House of Commons

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 4 September 2012

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to promote compliance with international law in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

7. What assessment he has made of the prospects for a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Progress in the middle east peace process is needed urgently. We have urged both sides to focus on dialogue, to avoid steps that could undermine the prospects for peace and to work towards the resumption of direct negotiations. We are in regular contact with the Israeli authorities on legal issues relating to the conflict, and we urge Israel to comply with its legal obligations, including those arising under international humanitarian law.

[Ann McKechin]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to this area, which is particularly important in the light of the problems that are affecting the region, to which he referred in his statement yesterday. Does he, however, understand the concern being expressed by many people that, on 24 July, the EU-Israel Association Council agreed to extend into a further 60 areas of trade co-operation while, at the same time, the increase in the number of demolitions and settlements and the blockade of Gaza are continuing apace. Will he tell us what his Department’s role was in that agreement, and whether he is going to hold Israel to account?

[Mr Hague]

We have repeatedly made clear to the Israeli authorities our serious concern at the 40% increase in demolitions last year, as recorded by the United Nations. We view such demolitions and evictions as causing unnecessary suffering to ordinary Palestinians, as harmful to the peace process and, in many circumstances, as contrary to international humanitarian law. I can reassure the hon. Lady about the EU-Israel Association Council, which discussed some practical co-operation in line with the existing EU-Israel action plan. The EU has been very clear that no progress can be made on upgrading the wider EU-Israel relationship until there is substantial progress towards a two-state solution.

[Tom Brake]

The Israelis are considering closing the Ras Khamis checkpoints in Jerusalem; they are also building new housing in illegal settlements such as Har Homa. Just two days ago, a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel. What route map does the Foreign Secretary believe can move the conflict from where it is now towards an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians by the end of this year, as recommended by the Quartet?

[Mr Hague]

It is a difficult route map. My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the depressing aspects of what is happening now. We have been working hard this year, as have many others in the region, to achieve the resumption of direct negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, but that has not worked so far. My right hon. Friend referred to what might happen later this year, and it will be vital that, whatever Administration emerge following the American elections, they put their full weight behind this issue from the very beginning of that Administration in January.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

21. The Palestinians claim that they will return to negotiations if settlement building stops, but they did not do so when settlement building did stop. They have now introduced two new conditions, including the release of all prisoners. Why does the Foreign Secretary think they are doing that?

[Mr Hague]

There has been fault on both sides when it comes to making a success of negotiations. We have advocated the need for Israel to make a more decisive offer than has been the case in the recent past, but we have also pressed the Palestinians to enter negotiations and not to set new conditions for doing so. I have said in the House in the past that Israel had been too intransigent in this process, but the Palestinians have been too erratic about the basis on which they are willing to enter negotiations. Both those things need to be put right in order for negotiations to get going and succeed.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that, on Sunday, 280 Israeli settlers were removed from the settlement in Migron under Israeli legal process, as a result of action initiated by Peace Now and Palestinian landowners? Does he not agree that it would be even better if those in some quarters dropped their blanket hostility towards Israel, if the Palestinians were to remove their preconditions to talks, and if there were direct and comprehensive negotiations during which the question of the settlements could be fully addressed?

[Mr Hague]

I absolutely agree that it is important to drop blanket opposition to Israel. We should stoutly defend the security and the legitimacy of Israel, but we must also be absolutely clear that Israel needs to make its contribution and recognise that settlements on occupied land are illegal, that settlement building activity must cease and that outposts on occupied land are illegal. We should be clear about that and maintain the pressure on Israel, as well as on Palestinians, to enter into direct negotiations and give them some chance to succeed.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

According to the House of Commons Library, multilateral and bilateral aid to the occupied territories and Gaza cost European taxpayers £670 million last year. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that, given that Israeli policy on settlements is making a two-state solution less likely, any deepening of trade relations with Israel would not be justified when the cost to European taxpayers is so high?

[Mr Hague]

We do give that support. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the extent of our support, which is, of course, very important for the Palestinian Authority to be able to function, particularly on the west bank. The position on trade relations is the one that I explained to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), and the European Union is very clear that an upgrade of the wider EU-Israel relationship depends on making substantial progress towards a two-state solution. That is a position that the United Kingdom firmly supports.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend have a look at the case of Mustafa Tamimi, who was shot at close range by an Israeli soldier recently? What can the Foreign Secretary do to ensure that future inquiries meet global standards?

[Mr Hague]

We have made representations about this case. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has done so, and he visited the family on his recent visit to the region. Of course, we want all such investigations to be carried out thoroughly and to meet international standards. That will be part of our continuing representations.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to promote political and economic freedom in the Middle East and North Africa; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

In addition to diplomatic and political support given to countries in the region, following the dramatic events of the last 18 months, our Arab partnership programme, which is now worth £110 million, provides practical support with a range of projects, including election reform, media transparency and employment initiatives. We will operate across 15 countries in this coming year, with a budget of some £60 million.[Official Report, 5 November 2012, Vol. 552, c. 2MC.]

[Mrs Grant]

What action is the Minister taking to build commercial relationships for British business in Libya?

[Alistair Burt]

We would like to see Libya as the partner of choice in a range of commercial activities. The work done to date, following the re-establishment of the UK Trade & Investment office in September last year, has been to look at key sectors of mutual benefit to us both, such as health care, education and civil security. UKTI has led some 12 trade missions over the last year—about one a month—and has a further 27 planned.

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

The development of democracies in this region will take a long time. Many organisations, including the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, are involved in this, and they are learning from the experience of what works in those countries and what help they will need in the future. Will the Minister ensure that the total learning from all that work, funded by the Arab partnership fund and others, is brought together so that parliamentarians and, equally, people who work in the Foreign Office understand exactly how we can best support that process?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I pay tribute to her work and that of other parliamentarians involved in the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. It is indeed the case that the various non-governmental organisations have different skills to apply, and it is important that we learn all the lessons from them. We have learned, as if we needed it told, that each of these countries is different, following slightly different paths and requiring different skills to be applied. The value that this country’s really good NGOs and parliamentarians can provide to the development of the democratic system will stand these countries in good stead. We certainly need to make sure that we have pooled all the lessons learned.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Last year, the Foreign Affairs Committee recommended a political surge in Afghanistan with talks involving all the regional players. The Government response agreed with that. A year later, however, nothing has happened. Despite the turmoil going on in the middle east and political paralysis in Washington because of the presidential elections, is it not time to give fresh impetus to this process and kill off the logjam of momentum caused by the delay?

[Alistair Burt]

Despite all the events that have taken place in different parts of the world, the United Kingdom has never ceased to focus on the fact that Afghanistan remains the principal foreign policy issue affecting the Government. The political paralysis that the hon. Gentleman describes is not necessarily there. Political processes continue in Afghanistan, and we continue to encourage both the Government and those whom we wish to enter into talks with President Karzai on the Afghanistan Government’s principles for engagement to maintain their activities. Following the death of the former chairman of the High Peace Council it has been difficult to get the process moving, but we continue to apply pressure, and we are sure that, as time moves on towards the presidential elections in 2014, the reconciliation process will continue.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

What action is the Minister taking in relation to money that has been taken out of Egypt by the former regime and is now in UK banks?

[Alistair Burt]

Legal processes are necessary for the return of any money that has been frozen in the United Kingdom as a result of sanctions. We are continuing to work closely with the Egyptian authorities, and we are providing support to ensure that they have the necessary expertise to navigate through British legal processes. We want to ensure that money that rightfully belongs to those in Egypt who have rightfully reclaimed it is indeed returned.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Mali.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

We are very concerned about the current situation in Mali, particularly in the north of the country, where violent extremist groups including al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb have taken advantage of the instability to consolidate their position. We will continue to work very closely with key international partners, especially France, to support the region in its efforts to restore political stability and security to the country.

[Roger Williams]

I pay tribute to two charities in my constituency which do excellent work in Mali. May I ask the Minister to encourage the Economic Community of West African States, and in particular Senegal and Algeria, to work with what remains of the democratically elected Government in seeking a peaceful solution before military intervention is considered?

[Mr Bellingham]

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those non-governmental organisations. I entirely agree with him that the situation is very fraught, but the good news is that President Traore has come back from Paris, and there is now a Government of national unity which is truly inclusive. The most important consideration is that ECOWAS must help to secure the state institutions in Bamako and then rebuild the capacity of the Malian army before even thinking about taking any action against the rebel groups in the north of the country.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

As the Minister says, the situation is extremely serious: more than half the country is now occupied by al-Qaeda-backed rebels. What steps can he take with his international counterparts to ensure that sanctions are imposed on sources of supply for those rebels, particularly in relation to arms and ammunition?

[Mr Bellingham]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, especially in view of the number of former mercenaries from Libya who have found their way into the region. Obviously the region is extremely unstable. A number of different rebel groups are plying their evil trade. What is most important is for the Government of national unity to secure Bamako, to work with ECOWAS and other international organisations to build capacity, and then to think about what action can be taken against those groups in the north. In the meantime, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There has been a United Nations Security Council resolution, and we will consider, as best we can, sanctions and other measures against individuals.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the situation in the Eurozone; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

It is in the interests of the United Kingdom and the global economy for the eurozone countries to take action to restore public finances, strengthen the banking system and improve competitiveness.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Fortunately, under this Government the United Kingdom will never be part of the eurozone, but the economic crisis is nevertheless having a dampening effect on UK economic growth. What strategy is the Foreign Office adopting to persuade the eurozone leaders to stop kicking the can down the road and find some solutions that will help the UK economy?

[Mr Lidington]

We are certainly continuing to support the efforts that eurozone Governments are taking to make their currency zone more stable and sustainable than it is at present, but we are also continuing to emphasise at every EU meeting that Europe’s competitiveness depends in the end on deepening the single market, improving free trade with the rest of the world, and cutting red tape and regulatory burdens on business.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am one of those who happen to believe that the eurozone is not long for this world. Is the Foreign Office looking seriously at what Europe might look like after the eurozone, and is it not possible that international relations within Europe will be improved once the tensions of the eurozone are gone?

[Mr Lidington]

We make all sorts of contingency plans for all sorts of contingencies, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, but I say this to him: while I believe the United Kingdom is much better off outside the eurozone, those 17 countries have taken democratic sovereign-national decisions to form this currency union, and we who support national independence and the right of nations to determine their own futures should respect those decisions.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Is it not the role of Government to say what would be best for the whole of Europe, and is not what would be best for the whole of Europe an orderly break-up of the euro?

[Mr Lidington]

The best thing for the future of Europe would be for Europe to start to get to grips with the shift in global economic power to Asia and Latin America that is taking place as we speak, and to focus on making it easier for European businesses to compete through enlarging and deepening the single market, through encouraging free trade with other parts of the world and through cutting the red tape that holds European businesses back compared with those in Asia and south America.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I remind Government Members that it was the previous Labour Government who kept this country out of the euro. There has been recent speculation in the German press that the German Chancellor will push for a new treaty to create closer fiscal and political union in the eurozone. What is the position of the Government on this proposal, and what discussions have the Minister and his colleagues had with their German counterparts about this proposal?

[Mr Lidington]

There are all sorts of exciting media reports, but there are no proposals for treaty change on the table at present. I simply remind the hon. Lady, however, that while the Government parties have supported giving the British people the final say over any proposal from any Government to join the euro, her party leader has said that securing the objective of Britain joining the euro will require only his remaining as Prime Minister for long enough.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential threat to stability in the middle east of Iran’s nuclear programme.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

We remain deeply concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme. A nuclear-armed Iran would result in still greater instability in the middle east and increase the risk of a nuclear arms race. Iran must negotiate seriously on the nuclear issue, to give the international community confidence that it is not developing nuclear weapons.

[Mr Hollobone]

The International Atomic Energy Agency reckons Iran has 189 kg of uranium enriched to 20%. Were this quantity enriched to 90%, that would be enough for five nuclear bombs. Given that enrichment to 20% requires four fifths of the effort to get to 90%, will my right hon. Friend redouble the United Kingdom’s efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed military power?

[Mr Hague]

Those efforts have been redoubled in recent times in many ways, and my hon. Friend will be aware that, with our partners in the European Union and many other partners and allies around the world, we have imposed more serious economic sanctions on Iran than we have imposed on any country in recent times. This has caused Iranian oil exports to fall by about 1 million barrels a day from last year. Iran is losing almost $8 billion in revenues every quarter as a result of that, and we will continue to intensify the pressure from sanctions, as well as remain open to negotiations, in order to try to resolve this issue. In the longer term, we take nothing off the table in our efforts to resolve the issue.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the article by David Remnick in the current issue of The New Yorker? He has just returned from Israel, where he discussed this issue with all the top figures in Israeli intelligence, every single one of whom is opposed to Israeli military action against Iran. Vile though the regime in Iran is, and while it is proper for the right hon. Gentleman to be taking the action he is, will he make it clear to Israel and everybody else that we are totally opposed to military action against Iran?

[Mr Hague]

I have not seen the article in question; I will be very pleased to have a look at it. Certainly, there is a variety of views in Israel about the merits of military action at any time. We have been very clear to Israeli leaders—the Prime Minister and I have been clear in our recent meetings with Israeli leaders—that the policy we favour and are pursuing is the twin-track policy of sanctions and negotiations. We have been very clear that under those circumstances, we oppose a military strike on Iran.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

20. Can the Secretary of State explain the stark discrepancy between the comments made by Sir John Sawers on 4 July and the Senate testimony early this year of the director of the CIA, General Patraeus, in which he stated that there was no evidence of a decision by Iran to build a nuclear weapon?

[Mr Hague]

I am not going to comment on the reported comments of the director of the Secret Intelligence Service, but I do not think there is any contradiction in anything that has been said in public. Iran is, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) in asking this question, accumulating material for which there is no logical explanation other than an ultimate intention to construct a nuclear device. There is no peaceful explanation that has been given to the world, and that is the important truth we have to confront, whatever decision-making process is going on in the Iranian leadership.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I have noted all that the Foreign Secretary has had to say about the sanctions that are in place, but given the very concerning terms of the IAEA report, of which he and other colleagues have already spoken, and in particular the reports of the doubling of production capacity in the Fordow underground site, will he share with the House a little more of his sense of whether the current sanctions are themselves sufficient to effect behavioural change in Tehran, or whether other sanctions could be imposed to achieve that outcome?

[Mr Hague]

Those sanctions are having a substantial effect—I quoted some facts in relation to that a moment ago—but it is important to note not only the impact on their oil revenues, which I mentioned, but that Iran’s other industries are also suffering. Domestic car production has dropped by nearly 40%, textile manufacturers are operating at 50% capacity, and there has been a surge in inflation, which is perhaps twice the official figure of 25%. These are very difficult economic circumstances, which Iran is making worse by the policies it is pursuing.

There is no evidence, so far, that this has produced a change of policy in the Iranian leadership, although I am sure it is the best policy for us to pursue. Certainly, I believe there is a strong case for the intensification of sanctions, and for additional sanctions to be agreed in the European Union and brought into force with the United States and other partners around the world, so that Iran is clear about the consequences of continuing with this policy.

[Mr Alexander]

As the Opposition, we have associated ourselves with and support the Government’s approach of intensifying sanctions but also securing engagement and dialogue with the Iranians. Given what the Foreign Secretary has had to say about sanctions, many of us welcome the re-establishment of the E3 plus 3 process. Can he update the House on his assessment of the progress made in those discussions, and has a date been fixed for further discussions?

[Mr Hague]

It was progress of a kind to have the discussions between the E3 plus 3—with Baroness Ashton speaking on our behalf, but all six countries present—and the Iranian negotiators, but those negotiations have not produced any breakthrough. Baroness Ashton and the Iranian chief nuclear negotiator, Mr Jalili, spoke again on 2 August—their most recent conversation—and we expect further contact between them in September. But for those conversations to make progress, it will be necessary for Iran to have less unrealistic objectives for the negotiations, and to be ready to respond to the clear and generous offer that the E3 plus 3 have made.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

6. What discussions he has had with his Russian counterpart on Syria since June 2012.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I held intensive discussions on Syria with Foreign Minister Lavrov during June, in Kabul and Geneva; the Prime Minister and I met President Putin in August; and I will look forward to meeting Foreign Minister Lavrov again at the United Nations General Assembly this month.

[Mr Bain]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. The civil war in Syria has just witnessed its most bloody week, and the head of the Syrian National Council has today said that the extent of the economic destruction in Syria means that nothing less than a Marshall plan by the international community will be required to reconstruct the Syrian economy. Will the Foreign Secretary continue to remind his Russian counterpart that a policy of engagement rather than obstruction is necessary for a secure middle east, and is in our and the Russian national interest?

[Mr Hague]

I absolutely will, and I did that, as I reported to the House yesterday, at the meeting of the UN Security Council in New York last Thursday. We will, of course, continue to press this point through the General Assembly meeting later this month. Again as I said in my statement yesterday, we are, in the meantime, working on what happens the day after Assad in Syria. There will be immense challenges for any future Administration of Syria. It is difficult for the United Nations to do all the necessary planning because the current Government of Syria are still a member of the United Nations, but we are doing that with the Friends of Syria group and we will be taking it forward energetically over the next few weeks.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Did Kofi Annan resign because he recognised that the civil war in Syria is a focal point of the ancient war between Sunni and Shi’a, that even locally it is beyond the power of the great powers to resolve unless Russia is prepared to help and that Russia is determined not to allow its Alawite allies to be overthrown by a western-backed Sunni rebellion?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend always puts these things extremely well, and that question is no exception. One of the dangers of this conflict going on and on is, indeed, that it becomes even more of a focal point for Sunni-Shi’a rivalry. That is not the only origin of this conflict, as I have argued to him before; there are also many people in Syria who want freedom from an oppressive regime, whatever their religious or ethnic affiliations. Kofi Annan resigned because he was not getting the necessary support from the Security Council, because of the Russian position, which my right hon. Friend describes. As I said to the House yesterday, I believe that that position will probably change only when the situation on the ground changes further in Syria. Sadly, that means a great deal more death and suffering along the way.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Instead of an obsession with regime change, why has the Foreign Secretary not been promoting a negotiated settlement, based on compromise, as all such conflict resolution is? This is not about appeasing Assad’s butchery, Iranian malevolence or Russian self-interest; it is about ending an horrific and deepening civil war, which is reverberating beyond Syria’s borders. Is this not the time to admit that there has been a catastrophic and monumental failure of western policy, and to change course?

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman may wish to familiarise himself with the positions that we have been taking, in common with not only western Governments, but the majority of Governments in the world. Our position was the position of the 133 nations in the UN General Assembly that voted for the resolution of 3 August, with only 12 votes against. That position is to have a transitional Government in Syria, including members of the current Government and the current opposition, based on mutual consent. That is the compromise solution. If he wants us to make a further compromise with forces who have killed indiscriminately and oppressed the people of their country with appalling human rights violations, I can tell him that that we are unable to do.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Although one can welcome his recent announcement of certain modest increases of contacts with the Syrian opposition, does not my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the arms embargo, which Britain supports, creates a hopelessly unbalanced situation, because the Syrian Government have a monopoly of air power, artillery and other forces, and because the embargo is not binding on Russia or Iran, which are not members of the European Union? Does he not acknowledge that this is simply going to mean that this conflict will last for many more months than would have been necessary, with many more thousands of Syrians being killed in the process?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend always makes an eloquent case on this subject. I respect his views and always pay great heed to them, but although I do not exclude any option for the future, I do not agree that it would be right now to lift the EU arms embargo. It has not been our policy in any of the conflicts in the middle east to send arms into a region of conflict. He will know that there are disadvantages as well as advantages to the course that he advocates, because it would be very hard to know what some of those arms would be used for. In the long term, there would be at least as great a risk that they would make the conflict greater as reduce it. We support the opposition in the terms that I set out yesterday in the House. It is clear that Syrian opposition groups are obtaining arms from other sources, but it has not been our policy at any stage to join in with that.

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

8. What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of the situation in Syria.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

The humanitarian situation in Syria is dire and getting worse. More than 2.5 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, many are internally displaced and more than 200,000 have sought refuge in neighbouring countries. The UK is the second largest national donor of international aid for the Syrian people and will continue to do all it can to assist.

[Diana Johnson]

Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary outlined the blocking stance that Russia and China were taking in the Security Council. Will he set out whether Russia and China, in light of their approach, are giving additional humanitarian aid to ease the suffering of the Syrian people?

[Mr Hague]

No, and the hon. Lady is quite right to raise that point. Given the under-subscription to the UN appeal for funds, which we discussed in the House yesterday, we need countries around the world to contribute. We are setting a strong example in doing so, as is the United States. It is very important that other countries do so, and in my view that should certainly include all the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I welcome the efforts that the Government are making through their contact with opposition groups in Syria to promote the protection of minority rights in whatever regime replaces the murderous Assad regime. Will my right hon. Friend particularly bear in mind the especially vulnerable position of the Christian community in Syria—he will understand the reasons for that position—and continue to do that work?

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. The position of Christians is vulnerable not only in Syria but in other middle Eastern countries, and it is an issue to which we regularly return. The Syrian opposition must not only come together as a united front for the purposes of negotiation and transition in this crisis, but reinforce at every opportunity their commitment to the representation of all groups and religious affiliations through their own composition and through support for the rights of all communities in Syria. That is crucial and is constantly reiterated by our special representative to the opposition.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement yesterday and for reporting to the House so promptly. One of the areas that he has identified as of real concern is the overspill of refugees and humanitarian problems across Syria’s borders to the adjacent nations. What specific assistance is he giving to the countries that are offering so much to those people?

[Mr Hague]

Our assistance takes many forms. Our main assistance comes from what the Department for International Development is doing in support of international agencies and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. That is helping to fund the supplies for people in camps who have crossed the border into Jordan and Turkey. Again, through international agencies, a lot of that aid is getting to people inside Syria as well. There are specific projects, for instance to help the victims of sexual violence who have gone to Jordan, which I talked about yesterday, and to help buttress Lebanon and support the work of its armed forces in maintaining its own security. So we have a lot of specific projects, too.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the UK’s bilateral relationships with Latin America; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

The Foreign Office has totally transformed Britain’s relations with Latin America after years of neglect. There have been more than 30 ministerial visits to Latin America in just the last 15 months. We have opened an embassy in El Salvador and a consulate in Recife, Brazil, and we will reopen in Paraguay and Haiti in 2013. Our extensive co-operation with Brazil on the London 2012 Games has been the closest ever seen between consecutive hosts.

[Mr Jackson]

Undoubtedly, the Foreign Secretary’s speech to Canning House in 2010 opened a new chapter in relations with south America, and I support the Government’s aspiration to double exports to Brazil, Colombia and Mexico by 2015. However, we must not neglect our traditional staunchest allies, such as Uruguay and Chile. Given our historic role as a trading nation, and the implosion of business confidence in the eurozone, what practical steps is the Minister taking to bolster UK trade with Latin America?

[Mr Browne]

I share my hon. Friend’s analysis. We have a very close working relationship with Chile, which is the most developed economy in Latin America, as well as with Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and other countries with an outward-looking free trade disposition. We continue to work closely to promote British trade and, more generally, wider British interests, including our political interests.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Can the Minister give us a progress report on what the Foreign Secretary called

“Britain’s most ambitious effort to strengthen ties with Latin America in 200 years”?

Does he regard the motion passed by the Organisation of American States, expressing solidarity with Ecuador over his bungled threats to their embassy, as a measure of how successful the Foreign Secretary has been so far?

[Mr Browne]

As an indication, the Foreign Secretary and I have visited Latin America more than did all the Ministers in the previous Government put together. We are strengthening our ties with like-minded countries such as Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Peru. As for Ecuador, when I visited I was the first Minister to go there for 12 years.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

May I take the Minister back more substantially to the issue of Ecuador? If we appear to behave in a high-handed fashion, is there not a risk that the very objectives to which he has referred will be substantially prejudiced, not least of course our interest in preserving the independence and self-determination of the people of the Falklands?

[Mr Browne]

It is worth reminding the House that the case to which my right hon. and learned Friend alludes is about Britain discharging its legal obligations with regard to Sweden and an Australian national, so we should not allow it to obscure our wider relations with Latin America. There is no question of Britain acting improperly or beyond the law, and I assure the House that Britain’s relations with Latin America are on a better footing than they have been for decades.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

10. What recent progress has been made on agreement of an Arms Trade Treaty in 2012.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

At the month-long negotiating conference in New York in July good progress was made towards getting a robust and effective arms trade treaty in the manner we wished for, but unfortunately it was not possible to reach a conclusion on the text at the end of the month. Accordingly, we are now recommitted to doing everything we can to see that base built upon, and we hope to make progress as soon as possible towards the treaty, which we hope will be in the next UN session beginning this month.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Minister for that response, and I am glad that he is talking about taking the matter to the UN General Assembly, rather than waiting for yet another meeting—under the rules, next year. We would need to get a two thirds majority, so this could be made faster now. Is he concerned that there are still many loopholes in the arms trade treaty, not least the fact that ammunition will be subject to fewer restrictions than conventional arms and that there is no requirement for the public reporting of arms deals? What plans does he have to address those loopholes?

[Alistair Burt]

I do not want to risk taking too long in my answer, because there is an awful lot in this. The pause that the chair of the conference gave to allow nations to consider progress allows us the opportunity to make representations to see whether we can make progress on what we thought was already a good text. There are some good things there already. For the first time, there is a global commitment to arms export controls and a mandatory requirement that arms exports should be subject to a range of requirements, including human rights, with a mandatory refusal if there is a risk of abuse. In company with civil society, non-governmental organisations and other partners, we will look for the process that is most likely to improve it and we will work with partners on the best way of taking steps forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I think a meeting between the Minister and the hon. Lady would be an enriching experience for both of them.

[Alistair Burt]

I would be delighted. We have already had such a meeting in the past.

[Mr Speaker]

We are glad to hear it. A beautiful relationship. We are grateful to the Minister. I call Martin Horwood.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I do not want to intrude on the love-in!

Last minute blocking tactics by the United States and then by Russia prevented the signature of a robust treaty in July. What assurances has the Minister had from the American Government that the international community will be able to pick up where it left off, perhaps after any distracting events in November are out of the way, and that the treaty will not be watered down in the meantime?

[Alistair Burt]

“Assurances” is not necessarily the right word. The conversations between us and those we expect to be major signatories, such as the United States, go on all the time. Time scales might have an impact on the negotiations that are going on, but it is important that we use the time that has been given to build on the good things in the treaty and do our best to ensure that those are not lost as we take the process forward.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

11. What discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the US strategic pivot towards Asia.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I regularly discuss US foreign policy priorities with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We welcome the rebalancing of US focus to the Asia-Pacific region, which is in line with our own renewed engagement in the region.

[David Rutley]

Given the United States’ refocus on Asia and repivoting there, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is taking to further our diplomatic and commercial interests in the growth markets of China and south-east Asia?

[Mr Hague]

We are doing a great deal to increase our emphasis on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations member states. This autumn, I shall reopen our embassy in Laos, which means we will be one of the few EU countries with representation in all 10 ASEAN states. We are doing a great deal to add to our commercial diplomacy in China, adding 60 new posts in the diplomatic service. This year, UK Trade & Investment expects to help more than 3,000 British firms to do business in China in design, construction, management of hospitals and energy generation, and there is a lot more to do.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with our US representative about the sabre-rattling between China and Japan over disputed islands, and between Japan and Korea in relation to their long-term relationship? This is a matter of just a little concern at present, but we do not want it to escalate.

[Mr Hague]

Of course, we discuss all global affairs with the United States, including those disputes. It is primarily for the countries concerned to resolve them, as is the case with the disputes in the South China sea. We want those disputes to be resolved peacefully and in accordance with international law. That is what we call for when we meet all the countries concerned.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of the state of UK relations with the Commonwealth; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

The United Kingdom remains strongly committed to a reinvigorated Commonwealth. We want to see a relevant and effective organisation that brings strong values, development and prosperity to all its citizens.

[Andrew Bridgen]

In December 2010, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House in a statement that the Government should use the Commonwealth to develop trade and investment opportunities for the United Kingdom. Will he update the House on progress being made on that, especially given that Commonwealth GDP is poised to surpass that of the eurozone and is projected to grow at three times the eurozone’s rate for the next five years?

[Mr Bellingham]

As my hon. Friend says, the Commonwealth brings with it some of the world’s fastest-growing economies, such as India, Ghana, Nigeria and Mozambique. We are responding with our FCO network shift. We opened a new deputy high commission in Hyderabad on 31 May and are to open another in Chandigarh later this year. We are strengthening FCO and UKTI commercial teams in Canada, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Mozambique, Kenya and Cameroon. I could go on and on, Mr Speaker.

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

Does the Minister agree that successive British Governments have neglected relations with Commonwealth countries? That is due mainly to the overweening obsession of the Foreign Office with the European Union and relations with Brussels. Will he set out how we will rebuild those relationships, particularly during this year, which is the 50th anniversary of Jamaica’s independence?

[Mr Bellingham]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are completely committed to a reinvigorated Commonwealth. We feel that it will be one of the most important organisations in the world going forward. That is why we welcome the work being done by the ministerial action group and some of the other initiatives. For example, there is a proposal for a Commonwealth commissioner for human rights. We also want to see the new strategic plan. I pay tribute to the work of the eminent persons group—including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who did so much work on that group—to help to move the Commonwealth in what will be a much more dynamic direction.

[Mr Speaker]

May I remind Members that exchanges at this point are supposed to be brief? They need to be if I am to accommodate as many colleagues as possible.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Following the London conference on Somalia in February, there are encouraging signs of progress in Somalia, which matters greatly to the security of the United Kingdom and the world. A new Speaker has been elected to the Somali Parliament and presidential elections will be held on 10 September. The new British office in Somaliland opened yesterday, and a new British embassy in Mogadishu will open soon—our first diplomatic representation on the ground for 20 years.

[Christopher Pincher]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the stories surrounding Mr Julian Assange, currently holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, that he might be executed if he faces trial in the United States, are utterly without foundation, and that his rights would be fully protected should he be extradited to Sweden, as that country has requested?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I set out the position in a written statement to the House yesterday and made clear the implications of the fact that the United Kingdom and Sweden are both signatories of the European convention on human rights. We are two countries which have some of the strongest attachment of any countries in the world to human rights. Therefore the fears that have been expressed that extradition to a third country could lead to a death sentence are without foundation.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Bahraini Government have long claimed their determination to pursue the path of reform and reconciliation, but only yesterday it emerged that the retrial of 20 activists and Opposition figures had resulted in all of them being found guilty, with long sentences and, in the case of eight defendants, life sentences. In light of this, can the Foreign Secretary set out the British Government’s judgment as to whether these were fair trials? More widely, what is his assessment of the Bahraini Government’s commitment to reform and reconciliation?

[Mr Hague]

I am very disappointed at the Bahraini civil court’s decision to uphold all the sentences of 20 political activists in Bahrain. We welcome the decision to review these cases in a civilian court but we remain very concerned by some of the charges that defendants were convicted of, and I urge the Bahraini Government to ensure that the human rights and freedoms of their citizens are fully upheld at all times. We are aware that the defendants can now appeal to a further court and we hope that this will be conducted thoroughly, with urgency and with due legal process. That will be one of the tests of the Bahraini Government’s commitment to reform.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

T4. In light of the recent news that the legislature of Argentina in Buenos Aires has passed a Bill to prohibit British ships from docking in its ports, what recent discussions have Ministers had with their counterparts across south America to prevent other states in the region from taking similar economically counter-productive measures?

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

We have regular discussions about ensuring that British interests are protected in Latin America, but as I said in response to an earlier question, our relations with Latin America as a whole are in a better condition than they have been for many decades.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T2. The lives of 179 brave British soldiers were lost in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If the nuclear state of Israel attacks Iran in pursuit of non-existent long-range Iranian missiles carrying non-existent Iranian bombs, can we have a guarantee that the House would discuss its position before any British lives were put in jeopardy?

[Mr Hague]

First, the hon. Gentleman must be careful not to extrapolate too much from one case to another. The position on Iran and its nuclear programme is documented in dramatically more detail than any of the programmes of Iraq discussed before the war in Iraq. But of course we have established a clear convention in the House over the past 20 years about the commitment of our forces to military action and the need to consult Parliament and to have a vote in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. That is a convention well understood across the House.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

T5. Ministers will be aware of the concern about the case in Pakistan involving a young girl, Rimsha Masih, who is thought to be as young as 14 and to have learning difficulties and who has been accused of blasphemy. Can Ministers update the House on what representations they have made to the Pakistan Government about this case?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about the case. It has attracted a great deal of attention. It has been noticeable also that President Zardari has commented about it and raised concerns, as indeed have a number of Muslim clerics. There now appears to be some doubt about the individual who raised the accusations against the girl. I spoke to Paul Bhatti, the President’s adviser on religious affairs, just two days ago to raise the United Kingdom’s interest in the case and we will now watch events with interest.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T3. Given that Venezuela has held more elections than nearly any other country in the world in recent years, and that these have been independently verified as free and fair by international bodies, will the Foreign Secretary join me in calling for all parties in Venezuela, including the Opposition parties, to recognise the outcome of October’s presidential elections, whatever the result may be?

[Mr Hague]

There is certainly a vigorous election campaign going on in Venezuela; there is no doubt about it. We support a democratic process in Venezuela, and of course want the elections to adhere to the highest standards. Everyone will have to make their own judgment about the elections at the time, but we certainly hope that they are elections whose outcome everyone can respect.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

T6. Will the Foreign Secretary please update us on the long-term vision for Afghanistan? What sort of presence is Britain likely to have in Afghanistan in, say, 2020 and what will we be doing there at that date?

[Mr Hague]

As my hon. Friend knows, our troops will not be in a combat role after the end of 2014 and will not be there in anything like the numbers they are now, but we have gone out of our way over the past couple of years to stress our long-term commitment to Afghanistan. That will include, on the military side, leading the officer training academy. Decisions will be made in due course about any other military support. Of course, our prime contribution will be an economic and diplomatic one, and the Secretary of State for International Development has announced large-scale development aid for Afghanistan for the future, so I hope that our role will be one of encouraging regional support for Afghanistan and working with a democratically elected Government on the country’s future.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

T7. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the directors of G4S are possibly violating article 76 of the fourth Geneva convention through their involvement in imprisoning Palestinian children in Israeli jails and, if so, would he like to comment on that?

[Alistair Burt]

The issue of contractual arrangements between the Israeli Government and their contractors is a matter for them. We are aware that concerns have been raised about the issue and know that enquiries are going on in that regard, but essentially the contract between G4S and the Israeli Government is a matter for them.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T9. I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the case of the Pakistani Christian girl accused of blasphemy in Pakistan. Last week I met a group of Asian Christians in my constituency to discuss the case. Will he comment further on what more he and Members of this House can do to support religious tolerance and freedom in Pakistan?

[Alistair Burt]

The fact that Members of this House speak regularly and clearly about the importance of religious tolerance and freedom is significant and important not only in Pakistan, but in the countries right across Asia, the middle east and around the world where our voices are heard. There are some difficult issues to be confronted in those countries where the Government’s writ does not always run in every area, but the House can be reassured that we make regular representations on these matters. The more voices that can be raised in support of tolerance and freedom and the brave people in those countries who are working for them, the better.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

T8. Now that the President of Colombia has announced talks with FARC about the peace process, will the Minister confirm that it is important that all sections of civil society are involved in any settlement and that the deep inequalities in that country are addressed? Will he be pressing the international community to support those Colombians who have worked for years for peace, often risking their own lives, so that they can contribute to the future of their country?

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the importance of Colombia, the second most populous country in south America and one that we work with closely. I know that Members on both sides of the House want to see a peaceful future for Colombia with an emphasis on human rights, which is also very much the priority of the British Government. We hope that the talks between the Colombian Government and the FARC are successful after decades of conflict and are keen to play a full part in assisting with that process.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend condemn the demolition of Palestinian homes in Gaza by Hamas? Reports from Palestinian agencies suggest that up to 120 families will lose their homes in Gaza because of the actions of Hamas.

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. We have said what we have said about demolitions on the west bank, and that certainly applies to demolitions in Gaza as well. I will look at the reports to which my hon. Friend refers. There are many things that we call on Hamas to do in order to make a peace process viable and, of course, it is important that it respects the rights of the people living in Gaza.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister will be aware of the strong relationship over the past year between trade unionists in the United Kingdom and in Colombia. What recent assessment has he made of the spate of killings this summer of trade unionists in Colombia known personally to members of the British trade union movement?

[Mr Browne]

I have regular meetings with groups to discuss this problem and have raised it on numerous occasions with members of the Colombian Government, right up to the President of Colombia. We are extremely concerned to ensure that the human rights of trade unionists around the world, including in Colombia, are protected. It is worth saying that significant progress is being made in Colombia and I hope that we will see, both in talks with FARC, and more generally in terms of the advancement of civic society, a peaceful future for Colombia whereby murder rates in general, including those for trade unionists, fall dramatically to levels comparable to those in many other parts of the world, including Europe.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

In the past few weeks there has been growing concern about the human rights situation in the Gambia. I am very grateful to the Minister for all the assistance that he has given my constituent, Deborah Burns, whose husband is one of those who has been threatened with execution on death row. Can the Minister provide an update on the representations made by the Government and assure us that human rights will be restored in the Gambia?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

We are obviously very concerned about what is going on in the Gambia, because there has been an effective moratorium on the death penalty since 1985. All of those on death row, including General Mbye, the husband of my hon. Friend’s constituent, had effectively had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. We have made very strong representations to the Gambian Government. I will meet Gambian Foreign Minister Tangara in the near future, and we will push them very hard indeed on this matter.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Do the British Government intend to have any observers at the trial of Bradley Manning? There will be a pre-trial hearing in about a month’s time and the full trial will start next February.

[Alistair Burt]

It is difficult at present to go into the circumstances because of confidentiality issues, but as the right hon. Lady knows, representations have been made on behalf of the British Government to those representing Mr Manning. The indication has been that he has not wanted that involvement, so it may not be possible— and indeed it is not always the practice—to have observers. I would be very happy to meet the right hon. Lady privately—arranging such meetings seems to be a feature of my exchanges this afternoon—to discuss the issue further.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State provide the latest information on the situation facing the Rohingyas in Burma, and would he be prepared to meet a group of Rohingyas who live in my constituency and have appalling tales of atrocities to tell about the situation in both Burma and, indeed, Bangladesh?

[Mr Hague]

These people are in a very difficult and often desperate situation in Burma and in neighbouring countries. This is a subject that both I and the International Development Secretary have raised in recent times with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, and with Burmese leaders, including the Opposition and Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as the Burmese Government, so we are constantly engaged on the issue and wish Burmese leaders to address it. Certainly, one or other of the ministerial team would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it.

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

The Foreign Secretary will have seen the worrying reports about young people from the United Kingdom travelling to Syria as the recruits of al-Qaeda and other extremist groups, and he will recognise the risk that such individuals may pose on their return. Will he assure the House that the security services will do all that is needed to counter this potential threat?

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. We take very seriously the reports that British nationals are among the foreign fighters in Syria. We cannot provide any estimate of the numbers, which the right hon. Gentleman asked for in his earlier question on the Order Paper, because there are numerous travel routes via many third countries. However, where there is evidence that British nationals are involved in terrorism or other illegal activity, the Government have a range of powers to stop them travelling and will use those powers appropriately.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise to colleagues whom I was not able to call. As Members will appreciate, Foreign Office questions are a box office-busting occasion on which demand for tickets invariably exceeds supply. We must, sadly, move on.

Proposed Closure of Wellingborough Prison

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I have the great honour to present a petition organised by Lynne Holcombe and Martin Field and signed as leading petitioners by Adam Trundle and Verity Sayers against the closure of Wellingborough prison. The Speaker has granted me a debate tomorrow on the very matter. There are 3,000 signatures against the closure of Wellingborough prison, which is the third cheapest prison in the country, and with the changes in the Ministry of Justice, I hope the decision will be reviewed.

The petition reads:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of residents of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth, that the proposed closure of Wellingborough Prison would result in the loss of up to 600 jobs, reduce capacity in the already overcrowded prison estate and would cost the taxpayer millions of pounds as it is the third cheapest prison to run in the whole prison estate, and is mindful of the Borough Council of Wellingborough’s unanimous decision to keep the prison open.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Justice to postpone the closure of Wellingborough Prison until a full review of the prison estate takes place, and a proper cost-benefit analysis is undertaken for each prison and an oral statement is made in the House of Commons which, if any, prison should close.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

[P001114]

Point of Order

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

15:35

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter that a constituent brought to me during the summer recess. The long-running, Government-funded small firms loan guarantee scheme was designed to support companies that have not traded for more than five years and that have exhausted all forms of security to get a cash injection. Evidence has been passed to me that Barclays bank used the scheme to underwrite its own bad loans for companies that did not meet the original loan criteria. It appears that it was underwriting small firms—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will understand that I have heard enough to know that this is certainly not a matter for the Chair. If he was concerned to put the matter on the record, he has achieved his objective. There are other ways in which he can pursue it, and I trust that he will. We are grateful.

Plastic Glasses and Bottles (Mandatory Use)

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

15:36

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to impose mandatory use of plastic glasses and bottles in licensed premises; and for connected purposes.

The Bill would require the Government to work with local authorities and licensing authorities to make the use of polycarbonate bottles as a replacement for glass bottles mandatory in premises with a history of violent incidents.

A year ago, my constituent, Nicola Roberts, was in a nightclub in Wrexham. She was 20 at the time. Without warning, an unknown person threw a glass bottle across the room. It hit Nicola on the head and shattered, causing three deep wounds to her face. The wounds required 17 stitches.

Nicola decided that she was not going to accept that. She came to see me with her mother and asked why it was that, when alternatives are available, glasses and glass bottles are still used in licensed venues. I confess that I did not know the answer. From then, I have worked with her on this question. Thankfully, Nicola has now recovered fully and is looking forward to entering her final year at Leicester university. She is using her experience to raise awareness of the issue.

We know very well that Nicola is not alone as a victim. According to the Home Office, there are about 87,000 violent incidents involving glass every year in the UK, and about 5,500 glassings are reported annually. Glass can cause considerable physical damage, and glasses and bottles used as weapons can intimidate victims, bar staff or bystanders and cause serious injuries. Intact glass can cause significant damage. However, when used as a sharp weapon, the damage can be horrific. Glass-inflicted injuries to the eyes and face can require stitches or surgery and can result in heavy blood loss and even loss of sight.

As a result of my Bill appearing on the Order Paper, I was contacted by another victim who has suffered even more grievously than Nicola. Jane Sheriff is a young mother. As a result of an attack with a glass bottle in April this year, her husband, Phil, was killed. In Jane’s own words, she does not want that to happen to another family. Like Nicola Roberts, she is not prepared to accept the law as it stands.

Jane set up the bottlestopnow Facebook site, which calls for the use of glass bottles in late night venues to be banned. I have seen a powerful ITV news report that sets out her case. She has attracted huge support, which has helped me in preparing for this debate. Her site stands as a record of the huge scale of the problem and of the profound grief of those affected by attacks using glass and glass bottles. Thousands of our constituents, particularly young people, have huge, lasting physical and psychological scarring from their injuries.

I am pleased that the Government have taken some steps in this area. Reassuringly, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 lowered the standards in the Licensing Act 2003 for passing restrictions on a premises, making it easier for the police to

“seek the imposition of appropriate conditions”

if they have a concern about a particular premises.

The new package of measures will provide more powers to reduce alcohol-related violence, deaths and personal injuries, including the imposition of conditions restricting glassware to specific premises. It will also make it easier for licensing authorities to remove licences from, or refuse to grant them to, premises that cause problems.

However, we must do more. Violent incidents and attacks on our constituents, particularly young people, remain common. As long as glassing incidents continue to occur at pubs and clubs, it is the Government’s responsibility to take action to prevent more violence from occurring. I am confident that more can be done at Government level to raise awareness and to prevent the occurrence of future violent incidents caused by glass bottles. The Government need to ensure that local authorities and licensing authorities use the powers they have to promote the use of plastic bottles in bars and clubs where there is a history of violence and glassing incidents.

A number of towns and cities have made important progress on the issue. Newport city centre is now glass-free on Friday and Saturday nights after 10 pm in a bid to crack down on glass crime. That follows a campaign by the Safer Newport Partnership, which introduced a trial of polycarbonate glasses in 2010. As a result, glass and bottle attacks in the Gwent force area fell from 53 in 2006-07 to 16 between April and December 2011. Newport city council used the Licensing Act 2003, and other local authorities need to be encouraged to do the same. Other towns and cities have taken action to varying degrees, including Glasgow, Bournemouth, Manchester, Reading, Cardiff and Fareham. Community safety partnerships across the country have succeeded in addressing the problem.

Injuries cause substantial expenditure of taxpayers’ money, because criminal injury compensation awards and NHS treatments are enormously expensive. The problem absorbs a significant amount of police time and carries an estimated £100 million bill for the NHS every year.

Developing safer alternatives to traditional glasses could involve the engagement of industry, trade and consumers to create solutions. I take this opportunity to congratulate all those involved in bringing about the universal adoption of toughened glass over the past five years, and in continuing the development of manufacturing standards for such glass. What is most frustrating, however, is that we already have available an alternative to lethal glass bottles. Polycarbonate makes a durable type of plastic bottle and is extremely difficult to break. If glasses and bottles were replaced, I am quite certain that even if the number of violent incidents did not decrease, their severity would decrease substantially.

Nicola Roberts came to see me last September, and Jane Sheriff’s husband was killed this April. Phil would not have died if a ban on glass bottles had been in place. We therefore have an obligation to act now. Government legislation in other countries, such as Australia, may offer us guidance in pursuing stricter enforcement of the Licensing Act. In Queensland, the liquor licensing authorities gave establishments a year, warning that they would face restrictions if it was determined that they were high-risk venues. Venues had to submit a risk management plan detailing the steps that they would take to minimise the risk to patrons, in order to avoid a blanket ban. The high-risk venues that were issued with a blanket ban could then serve alcohol only in toughened, tempered or polycarbonate glassware.

Of course, the action of replacing glass bottles and glasses with polycarbonate ones should not be taken alone, but rather within a collective framework that addresses other contributory factors to violence in our pubs, bars and clubs, including binge drinking. We must also consider what action we can all take to minimise risks. Of course binge drinking is a major problem, and we must continue to tackle antisocial behaviour in communities across the country. I know that those and related issues were addressed in the Government’s 2010 alcohol strategy, which included commitments to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol. Nor must we overlook the causes of aggressive behaviour. However, glass replacement is one solution that has been proved to reduce the number of violent incidents and injuries.

For as long as we fail to act, young people such as Nicola will continue to be scarred and wives such as Jane will continue to be widowed. For that reason, I urge the House to support the Bill.

14:30

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I do not intend to press the matter to a Division, or detain the House for long. You will appreciate, Mr Speaker, as I am sure the whole House will, that at this very minute the Prime Minister may be trying to get hold of me, so it is best that I move on as quickly as possible as I do not want to disappoint him.

I oppose the Bill because although the aim of reducing some of the serious offences listed by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is admirable, he is dealing with the issue in completely the wrong way. Whenever there is a problem, Labour Members always seems to believe that the solution is to ban something or ban somebody from doing something—that is the only solution they look for. Unfortunately, however, that is like saying that because there are so many accidents and people die each year on the roads, we should ban cars. This Bill is as stupid a solution to the problem we are discussing as banning cars would be to reducing road traffic accidents.

There is no doubt that the desire to reduce the number of people who suffer horrific injuries as a result of thugs who use glass bottles as weapons is admirable, but the answer to the problem does not lie in the Bill. First, the practicalities involved in banning glasses and glass bottles mean that such a measure would be virtually impossible to implement across the country. It may be easy to control the use of glasses, but what would happen to wine, champagne, beer or coke bottles? Will they be banned from the premises in case somebody gets their hands on them? What about glass tables—are we going to get rid of those too?

There are all sorts of dangerous things in pubs and clubs. Places that serve food have knives and forks, with which a terrible amount of damage can be done. During a recent TV programme about the riots, a police officer spoke about the problems that the police faced when dealing with thugs in a public house. He complained that everything was thrown at them—chairs, tables, frying pans and knives. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wrexham will seek to prevent tables, chairs, frying pans, knives, forks or anything else from being used in bars or pubs in case some thug gets their hands on them and starts trying to assault people. Where on earth would it end?

Not all glassing incidents take place in public; some take place in people’s homes, and obviously there is no possibility of banning all glass. There will always be victims of nasty glassing incidents, and even if it were possible to ban glasses in licensed premises, who would pay for it? If, in these hard-pressed times, businesses are mandated to supply non-glass glasses, not to mention bottles, will they be forced to pay, or will we pay from central funds or via local authorities? Many pubs are currently suffering, not least from the effects of the recession, high taxation and the smoking ban, and this proposal would create an extra regulatory burden and cost that the pub industry can ill afford and does not need.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly identified a problem, but there are better solutions than those in the Bill. First and foremost, we need harsher sentences for those who use glass as a weapon, and that is the route the Government should take. A sentence recently received by Rebecca Bernard at Bolton Crown court was a complete and utter joke. She reportedly had 51 previous convictions for crimes including violence and threatening behaviour when she smashed a bottle over a man’s head, and then stabbed another man in the arms with the bottle’s jagged neck. Unbelievably, she was not sent straight to prison for those violent attacks and—even worse—it appears that she had previously received a non-custodial sentence for another bottle attack. Such ridiculously lenient sentences are completely outrageous and are in no way a deterrent or suitable punishment for such vicious assaults. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to tackle the problem, rather than going down this nanny-state route, he should urge much tougher sentences to be imposed on those who perpetrate such crimes, and I would be happy to support him.

During a debate on this subject in the other place in 2009, Lord Mackay of Clashfern said that glassing

“certainly was a severe problem in Glasgow years ago. The answer to it that was produced at the time was very severe prison sentences. The judge who dealt with that problem meted out much more severe sentences than had previously been the case and reduced the incidence of the problem in Glasgow”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 October 2009; Vol. 713, c. 160.]

Lord Mackay of Clashfern has pointed the way to the solution to the problem, but both the Government and the Opposition appear intent on ignoring the obvious solution that most people in the country want.

There are other common-sense solutions apart from sentencing. Many licensees already use a combination of polycarbonate and glass, as the hon. Member for Wrexham said, and use their judgment and take precautions when antisocial behaviour is more likely to minimise the risk of glassings. For example, many use plastic glasses during busy sporting events or at live music venues.

In addition, reports from around the country show the success of voluntary efforts by Pubwatch and safer neighbourhood partnerships in encouraging and facilitating the use of polycarbonate glasses generally. The Licensing Act 2003 enables local authorities to attach conditions to licensed premises for the prevention of crime and disorder and/or to protect public safety, either from the outset or as a result of a review requested by the police or another responsible authority. Insisting on plastic glasses is an example of such a condition that could be imposed in a problem case. That power can be used when it is needed and appropriate, but the Bill proposes a blanket ban for all licensed premises.

I very much support the use of voluntary and other initiatives to minimise the problem of glassings. I applaud the work of campaigners who highlight the problem and commend the existence of projects such as Design Out Crime, which tries to promote new thinking and good design ideas to reduce crime, including alternatives to glasses.

Given that, I do not believe there should be any moves towards mandating people to use plastic glasses and bottles in all cases, as the Bill seeks. I support the voluntary measures, but, more importantly, I support much tougher sentences for those who perpetrate such terrible and horrific crimes to ensure that they cannot be let out to commit them again. For those reasons, I oppose the Bill.

Ordered,

That Ian Lucas, Dame Joan Ruddock, Pamela Nash, Susan Elan Jones, Hywel Williams, Albert Owen, Chris Bryant, Mark Tami and Chris Ruane present the Bill.

Ian Lucas accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October 2012, and to be printed (Bill 63).

Small Charitable Donations Bill

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

15:49

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is my pleasure to move Second Reading of the Bill, which is the product of many months of consideration and consultation, both formal and informal. I begin by thanking all who have worked so hard on it, including the voluntary and representative bodies, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and officials and lawyers, who have worked hard over the past months to produce the Bill.

The Bill provides the legislative framework for the gift aid small donations scheme, which was announced in Budget 2011. This scheme was announced as part of a significant package of measures to encourage charitable giving and philanthropy by donors from all walks of life, from the largest donors to those who give small amounts through charity bucket collections. The measures announced included reducing the rate of inheritance tax for individuals who leave 10% or more of their estate to charity, and a tax reduction in return for the donation of a pre-eminent object, or collection of objects, to the nation. Taken together, the 2011 Budget philanthropy package of measures represented the most radical and generous reforms to charitable giving for more than 20 years.

Crucially, at the centre of the package was the announcement of the gift aid small donation scheme.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The Minister might not be able to answer this, but I would accept an answer in letter form. Why have the Christian Brethren been denied charitable status? I have had many approaches from them.

[Miss Smith]

I hope you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I do not tackle that question in the context of this debate. I do not believe it is crucial to this scheme, but I will be happy to come back to the hon. Gentleman after the debate, if there is a pressing matter he needs answering.

[Mr Cunningham]

Why can the Minister not write to me about it or even meet me?

[Miss Smith]

I shall be happy to look into the matter, within my powers, and come back to him. However, it might well be a question for the Charity Commission, in which case the hon. Gentleman will know where to direct his inquiries. If there is information I can give him, though, I shall be happy to get back to him.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

To assist the Minister and the House, may I inform Members that the Public Administration Committee is conducting an inquiry into the post-legislative review of the Charities Act 2011 and that the role and charitable status of religious organisations are subjects we are concerned about? I invite the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) to engage with the Committee on this subject. We are happy to discuss it with him.

[Miss Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, which I hope has given the House enough to go on on this subject.

The purpose of the scheme—

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Miss Smith]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to set out the purpose of the scheme, I shall be happy to engage in further debate as we proceed.

The purpose of the scheme is to enable charities and community amateur sports clubs to claim a gift aid-style payment on small cash donations of up to £20 in cases where it is often difficult to obtain a gift aid declaration. In general terms, eligible charities and CASCs will be able to claim top-up payments on up to £5,000 of small donations each year. As I said, the crucial point is that the Bill provides for top-up payments to be made to eligible charities that find it difficult to claim gift aid on donations, such as those from street buckets and church plates—when donors might be reluctant to stop to fill in gift aid declarations. In such situations, charities are currently missing out on income.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I declare a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Institute of Fundraising. Are Ministers aware of the institute’s response? It has welcomed the Bill as an important measure for small charities that might have difficulty claiming gift aid, but pointed out that there are so many conditions and complexities in the scheme that it will actually undermine its accessibility to those very charities. Will she agree to meet the institute and discuss some of its suggestions for improving this important Bill?

[Miss Smith]

I am aware of that point of view, and if my hon. Friend will allow me, I will deal it and some others. I think he will know that the Bill has been subject to a pilot of a particular type of scrutiny over the summer, so there have been many opportunities to start that kind of discourse, and I look forward to continuing that in this debate.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for mentioning the public reading stage. How many people engaged with that process? It has been brought to my attention that it was quite difficult to find the information, which was tucked away on the Cabinet Office website.

[Miss Smith]

I will be happy to come to that, but if the hon. Lady will allow me, I will make my points in sequence. I am starting to stack up—in a non-polycarbonate way, of course—the points I need to make, so I will set out a few more of the basics first.

The new scheme does not require individual donors to complete a gift aid declaration or the charity or CASC to collect and provide the donor’s details with every payment claim, as is required under gift aid. The aim of the scheme is to complement gift aid, not replace it, and we are keen that charities continue to make full use of gift aid wherever possible.

[Mr Thomas]

It is not just the Institute of Fundraising, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned, which has concerns. Caron Bradshaw, the chief executive of the Charity Finance Group, has said:

“Eligibility for the scheme is limited and…will stop those that need it most from using it.”

Sir Stuart Etherington, the chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, has said:

“Even for those of us who spend a lot of time looking at Gift Aid, some of the restrictions are hugely complex to understand”.

Why does the Minister think that charities that were initially positive about the Bill are now so sceptical about some of the detail?

[Miss Smith]

I do not want this debate to descend into a battle of quotations—although I could, for example, provide the hon. Gentleman with a quotation from Mr Graham, the chief executive of a charity not far from my constituency, who has said:

“Being a very small charity relying on small private donations and monies collected in tins positioned in shops etc I welcome this Bill. It will certainly make a difference to the very needy children in Kenya that Mnarani Aid supports.”

The Bill has been broadly welcomed by the sector. It puts cash towards charities. I shall set out how it does that and deal with some of the points that some stakeholders have made over the summer and beyond. I am confident that the Bill does what it sets out to do, which is to support charities in a constructive way and the funding will be welcomed.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

If I may, I shall take the Minister away from the details and towards the overall philosophy. In the tax treatment of charities, we can use the gift aid or “charity grabs back the tax” model or we could convert to a model whereby individuals deduct from their tax the charitable contributions they make, as happens in the United States and other countries. Was that general philosophical debate part of her consultation and deliberation on the Bill, or has she looked more specifically at how to improve and enhance the gift aid scheme with this new initiative?

[Miss Smith]

I shall try to be careful in responding. A number of interesting issues have been raised that are not necessarily part of today’s Bill. In addition, a number of improvements to gift aid have often been mooted or discussed, but they are not necessarily part of the Bill either. In direct answer to my hon. Friend’s question, therefore, the matters for consultation and scrutiny to date relate closely to this scheme and the mechanisms within it, which I shall now set out.

Under the scheme, charities will be able to claim top-up payments equivalent to the basic rate of tax paid on a donation, which is currently worth 25p for every £1 collected on small cash donations of £20 or less. Therefore, if a charity claims on the full allowance of £5,000 of small donations in a year, that will mean an additional £1,250 of income. It is that which charities will welcome. Hon. Members will know that tax reliefs for charities and charitable giving are an important source of income for charities, totalling over £3 billion a year. Of those, gift aid is the largest relief and is worth over £1 billion a year. We estimate that the gift aid small donations scheme could result in additional Government funding of around £100 million a year for charities and CASCs by 2015. That represents a significant boost in income for the sector and will be especially valuable to small charities. That is why—I again emphasise the point—this is a Bill that is to be welcomed and which has been welcomed by many across the voluntary sector.

To ensure that the new scheme is as accessible as possible to charities, it will be administered using the same mechanisms that apply to claims for tax relief under gift aid. The scheme will look and feel familiar to those charities and CASCs that already claim gift aid, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will publish clear guidance ahead of the commencement of the scheme to ensure that it is simple to access. However, because the new scheme will not be a tax relief, it cannot be legislated for through the usual Finance Bill route— I regret to deprive my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) of the chance to serve on such a Bill and discuss the philosophical principle—so we are legislating for it in this programme Bill instead. The scheme was widely welcomed by the sector when it was announced in Budget 2011 and continues to be well received. We have worked closely with the sector to get the scheme right.

Let me now address some of the points of detail that have been raised, and which I am confident will be well understood by hon. Members. I shall set out the rationale for the ways in which we have designed the scheme, but first I want to set it firmly in the wider context. We have had to take steps to ensure that it operates as fairly as possible, but also to ensure that it remains affordable and is protected against fraud. We want this money to go to legitimate charities doing important work with real social benefit. We also want the small donations scheme to be as fair as possible. We want to ensure that charities doing the same kinds of work at local level, but which have different historical structures, get allowances under the scheme that are not hundreds, or even thousands, of times different from one another.

Those are the key driving principles behind the scheme: fairness, protection against fraud, and providing a complementary scheme to gift aid. We also want to channel some extra funding to charities, which I suspect that no hon. Member would want to speak against. I ask hon. Members to keep those principles in mind as we debate the detail of the gift aid small donations scheme. Let me take them in turn.

First, we want the scheme to complement gift aid rather than to replace it. I would urge all charities that receive donations to make full use of gift aid, where there is no limit on the amount of donations on which the charity can claim. However, there are some donations for which gift aid declarations are hard to come by, and that is what the scheme is designed to address.

[Mr Thomas]

Will the hon. Lady tell the House how much the Bill will cost the country? I ask that question in the context of transitional relief for charities having come to an end last April, at a cost of about £100 million. Will the Bill simply lead to a replacement of that money?

[Miss Smith]

I have already said that the Bill will channel up to £100 million to charities over the years in which the scheme gears up. That is to be welcomed. I think that the hon. Gentleman will also understand that the clue is in the title, in relation to transitional relief. This is a new scheme that ought to be welcomed in its own right.

The second principle behind the proposal relates to protection against fraud. We have designed the scheme so that for a charity or CASC to be eligible to claim, it must have a minimum three-year track record of successfully claiming tax relief under gift aid. It will also have to continue making gift aid claims while it is claiming under the new scheme. I know that the three-year rule and the requirement to match claims with gift aid claims have raised some concerns among charities, but I must be frank and say that the generous nature of charitable tax reliefs means that they are vulnerable to exploitation, with a small minority looking to take advantage of the arrangements.

[Martin Horwood]

The Minister has just mentioned two conditions: the requirements already to have claimed gift aid for three years and to match existing gift aid claims. The Institute of Fundraising has pointed out that charities that find gift aid hard to come by will be unlikely to be able to meet either of those conditions. May I repeat my request for her to meet representatives of the institute, which represents the fundraising sector, to discuss its amendments to this important Bill, which it otherwise supports?

[Miss Smith]

I should make it clear that I am in no way refusing to have such a meeting. I would be happy to take up that point. The scheme will be complementary to the gift aid scheme. Some charities have struggled to claim gift aid on certain types of donation—for example, cash donations whose donors it might be hard to persuade to stop and fill out a form. However, that is a different type of problem from the one to which my hon. Friend has just referred. I shall be happy to take up his point in greater detail.

I shall explain why we have had to put in place the three-year matching rule. There is an understandable reason behind it, and I think that charities will find it reasonable to work with. I am keen to avoid a situation in which the new scheme might become vulnerable to exploitation. None of us would wish to see funds that have been directed towards charities and the good causes they support being diverted or lost to fraud. I certainly hope that all Members cleave to that principle.

As I have said, HMRC pays around £1 billion a year in gift aid to charities, and such large sums inevitably attract fraudsters. Fraudsters scrutinise any payment system for weaknesses, and we have to be aware of that in designing any new scheme. As the new scheme is based on cash donations, records of the donor will, by their very nature, be limited. It could be said that this makes it even more attractive to fraudsters, so the very qualities of the scheme that are designed to make it work for charities—in other words, the ease of putting some money in a bucket—also help fraudsters. We have needed to find ways to protect the scheme from abuse, without adding to the paperwork that it might be feared would sit along small donations. One way we have tried to do this is by retaining the link to the gift aid scheme, which has tried-and-tested methods to protect against fraud. This also fits in with the desire, as I have said, for this scheme to be complementary to gift aid, not to replace it.

You will be able to appreciate, Mr Speaker, the idea I am developing of the need for charities to have a compliance record that will give HMRC a little more reassurance that the scheme is well protected against fraud. I am confident that every Member supports that. Charities with a good compliance record will be able to access the quite generous top-up payments available. Linking the scheme to claims made through gift aid gives not only HMRC, but all of us in this House, vital reassurance that checks and balances are in place.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

We all appreciate the need to ensure that the scheme is not open to fraud. That will be agreed across the House. What assessment, however, has the Department made of the number, the size and the scope of the charities that the Minister believes will be able to access the benefits of the scheme, with these conditions attached? The industry seems to think that the number, size and scope of such charities will be severely curtailed.

[Miss Smith]

We hope that this scheme will be well used, and I have already set out that aspiration. I have set out the aspiration, too, that the scheme will get £100 million to charities. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the numbers set out in the impact assessment, which has certainly been made available to him. The key point is that the scheme needs to be open and, as we have said, worth while for charities to access, which I think it will be. Equally, we need to be able to keep track of the possible costs of the scheme, which I am coming on to deal with. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that a pool of around 100,000 charities have claimed gift aid in the past four years. It might be possible to take that number as an estimate of the number of charities that could be eligible to apply to the scheme. We hope that take-up will be high, but by its nature, it is somewhat hard to predict at this point, but I am not suggesting that all those 100,000 charities will put in claims.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that if organisations such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Charity Finance Group, the Charities Aid Foundation and, I believe, the Institute of Fundraisers have problems with the practicalities of what she has suggested, she should at least consider the details again? I am sure we all agree on the general principles, but this is about getting it right for predominantly small community and voluntary groups.

[Miss Smith]

It is indeed about getting it right for those groups that we all care about. I can reassure the hon. Lady that I have already made changes to the Bill on a number of points, in comparison with what was originally outlined. If I can make a little progress, I will come on to explain them. I further reassure her that the whole point of having a public scrutiny stage for the Bill is exactly to hear those points. I have made it my priority to work with those representative bodies and, indeed, to work directly with charities as much as possible, reassuring them about the benefits of the scheme and explaining why I designed it carefully in order to protect its aims.

[Mr Jenkin]

I welcome the Bill, as does the charitable sector generally. So many people making small donations have thought about the need for this reform, and it is such an obvious reform to make—although, of course, the implementation is much more complex than the concept. Would it be sensible for the Government to agree now that whatever scheme is implemented in the Bill will be subject to review after two or three years, so that there is a mechanism allowing it to be swiftly amended by secondary legislation within a limited period? That will enable lessons to be learned, and perhaps it will be possible to extend the scheme to a broader range of charities so that more of them can benefit from it in the future.

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. I know that he has spoken to charitable groups in his constituency and others and has benefited from his experience on the Public Administration Committee. He will be aware that the impact assessment contains a commitment to keep the scheme under review. I am sure he will agree that the purpose of the scheme is to engage the charitable sector, and that it is certainly not intended to “turn off” charities that we want to support by means of the mechanism that it provides. I hope I can reassure him that we want to encourage smaller charities not to give up on gift aid, and to embrace a new scheme which we hope will be helpful.

As I was about to say to the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), many improvements to the Bill have been suggested, and I have listened to those suggestions during our consultation on the scheme. We originally proposed a one-for-one match in relation to the amount of donations on which a claim could be made under the scheme, and on which a claim could be made under gift aid, in the same tax year. Every £1 claimed on small donations would need to be matched with £1 claimed under gift aid. However, the sector feared that that would constitute too high a barrier for many organisations, especially small charities.

Having listened carefully to what charities thought, I accepted that our proposed arrangement would limit the amount of small donations payments that could be claimed for some of those charities. We have therefore reduced the level of matching from 100% to 50%, so that charities and CASCs will be able to make a claim for £2 on small donations for every £1 donated under gift aid. I think that that is a good compromise between helping charities to claim as high a level of small donations payments as possible, and ensuring that the payments go only to legitimate charities. Given that such a matching procedure will significantly reduce the attractiveness of the scheme to fraudsters, I hope that the sector will support it.

Let me now explain how we intend to ensure fairness of access to the scheme for charities that are doing similar work in a given locality. The scheme allows all charities that meet the entry requirements to claim a payment on up to £5,000 of small donations per charity. For many charities, that will suffice. Small local charities that are independent charities in their own right need consider the rules no further. I hope I can reassure Members that small charities will welcome the scheme, and, in terms of what they receive of the proportion that they seek, will obtain the most benefit from it. However, the scheme also allows some charities to claim more on small donations than the main limit of £5,000 if they carry out charitable activities in what we have called a “community building”, and meet certain conditions.

When we were developing the detail of this part of the scheme, it became clear that unless special rules were introduced, some charities would be able to claim hundreds or even thousands of times less under the scheme than their counterparts doing very similar work, simply because of the way in which they were historically set up. For example, Church of England parish churches are generally set up as separate charities, but in the Roman Catholic Church there is usually one charity at the diocese level with a couple of hundred parish churches below it. Without special provision, the Catholic Church, and certain other secular and faith charities with similar set-ups, would qualify for a small fraction of what their counterparts could claim under the scheme, unless they were to fragment and set up many more charities locally. I do not think forcing charities to set up more charities just for the sake of this scheme is sensible, nor would placing them at a very significant financial disadvantage simply because of the way they have historically been structured. So I have introduced the community building rule to ensure that charities carrying out similar activities in local communities—either through independent charities under an umbrella organisation or as local groups of a larger charity—get allowances under the scheme that are not hundreds or thousands of times different. Finding a solution to that issue was a priority.

[Mr Jenkin]

Why has £5,000 been chosen as the sum, and why is it actually written into the Bill? Is there some means of amending the figure at a later date, in the light of experience or inflation?

[Miss Smith]

As I have said, there will, of course, be an opportunity to review the Bill in the light of how it operates. The answer to this question is all to do with realism: the Bill’s provisions are, in effect, a form of public spending—I shall explain later how they differ from tax relief—and so a limit has to be included in the design, because such funds are not endless.

The sector has raised concerns about the perceived complexity of the community building rule. It is true that in order to obtain a simple result—that charities doing the same things should get an entitlement that is similar—we are going to need to put in place some fairly detailed rules. I hope Members agree that that is preferable to disadvantaging some charities just because of the way they are set up. However, as I have said, it is only those charities, or groups of connected charities, wishing to apply for top-up payments on more than £5,000 in donations who need to consider the community building rule. Most small charities collect less than £5,000 in small donations, so the rules will be irrelevant to them. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will issue clear guidance, developed through working with the sector, to show exactly how these rules will work in real-life situations. I am confident that that can be made to work.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

In that respect, will the Minister look at the prohibition on the residential use of the community building? That will potentially have a negative impact on hospices, for example, which we all value so greatly in our communities.

[Miss Smith]

That point has been raised, and I look forward to addressing the details of it with my hon. Friend and others. She will be aware that we have sought to put in place restrictions in respect of community buildings—the other being commercial and is in the same part of the Bill—because we want to focus the Bill’s provisions on charities that are operating for charitable purposes.

A separate rule ensures that charities that are connected qualify for just one allocation of the £5,000 maximum limit between them, so that there is no incentive for charities to fragment solely in order to qualify for extra allocations of the maximum limit. We had originally suggested a broad test in respect of connected charities. Following consultation, however, we have developed a much more targeted rule and, as a result, fewer charities will be connected for the purposes of the scheme.

As I have said, some in the sector have raised concerns that the community building rule does not go far enough. They have said that more charities should be able to benefit from the rule. It has been suggested that any charities carrying out one-to-one support for their beneficiaries should be eligible, and that the top-up should not be restricted to cash collected during the charitable activities carried out in the community building.

I want to remind Members of a central point. The objective is to allow individual charities to claim a top-up payment on £5,000-worth of donations. That is the starting point. It is not the intention to give a £5,000 allowance for every building they use; that is different from having an allowance per charity. Rather, I have used the existence of a building as an indicator that there may be a local group that warrants an additional £5,000. I do not envisage every charity that has a local presence claiming up to £1,250 of the payment for each local group or building from which it operates.

The community building rule is an effort to minimise some significantly unfair results between different charities. As I have said, some have been able to claim perhaps many thousands times more in the way of payments than others, in what are otherwise, to all intents and purposes, very similar situations. We have to draw a line somewhere, and I look forward to getting into the detail of the scheme.

It is very important to note a point that has emerged during scrutiny of this issue, and which I look forward to being published in guidance, so that it is clear to charities. Some of the examples that Members are raising will not necessarily be excluded under the rules of the scheme. It is a question of ensuring eligibility against the guidance once it is published. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned the example of hospices. If the hospice itself is used for mainly residential purposes, it does not qualify as a community building under the provisions as drafted. However, if it is not so used—indeed, many are not—it could qualify as a community building if a section of the public has access to it, in ways that the guidance will make clear. Lines do need to be drawn, but there is a keenness to get this Bill right.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Lady will be aware that clause 13 gives her the power to vary the £5,000 figure. Will she confirm today that the Treasury intends to use that power to uprate that figure in line with inflation each year?

[Miss Smith]

You will be well aware, Mr Speaker, that any such change needs to be agreed by this House under the affirmative procedure. What I want to see is this scheme bedded in as we begin. Like all limits, it will be kept under review—a point I am confident the hon. Gentleman understands, in the context of financial responsibility.

Throughout the development of the Bill, we have engaged with charities and other stakeholders on the detail through formal and informal consultation. We are engaging in a pilot initiative, aimed at getting members of the public more involved in the business of Parliament through holding a public reading stage. Although our public consultation was of course open to all, often, it is only those with a particular interest in the policy who respond. This Government are committed to giving voters the chance to participate more widely and to help develop the legislation that comes before Parliament. In answer to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), there were 85 comments from a total of 21 people and organisations. She will agree that that is a starting point for a piloted procedure. We all recognise that there are ways to get the public more involved in the work we do here, and I know we all believe that to be very important.

We published the Bill and explanatory notes in July, asking people for comments and recommendations on the detail of the legislation. A report will be brought forward at the Public Bill Committee next month. The Government will consider the comments carefully and I will respond to those suggestions in Committee. We are also going to pilot the tabling of explanatory statements alongside amendments during the Bill’s proceedings. That will help to set out the rationale behind any amendments the Government table, and I encourage any other Members tabling amendments to provide accompanying explanatory statements. I look forward to using these piloted processes to continue our engagement with those for whom we work.

In conclusion, the Bill represents the potential for a significant new income stream for charities and for community amateur sports clubs, which is particularly valuable to the sector during difficult economic times. There is no point in denying an attempt to make the situation better because of a disagreement over technicalities; we should value this scheme. Charities will be able to claim these new payments on those small donations where, to date, it has been difficult or impossible to collect the necessary paperwork for gift aid to apply. As I have said, this scheme could unlock about £100 million a year for the sector as a whole, once it is up and running. As such, it represents an important part of the strategy that I strongly support to get charitable giving going in all walks of life. I hope that hon. Members from all parts of the House will join me in supporting this important new scheme for the benefit it will deliver to small charities. I commend this Bill to the House and look forward to further debate.

16:30

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on an issue that is particularly important for charities and CASCs. I am sure that Ministers well recall the Finance Bill Committee debates, where we heard about the good work being done by charities, local organisations and CASCs across the UK. I have no doubt that the success of the Olympics and Paralympics is leading to more and more people, particularly the young, seeking to be involved at that local level. That will, of course, be welcomed by the clubs and organisations, but it also places additional pressures on them to recruit, to retain volunteers and to expand on their activities, rather than just sustaining what they are doing. I am sure that we will hear a lot about the good work being done in each constituency.

We also know that many charities are feeling the impact of the recession. A number of individuals have told me that they are no longer able to keep up their monthly gift aid donations as they feel the squeeze on their household budgets. Many have reluctantly had to take the decision to cancel their donations or to lower the amount that they give to charity, and a large number of them have told me that they have felt particularly bad about that when they have received a phone call, an e-mail or other correspondence from a charity asking them to reconsider.

I have also heard that small local charities are finding that while donations are less than they would have received in the past, the calls on their services are increasing during these tough economic times. Only last week, I heard from people in my local area about churches being approached to help people who are struggling financially, and that has not happened for many years. So every additional penny and pound that can be added to the funds that charities have raised for themselves will, of course, be very welcome and will be put to very good use.

I recognise that the Bill’s intention is to provide more help to those organisations, which is why the Opposition support the Bill in principle. However, it is our responsibility to examine it closely, and to assess whether it delivers what it promises and where it may need to be improved. That will be the focus of my remarks. I hope that the Minister will accept that this is being done in a constructive way ahead of the Committee stage.

As the Minister said, the Bill introduces the gift aid small donations scheme, which was announced in the 2011 Budget; the Chancellor proposed a new scheme enabling gift aid to be claimed on small donations, up to a total of £5,000 per charity, without the need for donors to fill in a gift aid declaration. That would mean that each charity could claim up to £1,250 per year. As she said, the scheme is similar to gift aid, in that the amount the charity gets is linked to the income tax rate of the donor; it is a gift aid-style top-up payment. As we have heard, the scheme’s purpose is to enable charities and CASCs to claim a gift aid-style payment on small cash donations of up to £20, where it is often difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the gift aid declaration.

When the Chancellor announced the scheme, he said that it would deliver

“gift aid on the contents of the collecting tin and the street bucket”.

He also promised that the reforms would be bureaucracy-lite, as he described it,

“without the need for donors to fill in any forms at all.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 962.]

More recently, a Treasury spokesperson confirmed that the scheme is

“intended to reduce the administrative burden and boost the income of small groups that rely on”

those very important

“bucket donations.”

As the Minister has said, and other Members have commented, the Bill’s intentions have generally been welcomed. Concerns have been expressed, however, by organisations such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Charity Finance Group and the Charities Aid Foundation, who described the legislation as highly complex and not accessible enough for smaller charities. They have raised concerns that there is a danger that it will simply act as a reward scheme for the established organisations that are already good at, and involved in, claiming gift aid. They also suggest that some of the provisions proposed in the Bill could significantly disadvantage certain types of charities, which has prompted some concerns about the equality dimensions of the scheme.

Those organisations are asking the Government to simplify the scheme, to make it more accessible to smaller organisations and to make it fairer, allowing equal access for similar charities. We have already heard the comments and concerns from Caron Bradshaw, the chief executive of the Charity Finance Group, and Sir Stuart Etherington, the chief executive of the NCVO. I say gently to the Minister that the Opposition’s approach is not about a battle of quotes. I am sure that she agrees that people such as Caron Bradshaw and Stuart Etherington reflect the sincerely held views of the charities and organisations and their concerns about the Bill. We should listen to those voices. The Minister has the opportunity to lay out how she will take account of some of those concerns as the Bill makes progress. To be fair, she has gone some way towards doing that, but we still need to hear more from her about a number of matters.

[Mr Jenkin]

As I said, the Public Administration Committee is very interested in this issue and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary was very receptive to the idea of revising the scheme after a period of operation to accommodate those concerns. Does the hon. Lady agree, therefore, that it would be sensible to include a clause that allows the scheme to be amended by secondary legislation without having to come back to the House to get another Act of Parliament? That clause is not in the Bill at the moment, but would she support its inclusion?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point and that is precisely the kind of thing that the Bill Committee will want to consider very closely. Anything that makes reviewing and improving the Bill once it has been enacted better is worth considering and, potentially, supporting. I also hope that we will see where we can improve the primary legislation to make it less likely that we will need to revisit or revise it quickly. I hear what he says and I am sure that we will have further such discussions in Committee.

Let me return to some of the issues raised by the charities and the voluntary sector. The Bill proposes that an eligible charity must have been registered with HMRC for a minimum of three years, have made a gift aid claim in three of the past seven years and not had a penalty imposed as a result of a gift aid claim. One obvious concern raised by many small charities who rely on small cash donations is that they will not necessarily have a three-year history of claiming gift aid. They feel that that has the potential to disadvantage them from the start. I shall say something else about that shortly.

Another area of concern is the matching provision outlined in clause 1, and the Minister has given us some information about her thinking and why she decided to set the ratio at 2:1 rather than at the point she originally intended. In order for a charity to take full advantage of the scheme, claiming the maximum £1,250 on £5,000 of small donations, it will need to have claimed at least £625 in gift aid in the same year. Charities say that that raises a number of potential problems. As we have heard, many small charities may not be registered with HMRC, and unless they register they will not be eligible to join the scheme. There is a worry that the three-year period may not give people an incentive to do so. Many may simply decide that the scheme is too complex, particularly some of the small charities that do not have the resources or an extensive staff network; they may just rule themselves out.

Additionally, many small charities only receive cash donations, so they often do not raise enough to claim the maximum £625 in gift aid in a year that they would need to benefit from the scheme. Ministers may want to give charities some reassurance about that, because charities that claim less under gift aid are at a direct disadvantage as a result of the matching provision, compared with those that are better able to use the scheme. That could further reduce access to the very small charities that the Minister said she would like to see benefit.

The NCVO recommends that the matching 2:1 principle is dropped, and would welcome steps to open up the scheme—for example, so that start-up charities and those currently not registered for gift aid had the opportunity to register and get into the system sooner. I heard what the Minister said about anti-avoidance measures and potential fraud, but we want to ensure that we do everything possible to allow smaller charities that try to respond to local issues, or are set up to respond—not quite on an emergency basis—to a particular issue, to get as much benefit as possible.

On the connected principle, charities have identified additional areas of concern in clauses 4 to 9, which cover the rules intended to stop charities and community groups fragmenting in order to be eligible for greater amounts under the scheme. Clause 5 defines the meaning of “connected” using section 993 of the Income Tax Act 2007, where a person who has control is “a trustee”, or a person who

“has power to appoint or remove a trustee…or…has any power of approval or direction in relation to the carrying out by the trustees of any of their functions.”

However, charities are not connected

“unless the purposes and activities of the charities are the same or substantially similar.”

Once again, charities and the organisations that represent them have pointed out that in reality many trustees will serve on more than one trustee board, which is particularly likely at local level. The concern is that there could be an impact on the charity’s eligibility to join the scheme if a trustee sits on the boards of two organisations that are considered similar. Charities suggest that that could easily occur, because if an individual has expertise or an interest in a particular area of service provision, they might sit on the boards of two comparable organisations. It is important that the rule is not seen as a barrier to attracting people or appointing high quality trustees with experience and expertise. I hope the Minister will look at the issue and offer some reassurance and, if necessary, some changes so that we get the maximum benefit from the Bill.

It is highly unlikely that an organisation would be incentivised to fragment to increase its accessibility to the scheme, which has been given as the main reason behind the provision. The majority of charities simply want to get on with doing the job—I see the Minister nodding. Of course they want to maximise their resources and the last thing on their minds is setting up different structures to fragment to obtain some other advantage—as it has been described. Will the Minister consider providing further clarification so that charities with similar purposes will not be disadvantaged simply because they have a common trustee?

[Barry Gardiner]

Does my hon. Friend agree that because of the matching requirement the conditions to stop fraud in gift aid will already be followed through? There is not the capacity for the extent of fraud that the Treasury fears, because it is already captured by gift aid requirements.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend articulately outlines one of the points that some of the charitable organisations make. They want a balance between ensuring that there is no fraud and maximising the income for charities. Many of them believe that the current provisions give the protection for that.

A number of organisations have raised concerns about community buildings. Clause 6 attempts to recognise that some charities have multiple independent local groups, which should not be excluded from the scheme if they would have been eligible as completely separate organisations. Having run a charity in a previous existence, I know something of the practicalities and difficulties of trying to work in that context. I recognise that it is difficult to get this right and we will have to return to this in Committee.

The proposal is that the use of a community building always should serve as a proxy for assessing eligibility of the independent local groups. Clause 6 stipulates that charities running activities in separate community buildings, which could be considered independent, might be entitled to an additional specified amount under the scheme. The additional community building limit applies only to small donations that are made to the charity in the community building in the tax year while it is running charitable activities. The charities tell us that, once again, that could be problematic.

Beneficiary and donor groups are usually separate, and it is often the exception, not the rule, that funds are raised during charitable activity, so the charities are saying that the provision risks disadvantaging those charities for which it would not be appropriate or possible to raise funds in that way. They give the example of a support group for people who are recovering from addiction problems, which would not be expected to raise funds during counselling or one-to-one sessions, whereas a church or a church organisation might often take up a collection during meetings. It is more relevant, therefore, that the funding is directed towards the activities of the local group, rather than that donations are made in the building during charitable activities.

Clause 7 stipulates that a charity running activities in separate community buildings, which could be considered independent, might be entitled to an additional specified amount with respect to the scheme

“if it carries out charitable activities with a group of 10 or more people in the building on 6 or more occasions in the tax year”.

However, specifying the number of beneficiaries could limit the types of organisation that may access the scheme of their own accord. Again, I hope that the Minister will listen to what the charities are saying about that. They are also concerned that some community groups are based in a community building that is itself a registered charity, with a number of non-registered organisations carrying out activities in an umbrella organisation of some kind underneath that. It is not entirely clear to the people who will have to work the scheme on the ground how the rules apply in such a situation. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that. If not, we shall return to the matter in Committee.

There are a number of other situations in which the criteria might not apply. Local groups of charities that deliver services such as counselling to individuals or small groups might well not meet the 10-people rule, although they might be doing good and valuable work. In local groups of conservation or animal welfare charities, the individuals present might be volunteers. One concern about the Bill is when a person is a volunteer, a staff member or a beneficiary of the charity. The reality of many of those organisations is that people might occupy each role at different times, or indeed occupy some of those roles at the same time. There could also be problems where local groups carry out home visits and service delivery in the buildings of partner organisations.

There are some limitations to such an approach, which sees the links with the community buildings as the most effective way to identify an independent local group. The concern is that, for those groups, the Bill restricts eligible fundraising activities to those conducted in the building. If that is the case, it is unhelpful and will disadvantage those groups compared with other charities using the scheme, where no such restriction is in place.

Clause 8 stipulates that a community building cannot include a building, or any part of a building, used wholly or mainly for commercial or residential purposes. That point has already been referred to. It is said that the provision aims to ensure that groups run from homes and commercial entities such as charity shops cannot access a separate entitlement to the scheme.

The intention behind the provision is clear, but once again a number of challenges are posed. For instance, many charities that may be part of a group structure run activities that are residential in nature. Hospices have already been mentioned. Further examples are care homes and respite care. It will sometimes be difficult to decide what the main purpose is. It would be interesting to hear Ministers’ views on that. It may be difficult for those charities to access the scheme independently, as they may be entitled to only one limit across the whole group structure, unless they are awarded special consideration. Charities or community groups carrying out contracted services may also be considered commercial. That is a genuine issue for some of the charities that are delivering services on which many of our constituents depend.

If the additional limits are awarded only to groups carrying out charitable activities, this should be sufficient to restrict charity shops from accessing the scheme, if that is the purpose. Commercial activity that is carried out as part of the delivery of charitable activities—so-called primary purpose trading—should be exempt from falling under this definition.

A number of charities and voluntary sector organisations have expressed their concerns about the Bill, and the Minister gave us some information about involvement in consultation. The Bill has also raised concerns among some in the legal profession, including the Law Society of Scotland. It supports the policy intent of the Bill and suggests that it is an attempt to strike a reasonable balance between pragmatism and identifying fraud, so the Minister has the support of the Law Society of Scotland in that context. However, the LSS makes the point that it is difficult to identify a way of achieving in practice what the Bill attempts to do in theory. It suggests that flexibility be built into the legislation, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, or that there should be provision for a review of how it is working, as it may prove easier to identify ways to widen the scope of the legislation once it has been in operation for a time.

The Law Society of Scotland echoes the points made by NCVO and others that the legislation is likely to have limited impact and that it will not catch all the charities that could usefully benefit from it. The LSS goes on to highlight some specific issues about the drafting of the Bill. I do not want to spend too much time dealing with those this afternoon, but I shall set out a couple. On clause 3, the LSS has voiced concerns that £20 is too small an amount and that in certain situations it may be difficult for managers to police. It notes that the schedule to the clause provides that

“Where a gift of cash is made to the charity and its managers do not know whether the gift is £20 or less, the condition in sub-paragraph (1)—

With which I am sure the Minister is au fait—

“ is to be treated as met if the managers have taken reasonable steps to find out.”

The Minister and I have had enough exchanges in Committees to know that there are always questions about what “reasonable steps” in such a case would mean. This is another example where something that makes perfect sense to those drafting the wording of a Bill may not easily translate into practice and I, like the LSS, am left wondering what the “reasonable steps” envisaged might be in practice and whether the Minister is proposing guidance on this point.

I seek clarification from the Minister whether the provisions laid out in clause 12 are intended to provide continuity where a charity opts to change its legal form. Does she agree that although it would be sufficient in respect of incorporations, more would be required in the case of mergers? Does the primary legislation need to be wider in that respect?

Although the Bill of course covers the UK and contains provisions for different parts of the United Kingdom, particularly the exception for Northern Ireland, the Minister will be aware that there is different legislation for charities in Scotland. Concern has been expressed by the Law Society of Scotland that the definition of “charitable purpose” in the Bill is the English definition. Will the Minister clarify whether the wording in clause 17(2)(a) is necessary or desirable in view of the terms of sections 7, 8 and 356 of the Charities Act 2011? Scottish charities will need to be aware of the different legal definitions that will apply to them for different purposes.

I know that all probably sounds pretty technical when broken down clause by clause, and there might be Members on both sides of the House whose eyes are now glazing over because of all the detailed points I have made, but it is an example of what we are going to have to deal with in Committee. However, I think that it is worth reflecting on the fact that these issues have been raised because charities have told us that the changes will affect people in our communities.

The CFG has highlighted the example of a local branch of a national charity that works with disabled children. The branch is independently managed and holds its own business contracts. It runs in-home services for children and young people and focuses on developing independent skills. It occasionally holds social groups for its beneficiaries in different venues, depending on the cost of rent and availability. A local commercial hotel and leisure club often provides it with low-cost space to hold such events. The branch regularly claims under gift aid and often fundraises with collection buckets in the local area and through events at local schools.

One of the concerns that have been raised is that that organisation might be unable to claim gift aid fully under the proposed scheme because, as a local branch of a national charity, it might be considered to be connected and so would fall under the community buildings rules. As its services are not linked to one community building, it might be unable to claim for small cash donations. Residential and commercial buildings are not eligible, so it will not be able to register off the back of regular meetings in beneficiaries’ homes or the local hotel that provides low-cost space. One-to-one services do not count, as the legislation stipulates that meetings in community buildings must take place with at least 10 people present, not including staff and volunteers, and at least six times a year. Donations are not always made during the course of its charitable activities or within a community building used for those activities, but rather through separate fundraising events and activities. That picture of what a typical charitable organisation or set-up involves is one that we will have to look at more closely in Committee to ensure that absolutely everything is put in place to assist them.

In conclusion, the scheme is a welcome addition to the gift aid landscape and could be of particular benefit to small charities. We know that millions of pounds in potential gift aid is left unclaimed every year, and the scheme could go some way towards bringing some of that money back to the beneficiaries who need it most. We know that giving small amounts of cash is the most common donation method, and it has been estimated that in 2010-11 the average person would have donated £11 through charity buckets or donation tins.

Therefore, charities are asking the Government to simplify the scheme substantially to make it fairer and allow improved access for smaller organisations and equal access for similar charities. The abiding principle they want to see adopted is that the scheme should be easy to access and not tied up in red tape—something I am sure Ministers will absolutely wish to ensure. It would be helpful if the Minister gave some response to the concerns about the matching ratio requirement, the eligibility criteria and the community buildings rules. We have also heard some concerns about gift aid, such as the burden on charities of its being a paper-based system in an increasingly digital world. Indeed, the comment has been made that it is perhaps time to look again at the whole gift aid system and ways of bringing it up to date. I would be interested to hear her views in that regard.

Finally, I welcome what the Minister said about being committed to the consultation process and the new public reading stage for Bills, but I must reiterate the comments I made in my earlier intervention. It has actually been quite difficult for members of the public to find the information on the Cabinet Office website and take part in the consultation. If this is a pilot for the future, I hope that she will consult colleagues on how the whole experience could be improved. She has updated us on a number of comments that have been made, but perhaps she will also give us a specific time scale for when the information will be given to Members so that we have the opportunity to engage fully with the organisations that took the time to contribute.

The Opposition support the principle of the Bill and want to see it progress to Committee, where it needs to be amended to reflect the views of those who have contributed so far and the needs of the charities and community amateur sports clubs that do so much good work in our local communities.

16:59

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

This debate might not be what everyone is concentrating on in Westminster today, but it is nevertheless an important contribution to the parliamentary calendar. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to support the Bill, which will close the gap that has existed in the gift aid system for too long. The system works well when the identity of the donor is known, but it is, of course, ineffective for small, anonymous donations.

Small, anonymous donations are increasingly important to charities that are trying to raise support during a recession. At present, tin-rattling fundraisers, who often work at the coal face for the charitable sector, could miss out, so I am pleased that that will change under the Bill.

The Bill will provide a dual benefit: it will encourage more people to donate to charities, safe in the knowledge that the tax on their contribution can be reclaimed, and it will encourage more charities to use gift aid. The Bill builds on the principle of gift aid; it does not replace it. I was pleased to hear the Minister reiterate that that principle lies behind the Bill.

The Bill has been introduced to Parliament on the back of a public reading stage. I think I am right in saying that this is only the second occasion on which this form of open government has been practised, the Protection of Freedoms Bill being the first. The public reading showed that there was broad support among the charitable sector for this Bill. The sector wants the proposed changes and recognises the benefits that they will bring.

The Bill will reduce the reliance of the charity sector on so-called chuggers knowing the identity of everyone they approach. At present, they need the identity of every donor in order for gift aid to apply. Once the Bill is enacted, the situation of somebody who rattles a tin will be just as tax-efficient.

The Bill will benefit many small charities that rely on small donations, such as the Arrow riding centre for the disabled in Darenth in my constituency. It relies heavily on volunteers asking for donations at various community events, without ever knowing the identity of many of those who have given small amounts of money to its cause. The Bill deals with that precise situation and will make a genuine difference to the work that small charities, such as the Arrow riding centre, carry out.

We all know the names of various large charities in the UK, but most charities have a turnover of less than £10,000 per annum and they are set to be the main winners. The Bill will also build on the benefits that this Government have given to those who are generous to charities, such as the changes in inheritance tax for charitable donations, which make it far more rewarding for individuals to provide a legacy to charitable organisations. Good government is about supporting those who are doing good things, and this Bill does precisely that.

For any charity law to work, it is essential that it remain as simple as possible, so that safeguards against fraud are in place but volunteers are not put off charitable activities by the weight of bureaucracy that they need to deal with. That is why we need to keep the registration process for gift aid simple. Gift aid has been targeted by fraudsters in the past, so the Bill will require a good track record before the measures can apply.

In conclusion, it makes genuine sense to encourage people to give donations to charity in a simple and cost-effective way that benefits the donor, the charity and the whole of society. The Bill will facilitate that. I therefore hope that it will receive its Second Reading today.

17:04

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). He began his remarks by suggesting that people in the outside world might be more interested in the current reshuffle in Westminster. If it is any consolation to him, the first discussion of charities in this House took place in 1601 and the discussions about charities in this House have mattered far more than any reshuffle. I am therefore sure that what we are discussing matters more.

The modern charities sector in England and Wales is large and diverse—far more diverse than it was in 1601. A recent briefing by the National Audit Office for the Select Committee on Public Administration stated that in 2009-10, there were approximately 160,000 registered charities in England and Wales with an estimated combined income of £55.4 billion. It also stated that there were more than 191,000 unregistered charities with a combined income of at least £57.7 billion. That shows the size, diversity and importance of the sector. More than that, it shows the importance of our getting this legislation right.

When we think about the Bill, we have in our minds a selection of small, voluntary organisations that work against the odds to do the very best for their communities. Those are the organically formed groups that exist across the country. They are the groups that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who I think is still the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, once noted are animated by “fire in the belly”. He went on to give the following description:

“For it is that which has traditionally motivated people to form voluntary and community organisations, and then to take action to correct some injustice which has made them angry, or fill some gap in services which has moved them.”

It is surely our task in this House to do everything we can to support the work of such groups. That is why I am sure that everyone in the House will want this legislation to be the best that it can possibly be.

All moves to encourage giving and to simplify the system should be welcomed, including the principle behind the Bill. There have been many welcome changes in this area in recent years. Many Members will remember that until 1990, one needed to enter into a four-year covenant for charities to be able to get tax back. Then came the welcome break of gift aid on cash gifts of £600 or more. Later, in the great spirit of the Jubilee 2000 movement, came millennium gift aid, which was introduced by the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). That major change in the support for charitable giving, which applied first to projects in the developing world, meant that charities could claim the tax back on gifts of £100 made in a lump sum or in instalments. Subsequently, that was extended to all charities and to all sums of money, which I am sure was welcomed by all.

The principle behind the Bill is very much in that tradition. The new scheme will enable charities to claim back the tax on small donations of up to £5,000 per charity, without the need for donors to fill in a gift aid declaration. Charities will therefore be able to claim a maximum of £1,250 a year, which is welcome. I urge the Government to consider carefully the concerns of groups in the voluntary sector, such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Charities Aid Foundation and the Institute of Fundraising, about whether the bureaucracy will make things too complex for the charities that the Bill is intended to benefit and that the Government and Opposition parties want to see benefit.

We will particularly need to see what happens with the matching principle. The Economic Secretary was absolutely right that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations does not like the existing provisions, but it does not really like these proposals either. It states:

“We recommend that the 2-1 matching principle is dropped. We would also welcome steps to open the scheme up so that start-up charities, and those that are currently not registered for Gift Aid, have the opportunity to register and begin using this scheme sooner.”

I hope the Government will take that on board sooner rather than later.

Under the Bill as it stands, charities will have to have been registered with HMRC for at least three years. Many voluntary groups are not registered with HMRC, and they are the exact small groups that would benefit most from the scheme and are doing good work in our communities. I urge the Government to consider that.

There is also cause for concern about community buildings. I very much welcome the impact that the Bill will have on certain churches and places of worship of other faiths, because I personally believe that there should be a special place in heaven for anyone who volunteers for the post of gift aid secretary. However, the Economic Secretary made an interesting point about how the scheme would benefit Catholic parishes. Indeed it would, but there is an anomaly in it. A parish doing fundraising work in its church premises would be able to benefit from the scheme, but not one running a cake bake or similar fundraising programme elsewhere, even if it were identical work. That matter needs to be considered.

There is also the issue of the Bill’s impact on hospices, which the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised earlier. There cannot be a Member in the House who does not recognise the excellent work done by hospices across the country.

A further anomaly involves independent care home that provides low-cost residential care for elderly people. It is registered with HMRC and so able to make gift aid claims. It is not independently registered with the Charity Commission, because it is part of a wider group of residential care homes and falls under the governance of a larger charity. The care home independently manages its own finances, human resources, business development and marketing, and being local it often receives small cash donations from collection tins positioned in shops in local towns and villages. It is also contracted by the local authority to provide services.

It is bad luck for that care home because it will not be entitled to a penny under the Bill’s provisions. As a small branch of a national charity, it may be considered “connected” and therefore fall under the community buildings rule, but as its services are not linked to one community building it will be unable to claim for small cash donations. Residential and commercial buildings will not be eligible, and as an organisation providing residential care on a contracted basis, the care home will fall under both those categories. Its donations are also not made during the course of charitable activities or within a community building being used for those activities, but through separate fundraising events and activities. That is just one of many anomalies that have to be considered.

I do not wish to discuss wider issues in detail, but we have to recognise that these are tough times for voluntary and community groups. The recent National Audit Office briefing that I cited earlier quoted the NCVO’s estimate that in 2015 the charity sector is likely to receive £1.2 billion less than in 2012. Moreover, back in July Mr Christian Guy, the managing director of the Centre for Social Justice, a think-tank that I believe the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set up, said that

“the Government must do more to convince charities that it is supportive of the valuable work they do in communities. Support is all the more necessary during a time of austerity, when budget cuts could enable the most disenfranchised people in society to slip through the cracks.”

We could debate many more issues today, but as a start it is vital that we look at all possible anomalies and at evidence from pan-sector charitable groups, as well as from individual charities and people with an interest in the area. For those with fire in their bellies and those who will benefit from the legislation, we must ensure that we get it right.

16:22

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). I welcome this Bill. Many hon. Members have looked forward to it for a long time, and I congratulate the Government on introducing it. The importance of improving tax benefits for charities has had cross-party consensus in the House for many years, from the introduction of gift aid in 1990 and its improvement under the previous Government, to this Bill—an honourable thread of legislation.

This Bill is long overdue and will hugely benefit smaller charities in all our constituencies. This morning I was with a group from the Rotary club of Stafford Castle. They do a lot of collecting in the town centre and would benefit from the Bill and, like many volunteers, they give up huge amounts of time to collect donations. Research shows that around 50% of all charitable donations in the UK are made in cash, against 29% by direct debit and the rest by cheque or card. The Bill will make a welcome contribution to those charities, adding 25% to the value of donations.

The Bill is important for two reasons. First, it is important for small charities, as other hon. Members have made clear, but secondly, it is important because it concerns donations from those in lower income groups, who until now have not really been recognised. At the moment, a person must be an income tax payer in order to claim gift aid. With the welcome increase in the income tax threshold for the 20% rate, fewer people will be taxpayers, and hence fewer people will be able to reclaim gift aid. As we search for equality in many areas, it is important to have equality among donors. Those who do not pay income tax should have the same right as those who pay it to have income tax on their donations reclaimed by charities.

Last year, the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy found in its report, “How generous is the UK?”, that

“donor households towards the lower end of the expenditure distribution tend to give away more of their money to charity”

than those at the upper end. Donors at the lower end of the income scale donate something like 3% of their income, and those at the upper end 1%. At the moment, however, donations to charity made by those on lower incomes do not receive tax back.

Figures from 2009-10 showed that tax was reclaimed through gift aid on 40% of all charitable donations in the UK. There is, however, a huge gap between large and small donations because 73% of larger donations of more than £100, which come mainly from wealthier donors, use gift aid to boost the impact of their donation, while only 20% of donations under £10 claimed gift aid.

This Bill will make a great difference not only to small charities but to the way in which those who give regularly and faithfully view their donations, which they will see recognised by the state through the return of tax relief.

On the meat of the Bill, many hon. Members have spoken of the need to simplify the measures, which I echo. I shall not go into great detail, but I urge hon. Members in Committee to look at the limit of £20, which seems arbitrary. I would be interested to know from the Minister where the limit came from. Why not £25 or £50? It is important that we do not impose unnecessary bureaucracy in the Bill and make people afraid. We do not want people thinking, “I will not claim gift aid because I am not sure whether people have put more than £20 in this bucket and I do not want to break the law.” We should look at that problem. Clearly, we must strike the right balance between simplicity and the prevention of fraud, but I get the impression that we are perhaps erring slightly too much on the side of the prevention of fraud as opposed to the side of the simplicity that all hon. Members want.

Another question is this: how can we encourage those fine national organisations that rely so much on street collections for the bulk of their income? I am thinking of the Royal British Legion and the poppy day appeal. Such organisations might be registered as one charity and do not have community buildings in each borough or district of the country. Is there a way for them to register individually, but not as individual charities, which would involve too much paperwork and bureaucracy? Perhaps such organisations could be entitled to claim up to £5,000 in each collection district. In my area of Stafford borough, the Royal British Legion is immensely proud of the fact that it increases the amount it collects every year, even in a recession. Almost all of what it collects is taken on the streets, in cash. It would be excellent if the Royal British Legion could see the result of that in the tax brought back from donations made in the district.

Finally, on schools, I regret to say that young men between the ages of 16 and 24 are the least likely segment of society to donate to charitable causes—just 31% donated to a charity in 2009-10. All hon. Members have schools in their constituencies that raise a lot of money for charities and it is great thing to encourage young people to do. Charity committees in schools are excellent, and we need to look at how we can encourage them to become eligible for tax relief on small donations, and particularly small cash donations. We should bear in mind that committees are often set up for only one year—one group of people in the lower sixth or fifth form will set up a committee for a specific purpose—so it will be difficult for them to meet the three-year requirement. Perhaps we could examine in Committee how we can encourage schools to benefit from the Bill.

I repeat my congratulations to the Minister and the Government on this excellent Bill, which will doubtless bring a lot of additional, much-needed income to many of our local charities. However, I urge hon. Members not to forget the important fact that it will for the first time recognise the small donations from millions of people throughout the country who put something in the bucket week in, week out.

17:23

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

May I first declare an interest? Until relatively recently, I was a trustee and non-remunerated director of two charities and am currently a trustee of the Parliament Choir, which has charitable status.

Charities, and particularly small charities, are the backbone of our civil society. The contribution they make to our communities is immeasurable. It would be remiss of hon. Members if we did not acknowledge the people around these islands—in my constituency and those of all hon. Members—who give up their time and money for the public benefit. The Government could never replicate, reproduce or replace what they do, and it is right that they remain at the forefront of our consideration of the Bill.

These have been difficult times for charities; their capacity to fundraise in tough economic circumstances has been stretched ever tighter and greater demand has been placed on their services. Gift aid has been immeasurably and immensely valuable to many charities large and small, so it is a good innovation and a step forward that small charities can start to benefit from it too. I therefore welcome and support the principles behind the Bill—it will be a meaningful step forward for a number of charities.

Having said that, however, previous speakers have highlighted feedback from stakeholders making it clear that, as things stand, the scheme is still too complex and will not be accessible to all the charities that could legitimately benefit from it. The Economic Secretary introduced the scheme with the intention of providing opportunities for charities, but the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Institute of Fundraising and the Charity Finance Group have all expressed concerns about the complexity of some of the preconditions and about the difficulties that they will create for some charities.

I am sure that we all realise that getting a scheme of this nature right is tricky, and we would acknowledge that a balance needs to be struck between enabling charities to maximise the value of small cash donations, and protecting both the Treasury and charities themselves from fraud. Nevertheless, cash giving remains an important method of fundraising for the charitable giving sector. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said a few moments ago, almost 47% of donations are made in cash, and, according to the NCVO and the Charities Aid Foundation, it remains very much a part of our giving sector, even though other forms of giving are coming on stream.

I am sure that I am not the only person in the Chamber with lots of experience rattling a bucket to raise cash for projects. It can be a very effective way of raising money, particularly for certain situations and kinds of appeal, but it is only fair to recognise that it is open to abuse. It is not only the Treasury that might lose out; I have seen how easy it is for people to put a logo—particularly the logo of a big charity that is a well-known household name—on a bucket, shake it and collect money that will never benefit anyone in any part of the world. There have to be protections, and reasonable steps have to be taken to prevent that from happening.

Many charities, particularly those that have professionalised over the past 20 years or so, have made a great effort to encourage people to give regularly. That is good for charities, because it means that their donations are predictable and that they know what revenues are likely to be coming in. It also helps them to communicate with their donors, makes them much more accountable to the people giving money and helps people to understand what their donations are being used for. On the whole, therefore, this move is a good thing, and I welcome the fact that, even in tough times and a recession, more and more people are signing up for direct debits and finding more long-term and sustainable ways of giving to charity. But that does not mean that there is no place for bucket rattling, and the Bill will help smaller charities that want to collect in that way from people who do not want, or are not in a position, to give a regular amount.

Although in recent years we have moved in that direction, an awful lot of charities still work entirely through volunteers—they do not function with staff but are still dependent on people who selflessly give up their spare time and weekends for fundraising activities and the bureaucratic administration on which charities—large and small—depend. Just as it is important that the laws regulating charities take a proportionate approach to governance and regulation—that important principle has underlined the charity regulation changes of recent years—it is important that we recognise the difference between large professionalised charities delivering public services and small organisations raising money for a local community project with no paid staff. It is also important that the opportunities open to charities through gift aid-related schemes demand a proportionate level of administration.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s opening remarks, and I think the Government seem to be trying to find a middle path, but as we manage risk in a proportionate way, there are still things we could be doing. The concerns of the umbrella bodies in the charity and voluntary sector should be taken on board. I encourage Ministers to keep engaging with those organisations as the process goes forward and to look at some of the detail, particularly in implementation. Charities are conscious of their reputations, especially when it comes to managing cash. In my experience charity managers desperately want to encourage regular giving not in cash, but in other ways.

I am interested in what has been said about the restrictions on gift aid. Some of them are reasonable—it is quite reasonable to have a track record with charities—but we have to recognise that there will be a detrimental impact on people raising for, say, a one-off event to install a piece of community equipment or for a community project. They will not be able to benefit from the scheme. I would be keen for Ministers to come back to us on that point and see whether there is a way round it. There are also questions about the matching provision. It could be useful for charities trying to comply with the requirements, as it would help them to build up more knowledge of who is giving them money. Charities should not be afraid of that—indeed, I would encourage them to do it—but in the meantime let us find a way forward through the detail.

I am also interested in the explosion in the number of people giving through their mobile phones in recent years or finding other ways to give—for example, through websites such as JustGiving. All are innovative ways of raising funds which have been developing rapidly as the technologies develop and people come up with innovative solutions. Again, however, smaller charities find it harder and more expensive to access such schemes. They do not come free; they come with a cost, which erodes the benefit of gift aid schemes for smaller charities in particular. Will the Minister consider working with the Charity Commission and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator to see whether it is possible to develop some HMRC-approved tools that might help smaller charities to take such schemes forward and benefit from the gift aid small donation scheme? I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. Such strategic investment in the sector could protect public money and at the same time help grass-roots charities that do not have big infrastructure and bureaucracy at their disposal, keeping costs down for everyone.

I also reiterate what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said about clause 17(2)(a). These points have been raised by the Law Society of Scotland in particular, which, in recognising that a balance needs to be struck in the Bill, has pointed out that there is a difference between how “charitable purpose” is defined in Scots law and how it is defined in English law. I urge Ministers to engage with the relevant bodies to ensure that the Bill is absolutely devolution-proof and works equally well in both jurisdictions.

To conclude, the Bill is a step in the right direction. I support its principles, but as we go forward I urge the Government to look carefully at how it might be implemented more effectively and benefit more of the charities that currently will not manage to be part of the scheme. The hurdles are surmountable, and I hope those issues can be ironed out.

17:33

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), because of what she said and the many excellent points she made.

Let me begin by congratulating the Government on introducing the Bill and the measures in it that will help our small charities. Like many hon. Members, I spend a lot of time visiting some of the fantastic local community organisations in my constituency. Most are small, with only a handful of people working and volunteering in them, but they make a big difference, and I am always impressed by their passion and dedication. However, these are difficult economic times, and it is the smallest charities—organisations that rely on perhaps a few thousand pounds in donations and grants each year—that are coming under the greatest pressure, yet they make up the backbone of our civil society. They generate hundreds of thousands of volunteering hours every year, and are often set up to champion local issues and causes that might not be considered by the Government or the big charities. I am thinking particularly of local community facilities and local environmental charities.

Despite the fact that more than half of all voluntary organisations are micro in size—that is, with less than £10,000 income—they receive only 0.6% of the total income of the voluntary sector. There are 474 major organisations—those with an income of more than £10 million—that take in nearly half of all voluntary sector income: about £17 billion in 2009-10. In contrast, 87,683 micro voluntary organisations shared just under £240 million. So, when the Chancellor announced last year that he was going to make gift aid easier for small charities to claim, thousands of organisations across the country were delighted with the news.

It is often difficult for charities to get gift aid declarations for small cash donations, and a top-up payment scheme will provide a real incentive to smaller charities to get out there and seek new ways of raising funds. The British public are incredibly generous. I know that at first hand, as I am proud to say that Leamington was named the most generous town in the UK by Oxfam last year. In 2009-10, charities made nearly £8 billion in individual donations, including gift aid and membership subscriptions. That is equivalent to about 0.5% of our gross domestic product.

The intentions behind the Bill are to be applauded, but there remain a number of concerns about the details, and I hope that the Government will pay close attention to the submissions that have been made by the Charity Finance Group and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. I know that the details will be dealt with in Committee and on Report, but I would like to touch on just a few of the Bill’s provisions.

First, concern has been expressed about eligibility. Charities will have to have claimed gift aid for three years before they can take advantage of the scheme. That is a long time for many smaller organisations to wait, and if we are going to encourage smaller charities to get on board, we need to reduce that time or at least create a probationary period so that the Bill can make an impact in the shorter term.

Secondly, there is concern about the matching principle. I understand that the Treasury wishes to target the scheme, and to link the amount of gift aid that can be claimed to the amount that charities have already claimed in a year, but that provision will disadvantage many of the smaller charities that we are trying to help. A 2:1 matching principle will benefit only those charities that are already good at claiming gift aid. It will not encourage those that do not have the necessary resources to do so. I hope that the Government will consider scrapping that provision, so that we can encourage as many small voluntary organisations as possible to take part in the scheme.

Thirdly, there are concerns about the community building rules. I appreciate that the Government are keen to ensure that charities do not abuse the scheme by splitting into smaller organisations, and to ensure that independent local groups that are part of small charities are not excluded from the scheme. However, the rules might have unintended consequences. For example, they could disadvantage charities such as support groups that work with vulnerable people.

I am confident that those details can be ironed out, and that if all parties work together in a constructive, non-partisan manner, we will get the legislation on to the statute book in a form that prevents abuse and ensures that benefits are targeted at those organisations that need them most. Time is of the essence, however, and we should not make the voluntary sector wait too long for the scheme to come into effect. I hope that all parties will therefore ensure that the Bill gets a speedy passage through this House and the other place while also ensuring that its provisions receive proper scrutiny.

The Bill could make all the difference for small charities up and down the country, so I have no hesitation in giving its Second Reading my full support. I look forward to discussing it in more detail when it comes back to the House, and showing that, despite the challenges our country faces, we still appreciate and support the invaluable work that these organisations do.

17:39

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In common with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), I am happy to give this Bill positive support on its Second Reading, but in common with him, too, in being positive about the promise the Chancellor made when he announced these plans and in supporting the stated principle and purpose behind the scheme, I am concerned that some problems still need to be ironed out.

For all these schemes, people will say that the devil is in the detail. The problem is that as the charities and others that were interested in the idea and animated when they heard this announcement have looked at the scheme, they have seen too much devil in too much detail. This is called the Small Charitable Donations Bill; let us hope that it does not end up having a by-name of the “Petty Conditions Bill”. Although nobody wants to create a charter for chancers in connection with anything the Treasury might do to support charities and charitable giving, there is a danger that some of the qualifying conditions will end up more often becoming disqualifying rather than qualifying conditions in practice.

Other hon. Members have raised issues relating to community buildings. This is, of course, a UK-wide Bill, which will need the legislative consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to make this an accepted matter; and, of course, there is a separate Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. I hope that Ministers will take every step to ensure that the plans for this scheme take full account of the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland—not just of the different legal regime that applies to its Charity Commission, but of the border issues that relate to much of Northern Ireland.

The Economic Secretary made the point that the Bill had been changed to take account of the fact that it could have a more adverse impact on Catholic-related as opposed to Church of England-related charities. We need to recognise in the context of Northern Ireland that it is not only Catholic churches that have cross-border parishes, as other churches are organised on a cross-border basis, too. We must ensure that the interpretations and assurances that have been afforded do not end up creating problems because of the cross-border character of some organisations, which perhaps take their money, through bucket collections or other means, from either side of the border. The provisions must be sensible for the givers, sensible for the charities and sensible for the beneficiaries, as well as be consistent with the assurances that the Treasury appropriately expects in respect of taxpayers.

If the aim is to emancipate and reward a more comfortable level of charitable giving and to ensure that more charities can benefit from the gift aid scheme, the Bill has to be given every possible encouragement. We must also encourage the Government to ensure that the detail is not unnecessarily prescriptive or restrictive.

Other hon. Members have referred to start-up charities, suggesting that they might be badly disabled by the qualifying time. This applies not just to start-up charities, but to those that might be created in response to particular tragic events or a natural disaster such as a flood in a particular area that has created difficulties for certain families. Other examples might be the terrible incident in Dunblane or the terrible shootings in Cumbria, to which people might want to have a charitable response to support particular beneficiaries. In those cases, there is no need to set up a charity for life, for three years, seven years or whatever; it is about having a genuine response in order to aid particular people in particular circumstances.

It would be odd if those moved to make a charitable response in such situations were disqualified from benefiting others through gift aid. The normal situation is that people are moved to give some help on impulse, so Ministers need to think about whether another way of providing help would be more appropriate—perhaps by extending the “connected purposes” issues or allowing defined or established charities to lend their names to a particular one-off fund created in those circumstances. We need to prevent the disqualifications from coming into force when there is a response to particularly tragic situations; I do not believe that Parliament would or should intend that to happen. We may need to look further into that.

As I have said, I support the principle and the purposes of the Bill, but I join others in urging Ministers to consider not just what Members have said here, but what many charities and groups that work with them have been saying. The Bill provides an opportunity for us to do some good and to improve the position of charities, but let us not create hurdles that are impossible for them to surmount, or we shall all be writing to Ministers saying “Surely we did not intend to disqualify this or that charity. Surely we did not intend this penalty to apply when the circumstances in which it was imposed had been overturned or were seen in a different light.” Under the Bill in its present form, a penalty would stand even if it were subsequently accepted that it had been the result of over-interpretation.

I urge Ministers to listen more, and to continue to respond to some of the issues that have been raised today.

17:45

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to what I think has been a measured and constructive debate. I, too, welcome the Bill as a sensible complement to the gift aid scheme, which has operated successfully for many years.

Like most other Members, I find that one of the most pleasurable aspects of my constituency role is visiting local charities and observing the valuable work they do in the community, often supporting the most vulnerable members of society. Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), I think that we should take this opportunity to record our deep gratitude for all their work, and our gratitude to the thousands of volunteers who willingly give their time and money to make such a difference.

My constituency in Milton Keynes is blessed with a deeply philanthropic culture. We have nearly 400 registered charities, and more than 1,100 voluntary and community groups. Thousands of residents devote a huge amount of time and money to working directly on projects or supporting the various fundraising activities. I do not wish to detract from the work that large charities do, but small community organisations often have a disproportionate impact. They make a huge contribution locally, although they have very modest incomes: less than £10,000 in some instances, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson).

When I was preparing for the debate, I contacted Community Action Milton Keynes, a fine organisation that gives practical support to local charities and other groups by helping them to manage or develop their operations. I was told that 62% of its members had an annual turnover of less than £10,000. Such charities do not have the wherewithal to employ staff to help them to deal with the complexities of gift aid or other schemes; they rely entirely on people who give up their time to help them with their administration. I think that the Bill will benefit those groups in particular. As well as providing extra income—an organisation with a turnover of less than £10,000 could receive an extra 10% each year—it will reduce the amount of time that volunteers must devote to administration, so that they can spend more time doing the good work that charities are there to do.

Let me give two examples of the benefits that the Bill will provide, one from my local area and one relating to a family connection. A constituent of mine, Dave Hand, undertook a sponsored walk from his old Army base in Somerset to Milton Keynes to raise money for a wonderful charity called BLESMA—the British Limbless Ex-Service Men’s Association. He raised about £2,000, the majority coming from donations made on the JustGiving website and similar online sources. However, he also raised a substantial sum at the pubs he visited en route—people would put cash in his bucket—and that cannot easily be traced back for the purposes of gift aid. The extra cash involved would not be a vast sum, but it would provide an extra bit of support to the charity, which could then use every single penny of the donations it receives. That example highlights one of the ways in which the Bill will be of real benefit.

The other example I want to raise is a family affair. About 25 years ago, my father set up a talking newspaper charity in his hometown of Hamilton. It was established to address a local need, by putting the contents of the local newspaper on to a cassette that could then be sent to local blind and visually impaired people. It is a very small organisation that relies entirely on volunteers. If it raises £1,000 a year, it is doing well, but it has very low operating costs. Those who donate to it are often the listeners. It is a free service, but they do so out of gratitude. They might send in £5 or £10 to help the organisation carry on. These are people with visual impairments and many of them are elderly, so they are not the kind of people who generally fill out gift aid forms. By addressing this point, the Bill’s provisions would add significantly to the income of such charities.

That example also serves to flag up a concern, however. I do not know whether the charity my father set up, Hamilton Sound, has ever claimed gift aid, but I suspect that it has not. Therefore, it would not be able to take advantage of the proposed scheme for three years. I ask the Minister to explore ways in which charities that are clearly bona fide—that might have been around for many years, but may not have technically qualified for gift aid payments—may take advantage of this scheme. We surely have the wherewithal to devise a scheme to address that. I completely accept the need to guard against fraud, but there is a balance to be struck here: we must not create a system that is so onerous and overly complex that the potential benefits cannot be realised.

I hope there will be an evolutionary process in respect of the Bill’s provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) suggested they should be reviewed after a reasonable period, and I urge the Government to do that. It is a good Bill, however, and I am sure it will make a real difference.

There is support across the House for the principle of the Bill. I hope that our discussions in Committee will be as constructive as today’s debate, and that we will thereby address the details of the provisions so as to ensure they truly deliver for all charities, which we rely on so much in our communities.

17:53

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I apologise for having been absent from the Chamber for the past couple of speeches. I was present at the beginning of the debate, however.

I wish to right a calumny. This summer I spent a couple of days clearing out my garage, and one of the things I threw into the skip was a short tome entitled, “The achievements of the Major Government”. A friend of mine had given it to me at the time of the 1997 general election, and its pages were, of course, blank—it was a joke. I recall, however, that John Major set up gift aid in his 1990 Budget: he instituted one-off charitable donations being made free of tax for gifts of, I think, £600. That proved extremely popular with charities, and the provision should have been written into that tome, even though it was an achievement not of John Major’s Government but of his time as Chancellor. Gift aid has been widely welcomed by Members on both sides of the House and by charities throughout the country.

That £600 limit was reduced to £400 in 1992, and ultimately a Labour Government abolished it entirely in the Finance Act 2000. In the 2007 Budget, the then Labour Government announced a number of measures to support the take-up of gift aid. The then Chancellor also announced, however, that the 10% starting rate of tax would be abolished from 2008-09 and that income tax on earned income would be charged at two rates: the basic rate of 20% and the higher rate of 40%. The gift aid scheme allows a charity to recover sums at the basic rate, so the cut in the basic rate from 22% to 20% hit them hard. That was why after my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) became Chancellor he announced in his 2008 Budget a new transitional relief for charities, to compensate them for the impact of that basic rate cut. At the time—in 2008-09—the relief was projected to cost £60 million, and then £105 million in 2009-10 and £120 million in 2010-11. That was greatly welcomed by the charitable sector.

In 2010, Peter Fanning, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, submitted a report on improving gift aid based on the gift aid forum’s discussions. Although the report did not discuss donations outside the scope of gift aid, one of its principal recommendations was that

“small charities are particularly vulnerable at times of economic stress and some find dealing with Gift Aid difficult. Their needs should be a priority.”

In December of that year, the then Economic Secretary, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), wrote to Mr Fanning, and was generally supportive of his report, but ruled out extending gift aid transitional relief on the grounds that prolonging its life would not target support effectively and that it was always “intended to be temporary”—we have heard that from the Dispatch Box today, too, from the current Economic Secretary. In response to a parliamentary question, the then Economic Secretary said:

“Gift aid transitional relief was introduced as a temporary measure to give charities time to prepare their financial plans in response to a lower rate of relief from gift aid. By April 2011, when the relief ends, charities will have had four years since the announcement of the 20% basic rate of income tax to prepare for the change. In 2009-10 charities benefited by £105 million from this relief and it is forecast that they will benefit by £120 million in 2010-11. The Government believe the £100 million transition fund announced in the spending review will better target support on charities most in need.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 92W.]

Much of today’s discussion has been about those charities most in need, and that will be the focus of my remarks.

In the 2012 Budget, the Government confirmed their plans to introduce a small donations scheme from April 2013. Under the scheme, charities are entitled to claim top-up payments on income from cash donations totalling up to £5,000 a year. Qualifying cash donations can be up to £20 each, rather than £10, as initially proposed—we are grateful that the current Economic Secretary listened to some of the objections raised by the industry and amended some of the initial proposals. The size of the top-up payment on each small donation will be equivalent to the tax relief given under gift aid so that a charity can claim a maximum of £1,250 a year.

The Bill requires work in Committee. Its proposals are complex and run the risk of disadvantaging some charities. Eligibility for the scheme is limited. That will prevent those who need it most from using it. The amount a charity can claim being linked to the amount of gift aid already claimed—the matching principle—will disadvantage the charities that most rely on small cash donations, as they may not have made sufficient gift aid claims to be able to take full advantage of the new scheme. Charities need to have a three-year record of claiming gift aid, but many small charities that rely on small cash donations simply will not have established that. This Bill was part of proposals designed to meet the problems that smaller charities have in being unable to access gift aid. Creating this matching requirement is therefore going to prove very difficult for them.

The Economic Secretary talked about the problems of fraud and the need to introduce such conditions for small charities, in order to avoid the problems that might arise through charities being able to stipulate the amount of small donations they had received. All Members will recognise the need for the Bill to include protection against fraud for the taxpayer, but in so doing it proposes that a charity has to have been registered for three years, to have made a gift aid claim in three of the past seven years, and not to have had a penalty imposed as a result of such a claim. I ask those on the Treasury Bench to consider whether this is not a question of “belt and braces”, and whether those provisions could be relaxed.

Clause 1 includes the matching provision. Here, the amount that a charity can claim is limited to £5,000 in donations a year, or, if less, double the amount of donations that have been put through the gift aid process. This provision matches the amount that a charity can claim with the amount it has claimed on gift aid at a ratio of 2:1. Therefore, for a charity to take full advantage of the scheme—claiming the maximum of £1,250 on £5,000 of small donations—it needs to have claimed at least £625 in gift aid in the same year. That is precisely what is so difficult for many small charities to achieve, and the Treasury recognised that in saying that this process would be “without form-filling”. When the Chancellor introduced this measure, he said it would be good for the bucket collectors because it would be without form-filling. However, that will be required, and it is precisely that threshold that many of these charities will find so hard to match.

Many small charities are not even registered with HMRC, and the three-year period will not incentivise them to do so, because they can see the scheme’s possible returns recede into the future. Many small charities receive such small amounts in cash donations that they do not claim gift aid at all. I do believe that these provisions are intended to help the smallest charities, but in fact they will hold that intention back. That is why, when I asked the Economic Secretary about her assessment of the number, size and scope of the organisations likely to benefit from the scheme, I was disappointed by her response. She talked about her “aspirations” regarding the number of charities that might try to access the benefits of the scheme, rather than talking about a real assessment by the Treasury Bench. In summing up the debate, can the Exchequer Secretary give us the Treasury’s actual assessment of the likely number, size and scope of the charities that are likely to benefit from the Bill if these restrictions and regulations are kept in place? If an assessment has been made, we need to know precisely what the answers to those questions are, to ensure that the Bill will deliver to the small charities that Members in all parts of the House want to benefit from it.

00:00

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), whose contribution reflects today’s interesting debate. We started with the Economic Secretary’s opening speech, during which there was a series of interesting interventions. The Chair of the Public Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), made a series of interventions, one of which dealt with the need to build into the legislation easy scope for a review of its effectiveness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) made clear in her opening remarks, we need to make every effort to ensure that the primary legislation is as strong as possible. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point. He has developed a reputation as an assiduous— and, for the Government, troublesome—Chair of the Committee. In the eyes of his Whips, that may rule him out of serving on the Public Bill Committee, but his comments were a helpful guide to amendments that we might want to think through.

In her intervention on the Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) highlighted a concern that has clearly been put to her: whether, because of the way the clauses on community buildings have been drafted, hospices will benefit from the Bill as much as had been hoped. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), in the first substantive speech in the debate, made a point of praising the Arrow riding centre in his constituency. It does indeed sound an excellent organisation, and in that sense probably reflects the many excellent organisations that each of us in this House can point to in our communities. They benefit our communities and make them stronger, particularly because of the enthusiasm of the volunteers and original sponsors of these charities.

Our challenge is surely to try to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) suggested: to simplify the system as much as possible and to enable those with fire in their belly—those behind a particular charity with the passion and commitment—to benefit as much as possible from this legislation. She has clearly been working throughout the summer recess, carrying out extensive research on charity debates and tracking down the first ever discussion of charities in the House of Commons, more than five centuries ago. That is a particularly impressive piece of work that I suspect puts the rest of the House to shame. It is not surprising, however, given her track record of interest in this sector.

In his short time in the House, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) has already built a track record of interest and enthusiasm in this subject. He urged Ministers to pay close attention to the comments and concerns of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Charity Finance Group. He raised a particular concern about whether the three-year HMRC rule is quite as necessary as the Economic Secretary suggested in her opening remarks. He went on to argue that Leamington is the most generous town in Britain. He is stretching the credulity of the House there, if I may say so; nevertheless, it sounds almost—but I suspect not quite—as generous as Harrow.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who has already established a strong record in this House in working with international development charities, outlined his support for the Bill. He will recognise that people in this country rightly respond to disasters around the world, and that the Bill could enable such charities to do more to make their money and effort go a little further.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) emphasised that Ministers should do further work on the detail behind the Bill, and I understand that she has a strong track record of working with charities, including development charities. Among the many thoughtful points she raised was whether or not HMRC might be persuaded to use marketing or analytical tools to provide further support to ensure that charities benefit as much as possible from this legislation, when both Houses eventually conclude their debates.

My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) outlined his scepticism about the Bill being perfectly formed. He made the perfectly proper point that debate with the Northern Ireland Assembly on some of the detail is required. Again, Ministers and the Committee will need to have further conversations with the representatives of the sector to maximise the Bill’s benefit.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) praised another excellent sounding organisation, Community Action Milton Keynes, which he knows well. He raised concerns about the three-year rule on eligibility, highlighting the need to get right the balance between preventing fraud and helping more charities to benefit. He hoped that today’s discussion is part of an “evolutionary” approach by Ministers, and I hope to encourage the Minister to take such an approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, in his substantive remarks, emphasised the concern of all Members about the eligibility criteria in the Bill and whether as many charities that rely on small donations will benefit from the Bill as might do.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made clear, the Opposition will support the Bill, but we have a series of concerns about its detail, which she set out and which I will touch on briefly at the end of my remarks. The House will of course be aware that the Bill’s proposed changes to gift aid build on the reforms that my right hon. and hon. Friends introduced under the previous Government—my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South made that point. My right hon. Friend the then Chancellor had an excellent track record of enabling smaller charities to benefit from gift aid, introducing a less complex audit process and helping at least some charities to get a proper advantage from the various changes that he introduced.

We will want to probe and challenge the complexity that has been written into this scheme by Ministers, which has been highlighted to us by the NCVO, the Charity Finance Group, the Institute of Fundraising, the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action and a series of other groups. I, like a series of other hon. Members, alluded to the fact that this complexity risks ensuring that a number of small charities miss being able to benefit from the changes implicit in these arrangements.

Ministers have highlighted this measure in the past as a big source of help for charities and proof of their ongoing commitment to the big society. The Chancellor made that point in one of his Budgets. In truth, this is a modest Bill, which risks being far more modest than it needs to be. It is, sadly, an isolated gesture of help amid a dismal funding and contracting environment for charities, entirely of the Government’s making. The Bill will, nevertheless, put back into charity coffers a small amount of the income that Ministers have collectively axed since they came to power.

The context for this debate is grim, as a number of hon. Members have said, and it bears spelling out as a reminder to the whole House and, in particular, to the Committee to do our utmost to maximise the benefit of the legislation to the maximum number of charities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South mentioned, earlier this year the NCVO highlighted the “toxic mix of circumstances” facing charities: increasing demand for their services, rising costs, and an unprecedented fall in income. The NCVO argues that Government spending on the sector will fall by some £3.3 billion between the coalition’s taking and eventually leaving office.

A report by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, which was commissioned by the Government—by the Cabinet Office—and which Ministers were eventually forced to release, revealed that charities would lose, in 2011-12 alone, at least £1 billion as a direct result of Government cuts, with two thirds of the charities most at risk of suffering being in the most deprived areas of Britain.

[Richard Fuller]

In a comment in his opening inquiries of the Minister, the hon. Gentleman referred to the transition fund and he is now referring to the same point about Government funding, so I would just like to pick up on the point. Does he accept that one of the underlying philosophical differences with this Bill is that it is using Government money to support the actions of individual citizens in supporting the charities they wish to help, rather than looking at charities as an extension of the state that should be supported by public moneys? Although there may be an issue to address about the quantum and how much we can afford to put into these charities, does he accept that this is a wise way for the Government to spend their money?

[Mr Thomas]

With the greatest respect, the previous Government and the one before had exactly the same approach. The difference between us is over the scale of the funding cuts that the hon. Gentleman and other Government Members have signed up to. As I said in my opening remarks, I accept that the Bill will make a small positive difference. We welcome it on that basis and we want to work with Ministers and, indeed, with all hon. Members to try to maximise its benefit. He does not serve his cause well by minimising the scale of the cuts which charities are suffering. According to the National Children’s Bureau in April, two thirds of children’s charities had cut staff last year and reduced the range of services they offered, with 25% expecting to have to close this year. That grim direct funding situation is hardly a sign of a commitment to charities and community groups, or indeed of Ministers’ professed commitment to the small platoons or the so-called big society.

I say gently to the House that not one of the more than 140 charities I have met over the past 12 months has said that reform of gift aid is the defining answer to the problems the Government are causing charities, despite the Chancellor’s enthusiastic claims in the Budget. Ministers, notably Cabinet Office Ministers, have failed in the past 12 months to offer serious heavyweight leadership in Whitehall for charities. The Work programme has become an iconic example of charities losing out on funding because of poor commissioning of major Government contracts.

Let us consider the example of just one charity, St Mungo’s. Given its skills at getting people in the most challenging circumstances back into work, one would have thought it was the perfect participant in the Government’s Work programme. However, having had no referrals in just under 12 months, St Mungo’s finally called it a day earlier this summer. You couldn’t make it up: record long-term unemployment, a Work programme that is not exactly going all guns blazing and a charity with huge experience not being used —not even once.

We have, of course, also seen charity after charity having to line up to demand that the Government withdraw their charity tax relief cap. For example, Cancer Research UK is seriously worried about donations to build a world-class centre drying up because of Ministers’ incompetence. It was a badly bungled Budget measure from Treasury Ministers—one of a number. One of the arguments originally used to try to justify that measure, until it was eventually pulled, related to the problem of “dodgy charities”. Although the Economic Secretary veered a little towards such language in her opening remarks, she certainly did not repeat that mistake. However, we need to be careful that the requirements that we set out in the legislation that is finally passed do not allow people to think that Members in all parts of the House share the concern that there is a huge problem with poorly managed charities engaged in fraud. We will certainly wish to probe her argument about the three-year relationship with HMRC that charities must have in order to benefit from the Bill.

We debate this Bill in the context of a dismal picture of substantially reduced charity funding and of Treasury Ministers who need to make amends for the charity tax relief debacle. The Bill nevertheless deserves a Second Reading and further robust scrutiny. We will want to explore carefully the Government’s arguments on a series of clauses, particularly to try to reduce the complexity of the new arrangements, which has been highlighted by the likes of Sir Stuart Etherington, Peter Lewis, the chief executive of the Institute of Fundraising, and NAVCA. Let me take just one set of comments as an example: NAVCA called the proposed system “overly bureaucratic” and “out of proportion”.

To be fair, the Economic Secretary hinted that Ministers would be flexible in Committee. I hope that her ministerial colleague will emphasise that Ministers are determined to be flexible and to see the discussions in Committee as an evolutionary process. That point was made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South in particular. We will want to probe the concerns about the eligibility criteria as there is particularly wide consensus outside the Treasury among voluntary groups that many charities will miss out if the Bill goes through unamended in that regard. We will want, too, to explore the thinking of Ministers on the connected charities rules, which risk creating an unnecessary barrier to recruiting high-quality trustees if they have similar roles in similar organisations.

On community buildings, there is a risk that some charities could lose out, as other Members have highlighted. Ministers would be wise, given the scale of the Government’s failure to help and support charities, to recognise the limited scope of the Bill. It is a worthwhile Bill with the potential, if Ministers are open-minded, to offer even more significant benefits. It builds on the reforms Labour introduced when we were in power. It needs amending in Committee, and Committee members, particularly Ministers, will need to show further flexibility to maximise the benefit it could have for the charity sector. We will support the Bill tonight and I commend it to the House.

18:22

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

We have had a thoughtful and constructive debate, although the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) perhaps introduced a party political element in the past few minutes.

Throughout the debate we have heard hon. Members from all parties raise thoughtful points. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) made the point that the purpose is to complement, not replace, gift aid. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) gave us a history of charity law and taxation going back to 1601, although she missed a bit before returning to more recent years—the House is probably grateful that she did not run through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries in detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) pointed out the need to strike a balance between simplicity and preventing fraud. A number of speakers returned to that point, including the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who raised a number of detailed points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White). I know that he has also done so in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. As has already been pointed out, he also highlighted the generosity of the good people of Leamington. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) also set out a number of detailed points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). I hope to address as many of those points as possible this evening, but I am sure that the Public Bill Committee will enjoy scrutinising them very thoroughly.

I am grateful for the widespread support from across the House for the principle behind the scheme and I hope to be able to respond to the issues raised, but before I do so let me recap. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary set out at the beginning of the debate, the new scheme is not designed to replace gift aid. It complements it, allowing charities to claim for the cash donations they receive for which it is too difficult or impossible to get a gift aid declaration. The scheme is not intended to replace gift aid or to be a substitute for it in cases where it is straightforward to operate for charities of all sizes. Whenever and wherever possible, we want charities to make full use of gift aid, which is a very successful tax relief that contributes more than £1 billion annually to the charitable sector’s income.

A number of Members were concerned about complexity in the scheme and the fact that it might exclude the small community charities that could benefit most from it. Let me assure Members that it will not do that, as the basic scheme is very simple. Claiming on donations under the scheme will be simple, with no requirement to obtain a gift aid declaration from donors and with claims being made on the same form used to claim gift aid payments. Charities will not be required to keep any additional records of the money received over and above best practice record keeping. As the scheme is simple and based on cash donations and will have limited donor records, the scheme could, however, become attractive to fraudsters. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that we must protect the scheme from abuse and one way of doing that is by linking it to gift aid.

It was said that the gift aid small donations scheme excludes those charities that would most benefit from it—the small charities that do not currently claim gift aid—but it is right that it should be a requirement for charities participating in the small donations scheme to claim gift aid alongside it. Gift aid is easy to use if the charity is simply collecting donations of money and it will soon become even easier when HMRC introduces its new online system for claiming gift aid next year. We hope that the small donations scheme will encourage those charities that do not use gift aid to do so.

The design of the scheme, with a requirement for a three-year successful track record of claiming gift aid, is one way to counter the fraudsters and protect the scheme from abuse. It is a straightforward way to protect the scheme from exploitation without reintroducing all the paperwork that it is designed to remove. I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is only sensible for the scheme to have a test, such as that three-year check, so that HMRC can be more certain that a charity will not abuse the scheme. Reducing the three-year limit, as has been suggested, would significantly increase the cost of the scheme.

Let me turn now to the point specifically raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) about trustees and the concern about charities that are connected by a shared trustee. The Bill sets out that for trustees to be connected they would have to have purposes or undertake activities that were the same or substantially similar. If someone was a trustee of two charities that were completely unrelated and did very different sorts of charitable activities, those charities would not be connected under the scheme. We received some feedback on that rule during the consultation and adapted it to meet concerns that charities would unintentionally be caught by the rule as originally proposed. We are looking further into that, however, to see whether it would be possible to amend it further to ensure that no charities are caught unintentionally.

Another concern that has been raised is the community building rule and the question of access to the scheme for those charities doing similar work at a local level. The community building rule has been written into the Bill to ensure fairness of access and to avoid significantly unfair results. Most charities will not need to worry about the rule because they are independent and collect less than £5,000 in small donations, so they will get their £5,000 allowance regardless of their activities or where they collect the donations. But we sought fair access to the scheme. As my colleague the Economic Secretary said, in developing the scheme, it soon became clear that without some special rules, some charities would benefit hundreds or even thousands of times more than others, based purely on the way they were historically set up. That clearly is not right, so the community building rule was introduced to avoid significantly unfair results between charities carrying out similar activities in local communities, either as independent charities under an umbrella organisation or as local groups operating as part of a single large charity.

The vast majority of charities will not need to concern themselves with the extra allowance. For those that do, there will be detailed guidance to ensure that it is simple to access. It is important to remember that the basic principle of the scheme is that each eligible charity should be entitled to top-up payments on a maximum of £5,000 in donations. I am sure hon. Members will agree that we are doing the right thing to ensure fairer access to the scheme for charities that would otherwise lose out, just because of the way they were historically set up.

The intention of the community building rule is not to allow all buildings where charitable activities take place to receive a separate allowance of up to £5,000 of small cash donations; it is to remove the worst inequalities that would otherwise exist, so that some charities would be able to claim hundreds, perhaps thousands, times more payments under the scheme than others undertaking similar activities. We believe that the rule as drafted achieves that objective.

I want to pick up a point about the definition of charitable purpose raised by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Banff and Buchan and about its application in Scotland as well as in England, given that charitable purpose is being used in the English definition. Given that top-up payments are not a tax relief, clause 17(2)(a) makes it clear that the definition of charitable purpose according to the law of England and Wales is to be applied across the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan raised an important point about the Bill applying across the UK, and said that we should ensure that devolved issues are considered. I assure the House that the devolved implications have been explored and agreed with policy administrators in all the devolved Administrations.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to the £20 limit and asked what is meant by managers taking reasonable steps to find out whether a gift was £20 or less. Charities will be expected to have a process to ensure that their staff and volunteers do not deliberately include gifts of £20 or more as small donations. HMRC is developing guidance to explain the steps it would be reasonable for charities to take, but those steps will be proportionate to the risk because we want to ensure that the rules are applied with a light touch and give charities maximum flexibility. The aim of the scheme is to allow a top-up payment without a gift aid declaration on small donations, and we think £20 covers that. For larger donations, charities are more likely to be able to ask the donor for a declaration. We have already increased the limit from £10 to £20 following earlier representations.

Another issue raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan related to donations by text—which are growing in use—cheque or credit card, which are not allowed under the scheme. The aim of the new gift aid small donations scheme is to allow charities and community amateur sports clubs to claim a gift aid-style payment on cash donations received in circumstances where it is difficult to collect a donor’s details or where donors may be reluctant to give them. As a donor may be giving details to the charity through other channels, and the extra amount of information needed for a gift aid declaration is therefore relatively small, we are focusing the scheme on cash. Where a charity has an ongoing relationship with a donor, we believe it should use gift aid if at all possible.

In an intervention and in his speech, the hon. Member for Brent North asked about the Treasury’s assessment of how many charities would take up the scheme. We estimate that around 80,000 individual charities will claim annually by 2016-17. Some charities will make extra claims on behalf of their local groups under the community building rule and some of those local groups may make claims for gift aid on behalf of their parent charity. However, it is only an estimate, so the take-up rate could be higher or lower. The fundamental methodology for costing the scheme, at around £100 million, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary pointed out earlier, was signed off by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility in the 2011 Budget. The final numbers, including assumptions about local groups, will be submitted to the OBR for approval at the next fiscal event.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the Minister for answering the question directly. Could he be slightly more specific than just the number of groups? The concern is not just about the number of charities, because they may be medium-sized or larger; it is about their nature, scope and size. Does he have any evidence about that from Treasury assessments?

[Mr Gauke]

More information may be available during the Public Bill Committee—the hon. Gentleman looks like an enthusiastic volunteer. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary pointed out earlier that a pool of about 100,000 charities have claimed gift aid in the past four years, and we think about 80,000 of them will make a claim under the scheme.

To return to the central point, there is a reason for linking the scheme to gift aid: to prevent fraud and ensure that the money goes to genuine charities. I am sure we share the belief that the measure is the best way of doing that. I hear the concerns that have been raised about smaller charities that may not submit gift aid applications, but we have to remember that the scheme involves paying out taxpayers’ money, so we need to ensure that it goes in the right direction.

To conclude, in designing the gift aid small donations scheme the Government have listened to the sector and made a number of changes following consultation. We reduced the level of matching required between gift aid claims and donations under the scheme, to make it easier for small charities to claim. We refined the rules for better targeting when charities are connected to one another, and we increased flexibility for connected charities to share their allocation under the scheme. However, I remind hon. Members that the overall objective of the scheme is to allow individual charities to claim a top-up payment on up to £5,000 of donations. The Bill will provide much-needed additional financial support to the charitable sector in these tough times. I therefore commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

small charitable donations bill (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Small Charitable Donations Bill.

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 30 October 2012.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

SMALL CHARITABLE DONATIONS BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Small Charitable Donations Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill (Money)

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

Queen’s recommendation signified.

18:39

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State.

We are moving the motion because the Government are keen that the Bill should go forward and be scrutinised in depth in Committee. Passing a money resolution is the next step in that process. The Ministry of Justice does not currently intend to seek additional funding from the Treasury, nor does the Scottish Prison Service intend to seek additional funding from the Scottish Government, to purchase equipment. Should private prisons in England and Wales seek to deploy signal denial equipment in light of the legislation, all equipment would be purchased by the contractor without an increase in the contract price paid from the public purse. We consider that any costs that might arise from the legislation will be proportionate when set against the harm caused by illegal mobile phones in prisons. I commend the money resolution to the House.

18:40

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

We are pleased to welcome the Bill and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for introducing it. I also welcome the Minister to his post. It is most pleasing to see a Policing Minister with, shall we say, some in-depth experience of the police taking on the role.

It is right that the Prison Service should adopt helpful technological advances as they become available and that appropriate resources should be made available. The technology has been piloted since 2008, and the Opposition support the expansion of its use across the prison estate and its introduction to private prisons.

The Opposition remind the Government of the need to project-manage the programme robustly so that all equipment purchased is put to good use, staff are properly trained and the information obtained from intercepting signals is used to prevent crime without disrupting the communications of those living nearby.

18:41

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

This is a small private Member’s Bill, but before referring to it I must welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new job.

I thank Members on both sides of the House for their support for the Bill, which we hope will progress to consideration in Committee fairly promptly as it is clearly important. During 2011, 7,422 illicit phones and SIM cards were found in England and Wales, and the figure for Scotland—1,335 phones and SIM cards—is proportionate to that. The Bill is sufficiently broad to enable us to hope that, as technology changes and moves forward, it can be adapted to meet whatever the technology comes up with. It is supported not only by the prisons hierarchy, but by the prison officers. We might have that support explained to us in a moment.

I visited a prison last week and there had just been an incident where, due to special timing, warders managed to pick up seven phones with cocaine attached. SIM cards and so on were lobbed over the wall, but they were collected and therefore cannot be used. The key point is not just the phones, but the SIM cards. One small phone does not cost much money, and its adapter and charger can be used for goodness knows how many SIM cards.

These measures will be implemented in such a way that anyone phoning illegally will suddenly find that their phone is engaged constantly, whether they are phoning in or out, and it will be possible to track the phones and pick up the various numbers, which will be useful for anti-crime activities. That is important, because there is ample evidence of the range of activities involved in the commissioning of serious crime and violence, and many of the heavy boys and girls in our prisons have been organising crime outside while they are inside. If one believes only half of what one reads in the Daily Mail, one will agree that things such as the harassment of victims and gang activity happen, and that there is also the existence of extremist networks.

It will be possible to set these measures up in such a way that certain numbers will go straight through. By that I mean important numbers. I understand that the Coke machine in the prison can dial outside and tell the supplier that it is about to run out, so the supplier can rush more supplies in. I consider such a provision to be vital.

This is a little Bill with support from both sides of the House, and I hope that it makes progress. I also anticipate the money resolution receiving the support of the House tonight.

18:44

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Minister to his new post and hope that it is not out of the frying pan into the fire. I am sure it will not be.

There is general, all-round support for the measure, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on introducing it as a private Member’s Bill. There are real concerns for some of the staff about ensuring that adequate resources are devoted to providing proper training and sufficient staff. Members of the Prison Officers Association have welcomed the legislation, and have indeed been calling for such legislation for some time, but I would welcome any information that the Minister can give on cost estimates for implementing the Bill, the number of staff who will be involved, the cost of the training and where those resources will be found. So far, he has said that that will be contained within existing budgets, which is somewhat worrying as there is already a resource stretch in the Department, particularly on staffing issues and in the light of the escalation of the number of prisoners in our prisons.

With that information, we could reassure the prison officers that there will be sufficient investment to implement this welcome legislation effectively and with their co-operation.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I hope that, on second thoughts, the hon. Gentleman will realise that introducing such a facility will reduce the time spent on, for example, searches. There will be savings on one side, which will compensate for the costs on the other.

[John McDonnell]

I hope that that is the case and I see the rationale behind the hon. Gentleman’s case, but start-up costs will need to be met, particularly with regard to resourcing the training. If existing staff are to implement the legislation, they will have to be taken off other jobs, which will put stress on other Prison Service staff, unless some additional resource is made available. Assurances need to be given to the professionals who will implement the legislation that that will not be at a cost to their role elsewhere in the Prison Service.

18:46

[Damian Green]

With the leave of the House, I thank Members on both sides of the House who said kind words about my new job, especially the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who used a phrase to do with frying pans and fires that I have been using all day.

A substantive point about money was raised. Money is already spent managing the threat posed by mobile phones in prisons. Both centrally and locally, we must balance the benefits of using equipment that interferes with wireless telegraphy against the cost of that equipment, but we must also consider whether that money could be better spent dealing with competing threats to prison security. The legislation will allow budgets to be spent in more diverse ways, but because it does not require that any particular equipment be deployed, it will not in itself impose any additional costs on the national authority. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Establishing the New Schengen Evaluation Mechanism

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 5754/6/12, relating to an amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis, and No. 11846/11, relating to a draft Council Regulation on the establishment of an evaluation mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis; and supports the Government’s intention not to opt out of the draft Council Regulation under Protocol (No. 19) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

External Dimension of EU Social Security Co-ordination

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8552/12, relating to a Commission Communication on the External Dimension of European Union Social Security Co-ordination; supports the Government’s view that the organisation and financing of national social security systems is exclusively the competence of Member States; and shares the Government’s concerns that the extension of European Union competence in the area of social security co-ordination, through developing case law and regulations, will further undermine Member States’ ability to protect their social security systems.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

petition

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

18:48

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have the great honour to present a petition organised by Lynne Holcombe and Martin Field and signed as leading petitioners by Adam Trundle and Verity Sayers against the closure of Wellingborough prison. The Speaker has granted me a debate tomorrow on the very matter. There are 3,000 signatures against the closure of Wellingborough prison, which is the third cheapest prison in the country, and with the changes in the Ministry of Justice, I hope the decision will be reviewed.

The petition reads:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of residents of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth, that the proposed closure of Wellingborough Prison would result in the loss of up to 600 jobs, reduce capacity in the already overcrowded prison estate and would cost the taxpayer millions of pounds as it is the third cheapest prison to run in the whole prison estate, and is mindful of the Borough Council of Wellingborough’s unanimous decision to keep the prison open.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Justice to postpone the closure of Wellingborough Prison until a full review of the prison estate takes place, and a proper cost-benefit analysis is undertaken for each prison and an oral statement is made in the House of Commons which, if any, prison should close.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

[P001114]

Motorcycle Licences

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

18:50

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), for being here to answer the debate tonight. Earlier today I was afraid that there would be nobody left in the Department for Transport to take the matter on. I hope my hon. Friend will not mind too much if I place on record the admiration of a great many motorcyclists for all the work that his colleague and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) did as roads Minister; he wrestled manfully with the subject.

I declare my interest as a motorcycle owner and rider of about 24 years’ standing with an unrestricted licence. I am chairman of the associate parliamentary group for motorcycling. Motorcycling is a joy, not least because it combines freedom with a crucial need for personal responsibility and skill. Riding well requires consideration, courtesy and concentration. I believe that every serious motorcyclist will pursue the development of their skills as a matter of course, and that that journey begins with basic training and licensing.

Motorcyling is also something for which young people yearn. The journey from being a 15-year-old with a superbike poster on the wall to being the rider of that superbike can feel heart-rendingly long. The smiles on my colleagues’ faces will inform the House that of course I speak of myself. Now, thanks to the EU and the regulations, that journey almost certainly will be heart-rendingly long, if it is undertaken at all. It is therefore with a sense of grinding determination that I bring before the House the issue of licensing individuals to ride motorcycles under European Union legislation.

As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, since the coalition came to power this is not the first battle that bikers have fought against the EU and its intervention in relatively petty matters that infringe on minute details relating to the ownership of their bikes. He and I have corresponded, including through written questions, on so-called anti-tampering legislation, which has no supporting evidence and which may also be related to licensing. I understand that progress has been made and I am grateful to the Government for the vigour with which they pursued that matter. However, the motorcycle community remains very anxious and I am concerned that the Government should defend their rights and freedoms.

There was a time when the EU at least pretended to uphold the principle of subsidiarity, which was originally explained as decisions being taken at the lowest practical level. If that had not long ago been exposed as a sham, the heavy-handed mistreatment of bikers in relation to both anti-tampering and licensing would prove yet again that the doctrine is nothing more than a cynical ruse to distract us from the reality of ruthlessly centralised power over comparatively minor matters—matters that I have found often become mere bargaining chips in protracted negotiations over one bureaucratic matter or another.

I turn to the shambles of the bike test. Brussels-dictated changes to the motorcycling licence regime are far more advanced than the attack on bike modification. The second driving licence directive changed the test. From the beginning of 2003, the Motorcycling Industry Association, the MCI, warned that the proposals were flawed. The MCI argued that the manoeuvres element of the test gold-plated the directive and would require very large test sites; that the size of the sites would in turn greatly reduce the number of proposed test centres; that the Driving Standards Agency proposal was likely to result in a separate off-road element to the test, and that therefore the full cost of a test would rise substantially. Indeed, this is what came to pass when the test was implemented in 2009.

The number of test centres dropped from 223 to fewer than 40. As the new test was in two separate segments tested on different days, fees rose by about 30%. The Driving Standards Agency’s antiquated trainer booking system could not cope with the new two-part tests, creating chaos. The changes were delayed by six months at the last minute, by the late split of the test into two parts, which left trainers and learners in limbo. The result was massive aggravation for trainers and pupils and, more seriously, the beginnings of a potential new problem: permanent learners.

Passing the full test is now so bureaucratic and inconvenient that, two years after passing their initial compulsory basic training, it can be expected that at least some new bikers will choose to take their CBT again so that they can drive for another two years without passing their full test. So a new system supposed to make the roads safer and to make motorcyclists safer could make them less safe by creating permanent learners who are not only not fully qualified road users, but who may be less likely to develop the interest in motorcycling that encourages the development of essential skills. So these changes may be not only expensive and aggravating; they may also be counter-productive.

Following uproar from the motorcycling community, the Transport Committee resolved to look into the matter in July 2009. In March 2010, before the election, the Committee found the DSA’s implementation and delivery to be lacking and agreed with almost all the points made by the industry. However, the DSA seems to have taken little action to address the findings. In June 2010, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, the then new Minister, announced a review into the issue because of widely expressed concerns

“about the safety of the off-road module 1 part of the test and about the difficulty of accessing the limited number of off-road test centres.”

That announcement was warmly received by bikers. The review was due to report in autumn 2010. Here we are, almost two years later, and we still do not have a projected date for publication.

I appreciate that the matter is being looked at thoroughly, in great depth, with dedicated research commissioned and wide consultation undertaken, with results to be provided, presumably, in the fullness of time, but this is too long. The attitude of my hon. Friend the former roads Minister throughout has impressed the biking community, which strongly believed that he was on their side. As a motorcycle action group member, I am sure he was, but as the years roll by with no resolution in sight, some of them are losing faith.

The Government deserve full credit for the interim mini-fixes that have occurred. Examiners have been redeployed and a few new test sites have opened. Module 1 was slightly amended to become fairer. A single event test is being trialled. Flexibility between modules is sometimes possible. But I put it to the Minister that the core problems remain. More test sites are needed. Geographical coverage is too patchy and bikers believe that trainers working far from the module 1 test centres are going out of business, leaving further gaps in trainer coverage. Some accidents still take place on the module 1 test, which includes manoeuvres that are not necessarily easy to relate to the real world. The two part test remains complicated and bureaucratic for candidates. A single event, on-road test remains the simplest format to understand. Anything else is a discouragement to people considering taking the motorcycle test. The evidence since 2009 proves it.

Progress on the review appears to be painfully slow. It took only six months to split the test in two in 2009, but reconsidering that decision appears to be mired in a highly complex and bureaucratic health and safety process that is still unresolved after two years. Bikers who have been consulted praised the roads Minister and even praise DFT officials, who they believe are doing their best, but they have complained that certain quango officials lack a can-do attitude and that they have been rigid and unrealistic in interpreting the directives. Will Sir Humphrey triumph in both Europe and the UK in thwarting past, present and future Ministers? I implore the Minister to encourage the motorcycle community with a concrete prospect of the review concluding, in the manner that the original policy set out, and with substantive recommendations to improve the shambles left by the previous Government in collusion with the EU.

I regret to report that the misery being inflicted on bikers by the EU does not end there. There is now, in addition, a third driving licence directive, which was translated into domestic law in January 2011. The EU has again left chaos in its wake. In January 2013, the licence categories must change. Currently, to obtain a motorcycle licence a rider must first purchase a provisional motorcycle licence and then pass compulsory basic training, which enables them to ride on the public road with L-plates for up to two years. To obtain a full motorcycle licence, they must pass a motorcycle theory test and then a practical test. There are different categories of licence and two routes to a full licence.

The new system is, of course, more complex: riders under 24 years old will be required to go through more stages and repeats of the same test to reach a full licence; a new A2 category is to be introduced, so four categories replace three, at least if we include the medium-power bike to which riders would be restricted; the age for riding a full-power motorcycle rises from 21 to 24; and the top speeds of restricted mopeds is reduced. I have to say, from my own experience of riding a 50 cc moped, that reducing the top speeds seems to be a measure that could create danger rather than solve it.

How many under-24-year-olds will be willing to jump through all those hoops? How many can afford to? The effect will be to discourage cheap and convenient transport for many young people, which could be a real lifeline to help them into work, and certainly to fulfil their lives. It might add to congestion as people turn to cars instead of bikes. It will certainly secure the primacy of the direct access route for older learners.

As if all that was not complicated enough, 11 months later, in December 2013, the sizing of bikes in the new categories changes again. Rather than having one co-ordinated disruption, the system will have to change and then change again within a year. All those trainers who diligently complied with the new rules and bought equipment in advance could be left out of pocket and up the Swannee by the capriciousness of the EU. It is as if the EU is deliberately trying to cause as much expense and inconvenience as possible. Some cynics have suggested that officials would like to eliminate motorcycling. I would not go that far, but I know that even when the EU consults it does not listen; it goes through the motions and then does what its bureaucrats want anyway.

I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for Britain’s membership of the EU and that the Government have been attempting to clear up a mess dumped on us by Brussels but, I refer him to the unfinished review and the need for: an easily accessible, single-event test; a testing regime that is easy to understand; cost-effectiveness for both consumers and the institutional structures; and full national coverage. I remind him that the increase in the size of the 125 cc market, together with the reduction in test numbers, might be an early indication of a growing category of permanent learners. If that proves to be the case, the EU-imposed testing regime will be failing by its own standards.

As I conclude my remarks, I will return to where I began by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead—he is now in his place—who has really fought for the interests of motorcyclists. Both I and the motorcycling community are grateful for all he has done and wish him well in his new role.

Finally, motorcycling is not merely a form of transport; it is the exercise of liberty under the law, personal responsibility and individual skill. It is sometimes a hobby and sometimes a way of life. It is a joy to which many aspire and which many of us treasure. The EU and the DSA together are working towards ruining it. Will the Government please sort out this mess and tell us when they will do so?

19:03

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) for raising this subject and for his kind comments about my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—I was going to say that he is on his way to Northern Ireland, but he appears to have returned to the Chamber for one last transport debate, for which I am grateful. If I miss anything out, he can pass me a note and I shall happily incorporate it into my comments, as the matter has been part of his portfolio, not mine, and as he knows much more about motorcycles than I do. What I do know is that he has been very supportive of motorcycling, as has the Department since the coalition Government took office, and I do not see that changing.

With regard to bike modification and the Commission’s proposals to overhaul the existing scheme for type approval of motorcycles, we have argued strongly against extending anti-tampering measures, which we felt were based on unconvincing evidence for change. We have been successful in limiting their application to bikes that are subject to power or speed restrictions, such as learner bikes, so larger, unrestricted bikes will not be affected by the proposed anti-tampering measures. The proposals relate only to modifications that change the power and speed, so riders will continue to be able to customise their bikes.

More widely, we have opposed the delegation of powers to the Commission within the proposed regulation to set technical detail and argued against measures that impose unnecessary costs and restrictions. We have secured a number of positive objectives, such as limiting the application of costly anti-lock braking requirements on smaller bikes, while ensuring the safety benefit of their fitment to larger machines, simplifying test procedures and blocking tighter requirements for the approval of one-off specials—custom bikes. Despite our objections, it is likely that the regulation will be adopted later this year and enter into force in 2016.

I recognise the concerns my hon. Friend expressed about the changes to module 1 of the motorcycle test. Since then, we have implemented a number of changes to improve riders’ and trainers’ ability to access the test, including: addressing trainers’ concerns about manoeuvres by restructuring the order in which they are undertaken, providing more flexibility in speed measurement and making small changes to the layout of the test; making more test sites available by acquiring casual sites, such as those already owned by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and privately owned sites such as Silverstone, to try to minimise gap areas; and working with trainers to review the booking system to improve the availability of test appointments at times that suit the trainers and trainees.

My hon. Friend will also know that the motorcycle test review has been considering alternative ways of providing a motorcycle test that maintains UK riding standards and improves the accessibility and safety of the test candidates while meeting the requirements of the European legislation. The aim is to accommodate all the manoeuvres in a single-event test that can be delivered in all parts of Great Britain. We have focused on the higher-speed, low-speed and braking manoeuvres required by EU directives, including the design and content of the manoeuvres and the locations where they could be performed as part of the test.

We have made progress in identifying potential alternative manoeuvres and the kinds of locations that could be suitable. We are now holding independent trials to evaluate these options to see whether they are feasible, safe and deliverable in all areas. Subject to these trials, there will be a public consultation on any proposals for changing the motorcycle test. I appreciate that hon. Members across the Chamber sometimes want us to make progress more quickly than we are able to. I can assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has been very busy in trying to make as much progress as he can, and we will not let up on that as we move forward under the new Secretary of State for Transport.

Under the third driving licence directive, new driving licence rules will come into force on 19 January 2013. The directive will introduce new categories for motorcycles that will apply from 19 January 2013. The changes will not affect entitlement gained before that date. There are new categories for mopeds and for small, medium and unlimited-size motorbikes—categories AM, A1, A2 and A respectively. As my hon. Friend is aware, a rider can progress from a smaller to a larger bike by direct access, based on a minimum age for a specific category, but progression can also be through staged access, based on two years’ experience for a given category. Through that progression route it is feasible for the rider to gain entitlement at age 21. The new categories implement the EU’s third driving licence directive and UK legislation has already been made. There is no further scope to influence the EU on the directive, which has now passed into EU and domestic law, but much work has been done to publicise arrangements in advance of it coming into effect.

The directive also specifies the minimum size of bike on which the practical test can be taken. My Department has been working with the Commission to ensure that the categories make sense and provide flexibility—for example, by working on categories that align with manufacturers’ specifications on the engine size. A 5 cc tolerance around the minimum engine capacity for a motorbike has been proposed, so for category A the minimum engine size for a test vehicle can be between 595 cc and 600 cc. For electric bikes, specifying a power-to-weight ratio rather than engine displacement is also something we have been pursuing. As part of this work, the Commission has proposed a change for the conventional petrol engine bikes that can be used for the practical test, allowing entitlement to unrestricted access to any sized bike in category A. The change increases the minimum engine power from 40 kW to 50 kW—or 54 to 67 brake horsepower, for those interested in such measurements—and introduces a minimum 180 kg unladen weight, kerb weight.

In June this year the EU Commission circulated a directive that included all those changes and amended the third driving licence directive. The change to bikes that can be used for the test under category A was not welcome and we raised concerns about the impact it would have.

The Commission’s main argument for the new requirement in relation to engine power and minimum weight is that it will lead to the tests taken on motorcycles being more representative of their category. We are concerned that inadequate justification has been provided by the Commission to explain why that particular change to category A is being made and why the specific requirements have been chosen. Apart from greater development of electric bikes, there has been no significant change in bike technology to warrant any change since the third driving licence directive was originally adopted in 2006. In addition, there is little difference in handling between a bike with 40 kW and one with 50 kW, so there is no obvious road safety benefit from taking a test on a bike with 50 kW. Furthermore, I am concerned, as is my Department, about the impact it will have, particularly on training providers.

The new amendments are due to come into effect on 31 December 2013. To make this change so close to the introduction of the new rules in January 2013 is, in our view, confusing and provides very little notice. There is inadequate protection and no transitional provision to safeguard those who, quite understandably, have purchased bikes at 40 kW in anticipation of the law changing on 19 January 2013. Those points have already been raised clearly with the Commission, which has powers to make minor amendments, subject to the views of member states. Disappointingly, at the Commission’s driving licence committee on 26 June, few other member states shared our concerns. The Commission extended the lead-in time for the changes to take effect to 31 December 2013, but secured a positive vote for them from the majority of member states. I am concerned that the change does not add real value to road safety and that it will have a disproportionate impact on training providers.

The Government are committed to simplifying regulations so that they do not impede growth, and to working with the European Union to make that happen, but we do not think that this particular change makes sense. It is an example of change that does not tie in with the EU’s objective to develop measures that add value and encourage growth, and we think that it is out of step with the EU’s smart regulation agenda to ensure the quality of regulation.

The Government are, therefore, taking the step to make objections to the Council of the EU within permitted grounds of objection. We would need a qualified majority to block the amendment and we are writing to other member states to enlist their support. The Council has until October to make that decision. Obviously, we do not know what the response of other member states will be.

In the meantime, we have taken action to make sure that the motorcycle industry is aware of the changes as soon as possible. On 16 July, we published the changes on the Department for Transport website and notified the motorcycle training industry and other representatives of the motorcycle industry.

I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are taking steps to get the amendment to category A changed and to achieve a positive outcome. I also hope that he will welcome the general steps that the Department is taking to ensure that we give support to motorcyclists. Despite the unwelcome departure of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead to Northern Ireland—it is unwelcome for the Department, but I am sure that he is very pleased about it—we in the Department will do our best for motorcyclists.

Question put and agreed to.

19:13

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 4 September 2012

Justice

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Employment and Support Allowance: Appeals

[Diana Johnson]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people (a) in Hull and (b) nationally have been waiting more than 12 months for an employment and support allowance appeal.

[Official Report, 18 April 2012, Vol. 543, c. 432-33W.]

Letter of correction from Jonathan Djanogly:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on 18 April 2012. The figure for the average waiting times for employment and support allowance appeals in Hull was incorrect.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Djanogly]

It is not possible to provide the number of employment and support allowance (ESA) appeals that are over 12 months old at this time because the data does not form part of the published statistics and so was not extracted the last time the statistics were produced. To ensure the consistency and integrity of data, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) only provides data based upon published statistics. I will therefore arrange for the number of appeals over 12 months old nationally and in Hull to be supplied to the hon. Member when the next social security and child support data are published for the quarter to March 2012.

The following table shows the average time taken from receipt of an appeal until the date of the first appeal hearing at HMCTS for ESA appeals nationally and in Hull. The information covers 1 April 2011 to 31 December 2011, the latest period for which published data is available.

[Mr Djanogly]

It is not possible to provide the number of employment and support allowance (ESA) appeals that are over 12 months old at this time because the data does not form part of the published statistics and so was not extracted the last time the statistics were produced. To ensure the consistency and integrity of data, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) only provides data based upon published statistics. I will therefore arrange for the number of appeals over 12 months old nationally and in Hull to be supplied to the hon. Member when the next social security and child support data are published for the quarter to March 2012.

The following table shows the average time taken from receipt of an appeal until the date of the first appeal hearing at HMCTS for ESA appeals nationally and in Hull. The information covers 1 April 2011 to 31 December 2011, the latest period for which published data is available.

Petition

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Petitions

Tuesday 4 September 2012

Change of School name (Hemmingwell, Northamptonshire)

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Petitions

The Humble Petition of residents of Hemmingwell, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth, that the proposed change of name of the Oakway schools in Hemmingwell and the additional cost in changing the school uniform are both unnecessary and costly and that the schools in Oakway are well established and the name is well known.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Education to urge the Northamptonshire County Council and the Board of Governors at the Oakway schools to work together to ensure that any merged school will be named Oakway Primary School

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.—[Presented by Mr Peter Bone, Official Report, 19 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 837.]

[P001099]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Education:

Statutory proposals have been published and approved to close Oakway Junior School and to enlarge and change the age range of Oakway Infant School to create a single primary school with effect from 1 September 2012.

It is the responsibility of the infant school’s governing body to decide the name of the extended school. To do this, they must reach a unanimous vote of the full membership of the governing body, in favour of the proposal.

The residents should make their views known to the school’s governing body; there is no direct role for either the local authority or Ministers in this process. It is a local decision, consistent with the Government’s drive to remove unnecessary bureaucracy from the system to allow schools to raise standards for every school.

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 4 September 2012

[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]

Access and Facilities (House of Commons)

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Relevant document: First Report from the Administration Committee, Session 2012-13, on Visitor Access and Facilities, HC 13.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Heath.)

09:30

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

This morning’s first debate, on visitor access, is slightly unusual, as it is on a House of Commons matter, not a Government one. The winding-up speech will made by John Thurso on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, and I expect to call him no later than 10.50 am, depending on how many other hon. Members want to speak.

There will be time for Front-Bench speeches, should the speakers wish it. The Administration Committee’s report on visitor access is relevant to the debate. The House of Commons Commission response to that report was published at 9.30 this morning and copies are available.

09:31

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Mrs Riordan, you and I are in an unusual position, in that for several years our roles were normally the other way round, but I am delighted to see you occupying the Chair. I am aware that this morning’s subject of debate is not exactly at the epicentre of colleagues’ consideration, given other events that may be taking place not too far away from the Palace. However, it is important that we have occasional opportunities to discuss matters connected to Parliament’s operation, rather than those that concern the rest of the country. I hope to show that we are concerned, when we consider access to the building, about the convenience of the public—the people we serve.

The report of the Administration Committee on visitor access and facilities was published in May and, as you announced, Mrs Riordan, the House of Commons Commission has responded. We have published its response and I am pleased to say that the main thrust of the Committee’s recommendations has been accepted. We expect that, if all goes well, £3 million should be raised annually by 2014-15, to help towards the annual £224 million cost of running the House. Although we were open to receipt of evidence and comments from colleagues, the response was not overwhelming. The purpose of today’s debate, as I see it, is to air some of the underlying issues relating to visitor access, so that the unfolding of plans may be further informed.

The Committee’s starting point was to recognise that access to the Palace of Westminster for the various purposes pursued by members of the public can sometimes be very difficult—uncomfortable, even—with no shelter from extremes of weather. Public access was probably not a very high consideration when the new Palace was designed and built by Barry and Pugin in the 19th century, when people did not regularly lobby in their thousands. Parliamentary activity was not as extensive as it has become today, with all the Committees of the House and, indeed, the introduction of this Chamber as a parallel source of debating opportunities. There were not more than 500 all-party groups competing for space and attention. Visits to tour the building were not the feature that they have become today. The use of banqueting facilities was very limited and the education service, with its aim of encouraging school visits, had not been founded. Those and other activities have contributed to an ever increasing demand for access. More than 1 million people have visited the Palace in the past year, and the capacity of our entry points, unfortunately, has not kept pace with demand.

Security is obviously a factor. We must protect the building and all the people who may for one reason or another be in it. The need to ramp up security has led to controls on access that severely limit throughput. Worse than that, on occasions contradictory moves have been made in different parts of the administration of the Palace. On the one hand, there is a desire to encourage people to visit Westminster to see proceedings, or to come on school visits for induction to Parliament by the education service, but at the same time, the physical means of entry have not been expanded commensurately. On occasion, decisions have been made not to expand the entry points on the grounds of public expenditure. The consequence has been queuing. People queuing to get into the Palace are a regular sight, which has led to considerable inconvenience not only for them, but for the hosts who handle the queues and for those holding functions in the House where visitors are expected.

The second problem is the inefficient handling of tour parties. The Palace is an almost unique visitor attraction, as visitors are taken through one way, then brought back again. It is an extremely unusual circumstance, which was remarked on by those who gave evidence to the Committee. The introduction of visitor assistants is a positive step. Perhaps they are the parliamentary equivalent of the “games makers”, because they give visitors a warm reception. Overall, however, we do not give the visitor the best welcome. We are strangely reticent about advertising the fact that people can come into the Palace for various legitimate reasons. The notices outside Westminster abbey, not far from us, are an example of what might be done—and I hope will be done—to give simple information to visitors about their rights of access.

We identified the fact that the Palace has a double role. It is primarily a working building at the heart of our democracy: that is unquestionably its prime purpose. However, we recognise that whether we like it or not, it is a leading visitor attraction. People see it and understandably want to share the wonderment of what it represents and contains. The twin roles can more easily be separated when Parliament is not in Session. They can become confused when one or other House is sitting. People want access to view proceedings, give evidence to Committees, visit their Member of Parliament and attend receptions and meetings. Also, many Members want to encourage visitors from their constituencies to come on a tour of the Palace—something that is now further limited by the recent decision of the House to change Tuesday sitting times.

For all the purposes I have just described, entry to the Palace must be free and, one would like to think, unimpeded, although for the reasons I have set out that is not always so. There should be no barrier to members of the public for those purposes. However, Parliament’s role as a visitor attraction is another matter. We are among the top five historical attractions. We could say that visiting has nothing to do with the operation of Parliament—we could disavow it and very strictly define the occasions on which people enter the Palace—but the Committee’s view was that we should welcome the opportunity to be seen in such a light. We could see nothing undignified about charging people who want to come in purely for the purpose of seeing a major historical attraction. There is undoubtedly a demand for visits, which has been created in all manner of ways, and would be further swollen if people passing by realised that there was an opportunity to come into the building.

The Committee felt that a clear distinction should be made, in the way that Westminster abbey makes a distinction—if people wish to attend a service in the abbey, there is of course absolutely no question of charging for access, but if people wish to visit the abbey as a visitor attraction at other times, there is most certainly a charge. We therefore think that we can apply that distinction to the Palace of Westminster. Of course, if we welcome visitors, there will also be a demand from them for refreshment and souvenirs.

We recognise that the whole issue of charging is quite sensitive, but we believe that some clear thinking on the subject is needed. We already charge for commercial tours when Parliament is in recess during the summer and on Saturdays, and for civil ceremonies and banqueting. We are increasingly charging for the specialist tours that have been developed—for example, for examining works of art—and it is thought reasonable to add to such tours opportunities for taking tea or even something more substantial.

However, we touched a nerve with a proposed charge for access to what we are now pleased to call the Elizabeth Tower. A charge for visitors was proposed on no more than a cost-recovery basis, but the House recoiled. Arguably, the Elizabeth Tower is not key to the parliamentary process, so we have blurred the distinction that the Committee felt ought to be maintained. The tower has severely limited capacity and, ironically, the consequence of the debate on charging in the House has been an upsurge in demand. Until then, many people did not realise that such tours were a possibility. It is now difficult to get any slot for visitors from one’s constituency for the rest of this calendar year—opportunities are being soaked up very quickly.

We suggested in our report that the line should be clearly drawn between the Palace as the place of the legislature and as a visitor attraction, and that that distinction ought to be reasonably clear and well defined. We do not feel that we should neglect what is an important source of income that is designed either to help us to reduce the taxpayer’s subsidy or to support the upkeep of this building. It has been reported in the press that the Commission is considering what needs to be done to ensure that the Palace is in a full state of repair, and there will doubtless be announcements about that in due course, but a great deal of work is being done and has to be done to make sure that it operates effectively as the home of Parliament and, indeed, continues to be a place of attraction and beauty for those who wish to visit.

The charge that one might apply for visits, whatever the purpose for which visitors are allowed in, is another matter. In evidence to the Committee, we were told that we probably undercharge. One approach is simply to go on cost-recovery; the other is to recognise that we are in a competitive marketplace in relation to visits, so we should consider whether a profit could be made that contributed to the purposes I have described. I do not think that many people would thank us if, through any kind of neglect or reluctance to spend money, we allowed this building to fall into any measure of disrepair.

As I have mentioned, another source of income connected with visitors to the building is the sale of souvenir gifts, on which we have been half-hearted over the years. If people visit a stately home run by English Heritage, it is impossible for them to escape without going through the gift shop and the cafeteria, and English Heritage freely admits that it makes a great deal of money that way. The public make no complaints about that, because they see it as part of the visitor experience. It has been very difficult to achieve what might be our full potential in that respect in the Palace. Ironically, that is because English Heritage has been especially protective about Westminster Hall, which is the logical place for a souvenir shop. Of course, at one time in its history, Westminster Hall was very commercial, with shops and market stalls, but that was a long time ago.

Undoubtedly, there is a right and a wrong place to put a gift shop. At the moment, it is in St Stephen’s Hall, which is a congestion point, and people do not want to stop there on the tour to decide whether to buy something. People complete the tour in Westminster Hall and a relatively small number go back to the shop, while others go elsewhere, so opportunities are being missed. We are now addressing that, in the hope of increasing revenue and, indeed, of further contributing to people’s pleasure in visiting the Palace. I hope that such a benefit will soon be seen.

Overhanging our whole approach is the question of security. We recognise that high security is needed in respect of all aspects of access to the Palace, but our entry points are nearly all constrained either through sheer lack of capacity or, as the Committee suspects, in some cases for want of manpower, in that extra security guards mean extra cost. In the Committee’s view, that is not a reasonable ground for holding off improvements to the smoothness of access. At many times, throughput is now very badly hampered. We welcome what the Serjeant at Arms is seeking to do to ease some pressure points, but we think that that can make only a minor contribution to improving the flow. We have made a suggestion about improving the categories for prioritising visitors who should be fast-tracked into the building through the Cromwell Green entrance.

Two major problems persist. One is trying to separate what one might call the urgent visitor—the person who has an appointment with a Member of Parliament or has a commitment to give evidence to a Select Committee—from the rest. It is quite wrong that such people should be held up and, in practice, it is quite difficult physically to separate on the ground the genuinely urgent visitors, who need to be in the building by a certain time, from everyone else. We have proposed a restoration of the cabin that was previously stationed adjacent to the St Stephen’s entrance, which would allow a proper and more physical separation and, at the same time, ease the pressures on the Cromwell Green entrance.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way he is explaining the work of the Committee in such great detail. I want to emphasise the point that he has just made. Many people come to the Palace for good reason, including helping parliamentarians in their duties in all-party parliamentary groups. Meeting rooms are often changed at short notice. I have seen the most terrible scenes of people, who are giving their time freely, who are often professionals and who have come from all over the country to participate in the work of Parliament, scurrying around the building because they have been delayed on entry and then find that the Committee Rooms are changed at the last minute. I wholeheartedly agree that urgent measures must be taken so that people who are visiting Parliament for business purposes can get on with their work in a timely way.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

My hon. Friend, who is a valued member of the Committee, makes an excellent point. It is a real problem and a source of embarrassment for many Members of Parliament that visitors can be messed around to such an extent.

The second problem is the line of route for visitors. In accordance with telling the story of Parliament, visitors would traditionally begin at the House of Lords’ end of the building and exit through Westminster Hall. Since the introduction of the Cromwell Green entrance, the route has been reversed and visitors are now brought into Westminster Hall first. I repeat what I said earlier: we have the unusual circumstance of having to escort them, at varying pace, right the way through the building, which causes congestion and sometimes leads to confusion. I remember taking a party through the House. When we got to the House of Lords’ end, we found that we were missing someone. That was simply because not everyone keeps the same pace. Despite politely saying, “We must go through, but you will see all this on the way back,” people may be suspicious of that and will naturally gaze up in admiration at what they are seeing, and that delays them, which is a general inconvenience to the group. It lets time slip. The professional guides, who are possibly contracted to do two tours for members of the public in the morning, find that their schedule is also held up and the next lot of visitors who have arrived on time are kept waiting until they are free after the first tour. I am happy to say that I am involved in informal discussions with the House of Lords to see how we can tackle this matter and improve the whole visitor experience. I hope something fruitful will come out of those discussions in the not too distant future.

Let me say a brief word about the longer term. Most people would surely agree that a good job is being done by our education service, the information office and parliamentary outreach to engage the public. As elected representatives of the people, we should delight in that fact and recognise that we need to get more people to come here for an understanding of what parliamentary democracy is all about if belief in parliamentary democracy is to be sustained. We worry about people abstaining from voting in elections and so on, but perhaps that is because they do not fully appreciate Parliament’s potential. We should do all that we can to bring Parliament’s role to people’s attention. Nothing is better than for people to come here and learn about what happens and that may light their own ambition to come here in due time as an elected representative.

There is a strong case for magnifying the efforts of the education service, the information office and parliamentary outreach to introduce young people to an understanding of parliamentary democracy through greater access. However, the education service has no proper home within the Palace. In 2007 both the House of Commons and the House of Lords agreed that there should be a proper base for the education service, but that has not yet been achieved.

If we look at what is done in other Parliaments, we will see that we could do better by our citizens if we had a proper visitor centre where a warm welcome could be afforded and a proper introduction to parliament made. Both these functions—the education service and the visitor centre—could be combined in a purpose-built facility, but we have fought shy of the expenditure that would necessarily be involved. We owe it to the public to be bolder in our approach. That is a longer-term aspiration, but it is something that would allow us to look the public in the eye and say, “This is not a matter of aggrandising the position or the comfort of Members of Parliament. This is for you, and you have a right to get the best out of the Parliament that is here.” We should make it clear that they are welcome and when they come here we should handle them in a way that is informative and makes the experience something that they will remember for a long time.

We need to be courageous in our approach, and the question of access and the reception of visitors deserves much greater attention. I hope that the deliberations of the Administration Committee and the report that we have produced, plus the welcome that it has had from the House of Commons Commission, will alert colleagues to what our priorities should be. We need to move forward in a way that understands the clear distinction that we have tried to emphasise in our report that yes, we are first and foremost a place of parliamentary legislative business, but secondly, that we are seen as the mother of Parliaments and the home of parliamentary democracy, and it is a home to which we should want to welcome people as much as we can.

09:49

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

I did not notify you, Mrs Riordan, that I wished to participate in this debate, but the subject of visitor access to Parliament is close to my heart. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) is right to say that this is a place of legislation. It is primarily a place of work. Members are here representing constituents, and most of them want to facilitate access as much as possible. Given the arrangements of this debate, I am not sure how we get a response to our questions, but I will raise a few issues anyway.

In the report, I was struck by the varying ways in which the fast-track scheme can be used. I welcome the idea of giving access to that scheme to members of our armed forces. Those brave men and women serving our country should be able to take up the rare opportunity of visiting Parliament without having to stand outside for an hour waiting to get in. To be honest, I did not even realise that there was a fast-track lane until I read the report. I do not remember it at all. Before I was a Member, I would just hang about in the back.

I read about the capacity flow-through and some of the changes that are proposed to increase the number of people coming through at Cromwell Green and Portcullis House. I was struck by the fact that while 500 people an hour can be processed through Cromwell Green, only 125 people can be processed in Portcullis House, which makes no sense to me. That is far worse than BAA’s operations in Heathrow, which are pretty appalling. We need to understand why the capacity at that entrance is so poor, although I appreciate that there are issues about it being a holding place.

One thing that I often do, and it is mentioned in the report, is to bring people in through 1 Parliament street. I go against the Committee’s recommendation of introducing another entrance facility through the St Stephen’s entrance, even if it was for VIPs. There are plenty of other ways that can be used. Using 1 Parliament street is an appropriate way to bring people into the Palace. I remember going through St Stephen’s entrance, and it always felt very grand, but the opening up of Westminster Hall has been good—although the visual blockage at the top end of Westminster Hall may not be particularly sightly—even though it is not the end with the new stained glass window being erected.

On other aspects of access, to ensure that we do not just focus attention on Cromwell Green, we could let some of the visitor assistants escort people from different entrances through to Central Lobby. At the moment, it is quite easy to say to a constituent, “I will see you in Central Lobby,” because they can just come into Parliament and walk to Central Lobby. The same is true of people attending banquets and other functions. But, quite rightly, nobody can walk through by themselves from Portcullis House to the main Palace; they must be accompanied by a pass holder. I wonder whether there are other ways in which we can use the existing visitor assistants to facilitate people arriving around the clock.

I have some sympathy with the view that was expressed about the inefficiency of tours. Dare I say that there is also an issue with the timekeeping of some of our guides? Having asked a guide to try to get round in 60 minutes instead of the usual 75 minutes, my guests came back to me 100 minutes later. There is a real inconsistency in how some of these services are delivered: if a guide suddenly extends a tour to closer to two hours than one, that is not great productivity.

I want to mention two issues that are not raised in the Administration Committee’s report. In doing so, I am perhaps straying from the report’s remit, which concerned visitor access and facilities. However, dare I mention first the issue of access to the bars of the House of Commons? We know that there are rules about taking people into Strangers Bar, including about who can purchase drinks. It is beholden on Members to try to respect the rules. It is frustrating to see Members take 20 guests on to the Terrace in the Members-only section on a very busy day. Frankly, to do so is to show bad manners to other Members, as I point out to Members—although not in front of their guests—who do so.

Secondly, regarding other access, a lot has been said already about the education service. I support the development of the education service. Some of the things that we have done with the Speaker’s Council awards have been very good. However, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, will know that I have asked parliamentary questions about the subsidy that is available to help children to come to Parliament. I am raising that issue again now in a very parochial way, from the point of view of Suffolk, where my constituency is. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who is my neighbouring MP in Suffolk, live up to 130 miles away from Parliament, and my constituents live an average of 120 miles from Parliament, yet Suffolk schoolchildren receive no subsidy to visit Parliament. If we went the same distance and travelling time from Parliament in the other direction, we would start to reach beyond Birmingham, but the amount of subsidy that is given to schoolchildren from that area to visit Parliament is considerable in comparison to the zero subsidy that is given to schoolchildren from Suffolk. Will the Administration Committee, and perhaps also the House of Commons Commission, look at that issue again? Why is it that schoolchildren in Peterborough can receive a subsidy to pay for up to 50% of their travel costs, even though the time it takes them to get to Parliament by train is less than an hour and Peterborough is much closer to Parliament than my constituency?

I have strayed from the parts of the report to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden referred. However, I think that we should try to be as friendly to visitors as possible. I would love it if we started to rename the Strangers Gallery as the visitors gallery, and changed some of the words that are used in Parliament, as we have started to do in our parliamentary procedures. We no longer use the phrase, “I spy strangers,” and we have a different way of referring to visitors. In the 21st century, we can also change the names of Galleries and bars.

10:03

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Riordan, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), who is the Chairman of the Administration Committee.

I have the pleasure of serving on the Administration Committee and I think that my right hon. Friend was right to say in his introduction to this debate that the issue of visitor access and facilities is not a great topic of interest either for today or for most Members most of the time. However, it is one of those important issues about how a Parliament runs. Those of us who have a sad busman’s holiday occupation of going round other Parliaments see a very different situation to the one here. We have not just a working Parliament, which people want to see because they have an interest in how the Government work and how laws are made, but a hugely attractive historic building, which people want to see for its architecture and the art that is contained here. That creates twin pressures on visitor access: there is a huge amount of interest from people who want to come to meet their own MP and see what we do here, but also from those who want to see the surroundings in which we do it.

The Committee rightly brought out that theme in its report. It is quite reasonable to charge people who want to come to Parliament as a tourist, but it is completely inappropriate to charge people who want to come here to engage in the democratic process and to see their MP. If people want to come here to see how Parliament works, how legislation is made or to lobby their MP, they must be able to do so in a timely manner and for free. We cannot and should not charge people to do that, and as far as I know there are no plans for that type of charging to be introduced. However, if people are coming to Parliament to have a tourist experience, they should more than cover the costs to Parliament of their doing that and they should make some contribution towards the upkeep of these historic buildings. I am not recommending that any subsidy should come from that contribution to support the parliamentary function, for which the taxpayer in general should rightly pay. However, the upkeep of these historic buildings needs to be funded somehow.

My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Administration Committee also worked his way around how we fund the catering establishments in this place. Clearly, visitors have a role to play in that process. We sit here as a Parliament for only about 70% of the year, but we are funding catering establishments to be here for 100% of the year. That is one reason—there are many others—why we have such a large subsidy, or loss, for those catering operations.

I am not one who thinks that MPs should have glorious, luxurious eating establishments, but clearly there need to be catering establishments in a place such as this so that MPs and all their staff have somewhere to eat—and drink too, probably—and so that visitors, too, can eat. The more use we can get out of those catering establishments when Parliament is not sitting, the less demand we will make on the taxpayer to subsidise them. Hopefully, we will try to neutralise some of the issues that exist. People’s perception of those issues is partly correct, but they are also partly misinformed about where some of the catering establishments’ loss comes from. The more visitors that we can get in, the more we can enable them to be here and make full use of the catering establishments when Parliament is not sitting. That would be a far better situation than the current one.

I can give an example from my busman’s holiday this summer, in the state Parliament in Victoria. We had a free tour of the Parliament; it did not take very long. It was interesting to see the Parliament, but not all that exciting. However, we were then offered the chance to have lunch in the Members’ dining room. We went in there, we handed over some identification, we were given a security pass, we could walk through the corridors and, as I say, we could go to have lunch in the Members’ dining room while the Parliament was in recess. That is not something that a visitor can do here in this Parliament on spec. I am not necessarily saying that the Members’ Dining Room should be opened all year round for that purpose, but freeing up access and allowing more people to come and see what these House dining rooms are like and have a chance to eat the meal that we get to eat would have huge advantages all round. People could get to use the whole place and see it, and that would reduce the amount that we require from the taxpayer to subsidise those facilities.

I agree with all the other points that have been made, very articulately, about the importance of educational visits. However, it is very hard for schoolchildren from my constituency to get down here. It is quite hard to get a slot when schoolchildren can come on a visit. I know the organisation that is required to arrange such a visit; people need to be on the phone the minute those slots open to try to get a decent one. Also, visiting Parliament is a long and expensive journey for many schools to arrange, especially when there is not even the budget available to pay for half the travel costs that are still required.

The more that we can do to get children to come to Parliament from other places that are further away in the country than London, rather than just having children from the London area, the better it would be. Children really gain a lot from understanding how democracy works and how important Parliament is; they can see it. In the two and a half years that I have been here, I have had about half a dozen groups of schoolchildren come down to visit, out of the dozens of schools in my constituency. It really is a very small percentage of children who get to do that.

Before I was elected as an MP, I had been in this building only once before, and that was on an organised tour 14 years ago. Visiting Parliament gives people a completely different picture of this place. They come and have the tour, they have the experience and they see how Parliament works; they even see how small the House of Commons Chamber is. People get a very different picture of democracy from actually being here rather than just seeing those clips on a Wednesday night on TV of MPs behaving rather badly at Prime Minister’s questions.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

Does my hon. Friend not see that there is an incongruity in what he is suggesting? I absolutely agree with him that we should maximise the opportunities for schoolchildren to visit Parliament, which may require subsidy, as it already does to some extent. However, if we simply increase demand without spending money on ensuring that visitors can get into the building, they will not exactly have the best of welcomes. The two things go together.

[Nigel Mills]

I absolutely agree with that point. There are things that we can do in the short term to make access easier. We can make better use of the various large rooms that we have. In this building in particular, we have this room itself—Westminster Hall—that is not used for much of the week. We also have the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Room and the Inter-Parliamentary Union Room, which are also not used the whole time. Those rooms could be used more for educational visits than they are now.

My right hon. Friend was making the point about how we get visiting schoolchildren through security and into this place more efficiently. We must use the existing access routes more effectively; they do not run at capacity. We do not use No. 1 Parliament street or Derby Gate effectively at all; Derby Gate is a fully effective security access route. There is no particular reason why, especially on days of nice weather, a party could not be led round there, through security and back through the building if there was a queue somewhere else. I know that option was not favoured, but if there is a half-hour or hour wait and accesses elsewhere are empty, there must be a better use for those accesses.

I am tempted to raise one of the thornier issues that affects the running of the Palace. Most people would be surprised to learn that the House of Commons runs half the Palace and the House of Lords runs the other half, and that, at times, never the twain shall meet. We are talking about sensible things such as starting the tour route and putting visitor and education facilities in the right places, but much of that has nothing to do with us. We have no say because those decisions are for the House of Lords.

In the interest of the good, sound, efficient and economic running of this place, we need to make more progress on jointly running catering, visitor access and security through one organisation, rather than artificially dividing them somewhere down the corridor where the carpet goes from green to red. That is an historical anomaly that leads to inefficient practices. We will not resolve those issues efficiently and sensibly until we have one management team running the whole building. We can skirt around that for historical reasons, but at some point, if we really want to address the issues, that point must be settled.

10:09

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. Although this is not the first time that a Commission spokesman has replied to a debate, it has not happened for some while. This is a novel experience for me, and I hope that I do justice to the excellent introductory remarks of the Chair of the Administration Committee and contributions from hon. Members.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) and to the work of the Committee, the members of which are often unsung heroes. Having served on the Committee during the 2005 Parliament, I am well aware of how much work is done. On behalf of the Commission, I assure the Committee that its report and, indeed, its other work are taken extremely seriously. We are grateful for that work, which is extremely helpful in assisting the Commission and management to formulate the strategies and policies that the House management will follow. I am extremely grateful to the Chair of the Committee for securing the debate, and I hope that he will pass on to those members of his Committee who are not here the Commission’s thanks for his and the Committee’s hard work.

The report is an important body of work that will inform Members and management on the principles of the House and the management of visitors for years to come. The report’s first conclusion, which the right hon. Gentleman set out in his opening remarks, says it all. The central idea that has emerged from the inquiry is the critical point that two conceptions of Parliament are required: the working institution and the visitor attraction. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the Palace of Westminster is, first and foremost, a home to Parliament as a working institution, and that all procedures of Parliament are and will remain freely available to all citizens who wish to observe and visit Parliament or their MP. Secondly, subject to that primacy of free access for parliamentary purposes, the Palace of Westminster is a world-class visitor attraction that should be open to visitors, provided that the costs of providing any maintenance and of servicing those visitors are fully recovered from tourist visitors, thus ensuring that no supplementary finance is required from the taxpayer. Those are my words, but I hope that they accurately reflect the Committee’s recommendation and the Commission’s acceptance of that recommendation.

There is an interesting debate to be continued on what “recovery of costs” might mean. Obviously, there is a cash on-cost, because if a visitor walks around, a member of staff is required, and if there are no visitors, there is no staff cost. If there are more visitors, more staff are needed, so there are more direct costs. However, there are also indirect costs: wear and tear to the Palace and other costs that build over time. I argue that there should be full recovery of costs, with a surplus on the operating profit line of the resource account to put against further costs as time goes by, but that is a debate to be had in due course.

I will briefly address several of the points raised by the Chair of the Administration Committee. He highlighted all the important points, particularly the conflicting demand for access. Our business and tourist visitors are often in conflict, and we need to resolve that conflict. Again, as he said, we need to address the challenges of modern security and the way queues build up. The recommendations on that are central and have been taken on board, and I shall address them later.

The right hon. Gentleman touched a slight nerve when he referred to the debate on charging for access to what is now the Elizabeth Tower, the full consequences of which are only beginning to be understood. He stated that that debate raised awareness, which is a good point, as marketing a free service tends to increase use. The problem now is to deliver on that demand. He also made some good points about interaction with the Lords and the education service.

The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) raised some extremely good points, particularly on visitor access. She referred to recommendation 3 in the report:

“It is our view that members of the United Kingdom armed forces wearing uniform should…be eligible to be fast-tracked into the House”.

No one would gainsay that recommendation. Particularly in these times, but probably at all times, that recommendation should be given effect. The Commission has directed the Serjeant at Arms to consider all these matters carefully, so although I cannot give a categorical assurance on any particular point, I assure both the Chair and members of the Administration Committee that that recommendation is being seriously considered.

The hon. Lady also talked about children’s access and the fact that children from Suffolk Coastal receive no subsidy. Of course, as my constituency is on the north coast of Scotland, I am literally at the other end of the scale. Interestingly, schools in my constituency receive the maximum subsidy, but I have had only four school visits in 12 years in Parliament, because the part schools have to pay is so great. I suspect that the sum is greater than the full cost for schools from Suffolk, although I do not know that. The way we provide sufficient subsidy to ensure that kids from Kinlochbervie, Farr or Golspie—or wherever—are able to get here as easily as kids from Islington or anywhere relatively close by is an interesting conundrum.

Indeed, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) also addressed that theme in his excellent contribution, and this goes back to what the Chair of the Administration Committee mentioned and a matter that we on the Committee during the 2005 Parliament discussed at length, but never implemented. Are we going to provide facilities properly designed for education, which includes a proper reception for children and proper areas for classroom activities? I can give no commitment on behalf of the Commission, but I remain convinced that providing the capital expenditure necessary to provide a proper facility—one that would enable teaching to be done comfortably without using other rooms in the Palace, as currently happens, and that would enable children to be looked after properly and taken through the Palace to see what happens—would represent a tremendous addition to our outreach. Obviously, we are in straitened times, but if we accepted that principle—I stress again that I am speaking for myself on this point, not the Commission—it would be a tremendous step forward.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley also touched on the important question of how catering is funded. As a former caterer, that is something that has always fascinated me about this place. It all depends on how we look at it, because if we do a price comparison, many of our dining rooms are in line with commercial competition in the area. The prices are not particularly generous in many outlets, especially in banqueting and some of the dining rooms. The operating profit—what we used to call the kitchen profit, or sales minus food cost—as a percentage is absolutely bang on with commercial percentages found in the industry.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the problem is that the profit generated three days a week for 30-odd weeks of the year is expected to fund the building, the catering outlets, the kitchens and the staff seven days a week for 52 weeks of the year. That equation does not work. Consequently, the final bottom line is a negative figure, which implies a subsidy, but it is not a subsidy on a daily operating basis—it is due to how we work. I have therefore always been keen to use the fallow times when staff and facilities are available in a way that would allow the subsidy and requirement for taxpayer funding to be reduced or even eliminated, and that is a critical point.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the relationship between the Lords and the Commons. Again, I have slightly peculiar inside knowledge, in that I served on a Sub-Committee of the House of Lords when I was in the other place. When one sits in the other House, there is a desire not to cede its sovereignty to anyone for any purpose, which makes negotiations slightly more difficult. I commend the Chair of the Administration Committee on working hard with his opposite number, but I think that we in this House must proceed wherever we can. If we wait for their lordships, we may wait for a long time.

I want to respond to the points raised in the report, and particularly to the Commission’s agreement in principle to a package of measures that will improve the services available to visitors to Parliament and make a significant net contribution to defraying the additional costs to the public purse that arise from occupying the Palace. I stress again that, first and foremost, we are a Parliament providing free access for those attending parliamentary proceedings and meeting their Members. However, as has been pointed out, the building is available thereafter to contribute significantly to defraying costs.

In that light, the Commission has agreed in principle to open for commercial tours during the Christmas and Easter recesses, bank holidays and Sundays between April and October on the same basis that we have opened during the summer for the past decade, and more recently on Saturday. In addition, it has agreed in principle to open for an extra hour on each commercial day of opening; to increase the range and frequency of specialist tours, such as the new art and architecture tour of Portcullis House; to introduce new options for tours, including a short tour of Westminster Hall and an audio-guided tour in addition to the current tour with a guide; to relocate the St Stephen’s shop to the Westminster Hall area; to relocate the bookshop to a more suitable new retail unit at 49-50 Parliament street; to introduce an online retail facility for souvenirs; to develop the range of guidebooks offered for sale following the successful launch in July of a new official guide to the Palace; to develop filming possibilities in the Elizabeth Tower—for the purposes of clarity, I add that that will be charged for; to offer afternoon teas to those taking tours; and to offer the atrium in Portcullis House, the dining rooms in the Palace of Westminster, the Pugin Room, the Jubilee Room and the Terrace Pavilion for commercial hire—I stress on an experimental basis—for two years, on a limited number of occasions when they are not expected to be used by Members. There will be a limited trial in those facilities. Finally, the Commission has agreed to establish or work with an existing small charitable body to raise funds to support the advancement of public education and information on, and access to, the history of UK parliamentary democracy and its processes.

Detailed plans are being drawn up for implementing each of those ideas. The current public-facing services that generate income—visitor tours, catering, retail outlets and so forth—are operated at a net annual cost to the House of £900,000. That includes a small surplus on retail operations, a break-even for the bookshop and a net deficit for visitor services, which represents the cost of free access and tours sponsored by Members. Initial estimates suggest that the proposed activities, as the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden said, would generate an additional £3 million in net income by 2014-15, thus turning the current net cost into an annual net contribution of some £2 million.

The various groups of staff responsible for managing tours, visitor catering and retailing have been brought together under single management, which is expected to bring greater commercial imperative and financial clarity. That has been welcomed by the Finance and Services Committee, which I have the honour to chair and on which the Chair of the Administration Committee also sits.

The Commission is also taking action to tackle the queues for entry that can occur at peak times. We take the issue extremely seriously, and the Commission considers that ideally, apart from on days when there are mass lobbies or exceptional events, people should not have to queue. The search facilities at Cromwell Green have been reviewed by the Serjeant at Arms, and changes have been made to alleviate lengthy queues. In addition, the Serjeant is continuing to explore options for making changes to improve the flow at both the Cromwell Green and Portcullis House entrances.

However, current security requirements pose challenging resource and practical constraints on resolving the problem immediately. As a first step, officials will seek actively to manage the situation, focusing on limiting waiting times to no more than 15 minutes. That might require the House administration to set up a central booking system, as suggested by the Committee, although the Commission recognises that constraints on when activities can take place could inconvenience individual Members.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Is it not a fact that, as with most security systems, minor improvements to operation can often result in considerably increased throughput? For example, when the Administration Committee went to look at the Cromwell Green entrance, the main bottleneck was at the camera taking photos for passes. It turns out that there is a second camera. Had it been manned, all the security gates could have been operated, which would have relieved the process considerably. It is not about huge capital investment, or even significant manpower investment; it is about better management of the system. It is the same as at airports. They have improved a lot, and our operation needs to as well.

[John Thurso]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on. Indeed, as somebody who flies north and back again every week, I have seen the improvements as people work out how things should operate and make small suggestions about the way they are handled. To take one example, I more often than not go via Gatwick. The way Gatwick’s security has improved—from the absolutely ghastly experience of five years ago to the relatively painless experience of today—is an object lesson. There has been some careful capital expenditure on the right kit, but most of all good management. That point has been taken on board, and it is precisely what the Serjeant at Arms and other members of the management are considering. All suggestions are gratefully received. The House management wishes to get people through as quickly as is consistent with decent security.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

Will my hon. Friend refrain at this stage from ruling out the possibility of reintroducing a cabin to provide a separate entry, which was a possibility on which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) poured cold water? As I understand it, the Commission has embraced the idea of mini-tours through Westminster Hall, which would be the way of handling those people, quite apart from any other easing of capacity that it would provide.

[John Thurso]

I can certainly confirm that nothing is ruled out. In all my dealings with the officials and management of the House, I have been deeply impressed by how much they are seeking to give effect to our wishes. Clearly, as is apparent from the debate, there are contrary views. It is the job of advisers to advise on the pros and cons; ultimately, it is for Committees and the Commission to come to a decision. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that point will be given active consideration.

I hope that the Committee will welcome the positive response that I have outlined, although it clearly is not possible to resolve quickly all the issues it raised. Paragraph 77 of its report refers to the idea of an education centre, to which I referred earlier. That was endorsed by the House as long ago as June 2007, but despite a number of studies, it has proved very difficult—actually impossible, to date—to find a suitable space for such a facility within the existing secure perimeter. The Commission continues to support the need for an education centre and to look for a suitable opportunity.

Paragraph 36 of the report recommends that the Commission should organise a full debate on its savings programme. In June, the Commission agreed that it would seek a debate in October on the draft savings programme, the administration estimate and the House’s medium-term financial plan. Such a debate will provide an excellent opportunity for hon. Members to discuss the savings programme and to return to some of the issues we have been considering today. It is my hope that such a debate, which would be on an amendable motion, meaning that it could involve votes, would ensure that hon. Members made a key contribution to the strategic decisions faced by the House.

We have an exceptionally loyal and hard-working staff who are led by a management that, in all my dealings, I have found seek nothing more than to give effect to what we want. However, it is sometimes difficult to be certain of what we want, because the manner in which we communicate, via Committees, is not always the most perfect. A debate in the House will be an opportunity for all hon. Members who have a point of view to express it. It will result in a single decision, as it were, that is made by hon. Members collectively. That will enable those who look after us and the management to operate within a clear strategic framework and to be able to manage much more effectively on our behalf.

On behalf of the Commission, I am very grateful to the Chair and members of the Administration Committee for their report, which is a serious and important piece of work. I am also grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I have tried to address the points that have been raised as best I can in the somewhat greater time than I originally imagined I would have, but if there are any further points, I am more than happy to take them up with hon. Members informally, or to respond formally to any written or oral questions.

10:35

Sitting suspended.

Atos Healthcare

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Westminster Hall

09:00

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan.

I am pleased that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling) is here. I am not sure whether this will be his valedictory performance in that role, but I saw pictures of him going into Downing street earlier, and if he has been promoted to the post of Secretary of State for Justice, I would like to be the first to congratulate him. I remind him, however, that in that post he will be responsible for the tribunals service, which deals with appeals relating to the work capability assessment, so he will not completely escape responsibility for some issues that will be raised this morning.

I am conscious of the number of people present for this debate, which highlights the fact that although hon. Members may be consumed by events in and around Downing street today, many people outside are concerned about aspects of the work capability assessment and employment support allowance. I am sure that hon. Members will want to reflect those views and with that in mind, I shall endeavour to be brief. I shall take only a few interventions, to allow more Members to contribute.

There are three points on which we probably all agree: first, there are benefits in working. I have seen many of my constituents—although it is harder to do so now than it was a few years ago—return to work after long periods of unemployment. As well as any material benefits, the positive impact on their health and well-being is obvious. We should all encourage as many people as possible to work and get back into work if they have not worked for some time. Secondly, as most of us would acknowledge, helping and supporting those who have not worked for a long time can be difficult and time-consuming. It needs to be done sensitively, so that people feel helped and not as though they are being punished. Thirdly, although not everybody completely accepts this point, many feel that an assessment for those who rely on sickness and disability benefit is useful and appropriate. That was the envisaged purpose of ESA: to support those who can work into work, as well as those who sadly will never be able to work again.

Six months ago, I was fortunate enough to secure a debate on this issue in this Chamber. At that time, the Minister confidently predicted that the performance and situation would massively improve and some changes that had been made had not yet fed through. Six months later, I suggest to the Minister that the number of people present today indicates that very real concerns and problems remain, many of which are sure to be reflected during the debate.

In our previous debate, I focused on the experiences of constituents who had undergone the assessment. I told the story of a constituent trapped in the system who went through an assessment, a successful appeal, a reassessment, followed by another successful appeal and then another reassessment. For too many people, that remains the experience across the country. The Minister and whoever his successor will be need to look carefully at that issue and address it. I have spoken with many constituents who would love to go out to work, but it is not possible to do so because they suffer from a disability or a chronic condition, and I am sure that many Members in the Chamber will want to speak up for such people.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on a vital public concern. He has spoken of his own constituents. In my constituency, Paul Turner, a manager and proud family man, contracted a serious heart disease. He was off work and although desperate to work, could not do so. However, he was told that he was fit for work and was denied benefit. As his wife says, he went into serious decline and died only weeks later. In the work capability assessment, his heart was not tested. Does that not demonstrate how fundamentally flawed the assessment process and its conduct by Atos are? Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is absolutely wrong in a case such as that for the Minister to refuse to refer it to the serious case review, so that profound lessons can be learned? Never again should anyone be treated in the way that Mr Turner was.

[Tom Greatrex]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. A number of cases could be cited that indicate the lack of comprehensiveness in the assessment process and the failure sometimes to incorporate other evidence to ensure that not as many people are wrongly assessed.

I want to concentrate on some contractual issues this morning, and I am sure that others, like my hon. Friend, will make comments about individual cases to illustrate those points. The work capability assessment must be tailored in the interests of both the individual and the taxpayer. Unfortunately, both are getting a raw deal from the system. It is true that the work capability assessment was introduced under the previous Government, which is a point that Government Members frequently make, as I am sure that they will today. It is also the case, however, that in late 2010 the contract with Atos Healthcare was amended, extending it to 2015, beyond its original conclusion date of 2012. The work capability assessment was rolled out to millions of people on incapacity benefit under this Government, despite pilot projects in Aberdeen and Burnley highlighting serious concerns. The Minister said during our previous debate—I paraphrase him slightly—that, in his judgment, the Government should get on with that process and try to work on the basis of the expert reviews as they were going on, rather than fixing it in the first place.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the work capability assessment has been around for some time. For many years, I have been helping my constituent, Mr Robert Shafer, who was the victim of a poor assessment. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that the chief medical officer of Atos is now Professor Michael O’Donnell? He was previously employed as chief medical officer by the American insurance company, Unum, which was described by the insurance commissioner for California, John Garamendi, as an “outlaw company” that has operated in an unlawful fashion for many years, running claims denial factories? Is that the kind of person that the Government should allow to be in charge of a work capability assessment system?

[Tom Greatrex]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the organisation of the company contracted to undertake that work on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. I shall go on to make points relating to other legitimate concerns about Atos Healthcare that need to be addressed. In many respects, given that the cost of appeals has more than doubled in two years, from £25 million in 2009-10 to £60 million in 2011-12, the performance by Atos Healthcare has, in many ways, been extraordinarily poor.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On appeals, does the fact that nearly 40% of the people who are initially unsuccessful are then successful on appeal not demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the work capability assessment process?

[Tom Greatrex]

The level of appeals and successful appeals indicates that, although no process is 100% accurate all the time, many decisions are wrong and need to be corrected through the tribunals service. No one should forget, however, that that process can take six to nine months because of the backlog of appeals. During that time, people suffer from severe anxiety and concern about their fate, so my hon. Friend makes an important point.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

This issue affects us all, in all our constituencies. The whole test is deeply flawed. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the short term, we can advise our constituents that when they are undergoing the test, they can request that it be videoed, which would at least assist with further appeals? It has just been pointed out how much the appeals cost the taxpayer, so the Government are paying twice over for what is essentially a flawed capacity assessment.

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am not unaware of what Atos says to people who seek to video their assessment, because cases have been highlighted to me in which people have asked for their assessments to be recorded. In the previous debate, the Minister said that if anyone wanted to have their assessment recorded, they could have it recorded, but that has not been the case in many instances and people are refused permission to record the assessment themselves. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again; he is very generous. He has hit on an important point about the interface between the appeal problems and Atos’s work. Is it not true that there is a weird revolving door now? People get an assessment, question it and wait ages for the appeal. They may or may not win the appeal, but by the time the appeal comes up, they have had another assessment and therefore they go through a revolving door of losing benefits. Something is fundamentally wrong and unfair.

[Tom Greatrex]

My hon. Friend touches on a very important point. When I raised it with the Minister at recent DWP questions, he indicated that, finally, some of the information coming back from the tribunals service would go to DWP decision makers, so that they were better informed. I will make this point now, so that the Minister can, I hope, respond to it. That started to happen in July. I want to raise the issue of the status of those reports and what impact they will have on people being called for further assessments. In particular, some tribunals now have a section at the end of that information that suggests that that particular applicant should not be reassessed within 12 months or 24 months. Is that something that the DWP is taking into account and appreciating before it calls people back? I ask that because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) is exactly right: there are many cases of people who have been caught in this process, which is no good for their health and no good for taxpayers, because we end up paying again and again over time.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Tom Greatrex]

I will take one more intervention. I apologise to everyone else, but I want to leave time for other hon. Members to make contributions. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash).

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

On the point about recording assessments, a constituent of mine was told recently that they could record the assessment, but only if they paid for a private, independent company to come in and do it. Obviously, someone who is living on benefits cannot afford that. I wrote to the Minister at the time about the issue. I wonder whether he can deal with the recording of assessments in his closing remarks.

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She has made a point to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond.

I will attempt to move on. Back in February, I wrote to the National Audit Office to outline concerns about the contract between Atos Healthcare and the DWP. The correspondence centred on two issues: first, a lack of efficiency in the use of public funds, to which I have referred, and, secondly, a lack of accountability inherent in the disbursement of those public funds. As the recent House of Commons Library note and many of the figures that I have received as answers to parliamentary questions over the past 18 months or so have confirmed, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) reflected, 41% of those found fit for work appeal the decision and 38% have their appeal upheld. For those who seek the advice and support of professional advocacy groups such as Citizens Advice, the appeal success rate is closer to 70%. Just last week, Kent’s largest citizens advice bureau indicated an appeal success rate of 95%.

The impact of what is happening is twofold. First, too many sick and disabled people are being found fit for work when they are not. They become entangled in a lengthy appeal process that can occupy up to nine months of their time. In many cases, even when the appeal is successful, the individual is placed in the work-related activity group and then they have to begin the whole process anew.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tom Greatrex]

I will not, because I need to make progress. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

The second impact of the high appeal success rate is cost. The cost to the public purse from appeals relating to the WCA was £60 million in 2011-12. That figure has more than doubled since 2009-10. It is almost 50% of the total yearly value of the Government’s contract with Atos Healthcare to carry out the assessments in the first place. In effect, taxpayers are paying for the process not to work, and then to correct it. Given the unprecedented pressures on the public purse, it beggars belief that the Government are apparently content to sit back and do very little to rectify that situation.

In oral evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee in June 2011, the Minister claimed that if the migration of those on incapacity benefit to ESA was successful, it would save money. He said that the aim is not a

“savings measure—it is not a financially based exercise, although clearly if we succeed it will save money”.

The Minister appeared to accept that an indicator of success was saving money, so does he accept that the significant increase in costs associated with the number of decisions being appealed—and being successfully appealed—shows that, on that measure, the Government have failed?

One measure that I and many others have been questioning is the imposition of financial penalties on Atos Healthcare to compensate for poor performance. In February, in response to my written question on whether the Government had considered imposing such sanctions, the Minister appeared to absolve Atos of the blame for the number of decisions overturned on appeal by saying that:

“it would not be appropriate to impose financial penalties on Atos to reflect the number of work capability assessments which are overturned on appeal.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 852W.]

I tried again in July by asking for a note of when penalties had been imposed and what their total value was, but that time, rather than absolving Atos of blame, he decided to protect the company’s commercial interests, replying with the frequent defence of “commercial sensitivity” as the reason for withholding that information. I find it difficult to understand how commercial sensitivity comes into play when we are talking about a single company that is paid from the public purse to carry out an exclusively public function on behalf of a Department. Transparency would help to ensure that there could be confidence in the system and to highlight where performance was not being properly managed. It is important that the Minister seeks to address that.

It was not until the NAO responded to me last month that some light was shed on the issue:

“We do not consider that the current contractual targets are sufficiently challenging, and in our view this allows the contractor to deliver a significant number of assessments before financial penalties become due.”

It continued:

“Our review also concluded that the Department has not sought adequate financial redress for contractor underperformance.”

One of the most concerning revelations from the NAO was that in only 10% of the cases in which financial penalties could have been imposed did the Government do so. That is astonishing. Given that the Government and the Minister quite frequently comment on the importance of value for money for the taxpayer—in some respects, I agree with that—it beggars belief that when there are opportunities to put that into practice, the Government have done so in only one in 10 cases.

I quote:

“In these times of tight budgets, we need to make sure the money we do spend is better spent. If we don’t we are failing disabled people and their families.”

Those were the words of the Prime Minister in 2009 at a conference on autism. In that same speech, the then Leader of the Opposition cited a NAO report that examined value for taxpayer money in relation to autism. I am sure that, even given his elevation today, the irony is not lost on the Minister.

There are many questions that the Minister must answer to account for the failure properly to manage the contract with Atos Healthcare. Why did he impose financial penalties on only 10% of the occasions on which they could have been triggered? What was the value of compensation clawed back from Atos Healthcare to reflect that poor performance, and what was that as a percentage of the cost to the public purse for the original contract and appeals? Does he agree with the NAO that targets that trigger financial penalties are not sufficiently challenging? What are the key performance indicators that the NAO described as insufficiently challenging? That is a particularly important issue.

On a number of occasions, I have attempted to gain clarity on what is expected of Atos in relation to customer service, the number of assessments conducted, the number of people found fit for work, targets, statistical norms and many other issues. The Minister has refused to be fully transparent, releasing a very limited excerpt from the medical services agreement with Atos that relates only to waiting times. As I said, maximum transparency is important to enable people here to hold the Government properly to account, and to hold Atos Healthcare, through the Department for Work and Pensions, properly to account for the work that it is undertaking in a very important area.

The NAO was also scathing about the Government’s failure properly to monitor the performance of Atos. According to the NAO, there is

“Limited routine validation of information provided by Atos Healthcare”.

It went on to recommend that

“the Department develop processes to validate key performance information supplied by Atos Healthcare.”

Back in February, in the previous debate on the issue, the Minister stated, with a certain degree of confidence:

“On capacity issues, as we stand here today, the incapacity benefit reassessment is on time. New claims for ESA have fallen a bit behind, mostly because of the introduction of the personalised statement…We discovered in the first few weeks that it took health care professionals…longer to complete the statement than expected, so the number of completed assessments dropped. That has changed. They have caught up again, and we are chasing through to clear the backlog, as we are doing with the appeals backlog”.—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 292WH.]

Unfortunately, the evidence does not bear out that assessment.

The target waiting time from when the ESA50 form is issued to the claimant to when Atos Healthcare completes the work capability assessment and hands the case back to the DWP is 35 working days—seven weeks. Between September 2009 and August 2010, the target was met with a clearance rate of 33 days, yet in less than two years, not only has the target not been met by an astonishing margin, but the time sick and disabled people have to wait for their assessment has risen by 85% to 61 working days, or more than 12 full weeks.

More than 20,000 people are waiting more than 13 weeks for a work capability assessment. The reason the Minister gave was:

“Atos Healthcare’s ability to deliver a service within the AACT was also impacted by the service volumes for this period which were significantly above departmental forecasts; in addition Atos had recruitment demands/challenges. These issues…resulted in an increase in the AACT.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 51W.]

Atos Healthcare receives more than £110 million a year to deliver a contract, but is unable to meet its recruitment needs to deliver it properly. That, at best, is an example of the underperformance and the level of failure due to which the Government should ensure that financial penalties are brought against Atos Healthcare. Such contractual failure feeds directly into the experiences that I am sure we will hear about in the remainder of the debate. Many people across the country have found themselves waiting an excessive time for their assessment. They are under pressure and feel hounded, and they may well wait a significant period for the appeal to follow. A degree of the chaos in the system is caused by the Government’s decisions and the failure to hold Atos properly to account.

This is not the first time that recruitment challenges at Atos have been highlighted as reason for failure. In December 2011, the Minister advised that a key Harrington recommendation would not be implemented beyond the pilot stage due to capacity pressures at Atos. In less than a year, the Government have twice cited the failure of Atos to recruit enough staff as the reason why those undergoing the WCA are being short changed, which gives rise to a question: if the Government are content to blame Atos, why has the Minister spectacularly failed to do anything about it? Why, in his answer to written questions, does he lambast Atos when waiting times increase, yet sit on his hands when it comes to making the company pay financially for its underperformance?

In 2010, the average WCA customer journey was 36 working days. That rose to 44 working days in the first half of 2011, and increased still further to 53 working days in the second half of 2011. Unfortunately, 2012 brought more misery for ESA claimants, as between January and May, the average customer journey increased to 64 working days, or just under 13 weeks. The Minister inherited 36 working days and transformed it into 64—an increase of 78%. It might seem that I am talking about the dry detail of contractual issues, but we see the defects at the heart of the process—the failure of the management of the DWP and the failure of delivery at Atos—reflected in the experiences of many people we represent.

I want to say a few words about the award of the £400 million contract for the personal independence payment in many parts of the UK to Atos Healthcare. A further criticism in the NAO review, which interestingly enough was dated the same day as the announcement of the PIP framework agreement, was about medical services contracting. The NAO stated specifically in relation to the PIP procurement process:

“Our review of existing arrangements concluded that the Department needed to make changes to secure effective leverage over future medical services contracts...we have recommended that the Department focus on reducing the barriers for new suppliers to making a sustainable entry to the medical services market, in particular addressing the current risk that a single incumbent supplier has significant cost advantage which makes delivery of a level playing field in the market more challenging”.

The NAO went on to lament the DWP’s

“dependence on a sole national supplier”

that has

“limited opportunities for routine assessment of value for money, for exercising contractual leverage and for wider market development.”

Like many Members in the Chamber who represent constituencies within the areas for which Atos Healthcare will undertake the PIP assessment process, I received a letter from Atos confirming that it had been successful in securing the contract. It included the chilling phrase that it had won the contract on the basis of its record delivering assessments for the Government over a period of years. This is a serious point, because as the PIP process is established, it is vital that some of the problems encountered in the WCA are not simply repeated. There is concern that there is an increasing risk that that will be exactly the case, given the chosen contractor.

Contractual arrangements, performance measures, penalty clauses, and monitoring and delivery failures are technical, dry and dull matters, especially when contrasted with the sometimes heartbreaking and tragic cases that I have heard about, not only from my constituents, but from many of those who have contacted me prior to the debate. Many of those experiences are due to the flawed delivery of the WCA and the record of Atos Healthcare.

Whoever is the responsible DWP Minister tomorrow afternoon, we need a process that works in the interests of taxpayers, and of individual claimants and applicants. We need a process that is comprehensive enough to encompass complex conditions and that recognises that it is a waste of time and money to keep reassessing people with progressive and incurable conditions, while also recognising the fluctuating nature of many other conditions—that people have good days and bad days. We need a process that appreciates the very difficult challenges of assessing mental health needs and that takes account of expert medical evidence much more fully than the current process, particularly in some of the cases we have heard about. We need a process that does not make blanket assumptions about the time it takes to recover from very serious illnesses, such as cancer, nor imposes blanket conditions as a result. We need a process that helps people who can work and does not hound those who cannot.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. With the permission of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and due to the number of Members wishing to speak, I will limit speeches to three minutes. When you hear the bell, you have one minute left. I remind Members that interventions should be short and remind those in the Public Gallery that they should listen in silence and not interrupt the debate. I call Duncan Hames.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Given the number of Members wishing to speak, I am happy to forego the opportunity. Thank you for calling me, Mrs Riordan, but I would prefer to listen to other speakers who are clearly keen to take part in the debate.

11:28

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will take the opportunity to speak, but for the reasons the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) gave—the number of Members who want to speak—I shall be brief.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing the debate, but more importantly on the work that he has done over almost a year in highlighting the problems of Atos and the work capability assessment. Like many Members, I came to the debate today with a dossier of cases from my constituency of people who had suffered in the process, and not only that which involves Atos. Let us be clear: not only Atos is at issue, but how the system operates, how it is being put into effect and how Atos is asked to carry out its work. There are certainly major deficiencies in the organisation, but it is not only Atos with which we need to be concerned.

Given the time, I will make just a few points. Many applicants find the experience of going through the WCA process terrifying. There is plenty of evidence, especially in the cases of those with mental health issues, that the process does not take account of the particular circumstances of those who suffer from conditions that may vary from day to day, as my hon. Friend made clear. Inevitably, any process, under any system, will lead to stress and tension for many people, but what makes it worse is that the process is felt by many applicants to take away from their dignity as human beings. It does not lead to proper consideration of their personal circumstances and they believe, notwithstanding what the Government and the contracts say, that it is a method of keeping down the cost of benefits. I know that that is not in the policy or the contracts in any sense, but in a climate where there is a feeling that the Government are trying to drive down costs at any expense, it is inevitable that many of those who apply for benefit will feel that way. Those subjective feelings are borne out by the high rate of successful appeals.

The high rate of successful appeals, which hon. Members have pointed out, leads one to conclude that there must be people who do not appeal or even apply for benefit who would have been successful or been entitled had they done so. It is essential that the process is right first time. That is partly the responsibility of Atos; it is also the responsibility of Government. What must be ensured is that all available evidence is used at the earliest possible stage in the process. We are all familiar with cases in which the medical evidence from GPs and consultants is overwhelming, yet the applications are unsuccessful. It is only at appeal that such people receive the right decision. It is also important to reduce unnecessary reassessments, as there have been cases where it is overwhelmingly obvious that a reassessment should not be carried out. I would like to know what the Minister is doing about that.

I make this final comment to the Minister. He may be leaving his post today, but I seriously hope that in his new role he will ensure that the backlog of appeals is dealt with speedily. That is important for individual applicants and for the system. Until that backlog is dealt with we will not get out of this vicious circle in which new applications are put in at the end of the appeal process and the process starts again. That should be a priority for the Minister to address in his new role.

11:31

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, because many constituents have contacted me about this issue over the past few weeks. For a number of years many constituents have been in touch with my office with concerns about Atos. The publicity over recent weeks has meant that many people not directly connected with the process are now aware of the problems. I ask that the Minister listen not just to what is said today, but to the concerns raised over a long period.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing the debate and on all his work on the issue. It is not just MPs who are expressing concern. All those involved, whether in representing claimants—organisations such as Mind—or the professionals involved in the process, such as the PCS trade union or the British Medical Association, are expressing concerns and taking the view that the process is fundamentally flawed. I also ask the Minister to recognise the anger Atos caused by sponsoring the Paralympics. Many feel that is an insult to the people going through this process.

A year or more ago, many of the constituents contacting my constituency office were doing so about new employment and support allowance claims. The problems seemed to come largely from the Atos medical assessments. As has been said, constituents who get in touch with their MPs are almost invariably successful, either at the initial reconsideration or the appeal stage. When constituents approach MPs with a credible claim, invariably that person is successful at appeal. However, there has been a change and the constituents now getting in touch are mostly those transferring from incapacity benefit and being put on the work-related activity scheme. That basically means they get only contributions-based benefit for one year rather than the permanent help they would get if they were put in the support group.

That is quite different from the previous situation. Apart from the financial implications of being means-tested after a year, it involves reassessments, attending interviews and the requirement to look for a job. Most of us are aware of many constituents in extremely difficult medical situations who are being caused huge stress. I ask the Minister to listen to what is said today and make serious changes to the current position.

11:34

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on bringing this matter to the House. The issue affects us all as MPs. With benefits changing now and in the future, the impact on our constituents is greater than ever.

I want to focus on one thing, as I am conscious of the time. I will give an example of how the Atos system does not work when it comes to basic knowledge of the interaction involving the applicant who is appealing against the decision to refuse incapacity benefit or ESA to those who are wheelchair-bound and have severe mobility problems. They are asked to attend the appeal on the third floor of a building in the centre of town. The first question the receptionist will ask is, “Can you leave this building on your own if there is a fire?” That is a very important question, but the fact is they could not do so, so they have been asked to attend an appeal tribunal that cannot take place. They go home and join the back of the queue once again, having to wait perhaps another six or eight months. They are then asked to attend an appeal that takes place about 45 to 60 minutes away by car, going through traffic, pain and other problems to get where they want to be.

There are clear problems in the basic knowledge of the scheme. Whenever an elected representative makes a complaint about that to the relevant bodies, whether Atos or the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland, they take it on board and seem to respond. That is great, because we think we have won the battle for the constituent and the system in future. However, it does not work that way. Guess what happens? Next time, someone else in a wheelchair with severe mobility difficulties encounters the same problem. I want to illustrate that with an example, because we have a system that has failed my constituents again and again.

There has to be a grassroots change in how the system works. That is what the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West is saying and why we are all here today. There are many people who fall into the category. It is assumed that if someone is not able to walk they can sit and do a job. That is unfair for many people because the problems they have with their back or the difficulties severe mobility they have mean they cannot stand or sit on a regular basis. I am very conscious of these issues and want to raise them. I hope the Minister will give a positive response. We need change or accountability—either one or the other, or indeed both.

11:37

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing this important debate. This is my first time speaking after my extended absence and therefore a good subject.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

On behalf of everybody in the room and in the House, I welcome the hon. Lady back to the House. We are delighted to see her in such good shape. We were sad to hear of the difficulties in the long period of recovery she has had to go through. She is very welcome.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I thank the Minister for being gracious. He may not be quite so gracious by the time he has heard what I have to say. I do not think that the Government have grasped how disastrous the ESA assessment system is. It is not something that can be fixed by a few tweaks here and there; we tried that with the Harrington review. What we have heard today in the Chamber—and in the “Dispatches” and “Panorama” programmes filmed in June this year—suggests that not much has changed. The people complaining are not just the usual suspects, not just the radical crips, the workshy or those who want money without being assessed. They are ordinary people, most of whom worked hard all their lives until the sky fell in and they lost their job because of an illness or an acquired disability.

It is not enough for Government to say that the genuine claimant has nothing to fear. In too many cases, genuine claimants are not scoring any points in their initial assessment. There is something fundamentally wrong with the system and the contract that Atos is delivering. When the British Medical Association votes at its conference to say that the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose there is something wrong with the system. When GPs are reporting an increased workload, not just as a result of providing reports but as a result of treating patients whose condition has worsened as a result of their WCA experience, there is something wrong with the system.

When my constituent, who has lost his job because he has motor neurone disease, scores zero on his WCA and is found fully fit for work, there is something wrong with the system. When that same constituent appears in front of a tribunal and in less than five minutes is awarded 15 points, there is something wrong with the system. When people with rapidly progressive illnesses are not automatically put in the support group, there is something wrong with the system. When some people would rather do without the money to which they are absolutely entitled rather than submit to the stress of a WCA, there is something wrong with the system. When someone with a severe illness has to fight for a year through an appeal to get the correct benefit, only to be called in almost immediately for another assessment, there is something wrong with the system. When the recall and assessment happen the following year, and the following year, there is something wrong with the system. When people feel so persecuted, there is something wrong with the system. To top it all, they lose their contributory ESA after only a year if they are in the WRAG group.

When up to 40% of appeals are successful and there is no penalty for the company carrying out the assessments, there is something wrong with the contract. When so many appeals result in an award of ESA support group status when the original assessment was no points, there is something wrong with the contract. When there is no penalty for a high percentage of wrong decisions, there is something wrong with the contract. When there is no incentive for assessors to get the assessment correct first time, there is something wrong with the contract.

It is time for the Government to act, because there is something fundamentally wrong with the whole system.

11:41

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to be called in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing the debate and on giving a superb speech. I wish to add my voice to those concerned about the operation of the WCA by Atos, and to highlight specific concerns in relation to people with autism.

I accept that we have a problem in the UK with the number of people who are not in the labour market owing to illness or disability. I asked the Library for a comparative analysis across the EU. Although it is hard to make such an analysis given the differences in scope, eligibility and recording of information, the European labour force survey clearly shows that the UK has a much higher proportion of the population aged 20 to 64 outside the work force owing to illness or disability. It is 6.1% in the UK, against an average of 4.3% in the rest of the EU. I think we know why that is. From the Thatcher Government onwards, people were put on the incapacity benefit rolls to hide the true scale of unemployment. There are people who were dumped there in the 1980s who have been there ever since. That is why I do not have a problem with the principle of a medical assessment; otherwise the Government can too easily push people into inappropriate benefits to massage the unemployment figures. Equally, I do not have a problem with three classifications: fit for work, unfit for work; and the possibility of work, but not in the short term, because someone has been out of the labour market for so long.

My concerns and objections relate to the way the Government are allowing Atos to conduct the test. Like other colleagues, my observations are heavily based on the experiences of constituents who have come to see me. It is not sensible, prudent or fair to have a test in which 40% of appeals against decisions are successful. That is a waste of money and it causes unnecessary distress. The Government need to hold Atos to account for an assessment that is clearly not working as it should. Atos is not coping with the complexity of the cases that are seen, and it is clearly struggling to deal with people with complex conditions, particularly those with less visible symptoms. Some specific problems are particularly evident: the Royal National Institute of Blind People has reported that the descriptors against which blind and partially sighted people can score points are primarily those based on navigation and communication, with no account taken of other barriers that blind and partially sighted people might face in obtaining work.

I am one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on autism, and I remind the House of my declaration of interest in relation to my son. For people with autism, such face-to-face assessment can often be extremely problematic. People with autism face problems with communication that other people would not see. They may misunderstand questions that are asked, find it hard to answer questions, and fail to pick up on inference and assumption. For example, when asked, “Can you travel to work on a bus?”, they may say yes, but not explain that they can use only one bus route, planned with the help of a support worker, provided that the bus is not late or a different colour from usual, or that no other factors have arisen.

In addition, the testing of some people is too frequent. I have a constituent with a degenerative disease who passed one assessment, but failed another within a year. As his condition was degenerative, it was surely medically impossible that he had got better. It does not make sense. At the extreme end, I have heard accounts of people in the support group being tested again after as little as three months. The worry that that causes is exacerbated by the freak results that an assessment can produce. I have another constituent who was deemed fit for work despite having a broken back.

The Government need to listen to the feedback that is coming in across the country about the very real problems in the operation of the WCA. Crucially, they must begin to hold to account private companies with important Government contracts when they do not deliver for the taxpayer. The quality of life of thousands of people depends on getting this right, and that will soon be even more the case given that Atos has won the contract for the personal independence payment assessment. Let us not get into the usual party political rhetoric and stereotypes that tend to mark welfare debates. Let us focus on meaningful changes that will improve many people’s lives.

11:45

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I have a small contribution to make to the debate. All MPs watch closely and listen carefully to charities, as I do in my constituency. I meet charities regularly and I am always seeking to handle cases in which it appears that odd decisions have been made, and with which I am uncomfortable. I will always pursue such cases, like any good MP, if someone feels that the system is not working correctly.

I rise to speak today to make a point. In all my time and in all my dealings I have never lost sight of what is fundamentally driving the WCA. We are asking what people can do and encouraging and helping people who have been ignored by the system. We seek to find what they can do and not what they cannot do. Many people in this Chamber will agree with that premise.

However, I will turn specifically to the statistics. If we look only at the statistics, it is easy to get a distorted picture. It is recorded that 55% of new claimants have been found fit for work; that is a good thing. I accept that appeal levels appear somewhat high. When we hear that 40% of those who are found fit for work appeal, we have to remember that 38% of them have a decision overturned. To put that in perspective, of all the claimants, overall we are talking about 15% fit-for -work decisions being overturned. I am not saying that that is satisfactory or that that is necessarity a good thing. However, I am determined to make a point.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Although it is a good idea to help people who can work, we need to look at providing a more flexible work opportunity. There are permanent job opportunities, but there is nothing flexible such as working from home for those who have mental health problems, which would help to achieve what the Government want. To make the system work better and to save taxpayers’ money, the people who will never be able to work again—people who have very serious problems with blindness or mental health problems—ought to be in an exclusion category so that they do not get reviewed.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My point—my argument—is that if we stick to the headline statistics, we start to get into a debate that dwells on statistics. If we are going to do that, I am keen that we dig down and analyse them correctly before we make sweeping judgments.

I am pleased that the Government, along with the specialists, the occupational therapists and Professor Harrington, have not sat back since coming to power, and have not failed to review the process. They have reviewed it twice, and Professor Harrington has been asked to review it a third time. That is right, but it should not detract from the overriding principle that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) highlighted. It is right that we should encourage and help people back to work where possible. After all, they were not assessed for a long time and it would be wrong to ignore them, because many have returned to work and will continue to do so. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind Members and those in the Gallery that other Members must be heard?

11:49

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) for securing this debate, which has not come a moment too soon for many of my constituents. The principle that people should be supported into employment when they can work is the right principle. The problem is that the system is not achieving that. It is causing untold grief and serious concern to many vulnerable people. There are several issues. Will the Minister explain why there is still confusion between ESA and JSA? Cases have been brought to my attention of constituents being passed back and forth, with both the relevant Departments feeling that the benefit is not the right one. A constituent of mine was claiming JSA and was notified by her hospital that she had to have an operation on her wrist. She was told by the jobcentre adviser to claim ESA instead of JSA, because no one would employ her for five or six weeks. She was then refused ESA, because she scored no points, and was left in limbo, with no money. That is not acceptable.

That incident occurred over a relatively short period, but some of my constituents have had to wait up to 18 months for a tribunal decision. When seeking updates on progress one was told that no update was available, because there was no one in the area to hear her case. Consequently, other benefits to which people are entitled are not given to them. A constituent applied for cold weather payments and was told that because her position had not been resolved she could not claim them. She might have frozen to death in the meantime, during the bad weather, while a decision was reached.

There are many incidents of poor claim handling by Atos. I am sure that every hon. Member in the Chamber has dealt with tens of them. A constituent recently came off contribution-based ESA. He was assessed by an Atos nurse who advised him that he needed a wheelchair but at the same time assessed him with no points. Another constituent had a major cancer operation. The GP’s report said that she was

“currently in wheelchair, not fit for travel”,

but it took three goes to get a home visit for her. Eventually, she was given a wheelchair, received disability living allowance and had home adaptations. Then Atos said it wanted to see her, and insisted she should come, with the threat that if she did not her money would be stopped. She had to cancel a hospital appointment to do so. That is not acceptable.

I ask the Minister whether independent assessments can be considered at the front of the process, not the back. That would, I am sure, save untold numbers of appeals in due course, as well as saving my constituents untold misery. They feel—particularly those with multiple issues, including mental health issues—that the medical advisers who are asked to assess them do not fully understand their cases. The Government should be ashamed of the slump in Atos’s performance that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West has highlighted. It has had an unacceptable impact on disabled people, particularly in my constituency.

11:52

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing the debate, because there can hardly be an MP who has not had a constituency case involving Atos and the work capability assessment. The Members present in the Chamber are only a small sample of the people who have had to work with that system.

From my casework I find that the faults in the system fall into clear categories. First, as to the form of the assessment, there is insufficient information. That is a particular problem for decision makers, who are trying to take reasonable decisions without enough information. Information is also lost or disregarded. There are persistent complaints that Atos is working to targets to fail people, and about continual reassessments. Missed appointments are another issue. A couple of weeks ago, a constituent of mine stayed in all day, and the doctor did not turn up. I turned up, by the way, and wasted a couple of hours of my time. My constituent will not complain, because he is scared to do so. He does not want the attentions of the Atos doctor again, thank you very much.

As to the content of assessments, to give a snapshot of something we have already heard about, it is unsubtle—it consists of ticking boxes, and it does not work well with intermittent conditions. There are questions about the competence of Atos staff to assess mental illness, for example. In another constituency case, apparently, the doctor involved was not allowed by the medical authorities to work with patients or perform any form of medical intervention, apart from undertaking Atos assessments.

There has, I concede, been some improvement since the Harrington review. However, it is interesting to consider the nature of the mistakes that the system produces. For example, I was told by my local citizens advice bureau that since April it has launched 62 appeals, of which it has won three and lost two; the rest are still pending. That is a common experience for MPs. Incidentally, as a Welsh MP, I have been told that appeals in Welsh are taking longer, and I would like some response on that issue.

Atos should be put into special measures. It should report frequently—monthly, perhaps—on the number and percentage of cases that lead to appeal and to a change in the decision, and also on the number and percentage of revolving-door appeals. Most importantly for the public debate, we should have some qualitative information about people’s experiences. I think that that would influence the public debate on disability and benefits in a positive way, given the current climate fostered by some newspapers and commentators, and by Government policy.

11:55

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Yesterday, I met constituents who have gone through the system. They call themselves victims of Atos, and I promised them that I would briefly set out the experience that they described. The assessment was exactly as others have said. Applicants are often met by an assessor with no expertise or specialist knowledge of their condition; it is a tick-box exercise—my constituents completely agree with the BMA about that. Despite the Harrington recommendations for improvements, the test bears no relationship to the real-world challenges that people with disabilities face. There is no recognition of fluctuating conditions, as has been said—particularly in connection with mental health. The procedure largely ignores the assessments and advice of applicants’ own GPs.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

In addition, the process even ignores previous Atos assessments. A constituent of mine was employed by Royal Mail, which used Atos to assess capability for work, and was assessed as not being capable. My constituent then retired and applied for benefits, and following another Atos assessment was found capable of being re-employed in the same type of work.

The fly-on-the-wall exposés by television programmes have exposed the pressure exerted on assessors to fail people. If people are assessed as capable of working correctly, they are then regularly harassed with challenges that they are unable to cope with, and they lose their benefit as a result. If they succeed at the assessments, they are harassed with reassessment after reassessment. We have heard the appeal statistics, but most of my constituents must wait six months or longer for an appeal. Those who have support—and I do support them; I represent people now at appeals—win. However, there is a lack of support, because of cuts in local government support for advice centres, and Government cuts so many people are not supported.

The result? To be frank, it is financial hardship. People are living in poverty because they lose their benefits. In addition, there is emotional stress, breakdowns, and, as Mind points out in its briefing, self-harm and suicide. Why do the Government defend the company? Why have they awarded it the personal independence payments process?

I share the disgust of many disability groups about Atos being allowed to sponsor the Olympics. That is a disgrace. I support Disabled People Against Cuts, and the Black Triangle campaign, which organised the protest against Atos sponsorship. I am calling for an inquiry into violence against people with disabilities who protested last week at the Department for Work and Pensions, and elsewhere. A few months ago, I tabled an early-day motion calling for Atos’s contract to be withdrawn, and for the establishment of a new system; 103 hon. Members have signed that early-day motion. Surely after that, and following debate after debate and the protests on the streets, the Government must reassess the role of Atos, and establish a new system based, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) suggested, on reputable, fair and equitable criteria.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. To be frank, there are more people standing than we shall have time to hear from in the debate. The Opposition spokesman has said he requires eight minutes. I suspect that, because of interventions and so on, Members will want the Minister to have slightly longer. I propose that we begin the winding-up speeches just after five past, so we probably have time for two more speeches. I have a list given to me by the previous Chairman, and I shall take speakers in that order.

11:59

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing the debate. It is worth reminding people that behind the statistics we are talking about are people who have wrongly been denied the money they need to live on and the support they need.

Like many hon. Members, I have dealt with innumerable cases, and I want to return to the issue of recording. A constituent who came to me wanted his Atos assessment to be recorded, because he had heard of problems in the past. He was told that there were 10 working sets of recording equipment for 140 centres, and that he would have to attend an assessment that could not be recorded, although I believe that it is his right to have it recorded.

Recording might have helped another constituent who came to me, who had been suffering from depression and anxiety, and who had an assessment. She does not cook; in fact, she has not got a cooker, because her lack of concentration means that it would be unsafe. She could barely communicate with me, but the Atos assessment said that her communication was good. She forgot to mention that she lives with her sister—she had to be reminded by her mother—so that was never mentioned in the assessment.

Those clients are appealing with the help of advice agencies, but I fear that when legal aid goes in 2013, there will be a drop in the number of appeals. That drop will not be because Atos is getting it right first time; it will be because people have nowhere else to go for an appeal and will be living without the benefit to which they are entitled. In particular, Atos needs to request medical evidence, which costs money—I have known doctors’ reports to cost anything from £35 to £200—and people eligible for legal aid can get those reports paid for, if they go to an advice agency. What will happen when that system stops?

Lastly, in the short time we have left in this debate, I want clarification on the compulsory reconsideration phase that will come in from April 2013. Will claimants still receive employment and support allowance during that period, as is vital? As we have already heard, 35% of appeals are successful, which means that those people were not fit for work—the decisions were wrong—and if they are not fit for work, they cannot meet the work search requirements. It is therefore essential that ESA continues during that period, and I want clarification about that in relation to all the groups.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. If there are no interventions, we can hear from two more speakers before hearing from the Front Benchers. On the list provided to me, those speakers are Julie Hilling and Bill Esterson.

12:02

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am so grateful to have been called, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing this important debate, because there is no doubt that Atos work capability assessments are not working. When campaign groups adopt the slogan, “Atos kills for profit”, something is deeply, deeply wrong. Any organisation that is proved wrong on 40% of its decisions is failing, and it certainly came as a real surprise to us all when Atos was given the contract for the personal independence payment. Of course, we want to help into work disabled people who are able to work, but removing benefit from those who cannot work is heartless, cruel and just plain wrong. Assessments should take notice of medical reports, whether from GPs or specialists, and of prognosis and treatment programmes, and they must take better account of fluctuating conditions and mental health issues. I want to ask the Minister two questions: how many people have died between being rejected for ESA and their appeal, and how many people have committed suicide?

Time is short, so I shall give only two examples. Aaron, who came to me last week, was injured in a bomb blast in Afghanistan in 2009. The explosion broke virtually every bone in his body, and he suffered a crushed-leg injury. Despite immediate medical care, his injury resulted in a partial leg amputation—below the knee—in 2010, and he has had several other surgical procedures. He originally received disability living allowance, but after his Army discharge, his benefit was stopped. He was reassessed for benefit in November 2011 and was told that, as his walking had improved, he would no longer get it. That was a bit of a surprise to him, because he is still struggling with his transition to having a prosthetic leg as his stump is regularly infected, he has required other surgical procedures, and he is still waiting for an operation this autumn. I have a second question relating to Aaron. It is not only the Department for Work and Pensions that has failed him; what about the Prime Minister’s assurances earlier this summer guaranteeing welfare support for ex-servicemen and women injured in military conflicts?

I have been visited by the mother of someone whom I will call Tony. Tony lives alone and is struggling to have as normal a life as possible, despite the world appearing to be very difficult for him. His mother was desperately worried about him, because he has just scored zero in his Atos assessment, despite the fact that he is bipolar and has obsessive compulsive disorder and Asperger’s. Tony has really wanted to work and has tried several jobs. He tried a job as a postman, but because of his OCD he could never get out the door—he would sort the letters by address and would then have to re-sort them by size and colour. Although he has been supported by a number of employers, he found that he was unable to work. In the end, he had a breakdown and ended up in hospital. His consultant has said that he cannot work, and his family is now terrified about his suicide risk.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the last speaker: Bill Esterson.

12:05

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

More than 40 people have approached me with cases of being denied benefit following a WCA, or about their fear of that happening. The Member who mentioned the culture of fear among that group of people is absolutely right. A number of them have described being afraid to appeal, because the experience that people they know have had of Atos staff members has been so terrifying that they are scared to proceed. That is why some appeals do not take place, and it is artificially depressing the level of appeals.

I want to describe a few of those 40 cases. One involved a lady who had a serious operation because of cancer—what operation is not serious, following cancer?—and it took her more than a year to get her backdated pay after her claim was denied. In a second case, it took four months for a decision to be overturned after someone’s ESA claim was rejected following their heart-bypass surgery.

Colleagues have mentioned the work-related activity group; I will talk in detail about what happened to my constituent, George Mullen. Mr Mullen had one leg amputated at the age of 18, after an accident as an apprentice joiner. Despite that, he continued to work full time for more than 35 years. A solicitor told him that he would be a fool to try to get back to work, but he ended up as a successful clerk in a small business, even though he was in considerable pain. To aid his mobility for work, he did not use a wheelchair, but got about either on a false leg or on crutches. He suffered with chronic infections and abscesses at the amputation site, and he developed arthritis in his neck, shoulders and back, and in the knee and foot of his remaining leg. In spite of all that, he continued to work until he was told that he was being retired on health grounds, because there was absolutely no way his health would allow him to continue performing his job. He is on 24-hour blood-pressure monitoring, because stress pushes his blood pressure to a dangerously high level.

Mr Mullen applied for ESA as an absolute last resort. When he attended the WCA with his wife, the questions he was asked included: “Are you married? How did you travel here? How long have you been married?” There was not one question about his physical or mental condition, and no physical examination was carried out. Mr Mullen insists that he tried to offer information about his condition, but he was ignored. He was placed in the work-related activity group, but at no point was it explained that that lasts only for a year, and that ESA is then means-tested, or that if he felt he ought to be in the support group he had to appeal within a month. It came as a complete shock to have his ESA stopped when the year was up. He has applied again, and he awaits his assessment. He has had to attend counselling, because the situation has caused him so much stress. There was no explanation that, in the work-related activity group, ESA stops after a year—that is the reality that faces the real people who are affected. As someone said earlier, this is not about figures; it is about real, vulnerable and at-risk people in our society.

12:08

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing this debate about a matter of huge importance to hundreds of thousands of people, as well as on the work that he has done to highlight the problems that people face. I give the Minister my hearty congratulations on his appointment as Secretary of State for Justice and thank him for turning up to discharge his final responsibility in his old job. I am also very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) is in the Chamber because she and I have had a close interest in this issue for a long time.

The previous Government introduced the work capability assessment and employment and support allowance to provide support for people who are out of work for health reasons, but who are able to plan for a return to work. The current Government chose to take a drastic short cut by curtailing the bedding down period for the new benefit and rolling out the assessment without any improvement, even though by that stage improvements had been identified and proposed. The predictable result of that has been severe problems. Ministers are failing in their task of managing the contract with Atos, of ensuring that people who claim employment and support allowance are treated as they should be, and of reviewing and reforming the test so that it works as it should. The test needs major improvement. Two of Professor Malcolm Harrington’s reviews have reported so far—the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) was right—and while the Government say that they have accepted most of the recommendations, they simply have not implemented them, and that is the heart of the problem.

One simple example that shows the muddle that the Minister has got into has been raised several times in the debate. The year 1 Harrington review recommended that Atos should pilot the audio recording of work capability assessments, and a pilot of 500 claimants followed. Atos said that it was a good idea, but we have heard what has happened in practice from my hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash).

In a previous debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, the Minister made a commitment that

“we will offer everyone who wants it the opportunity to have their session recorded”.—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 291WH.]

He has not delivered on that pledge, and it turns out that the problem is a shortage of tape recorders. I was contacted by someone who struggled for weeks to get her assessment recorded. Eventually, Atos wrote to tell her that she could not have a recording or a rescheduled appointment. I wrote to the Minister about that and reminded him of the commitment that he had made. He said that he thought it would be unreasonable to delay the assessment indefinitely for such a reason, but that was not the commitment he gave to the House in February. I am afraid that this mess and shambles shows all we need to know about the Minister’s management of this process. The Government need to get a grip on Atos. I wish the Minister great success in his new job, but I wish he had put a bit more effort into this aspect of his old one.

We have also had a series of mishaps. For example, the Minister made rather farcical efforts to suppress a YouTube video giving advice to people who were claiming against their work capability assessment. It turned out that the subversives who were responsible for this pernicious video were his colleagues at the Ministry of Justice.

Perhaps the most harmful thing to the credibility of the work capability assessment has been the delay in making the changes needed so that the test can work. Professor Harrington’s first review in 2010 asked Mind, Mencap and the National Autistic Society to propose better descriptors for people with mental health conditions. They produced recommendations in November 2010, and Professor Harrington commended them to the Department in April 2011. Further recommendations went to the Department in November 2011 about changes to the descriptors for fluctuating conditions.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Several announcements that have been made, including about having mental health champions, have not been rolled out to assessment centres. Atos is still being inconsistent about allowing support workers or friends to assist those with mental health illnesses who are going to assessments.

[Stephen Timms]

I agree that commitments have not been delivered, and my hon. Friend cites a good example.

The work capability assessment must not be a snapshot of someone’s condition on the day they attend the medical assessment. By definition, that is likely to be a good day, because otherwise they would not be able to show up. The assessment needs to take account of the frequency with which they can do work-related tasks and that with which they suffer the ill effects of their condition. The alternative descriptors proposed do just that. They are now in the public domain thanks to the Grass Roots disability blog, without which we would not have known what they were, and they look like a real step in the right direction.

The Department has had the recommendations on mental health descriptors for 17 months and those on fluctuating conditions descriptors for nine months, but hardly any progress has been made in that time. On 25 June, in a written answer, the Minister said that

“we have been carefully considering how to build an appropriate evidence base around the proposed new descriptors…Terms of reference have been agreed and we aim to publish a report of the Evidence Based Review in the spring of 2013.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2012; Vol. 19, c. 54W.]

The Minister’s successor will need to get a grip on this. If that ambiguous deadline is even met—and that would be a first—it will be two years after expert guidance was received on how to improve the assessment for people with mental health conditions, and a year following the other recommendations.

[Ann McKechin]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a person suffers from cancer but does not require chemotherapy, they should still be deemed to be not capable of working if they are in treatment? Why have the Government not changed that indicator when they could do so immediately?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises a good point that we discussed when we considered the Welfare Reform Act 2012. My understanding was that the Government had committed to make precisely that change, but it appears that that has not happened.

I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, on recording assessments—this might appear to be a minor issue, but it has been raised several times in the debate—will he stand by the commitment he made in Westminster Hall in February that people who want recordings will be able to have them? He seemed to renege on that commitment in the letter to me that was written by officials, but signed by him, about a case that I raised. Secondly, will he get these new descriptors evaluated quickly—he can urge his successor to get a move on—do so transparently, and make the changes quickly after the evaluation is completed?

12:16

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I know that this is an issue of great concern to many Members, as it was always going to be. I totally accept that this is a long and difficult process, and I have always said that, both in this Chamber and in the House. I will not be able to respond to every individual point. One or two hon. Members have raised individual constituency cases, and if they write to the Department, I will ensure that it addresses their specific questions.

Let me make one point in relation to a comment made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He drove to the absolute heart of what we are trying to achieve, and this is an ambition that was and is shared by both the Opposition and the Government. If people can make a return to work, even if it is a different form of work from the one they did before their health issue arose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order—[Interruption.] Order. Parliamentary rules state that there should be no noise at all from the Gallery—[Interruption.] Madam, if you persist in carrying on talking and shouting, I will have no choice but to suspend the sitting and clear the Gallery—[Interruption.] This is your last chance. If there is any more noise from the Gallery, I will have no choice but to suspend the sitting, meaning that no one will hear from the Minister.

[Chris Grayling]

If people can make a return to work, even if it is a different form of work from what they were able to do before their health condition arose, that is better for them than spending the rest of their life on benefits. That is the principle that we are working towards.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I will briefly give way once, but that is all.

[Helen Goodman]

If the Minister has read the current descriptors, will he explain what kind of work a person could do when their engaging in social contact with someone unfamiliar is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others? There are those who have reduced awareness of everyday hazards, which means that they face significant risk of injury to themselves or others, and those who are at risk of loss of control leading to extensive evacuation of their bowel and bladder. What work can these people do?

[Chris Grayling]

Let me pick up on that point straight off. It is all well and good for Opposition Members to stand up and rail about the system, but it is a system that was created by Labour four years ago when they were in government, and it is a system that we have consistently tried to improve.

Let me be absolutely clear. I put it on record that this is not a financial exercise. There are no targets attached to the reassessment of people on incapacity benefit—[Interruption.] The assessment that is in place for new claimants for employment and support allowance—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. If there is any more noise from the Public Gallery, I am afraid that, under the rules of Parliament, I have no choice but to suspend the sitting and clear the Gallery. I understand that people are very concerned about this issue—my constituents are concerned about it as well—but under the rules, I will have to clear the Gallery if there is any more noise. This is the last time that I will say it: if there is any more noise, I am afraid that I will have to suspend the sitting.

[Chris Grayling]

It is really important to emphasise that the reassessment of people on incapacity benefit is not a financial exercise and that there are no financial targets attached to it. It is about finding the right number of people who can make a return to work. It is not an exact science—it never was and never could be—but it is all about trying to help people back into the workplace if they can possibly return to it. That was the previous Government’s motivation when they established the work capability assessment. When we took office, we put in place the changes that they themselves had put in the pipeline through the internal review of the work capability assessment.

When we took office, I fully accepted that the process needed to be improved. That was why we brought in Malcolm Harrington and it is why I am absolutely clear that we have implemented his recommendations. I have regularly met and talked to Malcolm Harrington, and at no point has he said to me that the process is not fit for purpose. At no point has our independent adviser, whom I believe has the confidence of most people in the charitable sector who are involved in this work, said to me that this system has to stop or is unfit for purpose. He has made suggestions about improvements, and we have followed his advice in that regard. Our objective is to do the right thing, but of course this is not an exact science. We will never create a system that is perfect, which is why people have a right to appeal.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Following the substantial improvements that the Government have made, does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that the number of people who have been moved into the support set of the ESA has increased by 20%?

[Chris Grayling]

It is a matter of record that since we implemented changes as a result of the Harrington process and the internal review that we inherited from the previous Government, the number of people going into the support group, including the number of people with mental health conditions, has increased. That is a good thing and I am pleased that we made those changes.

The issue of cancer has been raised. It has taken us longer than I expected to address that, because of various issues that arose in our discussions with Macmillan Cancer Support, but I believe that we are now in the right place. We will be making a formal announcement very shortly, but I have said before that I believe that we should extend to those receiving oral chemotherapy the access to the support group that is offered to people receiving intravenous chemotherapy.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I will give way very briefly, but this is the last intervention that I will take.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister will acknowledge, however, that the new descriptors that have been proposed for mental health conditions and for fluctuating conditions are nowhere near being implemented. When does he expect that they will be implemented?

[Chris Grayling]

I will make just one more point and then I will answer that question.

It is really important to put it on record that Atos does not take decisions. In no circumstance does Atos take a decision about whether somebody receives a benefit or does not. A claimant will be asked to fill in a form that goes to Atos for consideration of whether they should be put to an assessment, or passported straight through to the benefit. Atos carries out the assessment, but the decision about benefits is taken by a Department for Work and Pensions decision maker in Jobcentre Plus. It is really important that people understand that Atos does not take decisions.

When we talk about Atos, we are talking about a team of perhaps 1,500 health care professionals, many of whom have trained in the NHS. Those professionals are carrying out an assessment that was designed by the DWP under the previous Government and that has been continued under the current Government. Atos does not take the decisions itself.

As a result of the Harrington recommendations, we have gone out of our way to address people much more directly. Rather than letters, they now receive phone calls, in which they are asked to bring forward additional evidence. A question was asked about the mandatory reconsideration phase. Effectively, that phase already happens. Every case in which the person says they are not happy will now involve a reconsideration within Jobcentre Plus. I am keen that we have that second opinion, because we will not always get things right and I want to try to see whether we can bring forward further evidence that would enable us to make the right decision before a case ever reached the tribunal service. Effort is being put in to make that happen.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) asked about recordings. Let me be clear that Harrington recommended that we carried out a pilot to test recordings. I was keen that we just did it, but Harrington said to me, “Actually, it may not work, so I really think that you should pilot it. It may prove to have a negative effect.” We therefore tested recording and found that there was little enthusiasm among those being assessed to have their assessment recorded. In the end, the conclusion was that we should make recording available on a voluntary basis, but it should not be something that we do across the board.

I do not rule out recording. If there was overwhelming evidence showing that it was necessary, I would make it available, but let me give some statistics. There are 300 claimants waiting for an audio-recorded assessment, while Atos is conducting 8,000 assessments a week. We are ordering additional audio-recording machines so that people can have their assessment recorded, if they want. They are perfectly entitled to bring their own recording equipment to an assessment as long as it can record two copies of an assessment, because they need to be able to take one copy with them and leave the other behind. That is why we have to buy what is fairly expensive equipment, and we have ordered additional equipment because there has been an increase in demand in the last few weeks.

I am perfectly relaxed about recorded assessments and perfectly happy to make recording facilities available. However, the advice that I received from Malcolm Harrington was that we should test recording. The result of the pilot was not only that there was not a need for recording, but that many people felt uncomfortable being assessed with a tape recorder running.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the new descriptors that were brought forward by the charities, but he is out of date. The charities have been working with us for the past few weeks on the assessment project of the package that they brought forward. The work was finished last week. The charities wanted more time to work with us because the process is complicated and we are trying to mesh mental health issues and fluctuating conditions. As I said in Westminster Hall about 12 months ago, the problem that I had with the recommendations that the charities made in the first place was that they came forward not simply with adjustments to the existing descriptors, but instead with a comprehensive reorganisation of the assessment, which would also have involved a redesign of the physical descriptors. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has carried out such projects in the DWP, he will know well that that would be a two or three-year project.

We have tried to take forward some of the suggestions that the charities made and embed them into elements such as the ESA50 form, and we are now working with the charities to road test all this work to see whether it really makes a difference. However, I am not going to embark on a major overhaul of the whole exercise based on recommendations that are not backed by evidence without our having tested them in the way in which the previous Government tested recommendations: by putting real cases against proposed descriptors and making a comparison between the outcomes of the theoretical new descriptors and the old descriptors. Such work is on track. We are pushing the charities to make progress, because I want to get the work done, and we are still on track to complete the gold standard review in the spring.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) referred to the National Audit Office report. I have had the benefit of having read that report, although I know that he has not. The reality is that the report highlights a number of what I regard as not particularly major areas of improvement. If he reads the report, he will see that it reflects a big and complicated contract. It makes some suggestions for improvement, but it is not as he portrays it.

When the hon. Gentleman talks about the performance of Atos during the last two years, the key point he must remember is that the recommendations that Malcolm Harrington made, combined with some fluctuation in volumes coming through to Atos, which are certainly beyond its control, have caused significant operational difficulties. I can give him my word that I have sat in meetings with representatives of Atos and put them under intense pressure. Atos has brought in extra capacity at cost. We have made sure that we deliver at every stage. However, it is not possible to change the goalposts totally and then expect the subcontractor to take it on the chin with no consequences.

We have seen some consequences of the introduction of the Harrington recommendations, particularly the personalised statement. However, as I stand here today, we are on track to close the backlog time to where it should be later this autumn. The numbers that the hon. Gentleman gave are already well out of date. We have brought down the backlog in the number of appeals that we inherited two years ago, but it is a big task. We are dealing with a large number of people and this is a big challenge.

Let me be clear that we want to get this process right and we want to do the right thing. I want people who need long-term ongoing support to be in the support group. The Government have no interest in doing anything other than looking after those people who need that, but we will also give encouragement and support—and a bit of a push—to those who can get back into work, because I believe that that is the right thing for them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I thank those Members who have attended this important debate for coming along today, and I encourage everyone to leave Westminster Hall quickly and quietly so that we can proceed to the next important debate.

Census (Local Government Funding)

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Westminster Hall

12:30

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

I assumed there would be a large crowd interested in every word on this subject, but, unfortunately, I often have this effect when speaking in the House: the Chamber empties.

The census particularly affects one of the two cities I represent: the city of Westminster. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) cannot be here today, but she associates herself with most of my speech. We have worked together throughout the 11 years that I have been in Parliament to try to ensure that the problems of previous censuses are ironed out. We have fears for the future, given the funding arrangements that have been put in place.

The city of Westminster is one of the most complex and diverse areas of the United Kingdom. As the cultural and political hub of our capital city, Westminster attracts a vast number of people each and every day, on top of the residential population, who come either to work or to visit Westminster’s wealth of attractions. Unsurprisingly, Westminster is a destination of choice for people arriving in the United Kingdom for the first time. Many plan to work or study for a short period before returning home; others hope to make a permanent new life here. The true extent of that population is unknown. Also hidden from official statistics are asylum seekers awaiting a decision from the Home Office, countless migrant workers from the European Union who are often willing to sleep in crowded rooms, illegal immigrants working in the black economy and those whose application for leave to remain has been rejected but who are yet to be removed. That huge tide of humanity must be catered for, no matter the unique difficulty of measuring its extent. For Westminster city council, that means funding services for a population well beyond that catered for by central Government money.

I made that point in Westminster Hall some four years ago. In 2008, Westminster city council, one of the two local authorities in my constituency, spent an estimated £6 million looking after that unaccounted-for population. The council had repeatedly warned the previous Government that methods of counting migration numbers were not keeping pace with modern patterns of population movement. That became especially problematic for the council after the 2004 accession of 10 new member states to the European Union, bringing a wave of immigrants to the capital that included Poles, Latvians and Estonians. Lessons were not learned and services came under renewed pressure when, only a few years later, a fresh influx of people came to London when Bulgaria and Romania were brought into the European Union fold.

There was enormous optimism that the 2011 census would at last provide an accurate indication of the numbers living in central London and ensure that the council’s funding settlement from central Government finally provided sufficient moneys to cover the cost of services for all those using them. Undoubtedly, the 2011 census was handled differently from the 2001 census. The Office for National Statistics made significant changes to address some of the obvious shortcomings of the previous population count, to which the hon. Member for Westminster North and I referred in the debate four years ago. We were pleased that Westminster was designated in the hardest-to-count category across all of its wards and received considerable resources to conduct the census.

Nevertheless, although the 2011 census estimate of 219,400 represents an increase in population since 2001, when the figure stood at 181,300, it comprises a large reduction of 21,800, or 9%, from the previous revised 2010 mid-year estimate of 241,100. The situation looks worse if one considers the figures used in the last local government finance settlement, which was based on 2008 mid-year estimates projected forward. Against those numbers, the 2011 estimate represents a drop of 43,500. Despite the resource given to counting Westminster’s population, the council understandably believes that the ONS remains wedded to a one-size-fits-all methodology that does not properly recognise the specific problems of areas such as central London.

Westminster city council believes that the 2001 experience set a precedent that should not be ignored by the Department for Communities and Local Government when determining which data to use when allocating local government resources. Westminster, with its thriving economy and world-class, highly regarded universities—Imperial college London, King’s college London and the London School of Economics, to name but three—is an especially attractive destination to live and work in. Westminster draws people from across London, the UK and the world and consequently provides services to the largest volume of non-residents in the country.

Historically, through a commitment to efficiency and innovation, Westminster has managed to soak up many of the cost pressures that go hand in hand with providing a high-quality cityscape. With the tightening of public finances, however, the council can no longer meet those costs. Westminster city council is underfunded by the revenue support grant and is unable to increase council taxes owing to the Government’s commitment to freezing the levy. I do not disagree with that commitment, but local authorities find themselves wearing that straitjacket.

The subsequent impact on services for people living in central London has been significant. The costs, however, are much wider and include deteriorating environmental services that affect almost 50,000 businesses, and the risk that the 22 million foreigners who visit the borough each year will form less favourable impressions not only of London but of the UK as a whole. That may seem a relatively trivial risk, but think of the impact of the magnificent showcasing of the capital and the UK during the Olympics that will fashion the world’s view of Britain for years to come.

I accept that there will always be a multitude of difficulties in collecting accurate population data in places such as Westminster compared with local authorities such as your local authority in Kettering, Northamptonshire, Mr Hollobone, or the relatively leafy suburb that the Minister represents in the south-east London borough of Bromley. Those problems include getting people to open their door—an estimated 89% of properties in Westminster operate multiple door entry systems. Westminster had the second-lowest response rate to the national place survey, and the profile of those who responded was overwhelmingly white, with almost every other ethnic group and those in the 20 to 34 age bracket under-represented. Similarly, in 2010, Westminster city council conducted a mini census coverage survey in four key areas. Some 54% of Edgware road respondents were found to be white, with only 35% identifying themselves as Asian despite the surveyed area being in the heart of London’s Arab community. In Soho, where Chinatown is based, one enumerator reported that she encountered many doorbells with Chinese names but few people answered the door. Yet, according to the 2009 pupil level annual school census, English was found to be the main home language for only three in 10 children attending Westminster’s schools. One consequence of an over-representation of white respondents is likely to be a reduction in average household size because migrant groups tend to live in larger households.

Although the estimated response to the 2011 census was better, at some 85%, than a decade earlier, when the response was only 74%, response rates still look very low for some demographic profiles, with a particular under-representation of young males. That is especially critical in Westminster, where those with the lowest response rates—males aged 25 to 44—are the most prevalent in the population and the most unlikely to register with comparator data sets such as GP lists.

Although I am sure that the Minister will update us, I understand that the ONS has not yet published the detail necessary for Westminster or any other local authority to evaluate and initiate the adjustment process, which strives to deal with the difficulties to which I have referred. However, Westminster city council is concerned about the methodology that is used. For example, part of the bias adjustment is the within-household bias, which refers to census returns that report a lower number of residents than are present, resulting in an under-count. To correct that particular bias, the ONS matches social survey data to the census data and makes an imputation based on the characteristics of respondents. However, it is not clear whether the data will sufficiently correct the bias for an area such as Westminster, where the number of visitors, migrants and large households is unprecedentedly high and unlikely to be accurately represented in voluntary social surveys.

The council also has concerns about administrative data. Although comparisons of administrative data to census outputs should be treated with a certain amount of caution until we are able fully to understand the ONS’s assumption, there are some anomalies that Westminster believes require further investigation. For example, 2011 census data claim that there are 4,800 fewer occupied households in Westminster than were identified on Department for Communities and Local Government council tax lists, meaning that almost 5,000 fewer households completed census forms than pay council tax. Why is the shortfall so large even after vacant and second homes have been formally accounted for? It is plausible that those properties are only partly occupied. If that is the case, it takes us back to concerns that the city is providing services for part-time people who are never captured in population counts and therefore never properly funded.

Other comparative data require close examination. The register of patients for Westminster GPs, for instance, listed 19,400 more people than the census outputs. GP lists in some parts of the country are deemed to be inflated, as people fail to deregister when they move out of an area, but Westminster is not like other parts of the country. It is likely instead that a substantial part of the population never registers with a GP due to population churn, migration and the prevalence of walk-in and accident and emergency services.

Department for Work and Pensions data on the number of people aged 80 to 84 in Westminster are 50% higher than the census output. The 2011 census estimates that only 3,100 over-85s live in Westminster, despite the fact that 6,800 claim a pension there. The census included questions on length of stay in the country for the first time, thereby providing some estimate of short-term migration, yet only 6,900 in that category were suggested as living in Westminster. Again, that is likely to be a massive underestimate, as it implies that a little over 1% of the number of people employed by Westminster businesses are short-term migrants. A cursory look at any restaurant or shop in the centre of London suggests that that is a underestimate.

Furthermore, the annual population survey 2008-09 estimated that 15,500 people aged 18 to 24 were full-time students in Westminster and might be here for only part of the year, adding a further burden to the issue of short-term migrants. Of the estimated 442,000 illegal migrants living in London, we believe—on a pro rata basis, although there is likely to be a bias towards central London—that 20,000 to 25,000 live in Westminster. All those uncounted and under-counted people are not represented in the funding formula.

For all those reasons, the council requested continually that the 2011 census be tested in Westminster, yet the ONS refused. If data based on the census are used in central Government’s calculation of Westminster’s funding grant, the local authority will be affected to its detriment. It is hard to grasp the exact financial implications, as the details of the revenue support grant model are not yet published. However, I believe that it is likely that Westminster’s RSG will drop substantially.

I calculate that Westminster’s new, substantially reduced census population, when compared with the population estimates used in the previous financial settlement for local authorities, could result in an estimated annual loss of £10 million to £15 million in funding, which will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in the community. Although I am sure that the Government’s damping mechanism would mitigate some of that loss— the vagaries of the funding mechanism may mean that the estimates could change considerably—those sums are substantial, particularly in a time of tightening financial settlements, which I support, understanding the reasoning behind them.

As I see it, three options now face the Minister and DCLG. The Government can plough ahead with the 2011 census data and lock Westminster into perhaps seven years of underfunding via the business rates retention model. Alternatively, it can recognise that for a very few local authorities—a small number of special cases—the one-size-fits-all 2011 census model may not have worked well enough, and there should be an opportunity to discuss a population top-up. The third option is to continue to use the 2010 mid-year estimates for all authorities until the 2011 census can be adequately quality assured.

DCLG ought to give more recognition to the fact that modern population movement—many UK cities are hyper-mobile and hyper-diverse communities—means a constant turnover of people in inner urban authorities. Those people should be counted as part of the resident population. The Department should, after six years of ONS deliberation, include short-term migration in its funding formula. I must confess that I had hoped wistfully that the 2001 experience would have set a precedent that could not be ignored. I respectfully suggest that the coalition Government now seize the chance to rectify the situation. Otherwise, they face fundamentally undermining one of their flagship local authorities, which has for years served as a beacon of best practice in spite of its gargantuan task in managing this fine capital city of ours.

12:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) for raising this issue, which is important for his constituents and generally. I recognise, as do the Government, that it is important to get the most accurate census data possible, because they are a key element that feeds into the distribution of public funding. As I will explain, they are not the only element, but they are important, so I understand his concerns.

I agree with and accept his analysis that it is more difficult to conduct a census in an inner-city area with population churn such as Westminster than in some parts of the country. I hope that I can demonstrate that efforts have been made to take that on board. It is worth starting with the situation that confronted us after the 2001 census, when there were concerns and steps were taken by the Office for National Statistics, which is a body independent of Ministers, to improve the methodology and quality assurance underpinning the figures.

Since 2001, as my hon. Friend recognised, considerable effort has been made to improve census returns, as has been demonstrated. He is right that particular resource was put into Westminster to reflect the difficulties, resulting in a significant increase in the response rate. Although it is less than in many authorities, the gap has diminished considerably. The response rate in Westminster in 2011 was 85%, compared with 66% in 2001. Both those responsible for the census and those on the city council are to be congratulated on the hard work that they did collaboratively to achieve that. I hope that gives a better starting point.

Generally, the 2001 census figures have been welcomed by local authorities. There have been a small number of areas—Westminster is one of them—where issues of concern have been raised.

[Mark Field]

I appreciate that these issues are sensitive and that the Minister will therefore not necessarily want to name each and every local authority, but would it be fair to say that the local authorities that have expressed concern tend to be urban and therefore have the particular characteristics I referred to in my speech?

[Robert Neill]

Some, but not exclusively—some are inner city authorities, but some are district authorities. There may be other causes of churn, which we will continue to look at. Other urban authorities—for example, Newham—have welcomed what they regard as an improvement in methodology. I recognise that particular circumstances apply to each case, but it is worth putting the Westminster situation into that broader context. Where there are issues, ONS is working collaboratively with those authorities who have sought clarification. Westminster is one of those authorities, and a meeting recently took place between the officials of Westminster city council and ONS. Westminster—I hope I can put this fairly—has said that it would like to consider its position further, in light of the discussions that have taken place. Of course, ONS stands ready to continue those discussions, as does my Department.

It has always been our intention—given the nature of a census count, there are certain caveats—to use the most up-to-date and nationally consistent data available. We are consulting on proposals for the basis of calculating the next local government finance settlement. The consultation will close on 24 September, and I know that Westminster council will respond to it in detail. Population is one figure. As you will know from your local government experience, Mr Hollobone, a number of other factors are churned into the regression analysis—the bane of all of us who deal with local government finance—and the product then emerges. As my hon. Friend says, the Government intend to continue the protections of floor damping—we have made it clear that that will be the case.

We have consulted on the proposal to use the interim 2011 census base population projections. I confirm that it is the intention for them to be released by ONS on 28 September—they will be available in good time for use in the settlement. Of course, other factors will have to be taken into consideration: assessments of relative need and resources, as you will know, Mr Hollobone; the operation of the floor damping; and, because we are setting up a baseline for the new system of retained business rates, the calculation of the tariffs and the top-ups that will apply for the reset period. It is our intention not to reset those baselines until 2020 at the earliest, subject to wholly exceptional circumstances. The new system will be an incentive for go-ahead authorities such as Westminster—I am the first to recognise that Westminster is a flagship authority in many respects—and an incentive for those local authorities to drive growth in their area over the period of the seven-year reset period. It is estimated that this new means of financing local government, with 50% of the growth in the business rate being retained, will increase gross domestic product by approximately £10 billion. There will also be a safety net, which will protect local authorities from unexpected volatility in their rate base.

On quality assurance—a particular issue that has been discussed with Westminster—we have seen considerable improvement in the census take-up. The issues raised by my hon. Friend were discussed with officials of the city council and ONS—the officials in my Department will obviously want to continue to discuss them with ONS, too—to ensure that they were taken on board. As my hon. Friend said, what we have is not in fact a decline, necessarily, in the population, but an estimate based on the census that is less than a projection anticipated it to be. Therefore, the projection must be treated with some caveats, too.

After the 2001 census, there was an independent review of the means of quality assessment used to double-check the reliability of the census figures. The independent body suggested 23 actions to improve quality assurance, all of which were taken on board by ONS. Significant steps have been made to improve the quality, and other measures can be looked at. For example, my hon. Friend referred to patient registers. He is right to say that they must be treated with caution. I agree that the level and risk of inflation may vary from place to place, which is something that we can discuss. Across London, it is thought that GP registers can be inflated by approximately 8%. I am not saying that that is necessarily the figure in Westminster, but that is a reason why one must approach them with caution. Although that is a factor, there is not one single figure that can be used as an alternative benchmark.

It is worth saying that we have done checks, with that caveat, against the council tax data. The census estimates are in line with those sources, if allowance is made for some known differences, including an allowance made for the very high proportion of short-term residents, of which, as my hon. Friend says, Westminster has particular numbers. There is also a question concerning second residences.

The Department believes that this approach represents a considerable improvement on the methodology of the previous census. In the Westminster scenario, I agree that it is always difficult to get as high a return as one would wish—I think my own local authority’s return is approximately 95%; it is approximately 85% in Westminster. None the less, in sheer numerical terms the number of questionnaires returned increased from 134,200 in 2001 to 186,800 in 2011—a 39% increase thanks to the work both of ONS and Westminster city council. I hope that that demonstrates that we are going in the right direction—it has generally been well received.

The constructive way forward is this: I will take away the specific points raised by my hon. Friend and I will liaise with him. Westminster city council is going to come to ONS directly after it has reflected on their conversation. That liaison will continue, because we want to see what can be done further to explain and clarify apparent or potential differences between the census and other data sets. ONS remains confident that improved methodology more accurately captures the figure on the ground. Of course, the census is in effect a snapshot taken on one day. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. As a former leader of the Conservative group on the London assembly, I raised the issue when I was wearing that hat. The issue ongoing in London.

[Mark Field]

On the liaison to which the Minister referred, will he confirm that we can expect something in writing? I accept, given the representations I have made today, that he and his officials will want to consider this. I also accept that, in allowing a particular change to be made in relation to Westminster, there is a risk of setting a precedent. Can I expect a formal letter in relation to the liaison to which he referred?

[Robert Neill]

I am very happy to do that. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must have methodology that can be applied consistently across the country. I can say both to him and to the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that if I remain in a position to do so, I am more than happy to continue to discuss this ongoing issue with them.

Science and Public Service Broadcasting

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Westminster Hall

12:59

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and a pleasure to have the opportunity to discuss the important but oft-neglected subject of science and public service broadcasting. By “science”, I also mean engineering. I must declare an interest. For 23 years before coming into Parliament, I worked as a professional engineer, so the representation of science and engineering on the BBC, Channel 4, ITV and Channel Five is of some personal interest to me.

The Minister will be pleased to know that I shall not simply ask him to account for the representation of science and engineering. I shall set out their importance to our economy and culture and mention the role of public sector broadcasting and the general great contribution it is making to the popularisation of science and engineering, and discuss how it could do better.

Like many people, I was inspired by Danny Boyle’s wonderful Olympics opening ceremony, which brought to life the importance of science and the industrial revolution in our history. If it is possible, I was even more pleased watching the Paralympics opening ceremony, which Paul Nurse, the president of the Royal Society, said highlighted

“the achievement of human will in overcoming the adversity of disability and tackling the difficult problems of science.”

Science and engineering are an important part of our economic prosperity, especially now we are seeking to rebalance our economy, get out of a double-dip recession made in Downing street and at the same time address that grave legacy of the first industrial revolution: climate change. Research compiled by Josh Lerner of the Harvard Business School, looking at the last 100 years of growth in various economies, suggests that only 15% of growth in any economy can be accounted for by increasing inputs. That means that 85% of growth in economic output must come from innovation. Science and engineering drive innovation; without them, we will lose our place as a leading economy. Other countries know this. Some 1.5 million science and engineering students graduated from Chinese universities in 2006 alone. In the UK, more young people chose to study fine art than physics. Fine art is a fine choice, but so is physics.

In its 2009 review, Ofcom set out the purpose of public service broadcasting and said that it should stimulate our interest in and knowledge of arts, science, history and other topics through content that is accessible and can encourage informal learning. Ofcom said that public service broadcasting should be high quality, innovative, challenging and engaging. In addition, Channel 4 is required to support and stimulate well-informed debate on a wide range of subjects. I hope the Minister will say whether he believes that those criteria have been met in regard to science.

There are great strengths in our public service broadcasting science coverage, which has improved considerably over the past 10 years. We no longer see so much of the Q format. Q was the gadget man in the 007 films and all too often in the past science programming consisted of a man with a gadget explaining why it would get some Bond wannabe out of a tricky situation. Now on BBC radio we have the “The Infinite Monkey Cage”, “Saving Species” and “The Life Scientific” to name just three. BBC television has given us the “Secret History of…”. “Bang Goes the Theory”, “Stargazing” and “Frozen Planet”. “Horizon” continues to offer great science specials, such as “To Infinity and Beyond”, which discussed the science of endless time and space—something politicians have a particular problem grasping. Channel 4 also has a wide range of science programming, from “The Science of Seeing Again” with Katie Piper to “Brave New World with Stephen Hawking” and one of my favourites, “Dambusters: Building the Bouncing Bomb”.

Ofcom’s most recent survey, published in June, did not reflect general satisfaction, with 65% of respondents thinking that showing interesting programmes about history, sciences or the arts was important but only 46% saying that the public service broadcasting channels were doing that. The level of satisfaction varied highly: 71% for BBC 2, which is excellent, but a worrying 26% for Channel Five. The fact that science is lumped in with the arts and history makes it hard to see precisely where the problem is. Equally, it is difficult to get hard figures on the percentage of commissioned programmes on science and the viewing figures associated with them. I am not aware of any specialist programming aimed specifically at children. Perhaps the Minister will respond to those two points.

Although there is much to be proud of, there is still much to do. I watch and listen to science and engineering programmes with both a personal and professional interest, and I believe that there is one significant weakness. The BBC and Channel 4 have separate science programming, so if people want to watch science and engineering programmes—if they are already interested in infinity, arctic wildlife or how the bouncing bomb was designed, for example—they know exactly where to go. Science programming is heavily signposted, ensuring that those who do not already have an interest in science and engineering can easily avoid it. The Olympic and Paralympic opening ceremonies managed to integrate those subjects successfully, but public service broadcasters have not integrated science and engineering into general programming that can be enjoyed by all. I am afraid that the public service broadcasters have created high-quality, well-resourced science ghettos.

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

My hon. Friend may have visited the Royal Society exhibition on broadcasting science. It is interesting to note that the challenge she describes goes back to the beginnings of broadcasting in the 1920s. I should like the House to set up a working group to work with broadcasters and examine that challenge, because it has been around for a long time. My hon. Friend has raised an important point.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point, and I pay tribute to his work as Chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I have not yet visited the Royal Society to see that exhibition.

[Andrew Miller]

It runs until November.

[Chi Onwurah]

Excellent; I shall attend. Working together with broadcasters to address this subject is an excellent idea. I am by no means suggesting that the fault—such fault as there is—lies entirely with the broadcasters.

Non-specialist science programming all too often displays a depressing lack of scientific literacy. I wrote to the outgoing director-general of the BBC, Mr Mark Thompson —the first of many letterss— and the correspondence is on my website.

I thought about reading it in all its Kafkaesque beauty, but I took pity on the Minister and decided that a summary would do. In a programme called “Foreign Bodies”, a BBC reporter said that there was a high proportion of Chinese students on engineering courses in the UK because engineering was more valuable in China. I pointed out that that was not the case: engineering is an excellent career choice for students concerned with material reward—I should know—as engineering degrees dominate the top 10 most well-paid graduate professions, with chemical engineering graduates earning the third highest wage in the UK on graduation at more than £27,000. As I said, in terms of UK plc, engineering is incredibly valuable.

What the journalist may have meant to say was that engineering was not as valued in this country, although that is certainly not the case in the north-east and in my constituency. That might be true for a certain section of the population and, perhaps, some of those people may find themselves commissioning public service broadcasting programming. Certainly only one member of the BBC Trust has a background in science or engineering, as against 11 humanists. In a famous 1959 lecture, the British scientist and novelist C. P. Snow warned of the dangers of two cultures—science on the one hand, and the humanities on the other—and of the limitations that that would place on our society. Only last year, Google’s chair Eric Schmidt used his MacTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh festival to condemn the same gap. The UK, he said, was culturally divided into luvvies and boffins. Schmidt called for art, technology and science to be brought together—a call endorsed by popular TV scientist Brian Cox.

All too often, public service broadcasting programmes present science and engineering as boring, freakish, immensely difficult, or all three. I have lost count of the number of times that interviewers have said something such as, “So you thought about going into science but then you decided to do something creative instead.” I sometimes imagine how broadcasters would react if a reporter treated Shakespeare as they often treat science. Imagine a reporter saying, “I dropped Shakespeare when I was 12—it was just too difficult,” or, “Oh, Shakespeare—I have to ask the kids to help me out with that.”

The consequences can be serious. The BBC’s approach to scientific balance seems to be culled straight from the world of politics, without any understanding of scientific method. Even though the vast majority of scientific evidence supports climate change, the BBC will put up one pro-climate change and one anti-climate change scientist and think that that constitutes balance. Equally, its general interest programmes will be chock-full of historians, artists, celebrities and journalists, but with few engineers or scientists.

[Andrew Miller]

The point just made by my hon. Friend was central to the discussion of the Select Committee with Professor Steve Jones before his recently published review for the BBC Trust. I would welcome a response from the Minister about any discussions that he has had with the BBC about the implementation of recommendations on precisely the point made by my hon. Friend.

[Chi Onwurah]

I will certainly leave time for the Minister to respond on that and other important points.

The general interest programmes of the public service broadcasters are chock-full of historians, artists, celebrities and journalists, but include few if any engineers or scientists. I wrote to “Woman’s Hour” to ask if it had interviewed as many women engineers this year as women sex workers. Unfortunately that information was not available, but an admittedly unscientific Google yielded more hits for “Woman’s Hour” coverage of prostitution than for science and engineering. The fact that only 6% of engineers in the UK are women, compared with 30% in Latvia, contributes to an environment in which half our scientific and engineering talent goes to waste.

To go back to my original example, the opening ceremonies of the Olympics and Paralympics proved that it is possible to show scientific themes to a general audience successfully. Further, they showed that non-scientists can successfully represent scientific themes alongside other ones. Surely public sector broadcasters can do so as well.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I strongly support all that she has highlighted. In the spirit of what she has just discussed, the Royal Institution Christmas lectures are a fantastic example of bringing science to young people, and make it extremely interesting rather than focusing on celebrities. The BBC, however, has squeezed the lectures in recent years into a slot on BBC 3 and, bearing in mind that they are aimed at children, broadcast them at an obscure time of night.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important contribution. Had I more time, I would certainly highlight the many great efforts being made by learned institutions and campaigning groups. It is clearly not acceptable that a show aimed at children should be broadcast so late at night. I hope that we can all work together to ensure that such examples of good, mixed-interest, general broadcasting are more widely available.

I do not imagine the Minister can or should wave his hand and change the culture of our public service broadcasters. Public service broadcasters are independent of Government and should be. It is right, however, that they should be held accountable for their adherence to the purpose of public service broadcasting and to the broadcasting code. It is also right that we debate what is important in our culture and society. I want the Minister to make it clear that we need a public service broadcasting culture that integrates scientific literacy. He is an opinion leader in the area, so his thoughts will be influential.

The gap can be addressed in a number of ways. Since it was announced that I had secured the debate, suggestions have poured in, and include new guidelines on the reporting of science, to be drawn up by science journalists and used primarily by news editors and general reporters; media organisations taking on more science journalists and journalists with scientific training; access courses, so that scientists and engineers can convert into journalists; and, to pick up on a recent point, learned institutions such as the Institution of Engineering and Technology or the Royal Society sponsoring scholarships. Certainly engineers and scientists, as well as broadcasters, need to do more to integrate science and engineering into popular culture.

Those are only a few suggestions. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge the importance of science and engineering to our culture, to our economy and to our public service broadcasting.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I call the opinion leader and Minister, Ed Vaizey.

13:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, considering that you gave me an additional job in your introduction.

I am grateful for the chance to respond to an important debate that I would describe as unusual, albeit meaning to be complimentary. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) has raised an important subject that merits debate—it does not get debated often enough. I am also grateful for the contributions of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns).

I wish to be the first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) on her appointment as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—I should now hold the record for being the first Member to mention the reshuffle in Hansard—and I also pay tribute to her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt). He was an excellent Secretary of State and it was a great privilege to work with him.

Although I am speaking as, in effect, the broadcasting Minister, the Minister for Universities and Science, or indeed an Education Minister, could have responded to the debate, given the points that the hon. Lady made. I hope that she will take some comfort from the fact that I represent a constituency that is stuffed with science. I am privileged to represent Harwell’s Rutherford Appleton laboratory, the Diamond synchrotron and many small and emerging businesses that base their success on the science that happens in my constituency. I hope that all hon. Members in the Chamber will join me on Wednesday afternoon when we celebrate the British contribution to the large hadron collider and the discovery of the Higgs boson particle. I am privileged to be sponsoring that event in my capacity as the constituency Member for Harwell.

Before I address some of the general points on public service broadcasting that were raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, it is worth noting that my right hon. Friends the Minister for Universities and Science and the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, were instrumental in setting up the new engineering prize that is sponsored by the Government, as well as being supported through private sponsorship. The Government hope that it will rank alongside the Nobel prize in terms of prestige and that it will raise the profile of engineering. Although some might regard that point as slightly ephemeral, I certainly do not—it is an important example of the emphasis that the Government place upon science. It also demonstrates where the Government agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central. It is important to raise the profile of science as a career and to praise and celebrate its triumphs in this country.

[Chi Onwurah]

I, too, welcome the creation of the Queen Elizabeth prize for engineering, which was launched by all three party leaders. Far from regarding it as ephemeral, I think it is an important way to establish and promote the significance of engineering in this country and worldwide.

[Mr Vaizey]

Then we are as one on that point. The Science Minister was also instrumental in ensuring a freeze in our science budget, which, again, is an issue close to my heart because of the importance of science in my constituency.

The hon. Lady talked about last year’s famous MacTaggart lecture by Eric Schmidt, who is now the chairman of Google. That speech was also close to my heart because, as she may be aware, one of my first acts as a Minister was to commission a report on skills for the computer science industry. That very good report was completely ignored by the Government until Eric Schmidt stood up and said that computer science teaching in our schools was not up to scratch and could be improved. Following that speech, I was pleased that the Government promised to redesign the computer science curriculum, so look out for Mr Schmidt’s name in the reshuffle because he clearly has a great deal of influence.

I turn now to the subject of our debate: science in the media and broadcasting. I was glad to hear the hon. Lady say that science broadcasting has improved, but clearly her reason for securing the debate is that there is room for further improvement. I will not rehearse all the science programmes that are on the BBC, as many have been mentioned, but they are numerous and continue to come on stream. For example, BBC 2 will be launching a science magazine show in the autumn, and BBC 1 will broadcast programmes such as “The Genius of Nature” and “Generation Earth”. We all know about the success of the kind of programmes that Brian Cox has made, and there are many others.

I note the hon. Lady’s concern that there are not enough science programmes for children. On a personal note—having young children, I am now an aficionado of children’s television—I can point her to “Nina and the Neurons”. This is perhaps an opportunity for me to thank BBC Scotland, because after a recent visit there, at my instigation, it kindly arranged for signed photographs of Nina to be sent to my children. For those worrying about whether that appears in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, the pictures are well within the value that is required, but they are priceless to my children. As I did not send a thank-you letter, I would like to thank BBC Scotland in Hansard.

We have not spoken about other public service broadcasters. I do not know how well ITV is doing, but my officials have come up with “The Alan Titchmarsh Show”, “This Morning”, and “Daybreak” as examples of science coverage on ITV, so there might be room for improvement. Channel 4 has “Brave New World with Stephen Hawking” as part of its scientific coverage. It is important to note that broadcasting science is one of the requirements that public service broadcasters must fulfil under the Communications Act 2003, which is being reviewed, as the hon. Lady knows. I will ensure that science is kept at the forefront of our thinking as the review proceeds.

I would also like to mention some foreign broadcasters that broadcast here, such as the Discovery channel. In a few days, we will be announcing record figures for inward investment in this country, and it is worth noting the contribution that foreign broadcasters make to science programming here.

[Andrew Miller]

One simple thing that could really help would be to ask the BBC directly what it is doing to ensure that the recommendations of Professor Jones are adopted, and that progress is maintained over time.

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central pointed out, the BBC is independent of the Government. Ministers must be careful about how far they stray into being seen as influencing or directing the way the BBC programmes. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman can approach the new director-general directly to ask how he intends to take forward the BBC Trust’s report, which, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, was undertaken by Professor Steve Jones, the emeritus professor of genetics at University college London. The BBC’s science coverage was praised in that report, which noted that science was well embedded in programming and on a diversity of platforms. It is also important to note that the BBC’s science coverage was commended by a number of external scientific bodies, and it says in my notes that “Woman’s Hour” was also praised. The report raised some concerns and made recommendations on how the BBC could improve its science coverage, and the BBC Trust and BBC executives have responded to them. A key recommendation that was taken forward in January 2012 was the appointment of a science editor, who is David Shukman.

Another important report that is relevant to our debate was set up by the previous Government. It was produced in January 2010 by the science and the media expert group, which is chaired by Dr Fiona Fox, the chair of the Science Media Centre. The report outlined a number of actions and recommendations with the aim of supporting the accurate reporting of science and fostering an environment in which engaging science programmes can be made. Specifically on broadcasting, it found that more than two thirds of people had watched a science programme on television in the year previously and that almost one in five had listened to one on the radio. It concluded:

“Those heralding the death of broadcast science are clearly premature…Whatever the medium and however they are commissioned, science programmes will continue to be a significant part of the public’s engagement with science”.

The hon. Lady has raised an important issue through this debate. Being mindful of the independence of broadcasters, it is not for Ministers to dictate their day-to-day schedules. I am sure that every Member in the Chamber would like to be director-general of the BBC for a day and to shape its programming according to their passions. However, it is important that all hon. Members feel that they can contribute to the debate and engage with relevant broadcasters to raise concerns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan did with his well-made point about the Christmas lectures, which I remember growing up with.

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to the way my hon. Friend has responded to this important debate. He is absolutely right that it is not the job of any politician to dictate what the BBC should be doing, but does he agree that the role of a public service broadcaster should not be always to chase ratings with light entertainment programmes? Such programmes could well be provided for through the private sector, and issues such as science should be focused on more, given that public money is being used.

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend invites me to fall into the trap that I said no Minister should fall into, so I think that a period of silence from me on that point would be appropriate. All I will say is that every hon. Member can engage with this ongoing debate. We should be proud of our science heritage and the science that is happening now in this country. As a constituency MP, I am certainly aware that we are one of the foremost science nations in the world.

Finally, speaking as a Culture Minister, I am pleased that more people are talking about the link between the arts and the sciences. Again, the hon. Lady was right that we cannot have a society divided between boffins and artists. They are two sides of the same coin, and both flourish when they work together.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I thank hon. Members for taking part in that interesting and important debate.

Rickets

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to have been given the opportunity of and time for this debate and to introduce it with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I start by acknowledging two Manchester GPs, Dr Hans-Christian Raabe and Dr Avril Danczak, who came to see me some months ago to draw my attention to the shocking rise in the incidence of rickets in this country over the past 15 years. A written answer that I received on 9 November 2011 contained figures showing that the number of reported cases of rickets had risen from 183 in 1995-96 to 762 in 2010-11. Earlier this year, it was reported that the chief medical officers of the UK had contacted health professionals to highlight the need for vitamin D supplements for at-risk groups. Therefore, the issue is clearly one of concern. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken so far to deal with it, but more needs to be done.

Rickets is a disease that affects the growing of bone in children and is associated with moderate vitamin D insufficiency. It is mainly characterised by deformed bones, bone pain, convulsions and delayed development, particularly in relation to height rather than weight. Current Government guidance is that most people can get all the vitamin D that they need by eating a healthy balanced diet and getting some sun. However, it is not at all clear that that advice is adequate. The national diet and nutrition survey found that 90% of people in the UK do not get enough vitamin D from their diets, and there is widespread confusion in the public mind about what constitutes an appropriate amount of exposure to sunshine.

Certain groups have particularly high levels of vitamin D deficiency. They include pregnant and breastfeeding women and their babies, young children, elderly people, those who are not exposed to much sun—perhaps because they cannot get out of the house or because they cover up their skin for cultural reasons—and people with darker skin pigmentations, such as those of African, African-Caribbean or Asian origin. Levels of air pollution may also have an impact on sunshine exposure levels, and there is certainly a gradient of rising incidence of vitamin D deficiency as we move north across the UK, so it is clearly a concern in the north-west region, where my constituency is located. When one member of a family has a vitamin D deficiency, it is also likely to be replicated among siblings and children.

It is therefore clear that steps need to be taken to deal with vitamin D deficiency in quite large sections of the population. I am pleased that the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition is examining the issue, but it is not due to report until 2014, and it is likely that any recommendations made by the committee could take time to implement in any event. However, there are things that can and should be done now, not least in terms of informing and educating the public and health professionals.

A recent study by the clinical effectiveness unit at Stockport NHS Foundation Trust highlighted a quite surprising lack of awareness among health professionals about vitamin D. That study, across eight acute and six primary care trusts in the north-west, found quite poor knowledge among midwives and health visitors surveyed. Only 24% of health visitors and just 11% of midwives reported having had training in vitamin D supplementation. As a result, they felt less confident in discussing vitamin D with pregnant women and mothers, vitamin D was poorly promoted at the booking of appointments and 90% of the women were not provided with information about vitamin D. However, the study found that where trusts had good policies or expert personnel in place, staff reported greater confidence in discussing vitamin D and more women received verbal and written advice.

Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) hosted an event in Parliament, in conjunction with the Proprietary Association of Great Britain—the UK trade association for manufacturers of over-the-counter medicines and food supplements—at which it was suggested that doctors, nurses and pharmacists receive very little nutritional training at undergraduate level and that there is no obligation for health professionals to undertake such training once in practice. Therefore, I would like first to ask the Minister to comment on the steps that the Government are taking or planning to improve training, awareness and knowledge among health care professionals. I would also like to ask what steps are being taken to raise awareness among the wider pool of professionals working with families and children, and what discussions the Minister and colleagues in the Department may have had with Ministers in the Department for Education to ensure that staff in schools, Sure Start workers, child care professionals and so on are aware of the importance of vitamin D.

There are also concerns about financial incentives. I have looked at the quality and outcomes framework for GPs, and there is a lack of a clear financial incentive for GPs to address their patients’ nutritional needs. Will the Minister say what steps are being taken to develop the quality and outcomes framework to focus more GP attention on nutrition and vitamin D intake, and how she expects that that framework will be kept under review?

I come now to the question of vitamin supplements, which the Department of Health recommends for at-risk groups—the groups I mentioned in my opening remarks—and which are available free of charge to certain low-income families via the Healthy Start programme. However, that targeted approach has resulted in only very limited uptake, which unpublished PCT data suggest could be as low as 2% to 4%. Clearly, many at-risk families are missing out on the recommended vitamin D supplements; and although some families may obtain supplements, from over-the-counter sources, that can be expensive and the dosage may be inappropriate. I would be interested in the Government’s attitude to allowing food supplement manufacturers greater freedom to develop and market a wider range of vitamin D products, targeted at different population groups. I would also welcome the Minister’s view on how the European Food Safety Authority might make it easier for manufacturers to make legitimate claims about the role of vitamin D in good bone health.

I particularly hope that the Minister will consider a report published online, on 21 August, by the British Medical Journal that considers an initiative by the Heart of Birmingham PCT to provide universal vitamin D supplementation to all children from the age of two weeks to five years and to all pregnant and breastfeeding women. That provision of supplements was supported by a programme of continuing professional education of health staff, including GPs, health visitors, midwives, pharmacists, paediatricians and obstetricians and by a public communications campaign. In that initiative, uptake of vitamin D supplements rose year on year to reach 17% among children and pregnant women. That was still low, but considerably higher than the 2% to 4% achieved under Healthy Start. Public awareness of vitamin D also rose from just over 60% to nearly 90%, and a 59% fall was recorded in the number of cases of vitamin D deficiency.

Clearly, there are some important lessons to be learned from the Birmingham initiative. Although some problems were experienced with distribution through the NHS supply chain, limited opening hours at pharmacies and so on, and with the availability of trained staff, the initiative was very successful overall in reaching a considerable number of families who might be at particular risk of vitamin D deficiency by virtue of ethnicity, skin pigmentation or lifestyle, but would not be eligible for free supplements.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall today. I am of an age group, and others in the House may be of a similar age, that can remember that when we went out to play at school lunchtime, the milk was on the table when we came in. Is there a role for the Department of Health in the education of children to ensure that children’s health is better monitored and supervised?

[Kate Green]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Health professionals, and other professionals from across different disciplines, have pointed to the absence of a holistic approach that draws different practitioners and professionals together to ensure that the message is promoted and the education of children and families is pursued coherently.

The absence of trained staff was certainly seen as a factor that limited the effectiveness of the Birmingham initiative, but overall it was very successful in improving vitamin D uptake in families who would have been at risk. I am keen to invite the Minister to look carefully at the Birmingham experience. Is she willing to analyse the costs and benefits of a universal approach based on the study’s findings?

On food fortification, relatively few foods are naturally rich in vitamin D, and consumption of many of those that are, such as full-fat dairy products, eggs and oily fish, has fallen in recent years. Yet in the UK, we fortify relatively few foods, such as margarine, some processed cheeses and breakfast cereals. We do not fortify milk, which has been fortified in Canada and the US for many years. Finland, Jordan and the Irish Republic have all taken recent steps to introduce food fortification. Will the Minister indicate the Government’s attitude to statutory food fortification? There seems to be scope for a more robust approach. Can she confirm whether the work of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition will look at the experience of other countries? Will the committee’s report reflect an analysis of the effectiveness of food fortification measures in those countries?

Finally, there appears to be scope to make greater use of the public health outcomes framework, to focus attention on vitamin D. I looked at the framework, and, with the exception of some quite vague indicators on diet and hip fractures, there appears to be nothing specific to highlight the need for action to tackle vitamin D deficiency and its consequences, including the risk of rickets. I welcome the Government’s focus on public health, but we must ensure that the framework and the new health structures being put in place more widely achieve the best possible outcomes.

This is a crucial and, I have to say, challenging time of transition. We are settling into the new public health infrastructure against a backdrop of far-reaching changes in the NHS more widely. Although I appreciate that the public health outcomes framework will be kept under regular review, I would like very specific and early attention to be given to the issue in the framework and by the new health and wellbeing boards. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. She is being very gracious. Is she aware of the statistics and figures that show a greater problem in the United Kingdom—England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—with not only rickets, but osteoporosis, from the lack of vitamin D? Is there a need not only for a pilot programme, such as the one she mentioned in Birmingham, but for a programme for the whole UK, working with all the regions?

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The impact of vitamin D deficiency is felt in not only rickets and diseases in children, but osteoporosis and other diseases. Vitamin D deficiency inhibits the absorption of calcium, for example, which is important for bone health and growth.

Professionals have identified the lack of joined-up advice—for example, telling a woman recovering from a cancer operation and having chemotherapy that there could be an impact on her bone health and the steps that she could take to address it. It is right that professionals have expressed an interest in the development of a strategic approach, both geographically and across health conditions. Perhaps the Minister will comment on how the Government might react to that.

Rickets is a largely preventable disease that many of us thought had been left firmly in the past. Its resurgence is not in question, yet the distress and pain it causes are preventable, and we know what steps we need to take. What is more, the solutions are mainly systemic—within the control of public policy and health care practice. Although I acknowledge that some gaps in the evidence remain, the importance of vitamin D for at-risk groups—children, pregnant women and mothers—has been understood for many decades, as has the need for effective supplementation where intake is inadequate. There is therefore no need to delay working on and developing appropriate systems and a programme of public and professional education to maximise vitamin D intake. I hope that today’s debate raises public and professional awareness of the issue.

13:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing the debate. She is right that these are important opportunities to raise awareness. Although we sometimes underestimate our impact, such debates are sometimes picked up by the media, and anything is useful.

As the hon. Lady eloquently set out, with vitamin D, we are talking about children, strong and healthy bones, and bone health generally. Often, rickets occurs because a child is born without enough vitamin D due to the mother’s deficiency in pregnancy. Alternatively, it can be a post-natal condition due to a poor diet or lack of sun exposure. That is why successive Governments have long recommended that young children and pregnant and breastfeeding women take a daily supplement of vitamin D.

As the hon. Lady says, most people would imagine that rickets is something from the Victorian era. The incidence of rickets fell dramatically in the 1920s, and, in the past, several public health policies have helped to reduce its incidence further. The law now requires the addition of vitamin D to all infant formula, and vitamin supplements containing vitamin D are made available for pregnant women free of charge and to young children from low-income families via the Healthy Start scheme.

Unfortunately, we do not have good data on the national prevalence of rickets in the UK. The hon. Lady has been provided with data on episodes of rickets recorded by hospitals in England, but sometimes a problem when we produce data is that they are about episodes, not people. I believe that she was given that information through an answer to a parliamentary question. The figures appear to be slightly higher, and looking at the percentage increases, the statistics are startling, but episode data do not represent the number of patients, because a person may be admitted more than once in a year. The number of patients diagnosed with rickets is therefore a better measure, and that has increased from 134 to 395 in 2010-11. It is important to consider those figures in the context of increased population size and improved reporting and recording. Those numbers appear quite low when compared with other diseases, but rickets is still a problem, particularly since hospital episode statistics do not show the number of children who may have been treated as outpatients or those diagnosed by a GP. We are aware that over the past few years there have been several reports of clinically apparent vitamin D deficiency and rickets in children from doctors in Manchester, London, Glasgow and Burnley. That is not an exhaustive list; there will be other places.

As the hon. Lady pointed out, the tragedy is that rickets is preventable. That is why it is so important that at-risk groups such as pregnant women, babies and toddlers take those vitamin D supplements. As she also rightly pointed out, that is particularly important for women of south Asian, African, Caribbean or middle eastern family origin, because people with darker skin do not produce as much vitamin D in response to sunlight. It is also important for women who are not exposed to much sunlight, either because they cover their skin for cultural reasons or because they do not spend much time outdoors. The hon. Lady referred to older people who might, due to immobility problems, not be able to get out.

Our national infant feeding survey tells us that about half of mothers across the UK reported taking some form of vitamin or mineral supplement other than folic acid during their pregnancy. On the one hand, that is encouraging but on the other it means that 50% do not. There is a problem and clearly more needs to be done.

[Kate Green]

The Minister is right that we should worry about the 50% that may not be taking the supplements that they may need, but another concern is the lack of clarity among pregnant women and others about what supplements they should be taking and in what dose.

[Anne Milton]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. A huge amount of data and confusing information are given to women. That is one thing we need to tackle in our public health changes. She also talked about joining up services and having a strategic approach. Given the many different information sources, particularly on the internet and some very reputable websites, it is hard for women to know exactly what to do.

The 2005 infant feeding survey found that only 7% of infants aged eight to 10 months were given any type of vitamin supplement. The hon. Lady talked about raising awareness, which is indeed what we need to do. We need to ensure that GPs, midwives, health visitors and other health professionals—she talked about schools—are fully aware of the need for those groups of the population to take vitamin D supplements. That is why in February all four of the UK’s chief medical officers wrote to GPs, health visitors, practice nurses and community pharmacists to reiterate the Department of Health’s recommendations. I would put particular emphasis on the role that pharmacists can play in informing the public, as they have quite a lot of contact.

The chief nursing officer for England also highlighted the issue in her February newsletter bulletin for all nurses and midwives in England. The Department of Health is liaising with the Royal College of Midwives to explore how we can work with them to spread advice further. It was also encouraging to hear that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists welcomed the CMOs’ letter and that it, too, promotes the importance of daily vitamin D supplement during pregnancy.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence’s public health guidance on maternal and child nutrition, and clinical guidance on antenatal care—quite a mouthful—also support the Department of Health’s advice on vitamin D, reiterating the importance of consistent messages. We have also asked NICE to develop public health guidance on how to improve implementation of the advice on vitamin D and on safe sunlight exposure for the UK.

As the hon. Lady alluded to, there have been issues concerning the availability of prescribable vitamin D preparations. The NHS London Medicines Information Service has produced a document that lists the preparations with appropriate levels of vitamin D for different age groups, so health professionals know exactly what to prescribe. That list was sent to pharmacy organisations in March.

Healthy Start vitamins are not available on prescription, but the Department encourages NHS organisations either to sell the vitamins or consider supplying them free of charge to target groups who are not eligible for the scheme. I was pleased to see the positive effect of the CMOs’ letter—I do not know whether the hon. Lady is aware of this—on the number of orders placed. Orders for the children’s drops have increased from around 72,000 bottles in quarter 4 of 2010-11 to more than 97,000 bottles in quarter 4 of 2011-12. That is a significant increase, which demonstrates, although we are starting from a low base, that we can have an impact. Similarly, orders for the women’s tablets have increased from around 58,000 to more than 105,000 in the same period—an 80% increase.

We all need to keep up our efforts. The hon. Lady raised the issue of awareness and training, which, I suggest, should apply to all the professions. There would be no harm in the person who takes blood from a pregnant woman also reiterating some of the simple advice.

The Department of Health has produced a leaflet entitled “Vitamin supplements and you” as part of its Start4Life campaign. That contains up-to-date advice on the importance of vitamin D. Health care and child care professionals can download it. On top of that, in May we launched what I think will be one of the most significant initiatives, the new NHS information service for parents. Through regular e-mails, online videos and texts, it gives parents information and advice as they progress through their pregnancy and beyond. The service is very new. About 47,000 parents have already signed up, and I would urge those who are reading or listening to this debate to encourage the people they know to do so, too. Members of this House can have a significant impact by raising the issue in their local press and getting people to sign up. This is about trusted advice from the Department, cutting across a lot of the confusion.

We have also asked the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition to undertake a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence on vitamin D and health. That will include a review of the existing dietary recommendations on vitamin D for all population groups, as well as looking at the options to improve the amount of vitamin D we get as a population. The risk assessment is due to be completed in 2014. In the meantime, it is important to ensure that the existing recommendations are put into practice, which is what this debate is all about.

The hon. Lady raised a number of other issues. I probably cannot give them the time they deserve today but I am happy, if she would like to know more detail, to talk to her on another occasion. We strayed a little into EU legislation—worthy of a three-hour debate—about health claims of vitamin supplements. She also asked about universal access and food fortification. Some of those issues are quite tricky. One needs to be sure that what is done has the desired impact. There is also quite a lot of resistance to fortification of food from another quarter.

In the final minutes, I would mention the public health outcomes framework, which she mentioned, the health and wellbeing boards and the opportunities that lie ahead. To some extent we now have an opportunity we have not had before, with public health moving into local authorities. Local authorities will have a remit to do a lot more work in this area. The hon. Lady mentioned schools. I think we will see an opportunity for local areas emerging, particularly when the joint strategic needs assessment reveals some of the issues. There may be opportunities, for example, where there is a high proportion of people who may be at risk from low vitamin D, for local areas to take action. That can be across the board, involving not just GPs and midwives, but schools. We will see changes. We will keep this under review; we know how important it is. The numbers might be relatively small but the increase is significant.

Question put and agreed to.

13:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Written Statements

Tuesday 4 September 2012

Bilateral Loan to Ireland

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I would like to update the House on the loan to Ireland.

Ireland completed the sixth quarterly review of its International Monetary Fund and European Union programme of financial assistance on 21 June 2012, following which, the utilisation period for the fourth instalment of the UK bilateral loan began.

Upon request, the Treasury disbursed the fourth instalment of £403.37 million on 1 August 2012, with a maturity date of 3 February 2020.

The Treasury will provide a further report to Parliament in relation to the bilateral loan as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010 as soon as is practicable following the next reporting period, which ends on 30 September 2012.

As my written statement of 11 June outlined, agreement has been reached in principle on a new, lower interest rate on the bilateral loan to Ireland. This is subject to the loan agreement being revised to reflect the new interest rate. I will update Parliament once the revised loan agreement has been finalised and signed.

The Government believe that it is in our national interest that the Irish economy is successful and its banking system is stable. The Government continue to support Ireland’s efforts to improve its economic situation.

Correction to Parliamentary Question 90451

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

I regret to inform the House that the answer I gave to parliamentary question 90451 from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on 24 January 2012, Official Report, column 135W, could be inadvertently misleading.

The answer should read:

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) allows local authorities to assess properties against 29 different hazards, including damp and mould growth. If following an inspection a property is found to contain a serious, “category 1”, hazard, we would expect the local authority to take action in relation to the hazard. The assessment for whether damp is a hazard takes into account factors such as the state of repair of the dwelling, the extent of existing dampness and the effect it could have on mould growth, and the consequent potential for harm.

Dairy Industry

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

During the summer, the UK dairy industry suffered a major crisis caused by price cuts and I would like to update the house on events since then. Original price cuts were withdrawn, whilst processors, producers and retailers held discussions.

On Friday 31 August, industry leaders agreed a code of practice on contractual relationships in the dairy sector. This is a significant step forward. The code of practice is a robust and proactive basis for a more effective system of raw milk contracts that will provide greater certainty and clarity for all parties. It addresses issues of price, volume, timing of deliveries and duration, and it includes effective processes to analyse progress and review the impact of the code.

The Government will continue to work with industry to build on this progress. We will shortly consult on key elements of the European Commission’s proposals for the European dairy sector (the EU “Milk Package”). We will seek views on whether it should be compulsory for dairy producers and processors to have a written contract. But at this stage the Government consider that the new code of practice should be given proper time to take effect and deliver change for the benefit of the industry as a whole.

The Government also recognise the value of farmers working together in producer organisations to improve their profitability through efficiency and competitiveness gains as well as increasing their negotiating power. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently announced that £5 million-worth of new funding will be made available for farmers to collaborate and to support business-led innovation. We will consult on the arrangements needed to implement dairy producer organisations and work with industry to encourage participation and secure the benefits of effective collaboration.

The UK is one of the largest milk producers in the world. Dairy is the UK’s single largest sector of agriculture and its future prospects are positive. There is growing recognition that real changes are needed at all levels of the supply chain to drive greater confidence, innovation and investment and take advantage of the huge opportunities that exist—in domestic markets and abroad. Over the last few weeks, dairy farmers and buyers have faced up to some of the most challenging issues currently facing the UK dairy industry and taken steps to address the problems that are hindering its development.

There are potentially bright prospects for the UK dairy industry. Apart from Ireland, the UK has the best climate for growing grass in Europe and we should be producing more value-added products such as cheese, butter and yoghurt for the domestic dairy market. The UK currently has to import 50% of these products, which indicates that the sector is not yet reaching its full potential.

There are also major export opportunities with emerging markets such as China, whose growing middle classes are crying out for dairy products. Early in 2012 the Government published a food and farming exports action plan to encourage more food and drink companies to venture into overseas markets. This includes supporting and encouraging businesses at home and promoting British food abroad and opening up markets.

Securing a healthy future for the UK dairy industry is a real priority for the Government. We are confident about its longer-term prospects and the agreement of the industry code of practice is a genuine step forward which we support.

Fluoridation of Drinking Water (Consultation)

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

The Department of Health is publishing a “Consultation on the arrangements for consideration of proposals on the fluoridation of drinking water” today.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 provides that, from 1 April 2013, responsibility for consultations on proposals on fluoridation will transfer from strategic health authorities to local authorities. The proposals could be for a new fluoridation scheme or the variation or termination of an existing fluoridation scheme. The consultation document sets out options for the making of water fluoridation regulations under the Act on the conduct of consultations, ascertaining public opinion and the decision-making process.

Our aim is to put in place a fair and practical way to amend powers for consideration of proposals on fluoridation schemes. The merits of fluoridation itself will be considered locally in accordance with the regulations. We welcome views and will use these views to inform our thinking on the regulations.

A copy of “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Consultation on the arrangements for consideration of proposals on the fluoridation of drinking water” 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 Pension Scheme

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

On 27 March 2012, I issued a written statement to the House concerning remuneration and conditions of service in the police. Within that statement I explained that I would put forward a proposal on long-term reform of police pensions to the Police Negotiating Board, which I did on the same day. In common with changes which have been developed across public service pension schemes, my proposal reflected the principles for reform established last year by the report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, led by Lord Hutton.

My officials have been engaged in detailed and constructive discussions with representatives of the Police Negotiating Board since 27 March, and I have received a number of written representations from the organisations represented. Having considered the outcome of those discussions, and the representations made during this period of consultation, I am announcing today my decision for the reform design framework for police pensions. This framework sets out the Government’s final position on the main elements of police pension reform and will form the basis for discussions on points of further detail in moving to implement these changes.

The main parameters of the new scheme design are set out below:

a. a pension scheme design based on career average revalued earnings;



b. a provisional accrual rate of 1/55.3 of pensionable earnings each year, subject to agreement on the outstanding issues;

c. there will be no cap on how much pension can be accrued;

d. a revaluation rate of active members’ benefits in line with the consumer prices index (CPI) + 1.25%;

e. pensions in payment and deferred benefits to increase in line with CPI;

f. average member contributions of 13.7% from April 2015. As announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20 December 2011, the Government will review the impact of the 2012-13 contribution changes, including the effect of membership opt-outs, before taking final decisions on how future increases will be delivered in 2013-14 and 2014-15, and in the new scheme. Interested parties will have a full opportunity to provide evidence and their views to the Government as part of the review;

g. flexible retirement from the scheme’s minimum pension age of 55, built around the scheme’s normal pension age of 60—for all active members aged 55 or more at retirement, 2015 scheme benefits taken before normal pension age will be actuarially reduced with reference to the 2015 scheme’s normal pension age, rather than the deferred pension age (i.e. state pension age). Those members’ benefits will continue to be paid after age 60 at that actuarially reduced level. All other members will have their 2015 scheme benefits actuarially reduced on a cost neutral basis from the scheme’s deferred pension age;

h. the normal pension age of 60 will be subject to regular review, which will also consider the linked early retirement facility described at (g). These reviews will consider the increasing state pension age and any changes to it, alongside evidence from interested parties, including staff associations and employers. It will consider if the normal pension age of 60 remains relevant, taking account of the economical, efficient and effective management of the police service, the changing profile of the work force and the occupational demands of, and fitness standards for, police officer roles;

i. this regular review will be informed by scheme data and experience;

j. late retirement factors for members retiring from active service to be actuarially neutral from normal pension age;

k. a deferred pension age equal to the individual’s state pension age;

l. optional lump sum by commutation at a rate of £12 for every £1 per annum of pension forgone in accordance with HMRC limits and regulations;

m. abatement in existing schemes to continue;

n. ill-health retirement benefits to be based on the arrangements in the 2006 scheme;

o. all other ancillary benefits to be based on those contained in the 2006 scheme;

p. members rejoining after a period of deferment of less than five years can link new service with previous service, as if they had always been an active member;

q. members transferring between public service schemes would be treated as having continuous active service;

r. an employer contribution cap and floor, as described in the reform design framework.

Transitional and protection arrangements

There will be full statutory protection for accrued rights for all members as follows:

a. all benefits accrued under final salary arrangements will be linked to the member’s final salary, in accordance with the rules of the member’s current schemes, when they leave the reformed scheme;

b. full recognition of a member’s expectation to double accrual for service accrued under the police pension scheme 1987 (“the 1987 scheme”), so that a member’s full continuous pensionable service upon retirement will be used to calculate an averaged accrual rate to be applied to service accrued under the 1987 scheme;

c. members of the 1987 scheme to be able to access their 1987 scheme benefits when they retire at that scheme’s ordinary pension age (i.e. from 30 years’ pensionable service; age 50 with 25 or more years’ pensionable service; or the member’s voluntary retirement age), subject to abatement rules for that scheme. Pensionable service for the purpose of calculating the ordinary pension age will include any continuous pensionable service accrued under both the 1987 scheme and the 2015 scheme;

d. members of the police pension scheme 2006 (“the 2006 scheme”) to be able to access their benefits under that scheme when they retire at that scheme’s normal pension age (i.e. age 55);

e. members will continue to have access to an actuarially assessed commutation factor for benefits accrued under the 1987 scheme.

There will be statutory transitional protection for certain categories of members, as follows:

a. all active 2006 scheme members who, as of 1 April 2012, have 10 years or less to their current normal pension age (i.e. age 55) will see no change in when they can retire, nor any decrease in the amount of pension they receive at their current normal pension age. This protection will be achieved by the member remaining in their current scheme until they retire;

b. all active 1987 scheme members who, as of 1 April 2012, have 10 years or less to age 55 or have 10 years or less to age 48 and are 10 years or less from a maximum unreduced pension, will see no change in when they can retire, nor any decrease in the amount of pension they receive at their current normal pension age. This protection will be achieved by those members remaining in their current scheme until they retire;

c. there will be a further period of tapered protection for up to four years for scheme members. Members who are within four years of qualifying for transitional protection, as of 1 April 2012, will have limited protection so that on average for every month closer to qualifying for transitional protection they gain about 53 days of protection. The period of protected service for any member under these tapering arrangements will have finished by 31 March 2022. At the end of the protected period, they will be transferred into the new pension scheme arrangements. Further details on how the tapered protection will apply are set out in the reform design framework.

Areas for further detailed discussion

As set out in the reform design framework, there will be further discussion on specific areas of detail, responding in part to issues raised during consultation with the Police Negotiating Board. In particular there will be further consideration of equalities issues that have been identified, or any which may be identified during further discussion, as well as arrangements to ensure compatibility between the new scheme design and recognised existing or future schemes for police officers exiting the service before normal pension age.

I believe this represents a fair outcome, reflecting the range of issues raised during consultation on my original proposal. This will continue to offer valuable pension arrangements for police officers which will be affordable and sustainable in the future.

The Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that this design does not exceed the cost ceiling set by the Government in my proposal of 27 March. Copies of the reform design framework and the Government Actuary’s Department verification report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Rwanda Budget Support

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

Following my visit to the Kivus region of the Democratic Republic of Congo in July, I delayed the disbursement of general budget support (GBS) to Rwanda because of concerns about the impact of the conflict on civilians in the region and reports of Rwandan involvement in the M23 mutiny. At this time I sought assurances from President Kagame that Rwanda was adhering to the strict partnership principles around GBS, which I strengthened in the summer of 2011.

Rwanda has engaged constructively with the peace process initiated through an international conference on the Great Lakes region and there is a continuing ceasefire in the Kivus. Given this progress and recognising that the Government of Rwanda have continued to demonstrate their strong commitment to reducing poverty and improving their financial management, Britain will partially restore its general budget support to Rwanda. We will now disburse half (£8 million) of the delayed GBS tranche and will re-programme the remaining £8 million. This decision reflects our responsibility to protect the poor, but also caution as concerns remain over Rwanda’s involvement with the M23 rebels. The re-allocated money will be directly channelled to programmes for education and food security, to ensure that the poorest people in Rwanda are not hurt by this change. It will put over 60,000 more Rwandan children into primary school, half of whom will be girls, and increase production of key food security crops by an estimated 5,130 metric tonnes.

There are still concerns that Rwanda could do more to meet our joint partnership principles in full. This is the first of two budget support payments scheduled for the financial year 2012-13. The next disbursement is due in December 2012. A decision on that disbursement will be made in due course. The UK will continue to closely monitor the Government of Rwanda’s role in bringing about peace in the eastern DRC region.

Parliamentary Question 106221 (Family Courts)

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The written answer given to the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (John Hemming) on 30 April 2012, Official Report, column 1158W, did not fully address the question that was asked. The hon. Member asked, pursuant to the answer of 25 April 2012, Official Report, column 920W, on family courts: expert evidence, if the Secretary of State would bring forward proposals to allow non-legally qualified people who are not party to the proceeding to refer expert reports in family proceedings to regulators.

The full answer is as follows:



The Government have no plans to bring forward proposals of this kind. The Government do not consider it necessary, since it is already possible for someone who is not a party to the proceedings to refer an expert’s report to regulators provided certain conditions are met.

The Family Procedure Rules 2010 permit a party to the proceedings, or that party’s legal representative acting on the party’s instructions, to communicate information to another person where necessary to enable the party to make and pursue a complaint against a person or body involved in the proceedings, which would include disclosing an expert’s report to another person for the purpose of pursuing a complaint about that expert. That person is then permitted (with the party’s permission) to disclose this information to another person (who may, for example, be the regulator) provided it is for the same purpose. Neither the person to whom the information is disclosed in the first instance, nor the person to whom it is subsequently disclosed, need be legally qualified. The relevant rules (FPR 12.75 (3) and 12.75 (1) (c)) are set out in part 12 of the Family Procedure Rules.

Damages Act 1996 (The Discount Rate)

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

On 1 August 2012 the Ministry of Justice, the Scottish Government and the Department of Justice, Northern Ireland jointly published a consultation paper “Damages Act 1996: The discount rate—how should it be set?” (CP12/2012).

The paper seeks views on how the Lord Chancellor in relation to England and Wales, Scottish Ministers in relation to Scotland and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland in relation to Northern Ireland should set the rate of return to be prescribed under section 1 of the Damages Act 1996.

The prescribed rate is taken into account by the court in determining the return to be expected from the investment of a sum awarded as damages for future pecuniary loss in actions for personal injury. This rate of return is referred to as “the discount rate” and is currently 2.5%.

The consultation period is 12 weeks from and including 1 August. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The document is also available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/consultations.

Independently of this consultation and the review of the amount of the prescribed discount rate of which it forms part, the Ministry of Justice intends to issue a consultation paper in the autumn of 2012 to review the present legal basis for the setting of the rate in England and Wales. The consultation will seek views on whether the restrictions on the factors that can be taken into account in prescribing a rate under section 1 of the Damages Act 1996 are still appropriate.