no-questions-asked philosophy. I ask the Minister to think again. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I shall add a word or two to what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said. When the Minister addressed the House last Tuesday, he made it clear, and I certainly accepted, that the exception is very much smaller than had originally been assumed by many of those who read the clause in the Government’s original amendment. It excepts a particular class of itinerant scrap dealer; namely, those who have been the subject of an order under Section 3 of the 1964 Act. I am sure that my noble friend is entirely right that that is a much smaller number of people than many had originally assumed.
I made such inquiries as I could to find out how many of these people there are and whether there is any recent trend in people seeking to include themselves in the loophole—as it certainly is—in the injunction for cashless transactions only. A good many authorities that were questioned were quite unable to supply the answer. That does not suggest that at the moment there are very many people who are subject to this. However—and this seems to me to be important—since it has come out that there is this one exemption from the requirement that dealings should be made otherwise than for cash, the numbers are increasing.
When the section that I referred to was originally enacted, it was with a view to exempting those who would be subject to an order under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act from the requirement to keep records of from whom they acquired the scrap metal and the nature of the metal. I remember that when I was first married, the children were fascinated because there was a man who went down the street with a horse and cart and used to shout out as he went down, which was imitated by the children. They thought he was saying, “Hey, Tubby the Tuba”. Of course, it was not that, but I do not know what he was saying. With that kind of dealer, one can understand the intention that he should not have to keep records. All he was doing was collecting people’s leaking kettles and other forms of waste metal from local householders. It is not like that now at all. It has developed in the 48 years since that Act was passed into an entirely different kind of trade. For instance, when the local authority in Birmingham was questioned, it said that in the course of a year it would normally see 10 or so new itinerant traders seeking inclusion in an order under the Act. In the past few days it has had no fewer than 12. They are already running into this loophole. They want to continue to be able to deal in cash. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has said, this is knocking a very large hole in the measures that we are taking to deal with what has become a very mighty scourge of the community in all sorts of ways.
The more widely this exemption is known, the greater the number of traders who will seek to bring themselves under it. That is what frightens me about this. The exemption does not allow them to go cashless; it is the exemption from other forms of control, leaving people able to continue to deal in cash for materials that will simply never be traceable. That has been defined as the heart of the problem. To their great credit, the Government have introduced a substantial measure, albeit short of the reform that I originally described some months ago as the amendment of the “Steptoe and Son” legislation of the last millennium. That will come, we have been promised that; but in the mean time, they are leaving themselves with a hole.
In addition to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I have two questions. First, can the Minister explain why the Government are making this exemption? Of course, you could not have expected what I have called the “Hey, Tubby the Tuba” chap with his horse and cart to maintain records and pay by cheque—of course, long before there was any plastic money in the form of cards—and that may have been perfectly reasonable. All sorts of market traders now are able to take payments with the electronic equipment that is available. There is no problem with people like that being able to pay for their products and services and so on in that way. So why are we left with an exemption for people who no longer exist in the form in which they did when the Act was originally passed?
Secondly, how many of them will there be? What is the Government’s estimate of how many are going to, as it were, pour through this loophole in an effort to maintain what has been right at the heart of this burgeoning crime of the stealing of metal of all sorts? The consequences of that crime have been described over and over again, some of them extremely serious in terms of the damage to people, the inconvenience, the cost and so on. Why are we leaving this loophole and how many people are going to be subject to this exemption?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I have not found anybody who is concerned with this who has not been deeply disturbed by what is otherwise an entirely welcome piece of legislation, which we are very glad to see even at this fairly late stage in the passage of this Bill. Why is this loophole being left? It is going to be serious. It will increase and we will have to wait for months before we can get the new legislation in place that the Government have promised. I add my words of considerable dismay that we have this now. It may well be that there is something else that I have not understood about the exemption. If so, my noble friend on the Front Bench will no doubt tell us what it is. But at the moment there is not anybody concerned with the trade who for the life of them can see why.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, the Minister’s case last week was predicated almost exclusively on the basis that the group of people who were exempt was small in number. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has driven a coach and horses through that argument on the basis of the research that he has done over the past few days. It is what we have repeatedly warned the Minister will happen; namely, that the trade will increase in the hands of the itinerants as against those who trade at the moment for cash in this area.
The questions that I asked last week remain unanswered. First, why do we have to wait for a five-year review? It is enshrined in legislation, is it not? Secondly, why can we not have a review, let us say, in six months? In the event that a review were to reveal that what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has indicated tonight is true, what mechanism in legislation exists for repealing the provisions that have been driven through Parliament tonight, at nearly midnight, in what is, once again, a late night debate?
The question in my mind is simple: what could go wrong over the next few months? We know now that the itinerant trade will increase. We also know that it is distinctly probable that thieves who steal this material will sell it to itinerant traders who will find some way to break it up, to sell it abroad or to bring it into the market in a way whereby it cannot be traced. Under the new arrangements, it will be very difficult, as we move to greater itinerant control over the market, to track illegal material, which is the very reverse of the intention of the Government in introducing this legislation. It will also move more of the trade into the hands of traders who will not be making VAT returns. They almost exist in a shadow market of people who will always trade for cash and they will always find ways of trading for cash. Nor will they ever be accountable in any way to the Inland Revenue.
The noble Lord smiles in his seat as he dismisses this case, but I think that Ministers are totally out of touch with the real world out there of people who trade in cash and how they operate, and how they simply do not exist anywhere in official records. They are the people who increasingly will take over, as the noble Lord has just suggested, this trade.
We have also not considered the knock-on consequences on traders who trade currently on the margins of legitimacy and who at least could be more effectively regulated if the right regulatory framework was to be put in place at this stage when it is clearly not being put in place. Even at this late stage of this legislation, I believe that Ministers should reconsider the position.
The noble Lord is about to get up and he will tell us all that we have got it wrong; that we do not understand how the market works; that they will be able to regulate the trade; and that these people are already covered by existing legislation. Let me tell the noble Lord that we simply do not believe him. We believe that in a matter of months, or certainly within a few years, it will become quite obvious that this legislation is failing in its intent and it will no doubt be revealed in the tabloids. Stories will surface saying that despite the legislation that was introduced, the trade is still going on. The problem is that an accelerated approach has been taken to the legislating in this area without taking into account the need to accompany this legislation with other legislation, as well as reform of other legislation, as referred to by my noble friend in his earlier contribution.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, it might be useful if I intervene now because there are a number of misconceptions about what is going on. Perhaps I may say that I rather regret the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for whom I have the utmost respect, because he implies that whatever I say, I am out of touch and do not know what is going on. He seems to suggest that what I say will be untrue. That is not the case. What I would ask of your Lordships is that—dare I say it?—they should listen to me very carefully because I think I can allay the fears and answer the questions that have quite rightly been put by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin about the problems we are facing and where we are on this issue.
I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, who was the first person to suggest that we should go down the cashless route. That is what we are doing, and he was the first to spot that there was a chance to do so in this legislation. It is why we are doing that and a few more things in this Bill, but the other things will have to wait until suitable legislation comes through. There is no five-year review, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, puts it. We have said that we will come to the other bits as and when we can, at which point we will resolve those matters. Again, at this stage I would ask noble Lords to listen to me very carefully as I explain what we are going to do.
Your Lordships will be aware that we tabled amendments on Report proposing three legislative measures to tackle metal theft: greater fines for offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964; creating an offence of buying scrap metal for cash, and a revision of police entry powers to help enforce the new offence because it is important to make sure that we get the enforcement right. A similar amendment to the one we are dealing with tonight was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, but his revised amendment seeks to remove the existing exemption that allows certain itinerant collectors to be exempted from the cashless offence. I am going to deal with that in due course.
I should make it clear that anyone who trades in metal, whether they are a large multinational, the local scrap metal dealer or a door-to-door collector, which includes the itinerants, must register with their local authority under Section 1 of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. It might be that they do not register, in which case there are sanctions, but it is also why we are increasing the sanctions under an Act which I have said before is past its sell-by date. Failure to register is a criminal offence that under Clause 146 of this Bill will now be punishable by an unlimited fine. Anyone, be they an itinerant or a large multinational, who does not register can be punished with an unlimited fine. As part of its focus, the national metal theft task force, which we announced late last year, will ensure compliance with the registration requirement. I shall say a little more about enforcement later.
The police are currently able to enter and inspect any commercial premises that belong to a registered scrap metal dealer, including those used by itinerant collectors. Our amendment will ensure that they can also enter and search unregistered premises with a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that metal is being traded for cash, and being unregistered may well be relevant evidence in that regard, although obviously that is for magistrates to decide when they issue a warrant.
I do not suppose any of your Lordships who are in the Chamber did so, but when we debated the 1964 Act almost 50 years ago, Parliament chose not to overburden small businesses by including an exemption for door-to-door collectors from some bookkeeping. That is why the exemption was brought forward in that Act. As a result, in addition to the mandatory registration I have already mentioned, businesses can apply to their local authority for an order under Section 3(1) of the 1964 Act, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin referred. That order would be granted by the local authority, but only in consultation with the chief officer of police for the police force area. Let me be clear: there is no blanket exemption for anyone who simply claims to be an itinerant collector. They have to be registered under Section 1 of the 1964 Act and they then have to get the exemption under Section 3(1) of the same Act, which has to be agreed by the local authority in agreement with the police.
The amendment that we have put forward follows the structure of the existing Act and the exemption is for a defined and locally known group of collectors to operate. So, if an itinerant was operating in a large number of different areas, he would need a Section 3(1) exemption from each local authority area in which he was operating. It is not a question of having one exemption and then being able to use that throughout the country. If he does not have that, he will be in breach of the law and could suffer the consequences.
It should also be noted that itinerant collectors who have obtained a Section 3(1) order are reliant, obviously, on selling their collected metal into the scrap metal industry. I appreciate that there are allegations that a lot of this metal goes into containers and is shipped abroad. We have no evidence of that—it does not appear to be happening—but if in the future we do see signs of metal going straight into containers and being shipped abroad, it will be easier to deal with because there are a limited number of container ports in the country compared to the vast number of scrap metal yards into which the metal is going at the moment.
On enforcement as we are seeing it on a day-to-day basis, the British Transport Police, as part of Operation Tornado—which is an operation into scrap metal theft in the north-east of England at the moment but which will be expanded in due course—encounter these collectors on a daily basis. On many occasions, the police find that they are unregistered and that they do not have a waste carrier’s licence, which they need if they wish to transport waste. As a result, they have had their scrap and, if it is not insured to carry waste or has not been registered to carry waste with the environment agencies, their vehicle confiscated. So there are enforcement procedures in place.
Registered collectors who have a reduced record-keeping requirement under Section 3(1) will, as I have said, still have to trade into the scrap metal industry. When they do so, they will not receive cash—they cannot receive cash—and that is what our amendment does.
So, to make it clear, Section 3(1) reduces the record-keeping requirements for those who only collect metal, but this is in addition to them also being registered under Section 1. It is not about signing up for one or the other, as some people imply, nor is it a matter of choice for the individual itinerant collector just to announce that he is now an itinerant collector. If he wants to be an itinerant collector he must be registered under Section 1 and under Section 3(1).
If the noble Lord’s amendment was to be successful and itinerant collectors with a Section 3(1) order are included, the offence of trading in cash would be more difficult to enforce for those individuals because of the nature of the work they do in travelling from street to street in the manner described by my noble friend.
To evidence compliance with the new cashless offence, we have strengthened the record-keeping requirements under Section 2 of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act which apply to the vast majority of the industry registered under the Act. We require that records are kept of who the payments are made to and the method of payment, and that receipts are copied and retained. The few collectors with a Section 3(1) order will not be required to keep those records. I cannot give a precise figure on the number of Section 3(1) itinerant dealers—that would mean going to every local authority in the country—but, of necessity, that figure will be relatively few. As I have made clear, they will have to be agreed to by the local authority with the agreement of the local chief of police.
To reassure the House further—
Lord Henley
No, I am not giving way to the noble Lord. It is entirely a matter for me to decide whether I give way to him.
To reassure the House further on this point, the Home Office is willing to work with the Local Government Association, with local authorities and with the police through ACPO, to help them provide advice to their members about the levels of assurance required in terms of identity, residence and any relevant criminal convictions before Section 3(1) orders are issued. That will ensure that they are operated in as tight a manner as possible.
I want to make clear—as I hope I did at Report—that banning cash from the scrap-metal industry is a vital first step to tackle metal theft and remove the drivers behind it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is with me on that. However, it is part of a wider package of work to tackle metal theft, including better enforcement and seeking design solutions to make metal harder to steal and increase the possibility of it being traced.
I will say a little again about enforcement. As I have said, we have strengthened that with the dedicated metal theft task force. We have already seen very significant progress, not least in the north-east, where there is quite a large amount of metal theft. Since the launch of Operation Tornado at the start of the year in the three northern police forces—Northumbria, Cleveland and Durham—we have seen a 50 per cent decline in the amount of metal theft in that area. That is driven by the voluntary adoption by the scrap-metal industry—or at least a considerable part of it—of greater identification checks when purchasing metal. We did not get the agreement of all of them but we are getting a considerable amount; and with this legislation we will get considerably more. I am also pleased to let the House know that the Association of Chief Police Officers is rolling out Operation Tornado nationwide over the coming months. As I have said, that operation has seen a 50 per cent decline in theft.
This is not the loophole that some noble Lords believe it is. We are not proposing a blanket exemption, but are allowing a very small number of specifically registered itinerant collectors to continue to operate as they currently do. I close by letting—
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord talks about the “very small number” of itinerant collectors, which was at the heart of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. If there are so few in each local authority, why could a departmental official not have contacted each local authority and asked them whether it is two, three or half a dozen? That would not have taken huge resources at the department, particularly when it was at the very heart of the defence of the legislation being used by the Minister at the Dispatch Box, both last week and this week.
Lord Henley
The noble Lord will have seen many questions over the years coming back to him with the reply that they cannot be answered without disproportionate cost. I will look very carefully at what he has had to say but, looking at the regulations involved in those itinerants first registering under Section 1 and then getting the exemption under Section 3(1), it was not thought necessary to write to all 400 and whatever local authorities. I will have a look at whether it is possible but I do not think it is necessary. I want to—
Lord Henley
Perhaps the noble Lord could just calm down a bit. It is late at night and we are trying to answer this problem in an appropriate manner.
I want to end by reiterating that we are committed to reviewing the Scrap Metal Dealers Act as soon as parliamentary time allows. That is why I dismissed the idea that it could not be done in less than five years. When we do so, we will be looking very hard at the role and regulation of scrap-metal dealers and itinerant collectors. I want to repeat the point that all noble Lords ought to grasp. It is not true that itinerant collectors can come by their own whim—they must go through a local authority inspection process and one that requires the approval of the local police. That is the important matter.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will accept that the clarification I have given has dealt with the various questions he put to me and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
One of the questions that I asked my noble friend was why it was felt necessary to make this exemption. There is nothing new in what my noble friend said tonight that went beyond what he said last week and what my own researches have shown. Why is there still this exemption for the kind of chap whom I described in my speech of 40 years ago? The 1964 Act was passed a few months before I became a Member of the other place, which is rather a long time ago. Why is it necessary to have this exemption now? My noble friend has not fully satisfied me on that.
Lord Henley
I did deal with that—I said that the exemption goes back to that Act and there is proper regulation of those itinerant traders. It is one that we can look at in future, but we do not think that it is right to increase the burden on them, particularly as there is not the opportunity that my noble friend implied for a mad rush of traders to become itinerant traders, because there is a process by which they are regulated by local authorities and the police. I do not believe that there is the problem that he sees, but it is one that we can look at in future.
I felt that I had answered the question and made it clear that, if the amendment went through and those people were removed, it would create problems in dealing with them—as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
I am not going to apologise for bringing the subject back at Third Reading, because we have learnt a great deal this evening from the Minister in his very interesting speech.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for their quite excellent contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has taken the trouble to look at the issue in some detail and has come forward with a series of questions, some of which he has had answers to —although, with one or two of them, he may feel that the answer was a little bit opaque. My noble friend was a bit feistier than the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, but he too made some powerful points. Again, I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in reply.
One benefit of having this debate this evening is that the officials in the Home Office will be aware that there is great interest in this House about the legislation as a whole and particularly about whether the exemption is going to work. If the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is right and there is a large increase in the number of applicants for exemptions, it will be evident that the loophole has become unacceptable and will do great damage to the much wider and laudable aim that the Government have of eliminating cash from the sale of scrap metal. I hope that we at least see that the Home Office reviews this carefully, and I assure the Minister that we will come back to this on future occasions to ask questions on how it has gone.
I am a little unclear about the five-year review to which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours referred, which is in Clause 148. It might be more satisfactory if the review took place more quickly than that. However, I express my appreciation to the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he responded to the debate. I am not satisfied on all the points that he has made, but it is not my intention at this time of night to have a vote—although I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who would like to have a vote. The message from the debate to the Minister is that we want to watch how this legislation develops and, if it goes wrong, I hope that remedies will be offered to us very quickly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(1A) An order under this section bringing into force sections 46 and 48 may not be made until the Lord Chancellor has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement outlining the proposed arrangements for insolvency proceedings in the light of the changes made by Part 2”
Lord Bach
My Lords, I will be as brief as I can with this amendment. This is the third time that the issue has come before the House. The names put to the amendment on the first occasion were those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—who made a very powerful speech—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and mine. On Report it was just my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and he made a very powerful speech. Now it is down to one, and I intend simply to ask the Minister some questions.
The Minister will recall that, on Report, he stated that the Government accepted that “insolvency proceedings are untypical” and—stand apart as they are—that they are,
“one of the few areas where CFAs sometimes work to the advantage of government departments”,
and creditors generally. Despite that, and despite what I would argue are clear arguments in favour of it, the Government have decided against “a carve-out” for insolvency. The Minister announced that there has been,
“agreement across government, in respect of insolvency proceedings”,
and,
“that new ways will be implemented to deal with these cases without recoverable success fees and insurance premiums”.—[Official Report, 14/3/12; col. 358.]
The insolvency profession has apparently not been involved in any discussions with the Government about this new way of approaching insolvency proceedings and is concerned that the Ministry of Justice and HMRC may have decided that a contingency legal aid fund could be set up for insolvency cases.
My questions to the Minister are as follows. First, what are the Government planning with regard to insolvency proceedings and—to ask the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked on Report—when will this be implemented? Is it indeed a contingency legal aid fund, or is it not? Secondly, if the Government are not going to exempt insolvency proceedings, will they agree to carry out a proper impact assessment to determine the impact that this will have on the taxpayer and business community? Thirdly, have the Government consulted the insolvency profession on how this might work in practice? Fourthly, will this measure help safeguard returns not just for HMRC but for private businesses as well? Fifthly, will this measure act as a fraud deterrent, as the current system does? Sixthly, if this new way does not work, what protections will the Government put in place to safeguard returns to HMRC and businesses? Could there be an exemption, for example, further down the line? Lastly, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will consult the insolvency profession on the details of these proposals? Those are the questions that I would like answered. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, as I indicated on Report, we have reached agreement across government in respect of insolvency proceedings. In future these cases will need to proceed without recoverable success fees and insurance premiums. Alternative ways will be developed in time to deal with these important cases. We are working on a programme for implementing Part 2 of the Bill, and the details relating to insolvency proceedings will be set out in due course, before implementation. Insolvency cases will need to proceed without recoverable success fees and insurance premiums in the future. The impact of the Government’s CFA changes on those affected will depend on a number of unknown factors, including the volume of cases pursued in future, the number of cases which win, the levels of success fees and ATE insurance premiums negotiated, and the recoveries made in those cases. The Government will work with HMRC and others to further assess the impact of our changes. Policy discussions within government continue all the time, and remain confidential until the policy is agreed and announced. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bach
Of course I am going to withdraw my amendment this evening, and I understand that the Minister could not answer all the detailed questions that I put to him just a few minutes ago. I would be grateful if he would be good enough to get his officials to write to me, through him, with the replies that he was not able to give tonight.
Lord McNally
To clarify, my Lords, we will engage as well with insolvency practitioners.
“(3A) Section 145 shall not come into force until the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State has consulted representatives of local authorities and such other persons as he considers appropriate.”
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I move this amendment because of the reasons expressed from all sides of the House, and because it is my hope that the House of Commons might debate this properly as it did not have a chance to do so in Committee.
Lord McNally
“(3A) Section 78 extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, subject to subsection (10).”
Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill
(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, in December, the water White Paper, Water for Life, set out the many challenges facing the water sector: how much water we have available now and in the future; the impact on our natural environment from water and sewerage management; and the issue that this Bill is designed to address, which is keeping bills affordable.
We have seen in the south-west the long-term impact that investment in sewerage has had on customers’ bills. Ofwat’s price control regime balances the need for such investment with the impact on customers’ bills. However, we should remain alive to the arguments for different approaches when circumstances require, whether to address the exceptional consequences of past decisions, as with the south-west, or a case such as the Thames tunnel, where the sheer scale of such a project dwarfs the ongoing business of a water and sewerage company.
The Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill contains two simple spending powers, which will enable the Government to implement two policies that the Chancellor set out in the Autumn Statement, both of which are designed to reduce the costs of infrastructure investment falling on water and sewerage customers. The Bill will allow us to fund South West Water to keep its household customers’ bills down now and to provide contingent financial support for the proposed Thames tunnel in London.
Clause 1 is a general power to enable the Government to give assistance to water companies for the purpose of reducing charges payable by customers. The only purpose for which we currently plan to use the power is to reduce the bills of South West Water’s household customers by £50 a year until the end of the next spending review. We believe that the circumstances that they face are exceptional. For years they have faced the highest water bills in the country as they have paid the costs of the £2 billion invested in infrastructure post-privatisation. The benefits of this investment include improved water quality, reduced leakage, cleaner beaches and better bathing water, but the costs have been borne solely by South West Water customers and their bills have risen as a result. We believe that the Government should help to correct the historical inequity. We do not want another such inequity to arise.
London’s sewerage system is operating close to capacity —and the situation will only get worse with population growth, urbanisation and climate change. Even after construction of the Lee tunnel and improvements to sewage treatment works, around 20 million tonnes of untreated wastewater will still be discharged in a typical year from combined sewer overflows into the Thames. This is unacceptable on environmental and health grounds, and it needs addressing.
The proposed Thames tunnel offers the most timely, comprehensive and cost-effective solution for dealing with sewage discharges into the River Thames in London. Alternatives have been considered, including by the Thames Tunnel Commission, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Selborne. However, none of the alternatives identified during the extensive studies carried out over the past decade has been found to swiftly and adequately address the environmental and health objectives for the Thames tideway while at the same time complying with our statutory obligations.
This includes alternatives such as a western tunnel combined with sustainable drainage systems. Implementing sustainable drainage on the scale required to address the combined sewer overflows east of a western tunnel would be hugely disruptive, expensive and unlikely to meet the environmental objectives. The existing sewerage system into which a western tunnel would discharge has limited spare capacity, so the western tunnel would spill more often and lead to significant odour problems, due to the amount of time sewage would be stuck in the tunnel. In-river treatment would not prevent untreated sewage from spilling into the Thames. I do not believe that the public want raw sewage to continue to spill into the Thames. Thames Water’s public consultations and complaints to the Environment Agency confirm this. However, we recognise that this is an expensive project.
Clause 2 will allow the Government to provide financial support for exceptionally large or complex works on water or sewerage infrastructure, such as the Thames tunnel. We are willing in principle to provide contingent financial support for exceptional project risks where this offers best value for money for Thames Water customers and taxpayers. However, as a Government, we will want to be assured that, when offering this contingent support, taxpayers’ interests remain a top priority. We are therefore working with Ofwat, Infrastructure UK and Thames Water to make sure that the financial structure for the proposed tunnel includes safeguards to minimise the likelihood of government support being called on. We believe that simply having the power available will help us to maximise private sector investment in the tunnel and keep the cost of its financing down.
I am aware that concerns were raised in another place about the breadth of powers in the Bill, and desire was expressed for greater parliamentary scrutiny ahead of government spending. The powers in this Bill are by no means unusual in their flexibility for future circumstance, nor do they remove the need or opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny of government spending plans in the usual way. Tough decisions always need to be made about the use of government money. I am sure that any future financial assistance under these powers would inevitably be the subject of much debate internally in the Government, in Parliament and with the public.
In the case of the south-west, there were years of campaigning and then the independent Walker review, which identified this as a set of exceptional circumstances. Financial assistance would never be given to water companies on a whim. However, exceptional circumstances do and will arise, as we have seen with South West Water and the Thames tunnel. As I said, we will need investment in infrastructure to keep our water supply resilient. We do not know what the future holds and we want future Secretaries of State to be able to use the power where genuinely necessary.
I reassure noble Lords that any public financial support for the Thames tunnel or similar projects will be tightly controlled. In fact, both clauses allow full terms and conditions to be attached to financial assistance. A £50 reduction to South West Water’s charges will be governed by a funding agreement to ensure that it is transparent on customers’ bills and that South West Water will not benefit from administering the payment.
Some noble Lords may be disappointed that we have only today—tonight—to scrutinise the Bill, although it is a small and, dare I say, perfectly formed Bill. The scope of the Bill is limited to financial assistance and, consequently, it has been certified as a money Bill. However, the department’s plans for a wider water Bill are well known and we aim to publish that bigger, more substantial draft Bill for Parliament to get its teeth into in the coming months. That Bill will contain the other legislative reforms promised in the water White Paper. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, the business before your Lordships’ House tonight was flagged up as a Bill only last month, at the beginning of February. It is indicative of a poorly balanced legislative programme whereby the other place has completed its deliberations and is therefore largely inactive while your Lordships' House is kept busy night after night. Having this Bill designated a money Bill partially cures that imbalance. However, it is deeply unsatisfactory, and conducting a one-stage passage late at night in your Lordships’ House underlines the fact. It is regrettable that several noble Lords are unable to participate because of that.
This short, two-clause Bill belies the years of deliberation, reports, campaigns and research that have gone into the two areas that the Bill covers: South West Water and Thames tideway. Calling it a money Bill deprives your Lordships’ House the opportunity to scrutinise much of the background work and reduces parliamentary governance to a unicameral dimension. Avoiding the Bill being hybrid has resulted in it being unnecessarily wide ranging in its scope and the powers it grants to the Secretary of State. Set against the water White Paper, the national policy statement on waste water and the infrastructure planning changes, that is deeply unsatisfactory.
The Minister outlined the Bill and its purpose, although it cannot be stated in the Bill. But this is the wrong Bill. Your Lordships’ House cannot amend it. Rushing it out in the last weeks of the Session says something deeply troubling about the department and the coalition’s programme next Session. Has Defra missed the opportunity to put forward the right Bill, a new water Bill, in time to be included in legislation for next Session? The Minister has already said that he has secured a consolation prize of a draft Bill instead. How long does that put back the necessary measures that are badly needed?
Clause 1 is of benefit to South West Water householders and brings relief from the legacy of privatisation, as bills in the south-west have risen 43 per cent more than in other areas. Water bills are becoming a nationwide pressing anxiety, with rises set to be 5.7 per cent per household this year. As yet, there is no generally recognised definition of water poverty in the same way as applies to fuel poverty. Nevertheless, 11 per cent of all households spend more than 5 per cent of disposable income on water, with 23 per cent of households spending more than 3 per cent.
The Opposition support the Government in reducing the discrepancy in South West Water bills for consumers. Nevertheless, there are anxieties about the measure. With a cost of around £40 million per annum, South West Water will receive £50 per household. This is rather a blunt instrument. While happily confronting the universality of certain payments, such as universal child benefit, the coalition is introducing another such payment here. Has the Minister considered other options? He will know that for farmers and growers water use is a key factor of production. Has his department looked at whether visitors and holiday homes could contribute further or be denied the subsidy? With a new water Bill, the benefits of WaterSure, introduced by the previous Labour Administration, could be brought to a greater number of claimants for a more focused and targeted operation.
As the Bill is silent on how long the subsidy will be paid, can the Minister give the House more detail tonight? The Explanatory Notes quote the water White Paper, which states,
“until at least the end of the next spending review period”.
Indeed, the Minister stated that in his introduction. It would be helpful if he could confirm that date and say what his department has in mind after that period. We understand that it might be continued as part of Defra’s own budget. Can he say which part and for how long? In view of his department’s eagerness to introduce budget cuts, what other expenditure will need to be cut to fulfil this payment to the south-west? Will his department come forward with transparency through a statutory instrument so that Parliament can fulfil its role in scrutinising expenditure? There are grave concerns that the Bill is being used for election purposes.
Lastly, can the Minister inform the House whether his department has sought to see strings attached to the payment? South West Water is a company with a monopoly in the area. Many fund managers have water utilities in their portfolios because of the high dividend policy followed. Have the Government expressed any views regarding company bonuses or regarding any reduction in leakages or an abstraction review while this payment continues?
The opposition Benches support the Bill in relieving financial pressure on South West Water bills. However, we would like to see the introduction of social tariffs across the industry to help those on low incomes. We also call on the Minister to undertake reviews and to make reports to Parliament so that the situation can continue to be monitored. More importantly, we wish to see a sunset clause introduced, whereby the Government have to promote proactively any further payments and state where the payments will come from.
Clause 2 is intended to fund a vitally needed infrastructure project—the Thames tideway tunnel. London’s sewers carry both raw sewage and rain run-off. They were designed for a capacity of 4 million inhabitants but London now has in excess of 8 million inhabitants. Because rainwater is included, this means that there are 50 to 60 overflows every year straight into the Thames. Small amounts of rain—even 2 millimetres—can result in massive amounts of untreated sewage discharges. It is extremely unfortunate that past works included rainwater with the sewage. How to tackle the problems has been the subject of a decade of argument, proposals, options and reports. The cost has increased to £4.1 billion and the project could take until 2020 to complete.
I know that several noble Lords—most notably the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who chaired a report on behalf of several local authorities—will speak further about the scheme details and their alternatives. I shall concentrate on some wider issues that need to be taken up. First, we need to understand in some depth the risks of infraction proceedings. It is deeply unsatisfactory that my noble friend Lord Berkeley cannot speak at this late hour, as he has specifically researched this position in Brussels. If the United Kingdom is at risk now, will this continue to be the position until works are complete? Will the Government seek some accommodation that proceedings will not be initiated, especially as construction may temporarily exacerbate the situation? While the Bill gives the go-ahead to finance the tunnel solution, it will still be subject to the planning process and no doubt be called in by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Can the Minister assure the House that while the decision-making process with DCLG is a legal one, the lead will continue to be taken by his department?
This is all the more interesting as the Explanatory Notes state:
“As the Bill is concerned solely with public expenditure, no Impact Assessment has been undertaken”.
That will be deeply worrying for many noble Lords as it means that there will be little parliamentary opportunity to monitor the progress of works, that environmental concerns are being properly addressed, and that innovation and technology advances will be promoted so that value-for-money outcomes can be achieved. Can the Minister say how effective scrutiny and governance of the scheme will be in the future? The scheme no doubt will be promoted by Thames Water in commercial circumstances.
The opposition Benches will support the scheme provided that it meets the EU directive and its standards. Does the Minister know that that can be the case? There are enough valid concerns and criticisms in much of the alternative options that an impact assessment of future complementary projects could be vital. There are the Deephams discharges and whether it is better to rebuild the plant on existing footprint or to rebuild on a new site. Can the Minister say whether that will be designated a nationally significant project as well?
Can the Minister also say whether measures complementary to large infrastructure projects such as SuDS—sustainable drainage systems—will also be given due weight so that the tunnel will be fit for purpose for generations to come? Rainwater and sewage should be separated on all new build. Climate change will necessitate many behavioural changes and much of England will be subject to water restrictions from 5 April this year. On this side of the House, we are worried about the lack of thought on how to reduce per capita water usage. In the UK, household water consumption has grown to around 150 litres or 35 gallons per person per day, which is double what many other western countries achieve. From these Benches, we call for more action, including the publishing of the so-called missing chapter of the water White Paper to ensure that water efficiency measures are taken more seriously.
We welcome the 4,200 new jobs and maybe a further 4,000 that will be created in the supply chain. We would wish to see the requirement to include apprenticeship programmes to level 5 and level 6 standard. At this late hour, I do not wish to detain the House long. The Bill gives the Minister wide powers. He must ensure that Thames Water can finance the project in the most cost-effective manner and report this to Parliament to reassure us that costs will not continue to increase. Can the Minister assure us that Ofwat has strengthened its capacity to focus on the tunnel? Lastly, can the Minister be confident that none of this expenditure will fall foul of state aid rules? Does he have confirmation from Brussels that the Thames tunnel will be fit for purpose?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, this is a slightly confusing situation when a money Bill has to be presented by a Defra Minister. I hope that that device, if I may call it that, or the process that this is going through, will not be one that our Government have to resort to very often. I do not want to detain the House at all. I want to give up the time that I would have used to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who has worked on this issue for many years. Simply, I would say that having lived in the south-west myself for so many years, I am extremely happy to see this coming forward. I am also looking forward very much to hearing the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who worked so hard on this issue with the commission that he chaired.
I have one question. Presumably the infrastructure that was mentioned as being eligible for grant, loan or guarantee is hard rather than soft engineering or very different solutions such as fitting all houses with waterless lavatories, if that were an option in future. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I am sure that many noble Lords will be aware that water can be an inflammable substance in Wales. I realise that the immediate purpose of the Bill is fairly narrow, as the Minister described. Nevertheless, the Long Title states that this is a Bill:
“To make provision for the giving of financial assistance … in connection with the construction of, and the carrying out of works in respect of, water … infrastructure”.
That is a much broader purpose, as the Minister hinted. In the Second Reading debate in the other place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Richard Benyon, stated that,
“the powers in the Bill are appropriately drafted. Although we currently have no plans to use those powers other than to assist South West Water customers and in relation to the Thames tunnel, we heard many calls today … for us to legislate … to invest in new infrastructure to help make the country more resilient to droughts in future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/12; col. 746.]
Clearly, that is part of the general strategy of the Bill, although it leads through to another piece of legislation, and no doubt we will cover other aspects of that. The wider considerations cannot be ignored.
Before considering these wider aspects, I note that the water rebate being facilitated by the Bill is, as currently envisaged, an England-only benefit. That is fair enough: no doubt the argument is that the National Assembly will handle any such question in Wales. If that is the line taken by the Government, the immediate question arises of whether the National Assembly will get a Barnett-consequential payment that will allow it to consider helping beleaguered Welsh Water ratepayers in similar circumstances.
In December, the Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman MP, said that one idea that continued to be discussed was piping more water from Wales to England. That was at the launch of the Water for Life White Paper. I am very much aware that the Mayor of London, Mr Boris Johnson, also suggested—in 2010—moving water supplies from Wales and Scotland to areas of shortage in the south and east of England. Apparently he favours taking water from reservoirs in Wales, via the Severn and the Wye, to link to the Thames and the Trent. One has been made very much aware in recent weeks of the problems facing drought areas in southern and eastern England.
As I understand it, people in the parched east and south-east must look for new sources of water supply to meet domestic, agricultural and industrial needs. However, we in Wales had some very difficult experiences over the past half-century with such matters—in particular the manner in which the Tryweryn Valley was drowned and the village of Capel Celyn submerged to provide a source of water for Liverpool. There was immense hostility to the scheme. When Liverpool Corporation pressed the Bill to facilitate the drowning of the valley, every Welsh MP bar one voted against it, but it was passed. To make things worse, the price of water in Wales then became significantly higher than it was in cities like Liverpool and Birmingham that got their water from Wales. At one time, the price was three times higher. That puts into context what is now proposed for south-west England. I have every sympathy for people there because we, too, had these problems.
I raise the issue now to suggest that if there is any likelihood of English water companies looking again towards Wales—and one understands that they may need to because of their circumstances—there should be a firm undertaking from the start that fair recompense should come to Wales for the water abstracted directly or indirectly for such purposes. I will go further and suggest that the UK Minister should now open a dialogue with Welsh government Ministers with a view to establishing an understanding on any such water transfers that will be fair to everyone.
A leading Welsh economist, Professor Dylan Jones-Evans has stated:
“Wales has got the water. The issue now is who owns that resource and whether Wales is getting a fair price for it as if it was selling any other commodity, product or service”.
Of course, Professor Jones-Evans was a Conservative candidate in a recent election to the Welsh National Assembly. The Welsh Environment Minister, Labour AM John Griffiths, has also spoken in similar terms. He stated:
“Our view is that in Wales we have a very important resource in our water, and that it must be recognised as such. In any future negotiations or developments, we would obviously want to get full value for that very important water resource”.
Apparently, Severn Trent Water has set out proposals that will allow water companies to trade water from one region to another. Severn Trent Water operates in Wales, but I ask whether it is in any shape or form answerable to the Welsh public for its policies or activities of that sort.
I have a proposal for the Minister: before this issue becomes polarised and attitudes get antagonistic, the UK Government and Welsh Assembly government Ministers should get together to discuss a financial model that will make it worth while for Welsh authorities, local and national, to be partners in any such developments so that they take a positive attitude towards facilitating solutions that may be of mutual benefit. A modest scheme of payment for water abstracted from Wales could be really beneficial to communities in Wales that need to maximise their resources and very often do not have such resources at hand. This Bill may be modest, but it could foreshadow significant developments, and I appeal for a positive attitude from Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, it is part of the rules about money Bills that if we do not pass them within a month of their being introduced in the House of Lords, they can go forward for Royal Assent without our debating them. Although the hour is extremely awkward for many, including some who have not been able to stay, I am grateful to have this opportunity to make just one point about the Bill, about the Thames tunnel.
There has been a great deal of consultation on the tunnel with local communities up and down the river. I know that my noble friend Lord Fowler is going to talk about the area that he knows. I should declare an interest: I live in Vauxhall, and we are going to have one of the sites quite near there. Some of us have been putting some pressure on Thames Water to make sure that the absolute minimum of road transport is used for the purpose of the tunnel. It is a tunnel down the river, which should make it possible to move very large quantities of the spoil from the tunnel and the shafts by barge. There are also railway connections—one thinks of Battersea in particular—and it should be possible to take some of the spoil away by rail, and more importantly, to bring in by rail some of the components, some of which will be in very large quantities, such as the concrete for tunnel lining.
Will the Minister make it clear beyond peradventure to Thames Water that it must make every possible effort to reduce the amount of road transport necessary to construct this tunnel? In its briefing Thames Water states that its,
“current plans mean 50 per cent of all materials being transported directly from our sites by river. Over four million tonnes of material will be moved directly from our sites by river transport”.
Of course there is a cost element, and Thames Water has to balance that, but the evidence of a report by an acknowledged expert, Maurice Gooderham—a report called for by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who is one of those who cannot be in his place this evening—made it clear that he thought that river transport for spoil and materials would be economic. It would, in fact, be more cost-effective to use as much barge traffic as possible for this purpose. He makes the point that Blackfriars station, which of course is built out over the railway bridge, was supplied entirely by river and virtually no lorry transport was necessary to construct it. Of course, many parts of Crossrail are a long way from the river and therefore there is not the same possibility, but the project is making the best use of the railways as it can in order to reduce the amount of road transport.
What concerns me about this, and why I raise this point, is that when one talks to Thames Water about rail, it will tell you that it is currently exploring,
“opportunities to use rail freight to move material to or from our sites”.
As has been made clear by both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, this project has been in the planning for years—indeed, it goes back decades. Why are we only just now starting to explore,
“opportunities to use rail freight”?
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I have had discussions with the senior management of Thames Water, and I was told by one of its senior officials that it has got the message loud and clear. Why has it not had it before? A letter I had from Thames tunnel earlier this week states:
“We have commissioned a transport strategy study, which brings together our transport assessment and environmental impact assessment work, to consider the benefits of increasing river transport and whether it is practical and economic to do so”.
Better late than never; but can my noble friend make sure that his department really brings as much pressure as it can on Thames Water to minimise the disruption to local communities from excessive use of road transport?
Of course, most of the work is going to be done by contractors. Contractors will bid at the lowest price they can and if they think it is cheaper to use lorries, that is what they will put in their contracts. There have to be very clear limits on what the contractors can do by road transport. That has got to be built into the tender so that they are all tendering on the same basis of the maximum use of river and rail and the minimum use of road transport. Can this be made a condition of planning permission? One needs to bring the maximum pressure possible on Thames Water and its contractors to make sure that there is the minimum disruption to local communities.
There has been a general acceptance—not universal—that this is the best way of dealing with these combined sewage outfalls, which cause the problems that have been described this evening, but it needs to be done with the minimum disruption to the local communities, who are going to have to put up with what will be quite a long construction period. If my noble friend can give me some reassurances on that, I shall feel that it has been worth staying until after midnight.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I entirely agree with all the comments made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin, particularly about the use of barge traffic and the view that we should do our utmost to preserve the interests of local communities. This Bill covers very serious issues. I am not sure that I regard 12.30 am as the right time to do a Second Reading of a Bill of this kind. It is rather ironic that the House of Commons went down hours ago yet here we are still debating in the House of Lords—but let us leave that to one side.
Clause 2 gives the Government considerable powers. As the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, it creates a power to give financial assistance in connection with the construction of water or sewerage infrastructure. Under this clause, the Secretary of State can provide assistance in any form, including by grants, loans, guarantees and indemnities, provision of insurance and acquiring shares or securities in a body corporate. The power is discretionary and may be exercised for such reasons as the Secretary of State feels desirable. That seems to me to encompass fairly wide powers as far as the Government are concerned.
We know that this considerable power is being taken to ensure the construction of the Thames tunnel. We also know that the estimated cost of this tunnel will be more than £4 billion, although it could be substantially more than that. We know in addition that work will take six years to complete from the start of construction, which is 2016, although the bill for ratepayers will be increased even before construction begins.
We have all received, I think, a briefing paper from Thames Water setting out how it sees the advantages to be had, which in essence is that London’s sewers can no longer cope with the problems, a point that the Minister made. It seems to me that Thames Water rather overstates its case when it says:
“It cannot be acceptable to allow the River Thames to be an open sewer”.
That is not the position at the moment. It is also guilty of very selective quotation, such as when it tried to knock down an argument of the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council by quoting the view of a 15 year- old youth rower. The difference is, of course, that the leader of the council is the elected leader of the community and, as such, deserves to have his views given proper weight.
Let me for the sake of this debate accept the argument that the tunnel is necessary and that the amount of money devoted to it is justified. What it does not dispose of is the argument on just how this tunnel is to be built and, in particular, where the construction points and the drive shafts will be situated. These will be massive sites. The classic case is what is now happening in south Fulham, where Thames Water has decided to put one of these sites. I declare an interest as a resident of Fulham, although I think that I am not directly affected by this.
Currently, the plan is to have the site near Wandsworth Bridge in Carnwath Road. That will bring substantial disadvantage to the people there. The site is a tiny urban wharf in the centre of a densely residential locality at the apex of a commuter traffic bottleneck, so it has about every disadvantage going. At least 180 homes directly border the site, with more than 800 residents plus a junior school for 320 children, all within a 100-metre radius. There is a business park and at least 150 full-time jobs are likely to be destroyed. It will completely kill off—this I think in many ways is most important—the imminent wharf regeneration and all new plans there. The site still is 50 per cent too small without two compulsory purchases that will have to be made.
There are substantial disadvantages, not least the development costs of up to £200 million higher than the alternative site. What was never satisfactorily explained is just why, very suddenly and without warning, this site was chosen when all the preparatory work had been carried out at another site further down the Thames at Barn Elms, which seems to have all the advantages. It is a small part of a huge available area of flat green recreational space, well away from homes and buildings. There are no houses at all within 200 metres and the site is screened from most nearby homes by a stand of tall trees. Not a single full-time job would be lost. Less than 2 per cent of the large area of ordinary, unlandscaped recreational land that is available would be taken up. It seems on the face of it that the area has every advantage for the planners to go that way, so why was this change made and what caused the change of mind? It is true that Barn Elms is green-belt land, but much of it could be put back to its original state. Everyone agrees that rectifying the changes made in south Fulham would be more difficult and certainly much more disruptive.
I agree totally with what my noble friend Lord Jenkin has said about transport. At present, it is estimated that lorry trips to the site will average 31 per day for two years, rising to 33 per day when the tunnel is being lined. When it comes to moving the plant and construction materials, the plan is to do that by road in order to reduce costs. I will simply echo what my noble friend has said. When one has the natural route of the Thames itself, advantage should be taken of it. That would be to the benefit of the local population. However, my most profound concern is the choice of the site itself. I would be grateful if the Minister could throw light on the issue in his reply.
My last word is this. The matter goes further than a local issue because it impinges on national policy. Only today we were told about the need to build houses on brownfield sites. The site in south Fulham is ideally situated to do that. It is a perfect site for social and low-cost housing, which is desperately needed in south-west London. That could be achieved, while equally it could not be achieved in Barn Elms, where permission would simply not be given. A water authority is making this choice for reasons that are unclear and obscure; we are choosing options on what could be achieved in terms of national housing policy. The Minister might therefore like to describe the planning process in this case and how the views of the local council and local residents can be overridden, although I hope that they can be taken into account. With respect, I am not sure that the Minister can walk away from this saying that it is simply a matter for the planning authorities. The whole purpose of Clause 2 of this Bill is to give authority for the spending of £4.1 billion of taxpayers’ money. If national money is to be used in this way, it must be justified.
The hour is late but this is an important issue. Again, I would underline to my noble friend that it is a matter that the residents of south Fulham—I am sure that it is not the only example, but it is the one that I know—take very seriously indeed and, more than that, so does the local authority. It would be more than a pity if those views were overridden and if other planning options in the area were rejected. I hope that the Minister, even at this late hour, can give us some guidance—guidance that both my noble friend Lord Jenkin and I are asking for—and that he can give some reassurance and hope to the people of that part of London.
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, like others, I shall confine my remarks to Clause 2. As has been noted already in this short debate, I chaired the Thames Tunnel Commission, which was set up by five London boroughs, when it sat in July, August, September and October.
Although we have been discussing the Thames tunnel since the urban waste water treatment directive was brought into national law in the 1990s—indeed, we have been in breach of that directive since 2000—things have moved on since then. Many ideas had remained fixed as to what is the most up-to-date and appropriate technology and there were concerns, of course, about the escalating costs, so we were asked to review the previous studies; to reassess the assumptions of those studies in the light of subsequent research and data; to look at what other cities—not only in the European Union but elsewhere around the world—had done when faced with much the same situations; to hear from interested parties; and to reassess the requirements in order to meet the urban waste water directive in the light of subsequent directives, not least the water framework directive, and other national government policies such as the national ecosystem assessment. The concern was not only about the cost of £2.3 billion in 2006 going up to £4.1 billion. When we were doing the exercise the cost was £3.6 billion, but it went up to £4.1 billion within three days of us reporting.
It is not fair to say, as Thames Water tends to do, as has just been noted, that the Thames is an open sewer because there have been some successes. The Lee tunnel, which is under construction at the moment at a cost of £600 million, and the upgrade of the sewage treatment works, some of which have been heavily implicated in fish kills, have and will achieve, irrespective of the combined sewer overflows, considerable improvements in the quality of the river. However, it is undisputed that 20 million tonnes of sewage going into the river is unacceptable. The figure is roughly half if you include the sewage treatment works and the Lee tunnel CSOs but, nevertheless, it is common ground that 20 million tonnes is unacceptable.
It is worrying that when the cost was a mere £2.3 billion, which was to include the Lee tunnel, Ofwat’s review of the costs and benefits found that there was only a marginal benefit. The cost has now gone up to £4.1 billion —and this is after having spent £900 million, so you could say that the cost has actually gone up to somewhere nearer £5 billion—and, surprise, surprise, the cost-benefit analysis carried out by Defra in November 2011 once more establishes that there is just about a case to be made in terms of cost and benefit.
The way in which these figures have been adjusted in order to ensure that the answer comes out correctly is by altering the goalposts. The assumption in the first cost-benefit analysis was that it should be paid off over 60 years; now it is going to be paid off over 100 years, which makes it much easier. There is also now an assumption that because we are now richer we can afford more, so the ability and willingness to pay increases. I find these cost-benefit analyses extremely suspicious. Defra knows what the answer should be and has commissioned the cost-benefit analysis. I hope that the National Audit Office, or some other body, will look carefully at these figures, which I think are spurious.
A great deal of concern was expressed by the people who took the trouble to speak to us that the agenda was being driven by the infraction proceedings. That, of course, would concentrate the minds of Defra enormously, and the implications of the fine which could be accrued well before 2023, when the tunnel will eventually deliver, are horrendous. I have no doubt that if I were a Defra Minister I would do anything to try to ensure that that day of judgment was postponed in some way.
In the Bill before us today the taxpayer is being asked to underwrite part of the cost without any assurance that it will meet the requirements of the Commission or the interpretation of what the urban waste water treatment directive requires. It is certainly not the fastest solution. My noble friend on the Front Bench described it as timely and cost-effective but the onus is going to be on Defra, or on Thames Water or whichever company is going to eventually own the tunnel, to demonstrate just that. It certainly has not been demonstrated yet. We need to know whether it is the most cost-effective, the fastest and the most comprehensive solution. By comprehensive, I mean that it gives to society as a whole the benefits that we all look for from major water infrastructure proposals.
When Richard Benyon, the Defra Minister, announced in early November that the cost was going up to £4.1 billion from £3.6 billion and that a Bill such as this was to allow the taxpayer to underwrite part of the cost, he said:
“Financing a tunnel of this size at a cost that is value for money for customers is a challenge. The Government believe that the private sector can and should finance this project but accept that there are some risks that are not likely to be borne by the private sector at an acceptable cost. It is willing in principle to provide contingent financial support for exceptional project risks where this offers best value for money for customers and taxpayers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/11; col. 42WS.]
That is precisely the issue—what does offer best value for customers and taxpayers? Who will demonstrate that this provides best value for money? When this application comes before the planning authority, that is the information that Defra, the Environment Agency and Thames Water must surely be required to produce. It is not just the customers from Gloucestershire to Essex who will pay, all of whom will be paying up to £70 per household more than they are at the moment; it is of course now the taxpayer throughout the country.
If you say often enough that the tunnel is nearly full in dry weather and there is no other solution than a full-length tunnel, it becomes accepted wisdom and is unchallengeable; but this is exactly what we tried to determine. We do not dispute or doubt that parts of this Victorian tunnel system are indeed overloaded and running full even in dry weather. However, you have to assess the need for a full-length tunnel— 24 kilometres—against the alternatives, which would be dispersed water treatment plants, sustainable urban drainage systems, storm water disconnection, distributed storage of sewage waste in a storage tunnel for later release, and the enhancement of the existing sewerage network bottlenecks.
In other words, you have to ask the question of how you would cope with this problem without the tunnel. We agree that the problem is to have something in place as quickly as or more quickly than the tunnel, which will discharge no more than the 2.3 million tonnes that the tunnel is likely to discharge. However, if that is the criterion that you have to meet, you have to establish that these other options that I have mentioned cannot deliver that at less cost and more quickly. The Minister has said that the tunnel will do just that, but until someone demonstrates that these other options simply will not be able to deliver, then those people who question whether we have been given the information that we are entitled to have as customers of Thames Water and taxpayers are entitled to continue to complain.
All these hypotheses as to what will happen in different weather events in different combined sewer overflows ultimately depend on the efficacy of the modelling. However, we were very concerned that when we asked to see Thames Water’s computational models we could not verify that as the modelling reports and results were not provided despite repeated requests. The tunnel will reduce the discharges to about 2.6 million tonnes, and it would be perfectly reasonable to ask that that is the criterion that all other systems should meet.
The water White Paper that came out in December might never have been written, as far as this Thames water project is concerned. It is an excellent White Paper that talks about water for energy recovery, flood risk management schemes, surface water management plans, protection and enhancement of ecosystems and green infrastructure—and, of course, what local authorities and others could do to reduce storm flows with a green infrastructure. None of that in any way, shape or form is aided or abetted by the Thames tunnel, which is essentially a Victorian solution that worked well in Victorian times, when the method of transport was horses. The residue from horses was not very different from sewage, so you treated the two the same. Now when you separate storm water from sewage you reduce immediately the load in these tunnels. While we are always told that separation and SUDS are uneconomic, with regard specifically to the targeted areas—the CSOs with which we are particularly concerned—it may well be cost-effective to turn them off by such measures rather than connect them to a tunnel. It cannot be done with the big CSOs. There were 10, but one of them is being dealt with now by the Lee tunnel. There are still nine large pumped CSOs, and there is simply no doubt but that they have to be dealt with either by a treatment works or a shorter tunnel—or, indeed, by a full-length tunnel. It is no good thinking that they can be turned off by SUDS or by other measures.
The Environment Agency said in its paper, An Assessment of the Frequency of Operation and Environmental Impact of the Tideway CSOs, that if the load from those nine CSOs was removed there would not be a significant effect on dissolved oxygen from the remaining CSOs. That is an important point to bear in mind. We are worried about dissolved oxygen, because that is what is going to kill the fish. We are worried, too, about health and aesthetic impacts. But largely if you remove the big-pump CSOs and use a discrete system, what you have left are the intermittent CSOs, many of which are not going to be connected to the tunnel anyway but will be dealt with by internal adjustments. Of course, that does not remove the necessity for storage of the effluent, but they will not need to be connected nevertheless. Then you are dealing with a very different order of issues.
Of the nine CSOs, seven happen to be on the western extremities. I rather liked the idea in the Jacobs Babtie report of 2006, when Ofwat was concerned about the escalating costs, going up to £2.6 billion, and the shorter tunnel was thought to be a sensible solution. Of course, it would have to be complemented by separation, SUDS, storage, real-time control and the like. It was rejected because it was thought that it would not meet the infraction proceedings, and we have been on the rollercoaster ever since. The cost is now £4.1 billion and increasing. If the Minister of the day had had the courage and sense to look carefully at the data, which may not have been available in those days, as to what discharges were from the other 18 CSOs —not the nine that caused all the problems—we would be looking at a very different order of issues.
While we are criticised in the Thames Tunnel Commission for not coming up with an alternative plan, that was not what we were asked to do. We were asked to make sure that within the public domain there was the sort of information that could be expected to give the sort of background to making a sensible decision. I regret the complacency shown by Defra, the Environment Agency and others, which have repeated time and again that this is the only possible solution, as from their own point of view it is in many ways, because it gives the responsibility to Thames Water. It would not result in the messy business of local authorities being involved with producing the green infrastructure alternatives, which nevertheless in the long run simply have to be part of the mix for dealing with storm water and sewage. When the planning application is finally submitted, Defra has an obligation to ensure that Thames Water’s claims—which, as I say, are often less than helpful—are given impartial, independent assessment, with full transparency of the assumptions made and of the modelling. Now that we have a Bill in front of us and are expecting the taxpayer to underwrite this, that is the very least that the taxpayer is entitled to.
Lord Smith of Finsbury
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Environment Agency. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, although I would not agree with the entirety of his analysis of the problem. I fully support the Bill and the most important reason for that support is that, through the contingent support and underwriting it puts in place, it will enable the Thames tunnel project to go ahead. The Thames tunnel is desperately needed. The problem has been mentioned on several occasions by other noble Lords. In an average year, at the moment, 39 million cubic metres of raw sewage, mixed with surface water run-off, discharges into the River Thames. That will reduce a bit with the Lee tunnel and with other work that is under way, but it will remain a hugely significant problem. The reason, of course, is the combined sewer overflows.
Most of London is served by a combined sewerage system that collects sewage from toilets, waste water from sinks and washing machines together with rainwater run-off from roads, roofs and pavements. The system was designed so that overflows would discharge into the River Thames to prevent the back-up of sewage flooding into people's homes and streets. The system does this through a network of combined sewer overflows, stretching along the River Thames. During the course of a normal year, these discharge into the river something like 60 times. This is simply unacceptable in the midst of our capital city, not to mention the potential dangers of infraction from Europe under the urban waste water treatment directive. The fundamental reason is that we have a modern city of 8 million people, and many more during the daytime, which has been heavily paved and concreted over during the past few decades and is sitting on top of a Victorian drainage and sewerage system.
The Thames tunnel, I firmly believe, is the only sensible solution to the problem. Doing bits and pieces with local solutions for particular spots of difficulty would get us some way towards a reduction of discharge into the Thames; it would not provide the overall solution to the problem. Yes, there will be issues about the precise location of work that has to be done in order to construct the tunnel, which needs to be carefully chosen in order to cause minimum disruption. The noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Fowler, are absolutely right to draw attention to the need to ensure that that disruption is kept to a minimum, but the tunnel itself has to go ahead.
The tunnel will not only stop most of the sewage pollution that we have at the moment but will also help the sewerage network to cope with future impacts that will come from increased population and from what climate change will bring. We know, for example, that climate change will bring more frequent, concentrated downpours of rain over a sustained period. That will cause the problem to magnify if we do not do something in order to address it.
The tunnel will help to reduce health risks to river users and it will help to bring the river up to the healthy condition that it can attain. One of the great success stories of the past 25 years has been the improvement of water quality in the River Thames. Twenty-five years ago the Thames was a dead river but it now supports over 100 different species of fish. We have made huge progress over the course of those 25 years but the one major remaining problem is the combined sewer overflows and the pollution problem that they bring.
There is another reason, as well as the Thames tunnel, why I support the Bill. Its provision to allow support for major water infrastructure work more generally, not just for the Thames tunnel, could be vital as we seek ways to cope better with drought in the years to come. Because of two exceptionally dry winters, south and east England at the moment are already in drought conditions. Some river flows and most levels of groundwater are perilously low. The period from October 2010 to February 2012—the past 16-month or 17-month period—has been the driest since 1922. Rainfall in the south-east for the month of February just past was only 40 per cent of the average for a February. We are going to have to work very hard over the course of the next six to eight months to balance the needs of public water supplies, agricultural irrigation, the industrial use of water and the ecology of rivers and fish stocks in order to ensure that all those needs can be properly met.
In the longer term, if we look forward to the prospect of more extremes of weather patterns as a result of climate change, there is a need for water companies to do more to sort out the problems of leakage—frequently another problem that they have inherited from Victorian pipework systems—but there is something else that is desperately needed. Water companies and water regions need to get better at sharing water between each other. Interconnections are already in place and in use in some instances, but more are needed and every support needs to be given to water companies to put them in place. I am not talking about a national grid for water, which would not make any sense at all, but we need to get water better shared region to region and water company to water company, in local places and particular locations—short interconnections that will make it possible for wetter areas to assist dryer ones. Crucially, this will need to be a high priority for the next Ofwat price review round. The sooner that the capital schemes to put greater interconnectivity in place can be prepared and put together, the better, and it may just be the case that in some instances the provisions of the Bill might help. I wish it good speed.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, I have been up to my neck in water and sewage for most of my life, and if I speak for too long I know I will have some more thrown at me. I thought I would speak a bit about competence and a bit about history.
At this time in the morning many years ago I was in a hotel in Cairo and I felt rather ill. I picked up the phone because I felt so ill, but the phone did not work. I fell on the floor, and then I shrieked and someone came in. I had got something remarkably unusual: gippy tummy. A nice doctor turned up and I said, “What’s wrong with all this?”. He said, “Well, it’s the sewers, you know”. I said, “Really? I used to be in that world”. After a while, I went along to see the head man and said, “Why don’t we British, who built the sewers here for a million people in 1907, rebuild your sewers now that you have 10 million people?”.
I went out and formed a body called British Waste Water. It was a two-pound company. One pound was for me; the other person never turned up. We made a few proposals. The first thing that we had to do was bring the Egyptian swimming team back to swim across the channel that had been cancelled in 1956 when Butlins was organising it. We built a relationship.
The plan was to do a good job. We had not had much experience in the United Kingdom because there had been relatively little infrastructure spending. That project cost £2 billion. The Government provided £50 million of initial aid and another £500 million of export credit. We got all the British companies out there. They did not know what they were doing—they had not been near it. The problem was how to clean it all up. It took around eight years and, as I said, cost roughly £2 billion. The difference was made not only by the skills that were transplanted there but by Egypt suddenly being cleaned up. The tourism business could survive again because there were no problems.
To go down in Cairo, where the water table is only two feet below the ground, you have to open a hole and make a hatch like that of a submarine. Your building team go down as divers. You have to put compression in to keep the water out.
Finally, we needed to put in blue bricks. Only the British can build the best blue bricks. We wanted Egyptian bricklayers. One of them said to me, “We haven’t got the skills. Can you find some brickies?”. I was at Loughborough, where there was a pub called the Bricklayer’s Arms. We put some notices in the Bricklayer’s Arms and the brickies turned up. We then built a brick plant on the Nile, just like the pharaohs had, which was a great success. That project worked very well because the British got back their old technology. I know that whoever works on the Thames sewers will do a good job.
Out of all this comes an economic or cost-benefit analysis. I have dealt with the Thames for many years in relation to sport and recreation. I chair the Greater London and South East Council for Sport and Recreation. I have rowed up and down the Thames. I have listened to presentations which said that rowers might be poisoned. However, it is a very simple matter of collecting the right stuff and emptying it. It is not a big job.
However, what happened after Cairo? What did those same contractors do? They went off and built the Channel Tunnel. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was involved in that as well. I am trying to say that our knowledge and experience in this country may have died in many things, but in water and sewerage we are still among the best in the world, if not the best. I have no worries about the problem of contractors. I would of course take them down the Thames in barges. It is just a question of organisation. Once upon a time, we were good at organising but this House is obviously not as good at organising its business as it ought to be.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
My Lords, I will keep my remarks brief. I start by declaring an interest: I am a member of the board of South West Water. However, it is not South West Water that is the beneficiary of the first part of the Bill; it is the customers of South West Water.
My interest in this issue dates all the way back to when I was first elected as a Member of Parliament and quickly became involved in debates on the privatisation of water. I raised concerns then about the impact on the south-west. There was a fundamental error in the calculation of the costs of the bathing water directive and how they would impact on customers in the south-west. It took far too long for Governments of various hues to recognise the severity of the impact of far and away the highest water bills on people who are among the lowest earners in the UK. This was driven by the simple geography of having 30 per cent of the beaches and just 3 per cent of the population, and the dispersed geography in which that population lives. That made it extremely expensive to deliver the kind of reliable clean water system and clean beaches that are now, quite rightly, being delivered.
I strongly welcome the Bill, as it finally recognises the need to take action to deliver justice to those individuals. It is hard to over-exaggerate how big those impacts are. Those not on a meter can easily pay bills of £800 or £1,000. These people do not live in large houses and are often elderly, and these bills constitute a huge proportion of their income. Therefore, although I welcome the Government’s action, I do not think that it is sufficient in itself. That is why I want to press the Minister on it.
First, the Government’s commitment is actually a short-term commitment. There is no real indication of what will happen in the longer term. The decision was taken not to provide a lump-sum dowry which would have created a permanent solution. Therefore, there is considerable uncertainty around this issue. I still hope that Ministers will indicate where they would like the direction of travel to be. I understand that commitments may not be given short of commenting on the spending review and where budgets will be in a few years’ time. However, I hope that the Government will indicate that they recognise that this is a long-term issue, not a short-term one.
We need to make it clear to customers that, although prices are regulated, there are continuing upward pressures on them. This measure is a £50 discount off what people would otherwise pay year after year; it is not a permanent reduction in the cash amount that they will pay. People will gain from this measure for as long as it is in place but they cannot look forward to a big cut in bills and then no further rises—that is not the basis on which we work.
The second issue on which I wish to press the Minister concerns the fact that the Government want this £50 to go to every single customer. There are some real issues to be overcome in delivering that, particularly for customers in park homes and mobile homes who may be served by a single meter to the site. The water is then distributed round the site and they are charged individually, but not by the water company. Therefore, the water company has no information on the individual householders. I hope that the Government will work constructively to use all the information that they have at their disposal to ensure that those customers, who are often among the poorest, get the benefit of the £50. I know that it is the Government’s intention to do that but it is by no means clear how the measure will be delivered.
Thirdly, I very much regret that the Bill does not put in place a national social tariff. The Government have taken the decision to go down the route of company-specific social tariffs. For those in the highest water bill area—South West Water—that means that there is a higher burden on customers, who will not receive the relevant benefit. The social tariff will not be so low as to take people down to average water bill prices that apply elsewhere in the country, so they cannot gain the same benefit that they would under a national scheme. I understand that the Government think that there are issues with creating a scheme that distributes the costs and benefits nationally but I believe that it is the only fair way of meeting the needs of these very low-income individuals.
Finally, we must remind all customers of South West Water that they will overwhelmingly benefit from going on a meter. Many low-income customers are frightened of metering. However, if they go on a meter, they can very quickly save themselves much of the cost.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, this is a short Bill of three pages, so there is a chance that we will have read the whole thing. That is a good thing, as is the Bill’s brevity. It is difficult to oppose the Bill as it stands, as it does only two things and in principle I support both. Who would not want South West Water customers to have some relief from their extraordinarily high bills or for the River Thames to be relieved of unacceptable levels of sewage? The Bill is also difficult to oppose because, of course, it is a money Bill. That means that in this House, as we have heard, we cannot oppose it—even if we want to—because we do not have the power. We must therefore make all our comments this evening—even at this ridiculously late hour. The timetabling of the debate at this late hour is ridiculous and is yet another huge discourtesy to this House by the Government. That is becoming a habit.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley has had to catch a train to chair a conference in Glasgow in the morning. So seriously has he taken this issue that in order to prepare for this debate he even travelled to Brussels last week to discuss with the Commission the risk of infraction. It is deeply regrettable that he will not be heard. I have therefore agreed to pass on an edited version of his speech in my speech and we will therefore get two speeches for the price of one.
My noble friend asked why there was the urgency in having to pass this Bill tonight instead of waiting until next month when we have time. The answer is obvious and perhaps a little tawdry: the Government want to be able to give households in the south-west their promised £50 before the local elections in May. The urgency to pass this Bill tonight contrasts with Defra failing to fulfil its promises to Parliament to make announcements today on dangerous dogs and carbon reporting. It is a shambles.
I should move on to what is my main problem with the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Grantchester said, this is the wrong Bill. We need a proper water Bill, as promised by the Government, that is properly debated in both Houses and gets on to the statute book over the next year—not as a draft Bill with further delay until the year after—to do these and other important things, such as dealing with abstraction, which is essential if we are to reduce drought risk, and putting in place a proper water affordability scheme involving the social tariff that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, talked about.
The two issues in the Bill are urgent and raise complex issues. As we have heard, noble Lords have carried out detailed work on the issues relating to the Thames tunnel and I pay tribute to noble Lords’ speeches on that subject. This short debate has yet again demonstrated this House’s expertise and why it is so important in improving legislation for Parliament. Yet, because Defra could not secure a slot in the Queen’s Speech for a proper Bill, that expertise is being sidelined. Frankly, it is an insult to your Lordships, but I suspect that the Government are finding us a little too tiresome and troublesome these days and are therefore keen to invoke financial privilege a lot more.
My other difficulty with the Bill relates to the extent of the powers that it confers on the Secretary of State. Again, this could have been properly debated in relation to a public Bill, but now we are victims of the need to avoid hybridity. I have no wish for the Bill to be hybrid—the parliamentary long grass is not a place for me. As Defra’s Explanatory Notes to the Bill make clear, this is a Bill to assist consumers on the south-west peninsula and the Thames Water area only, but the Bill cannot say so for fear of being hybrid. The consequence is that the Secretary of State will have the power to give financial assistance in any form to any English water company, with any conditions that she sees fit, as long as the assistance is used to reduce charges for customers for water supply and sewerage services. Similarly, she can assist any water or sewerage company with any large or complex infrastructure project in England if she,
“considers it desirable to do so”.
The Explanatory Notes, which do not form part of the Bill and are not endorsed by Parliament, clarify that the costs will be £40 million for the south-west and up to £4.1 billion for the Thames tunnel, but that clarification has no status. Unless the Minister can advise me otherwise, Her Majesty’s Government could, if they were to be persuaded of another scheme, perhaps as a pre-election giveaway in some area precious to the coalition parties, just go ahead with that scheme without coming back to Parliament. That is unacceptable.
In that regard, can the Minister tell me whether he has considered a sunset clause on the Bill’s provisions? Should we not have some mechanism that requires the Government to come back periodically to justify this expenditure? Is this approach a long-term solution? Does it really pressure water companies to maximise efficiencies in the interest of consumers? Can we be convinced that this is not a long-term subsidy to water company shareholders?
So I am not keen on the Bill because of its process and extent. It is effectively a blank cheque. However, let me briefly address the substance of South West Water bills and the Thames tunnel. As we have heard, the Bill will enable the Government to make a £50 annual payment to households in the South West Water area to reduce their water bills. South West Water is a classic case study of what happens when privatisation goes wrong.
When the previous Tory Government introduced what became the Water Act 1989, it was supposed to be a new start for the water industry, but in the south-west, as we have heard, it created a water company responsible for 30 per cent of England’s coastline, but with a customer base of just 3 per cent of the population. There had been no investment in sewerage infrastructure, so the £2 billion needed to clean up the coastline was paid by the unfortunate South West Water customers through their bills, leaving them with the highest average unmetered bill in the country. As a resident of the south-west, I am happy to say that I live just outside this area and am served by Wessex Water.
In some ways, Part 2 is intended to prevent the same thing happening to consumers in the Thames area as their sewage infrastructure is brought up to standard. We welcome the £50 a year for households in the South West area, but the Bill will do nothing for households in other areas. I repeat the question from my noble friend Lord Grantchester: will the scheme exclude second home owners? It would be very popular in the south-west were it to do so.
From April this year, water bills will rise on average by 5.7 per cent, or about £20 a year. The Government have taken a hands-off approach and are considering leaving it to water companies to decide whether to introduce social tariffs. Ofwat, the independent water regulator, estimates that one in 10 households currently spends more than 5 per cent of their income on water and sewerage. That is 2.26 million households across England and Wales: almost 1 million single adults, 73,000 pensioners and 540,000 families with children. The Government had promised a draft water Bill in the spring. As I said, we will have to wait until Defra finally gets its ducks in a row before we get that Bill.
On the Thames tunnel, I have read the various views on this huge project. No one denies that we need to do something, but I am struggling, despite the compelling speech by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, to see what alternative there is to the combined sewage outflow tunnel. Bubbling appears discredited, separation of rainwater and sewage too expensive and lots of mini-schemes highly uncertain. I am therefore persuaded to support this scheme as well.
However, I would like the Minister to address the concerns of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. In the speech he would have delivered tonight he says that the Bill represents the failure of the industry and its regulator to get companies to perform efficiently and to reduce charges. He has grave concerns with regard to the Thames tunnel. He would have said that the costs are estimated at £4.5 billion plus EU fines, but the risk of cost overruns in such a major tunnelling scheme are not properly thought through and are also likely to be high. The cost to London’s consumers could be as much as £80 per household per year for 30 years.
My noble friend is worried about state aid. This looks like potential for massive state aids to one monopoly supplier company. What criteria are being used for choosing one company—or will all get help? Have the Government checked with the European Commission whether either of the state aids proposed are legal and what conditions are likely to be attached? This is a major project, now with government support and finance if things go wrong and therefore no incentive to save money or look at alternatives.
When my noble friend heard Ministers continue to repeat that the project was necessary to clean up the Thames as required by the European Commission to avoid infraction proceedings, he went to Brussels last week to meet officials dealing with the infraction and hear at first hand what they thought. It is important for the House to hear what they thought.
The European Court of Justice is currently considering the case and is likely to give its judgment this summer. The Commission expects to win, but can of course never be sure. Following the Court decision, if the EC wins, it will give the UK three to five years to complete whatever scheme is necessary to comply. Almost certainly, the UK will be fined, but it will be a little less the quicker a compliant scheme is completed.
Public statements by Ministers about intentions are not relevant. The Commission noted that this directive should have been complied with by 2000 and that, if this did not happen until 2022-23, a large fine was likely. Clars Environmental has estimated that the fine could be as high as £750 million. The amount can, we understand, be mitigated by completing any compliant scheme quickly, perhaps by a maximum of five years. The Commission’s case is that it has always required an output specification for the water quality but it has never given the UK Government any instruction or indication that a particular solution is required or desirable. It emphasised that the choice of solution was down to the member state as subsidiarity. The Commission was not of course certain whether the currently proposed tunnel scheme would meet the criteria, and of course it has to wait to see what is said in the ECJ judgment, expected this summer. It is then up to the Commission to enforce the judgment and, at that stage, to consider whether the tunnel solution or any other will comply with the judgment. So we have a Thames Water scheme costing £4.5 billion racing ahead without any up-to-date consideration of alternatives or, more importantly, whether that scheme as designed will meet the ECJ and EC requirements and therefore stop the fines continuing.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley would have gone on to talk about some of the alternatives put forward by the noble Earl and Chris Binnie. He thinks that many of these could be implemented sooner than the Thames tunnel scheme, with a consequent reduction in the infraction fine and in capital costs. Therefore, his second question to the Minister is: will the Government set in train an urgent review of alternatives by someone without a vested interest in the present scheme which will take into account the likely and actual decisions of the ECJ and EC enforcement people to achieve a more cost-effective and efficient solution more quickly, and one that is more environmentally friendly than the existing scheme? Is the massive potential fine of £750 million enough to persuade the Government to think again? Who knows? A series of smaller schemes might even get the job done quicker, he says, with a consequent reduction in infraction fines. I would ask: given that the fines could reach hundreds of millions of pounds, can the noble Lord tell us the department’s view on this? Can he also promise your Lordships that, if the Government lose their case in the European Court, a Minister will come back to this House with an urgent Oral Statement to tell us how the Government will fund the inevitable fines?
I have other concerns but I shall not delay the House further. I deeply regret that the expertise of this House has been sidelined and that we cannot debate more fully and amend to improve, but of course I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who are here and who have contributed to this debate at an unsociable hour, although that has not affected the quality of the contributions, nor the vigour with which they have been presented. I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that there seemed to be a bit of an inconsistency between the case that he presented and the case where he was listening to the judgment of the noble and absent Lord, Lord Berkeley, on this issue. I welcome his broad support for the Bill. Clearly, he recognises that the Government have to act. We are under pressure from the Commission to clean up our act, as were the previous Government. If that is time-sensitive, then the Government have done the right thing by bringing the Bill forward to enable this project to go ahead at the first available opportunity.
The quality of the debate has not been affected by the lateness of the hour. It reflects well on this House that it is capable of scrutinising legislation at any hour. I have here a fistful of sheaves from the Bill team and I shall do my best to answer all the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was in a particularly interrogative mood, as he often is. If I miss out any points, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, and I shall certainly ask the Bill team to write to noble Lords on particular issues if I fail to address them.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned the water White Paper and said that there was a missing chapter on water efficiency. I would not like him to think that that was the case because water conservation is covered in every chapter of the water White Paper. In particular, chapter 6 covers our plans for water efficiencies in homes and businesses. It is a very important part of our strategy for dealing with the ever increasing demands for water in this country. He asked questions about whether there could be some abuse of these financial powers in, say, an election year. Any financial assistance would inevitably be the cause of much debate. There can be no disposition of government money without Parliament being very much on the alert. We know in the case of the particular move to fund the south-west that there had been years of campaigning and an independent water review to address this matter. We consulted publicly and made an announcement in the Budget specifying who could benefit from financial assistance, the duration and the reason why the Government were making the payment.
Noble Lords have asked why there is no sunset clause. We made it clear that we should leave it open for the Government to have the flexibility to offer similar support to future projects, should the case be strong, but such support could not be given without proper scrutiny in Parliament. I can give that commitment. What about the rest of the commitments to legislate that the Government made in the water White Paper? We intend to publish a draft Bill, as I said in my opening remarks. We have made considerable progress in drafting the Bill. It is important to get the legislation right. The advantage of a draft Bill is that we have an opportunity for further scrutiny before the Bill comes before the House. This will be a strategic shift in the water industry, in which I think Parliament will want to be fully engaged. I make no apology for what has been suggested that there has been an unnecessary delay in the implementation of the water White Paper.
I turn to particular points that have been made about South West Water and the welcome by my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and my noble friend and namesake Lord Taylor of Goss Moor. The independent Walker review examined the situation in the south-west and suggested a number of different models by which government should address the issue. We sought advice from Ofwat on the most effective way of dealing with it and considered all the other options in detail. The particular method has been chosen because it will be the most effective in dealing with the inequity that the whole measure is designed to address. My noble friend Lord Taylor asked again about how the funding might continue, which came up in a number of speeches. The Treasury has agreed that Defra can, if necessary, make a call on reserve to fund this policy through the current spending round. Defra will then need to bid for funding for the next spending review in the usual way.
Several noble Lords called on us to review social tariffs. As noble Lords will know, the matter is in the hands of individual water companies. The reasoning behind this is that companies know the most effective way to deliver a social tariff policy in their area. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about this, and there were questions from my noble friend Lord Taylor on the same subject.
I turn to the question of the Thames tunnel, which is the second part of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether CLG or Defra would take the decision on planning. CLG is the planning authority under the Planning Act, but decisions on development consent for wastewater infrastructure of national significance may be taken jointly by the Secretaries of State for CLG and Defra, based on Planning Inspectorate recommendations. In this case that would seem the most likely process, but I cannot give a categorical assurance.
Questions were asked about state aid. Contingent financial support will need to be state aid compliant—and it is contingent finance to support investment that we are offering. Investors will want to know this before they invest. Our initial analysis of state aid rules is that this contingent support may require us to notify the European Commission. If appropriate, we will make the necessary state aid notification this summer.
There was much talk of the infraction risk, and of how much any fines were likely to be. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, speaking the words of the noble and absent Lord, Lord Berkeley, was very exercised about this. I understand that it is a serious matter, and that there is a case that we must be able to answer. We are working with the Commission. It is in our interest and that of the Commission to make sure that by building the Thames tunnel we will ensure that London’s river is clean and pollution-free. That is the purpose of the exercise. We are working with the Commission to make sure that it is aware of our commitment to achieve that.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, rightly wanted assurances about the devolved position of Wales. There have been no discussions about the construction or enlargement of any reservoirs in Wales. Indeed, none of the water companies, which all produce a 25-year outlook, includes any construction programme for a new reservoir in Wales. I do not suppose that the noble Lord is volunteering their construction; his questioning was not along those lines. However, I assure him that no English company at this stage anticipates this construction—and clearly any such arrangement would have to be approved by the Welsh devolved authorities. I hope that devolution will make these matters better between the two Governments, and between water companies and the Welsh Government.
I would hope that that is the future, and it must be one of the benefits of devolution which can protect the interests of the Welsh and the English in their relationships on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin talked about the transport of supplies for the construction of the Thames tunnel. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked me a Question on this matter, so I know that he is also interested. This House may have been one of the instruments that has reinforced this view on Thames Water because it is considering how it can limit the impact of construction traffic. The company intends to use the river wherever practical. We should remember that not all the construction sites are on the river, but quite a large number of them are. Barges can be very efficient. It is certainly the Government’s view that the river should be used. My noble friend referred to Blackfriars Bridge. That is entirely a riverside construction. It is not just the 406 million tonnes of excavated material that have to be moved; it is also the construction materials that need to be brought on to site. The Thames tunnel briefing, which I hope my noble friend has had a chance to see, makes Thames Water’s intentions about the transport of freight quite clear.
My noble friend Lord Fowler expressed particular concern about the Carnwath Road site and the change from the Barn Elms site to Carnwath Road. It is a planning matter. As he will know, planning prefers brownfield sites, such as Carnwath Road, as opposed to Barn Elms, which is not a brownfield site, but it will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate. Thames Water will need to justify this choice of site and the route of the tunnel as part of its application. It will need to submit an environmental statement describing aspects of the environment significantly affected. I hope that helps my noble friend, although it does not give him a reversal of the decision.
My noble friend Lord Selborne has considerable experience on this matter and expressed a number of concerns. I would like to address particularly his concern about costs, which was echoed in what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, had to say. Inevitably, there will be some variation in cost. It is rare for projects to come in on price and on time. This is a complex and extremely large project. Ernst & Young is currently employed by the department to provide financial advice on the most suitable and appropriate financing mechanism to deliver the proposed Thames tunnel that is fair to customers of Thames Water and to UK taxpayers. Ernst & Young is advising on structuring incentives into the financial mechanisms that will help drive desirable behaviours by those delivering the project to help ensure the effective management of project costs.
My noble friend Lord Selborne asked how the Environment Agency decided which combined sewer overflows were unsatisfactory. The EA assessed all 57 CSOs that discharge into the River Thames to identify which were having an adverse environmental effect. It looked at the frequency and volume of discharges, whether they were close to recreational areas, the number of complaints and the reports from other organisations operating on the Thames. Thirty-six were classed as unsatisfactory and therefore need to be addressed, and 34 discharge directly into the middle and upper reaches of the Thames in London.
My noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked what a tunnel would deliver. It would reduce the number of these spills from about 50 to 60 times a year to just three or four times a year, and the estimated volume of discharges from about 18 million cubic metres to just over 2 million cubic metres, improving water quality, with benefits for wildlife and river users. It would also ensure that we continue to meet the UK’s obligations under the urban waste water directive.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury—I nearly called him my noble friend—welcomed this project. The Environment Agency, with which he is very much engaged, is part and parcel of the team that is hoping to bring about the Thames tunnel project. I am very grateful for his support this evening, and for the contribution of my noble friend Lord Selsdon, whose experience in this matter I had not been aware of until he made his contribution to this debate.
There was some concern about the money getting to the right customers. South West Water is very much aware of the need to take account where metering and use are not necessarily directly connected because of multiple occupation or other situations. The money is designed to be per household and South West Water is intending to do that.
I have done my best to run through the questions asked. I hope noble Lords will understand if I did not pick them all up. I will do my best to address those that I have failed to do so by letter. Meanwhile, this may be an appropriate moment to thank all the staff and the Bill team for their support in seeing this debate through. We expect to have to work all hours. We have to share that expectation with a great many other people, and I am very grateful to them and I am sure the House will share in that regard.