House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
1. What recent assessment she has made of her Department’s relationship with the Indian Government.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
7. What recent assessment she has made of her Department’s relationship with the Indian Government.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
I held constructive meetings with senior politicians and officials in India last month. We agreed the move to a new relationship based on technical assistance rather than financial aid grants. I announced this in my written ministerial statement of 9 November.
David Rutley
Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Indian Foreign Minister, Salman Khurshid, who has spoken of the need to move from an era of aid to an era of trade?
Justine Greening
That is precisely the transition that I believe we are walking towards with India. Our trade with India has grown in recent years, with exports to India growing by more than 20% in 2010. Our development relationship needs to match the changing and successful India we see today, and that is precisely what we are doing.
Mr Spencer
Does my right hon. Friend agree that as India becomes wealthier, her Department should look to redevelop the relationship with that country and move funds to other parts of the world where they might be of more benefit?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, our development relationship with India needs to match the India of today and the future rather than the India of yesterday, which means we can reprioritise our portfolio of development spend on countries where we believe we can still make a difference. Without that assistance from the UK, we would not be able to see change on the ground.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State reveal how much financial aid will be provided to India through the UK’s technical assistance?
Justine Greening
We currently have an aid programme of around £270 million a year. After we complete our transition to technical assistance, we expect to spend approximately just under £30 million from 2015 onwards, to help the Indian Government to get the most out of the £50 billion a year they spend on things such as health and education.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I appreciate that the Secretary of State has negotiated the changed arrangement with the Indian Government and the state governments, but does she not acknowledge that India still has more poor people than sub-Saharan Africa? Is she prepared to consider not only technical assistance, but perhaps changing the relationship to soft loans, so that India can accelerate poverty reduction using the substantial pro-poor measures it is already adopting?
Justine Greening
The right hon. Gentleman is right that our relationship with India will go beyond technical assistance. It will include us helping with investments in small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in rural and poorer areas of India, so that we not only help them to get the most out of India’s development spend, but drive economic development too.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
2. What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian consequences of violence in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
I am extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in eastern DRC. Some 130,000 people in and around Goma have been displaced by the recent violence. Elsewhere in DRC, armed group activity continues to displace large numbers of people, and attacks on civilians are common. There are now 2.4 million displaced people in DRC, up from 1.7 million at the end of 2011. The hon. Lady might be aware that last month I announced an additional £18 million to address humanitarian needs in DRC.
Helen Jones
The Secretary of State will be aware that when NGOs had to evacuate their personnel from eastern DRC, priests remained. Churches were often the only source of support for the victims of violence. Will she undertake to work with those churches in the distribution of aid to ensure that it gets to those who are most in need?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I have had the opportunity to meet many of the organisations working on the ground, particularly in eastern DRC, to protect and help civilians. They have a range of needs, from security and medical assistance to food and shelter. She is right to flag up the fact that, in many cases, when people are at risk of violence, the place they go is their local church. We are working on the ground wherever we can to ensure that we do our bit to improve the situation.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the head of M23, Bosco Ntaganda, is a vile, evil, wicked man who is perpetrating so much misery in the region? What more can be done to apprehend this ghastly individual?
Justine Greening
It is important that we take all the steps we can to apprehend all those people who have been involved in atrocities in that region. There is no doubt that achieving stability in the DRC needs a political solution, but such a solution has to mean that people who have committed offences do not have impunity.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
13. Recent reports from the BBC have shown that the increase in violence in the eastern DRC is sparking fears of the resurgence of civil war. What actions is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that a peace process is formulated? What conversations has she had with the Home Secretary about returnees from Britain to the DRC while this conflict goes on?
Justine Greening
As a Government, we have a number of discussions with leaders in that region. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have spoken to the Presidents of the DRC, Uganda and, indeed, Rwanda. I spoke to Baroness Valerie Amos only on Monday about how we can work together to tackle the humanitarian situation. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, over time, we need to see some real progress on the ground.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
There are worrying reports from NGOs operating in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo that the M23 is talking about imposing taxes on NGOs working in the area, effectively diverting humanitarian resources from the affected populations to the M23. What can the Government do alongside international partners to try to protect the humanitarian space?
Justine Greening
If the situation the hon. Gentleman described were to arise, it would obviously be totally unacceptable. We are providing humanitarian assistance in order to get to the people on the ground who need our help. We are working not just with the UN, but with a range of NGOs, as I said, to make a difference on the ground. The issue needs to be tackled not just by us working on the ground with humanitarian support, but politically. I can assure him that my colleagues in the Foreign Office raise all those sorts of issues with leaders in the region on a very regular basis.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
3. How her Department plans to reach the Government’s target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on development aid by 2015.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
4. How her Department plans to reach the Government’s target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on development aid by 2015.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
The Government are committed to spending 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance from 2013 and thereafter. The Department’s budget after the 2012 autumn statement adjustment is sufficient to meet this commitment, along with planned official development assistance from other Government Departments.
Ian Murray
The coalition agreement states that the Government will enshrine in legislation the 0.7% commitment. Can the Minister tell us when the Government will work towards that commitment or is it just another broken promise?
Mr Duncan
The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that the Government will introduce legislation to make this a legal requirement as soon as parliamentary time allows. As evidence of good faith, the hon. Gentleman should notice that we are behaving as if the legislation were already in place, and we will meet the 0.7% commitment.
Chris Ruane
What is the Minister’s assessment of the implications of the decrease in absolute spending on development announced in the autumn statement?
Mr Duncan
The effect is to reduce the immediate planned budget by £804 million—a reduction of about £2 billion since the original spending review period. We will, of course, make adjustments to make sure that our spending within those reduced figures retains the value for money that we see as such a high priority.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In his first answer, the Minister made reference to the contributions of other Departments. For the sake of clarity and for the benefit of those of us who think 0.7% is on the high side, will he confirm that the Foreign Office will make a significant contribution, given that so much of its work can be said to contribute to development?
Mr Duncan
In 2011, £958 million of the total of just over £8.5 billion came from other Government Departments and other areas outside DFID, such as debt relief and gift aid. DFID’s contribution to UK official development assistance is set to stay at approximately 90% in 2013 and 2014.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Government’s commitment to move towards 0.7%, and express the view that, providing we are doing it, we do not really need to enshrine it in legislation. He will know that many of our constituents are not yet persuaded that every single pound we spend is value for money. What more can he do to reassure our constituents that this excellent British aid does not end up in Swiss bank accounts, but meets the needs of people in real poverty?
Mr Duncan
I assure my hon. Friend—and the whole House—that every day we as Ministers, and all who work in DFID, do our utmost to secure value for money. Although my hon. Friend thinks that it may not be necessary because we are already moving towards the 0.7% target, legislation serves as an example to the rest of the world and, I hope, as a weapon for us to use in order to persuade other countries to follow suit.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
There is continuing concern throughout the United Kingdom about the level of waste as we make progress towards our 0.7% target. Can the Minister assure us that every possible objective will be met in efforts to minimise waste, and to ensure that the target, if it is met, benefits those who are most in need?
Mr Duncan
Absolutely. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question, because it illustrates the determination with which we seek value for money and take every possible opportunity to eliminate waste so that we can focus our taxpayers’ resources on the poorest people in the world, who are in such genuine need.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
5. What progress her Department has made on developing sustainable development goals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
We are working internationally to secure a single set of development goals for the period after 2015. We want to build on the millennium development goals, finishing the job by eliminating poverty but also incorporating the sustainable development priorities that were agreed at Rio+20 in June.
Simon Wright
Will the Department support the Prime Minister in his role as co-chair of the high-level panel on the post-2015 development framework in order to guarantee integration and coherence between this process and the sustainable development goals, with the aim of putting environmental sustainability at the heart of the framework?
Lynne Featherstone
My hon. Friend raises a critical issue, that of ensuring that coherence and integration exist between the sustainable development goals and the post-2015 millennium development goals. I assure him that my Department is doing just that. Across Government, we have a single structure and approach to managing our engagement with both the high-level panel and the SDGs. The Prime Minister’s envoy is a senior DFID official, and is responsible for both those things.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell us what part conflict analysis and sensitivity play in the approach to the sustainable development goals?
Lynne Featherstone
Conflict plays a big part, and the sustainable development goals are incredibly important to ensuring that we reduce poverty. Poverty is at its highest where conflict is at its greatest.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The GLOBE climate legislation initiative will be launched in the Foreign Office on 14 and 15 January, and will bring together legislators from 33 countries to discuss national action on climate change. Does the Minister agree that further national action is necessary, and that we should follow the example of countries such as Mexico, which has passed legislation, and China, which plans to do so, in order to establish the conditions that will allow international agreement in 2015?
Lynne Featherstone
We already have legislation in the form of the Climate Change Act 2008, but it is crucial for all of us, in all countries, to work together in moving towards sustainable development goals. As I said earlier, climate change is absolutely critical to the reduction of poverty, and all countries need to ensure that they are working on that.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
In Copenhagen the developed world agreed to establish a $100 billion fund to help developing countries to cope with the effects of climate change, but, despite further calls for urgent action at the Doha summit, only a fraction of that funding has been delivered. What progress does the Minister think the United Kingdom Government have made in showing international leadership on this important issue?
Lynne Featherstone
That is obviously one of our priorities, and we have taken a lead. I think that DFID is a world leader in terms of its development agenda. Doha was not a complete failure, although the outcome was disappointing; some small steps forward were made. Climate change is critical, and it is a priority for the Government.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What her Department’s strategy is on tackling HIV and supporting the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
The Government’s policy is set out in our position paper called “Towards zero infections”. We will continue to support the fund as it implements key reforms. It is critical to achieving the millennium development goals, we have invested heavily in it, and we want it to succeed.
Mr Thomas
I welcome the Government’s support for the election of the excellent Mark Dybul as new executive director of the global fund. Given that next year will be a replenishment year for the global fund, will the Minister use her G8 discussions to leverage additional funding from other countries and announce further UK funding for the fund?
Lynne Featherstone
I certainly hope that will be the case. One of our roles is, indeed, to leverage more funds across the board into the global fund. As the hon. Gentleman says, a replenishment year is coming up, and we will do all we can to make sure funds are replenished from everyone.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that Britain’s agricultural science and our leadership in plant and animal genetics offer huge opportunities for us to help the developing world to deal with its emerging food nutrition challenges? I welcome the Government’s launch last month of an agricultural science strategy.
Lynne Featherstone
I agree that advancement in science will help to take this agenda forward. That is crucial in developing agriculture.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
8. What steps she is taking to ensure value for money in her Department.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
I am determined to ensure that every pound we spend has the maximum impact in reducing poverty, and we are looking at the following: where we spend our money, including in which countries; what we spend our money on, focusing on what works and working collaboratively with other partners; and how we spend that money better, for example by getting better value from suppliers and from multilateral aid organisations.
Karl MᶜCartney
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. Is she aware of a recent report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which suggests that the EU aid budget—to which her Department, and the UK taxpayer, contribute £1.4 billion a year—lacks an effective oversight regime, and will she therefore consider removing the discretionary element of our contribution to it if the Government cannot secure strong assurances that the money is being spent effectively on the ground?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I am already pressing the EU on that issue. In fact, one of my first trips in my role as Secretary of State for International Development was to meet EU Commissioners, and I have been back to Brussels since to continue those discussions. I hope we can make progress on this matter, but, as my hon. Friend points out, if we do not, I have choices about where our multilateral aid goes.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has made great play of the fact that her accountancy background will help her deliver better value for money and greater transparency than her predecessor, so why will she not publish the findings of her Department’s review of the vast amounts of DFID money being paid to private consultants? How many consultants are there? How much are they being paid? Do they have to compete in fair and open tendering processes? What assessment is made of the results they deliver? Publish the findings, Secretary of State.
Mr Speaker
There were four questions there, which was rather unkind of the hon. Gentleman, but it certainly will not be beyond the wit and sagacity of the right hon. Lady pithily to reply.
Justine Greening
We are getting on with improving how we work with suppliers. I met our top suppliers only a couple of weeks ago at DFID, and they told me it was the first time they had been invited in en masse to talk to the Secretary of State about how we can work more strategically with them to get better value for taxpayers’ money. I therefore suspect that I do not need to take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman about getting better value for money.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
9. What steps she is taking to provide aid for economic development in the Gambia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
Although DFID does not have a bilateral aid programme in the Gambia, the UK continues to support the Gambia through our share of contributions to multilateral organisations. The European Development Fund disbursed €27.69 million in 2011, of which €25.36 million was spent in the sector of “economic infrastructure and services”.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Minister for that answer. The shape of the Gambia is a colonial relic based on how far a boat could travel up the river and how far shots could be fired from each side. There is very little significant river traffic at present. Will the Minister look at investing and providing a boat that will enable the up-country areas to develop at the same rate as the coastal areas?
Lynne Featherstone
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He rightly says that the Gambia’s shape is such that the river is the main road, if I may put it like that. The UK has supported the Gambia groundnut river transport fleet through the EU funding. Between 2008 and 2010, £1.1 million was spent on rehabilitating three tugboats to enable the river fleet to operate effectively and efficiently. Since 2010, EU funding has been going towards a road infrastructure to assist the boat. [Interruption]
Mr Speaker
Order. Far too many noisy private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. I happen to know that Members of Parliament from other countries are observing our proceedings, and we ought to set a good example. Let us have a bit of order for Mr James Gray.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
In the course of carrying out my departmental responsibilities, I have announced to the House that I have moved to a new relationship with India; announced decisions on Uganda and Rwanda; announced humanitarian assistance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; travelled to India; been to Brussels to meet the EU Commissioners; and co-chaired a global partnership meeting in the UK. Of course, a couple of weekends ago I had my first chance to visit Afghanistan to see the work my Department is doing out there.
Mr Gray
Those of us who strongly support Britain’s moral and strategic duty to get money through to the poorest and most needy people in the world are none the less concerned that on occasion that money can be diverted to improper purposes in one way or another. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways of getting the money through to the most needy people in the world is by making use of non-governmental organisations, thereby avoiding passing the money to corrupt dictators?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that many of our NGOs do excellent work, often in very challenging circumstances. He will be pleased to know that we now provide budget support only in countries where we are completely satisfied that the funding will be used for its intended purposes—when it is not, we stop, as has been seen. Just 6% of the Department’s bilateral aid budget is provided in the form of general budget support.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
I wish to declare an interest: I have just returned from a visit to Burma with the Burma Campaign UK, where I had the privilege of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi, whose courageous leadership is a source of inspiration and hope for a better future, and I saw for myself the challenges that ethnic communities continue to face. Will DFID Ministers work with the Foreign Secretary to apply maximum pressure to the Burmese Government to protect the Rohingya community from violence, create an urgent and transparent process to establish their citizenship rights, and begin a serious political dialogue with all ethnic communities? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just remind the House that we are discussing extremely serious matters? This question is about Burma, and it would be a courtesy if Members would listen to the question and to the Minister’s answer.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who has responsibility for Burma, will visit Rakhine state this coming Friday and Saturday, when he will see the situation at first hand and meet senior Burmese Ministers. The Burmese Government have founded an independent commission to investigate the situation in Rakhine state. The UK is very closely engaged with all parties to push for greater humanitarian access and a longer-term political settlement, including on citizenship.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
T2. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the formation of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, under a Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that the work it does is extremely valuable in building democracies and is a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Justine Greening
I do. The work that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy does is extremely valuable in helping to promote democratic governance around the world. I know that the WFD is also working to strengthen further the value for money it provides to the taxpayer, and to change and modernise, and I fully support that work.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
T4. Will the Minister outline what discussions her Department has had with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on ensuring that small businesses, including fair trade businesses from developing countries, are able to be supported?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue. I am determined to ensure that we provide fair aid, but I think that fair trade is incredibly important, too. We are discussing with BIS how we can work more effectively with that Department in developing our trade links, and I think that fair trade is an excellent way in which we can see the shift from aid to trade take place.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
T3. Given the austerity measures being implemented domestically, what assurances can the Secretary of State give me that international aid is provided only to those countries and projects where genuine need has been clearly established, as opposed to countries that can and should be doing more to help themselves?
Justine Greening
I think my hon. Friend will have seen from some of the decisions I have taken in the short time I have been in this role that I am determined to ensure that our spend on behalf of the taxpayer goes where it can make the biggest difference. Whether we are dealing with countries that are better placed to help themselves, such as India, or countries where we are concerned about how our aid money is being spent by the Government, such as Uganda, we are prepared to take decisions and we will see improved value for money over time.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 December.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Christopher Pincher
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the fall in youth unemployment figures is the largest since records began and will he meet me to discuss how employment opportunities in Tamworth, including in youth employment, can be promoted still further?
The Prime Minister
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the economic and business situations in Tamworth. He is absolutely right that this morning’s figures show the largest quarterly fall in youth employment on record, with 72,000 fewer people unemployed this quarter. Obviously, there is no room for complacency—far too many people are still long-term unemployed—but we can see from the figures that 40,000 more people are in work, vacancies are up, unemployment is down by 82,000, the claimant count is down and there are more than 1 million extra private sector jobs under this Government.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Today’s fall in unemployment and rise in employment are welcome. Part of the challenge remains the stubbornly high level of long-term unemployment. Does the Prime Minister agree that that remains of fundamental importance not just to the people who are out of work but to the country as a whole?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree—I mentioned it in my first answer—that long-term unemployment remains stubbornly high. The good news about today’s figures is that long-term youth unemployment is down by 10,000 this quarter, which is encouraging. Obviously, long-term unemployment among others is still a problem. That is why the Work programme and getting it right are so important. It has got 200,000 people into work, but clearly there is more to do. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s tone, not least because he said on 18 January that
“over the next year, unemployment will get worse, not better, under his policies.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 739.]
Perhaps he would like to withdraw that.
Edward Miliband
I am glad that the Prime Minister recognises that long-term unemployment is still a challenge. I want to ask him about the people who are doing the right thing and finding work. Last week in his autumn statement, the Chancellor decided to cut tax credits and benefits. He said it was the shirkers—the people with the curtains drawn—who would be affected. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many of those hit are in work?
The Prime Minister
The fact is this—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] I will answer it. Welfare needs to be controlled and everyone who is on tax credits will be affected by these changes. We have to get on top of the welfare bill. That is why we are restricting the increase in out-of-work benefits and it is also why we are restricting in-work benefits. What we have also done is increase the personal allowance, because on this side of the House we believe in cutting people’s taxes when they are in work.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister is raising the taxes of people in work. Of course, he did not answer the question. Despite the impression given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the answer is that more than 60% of those affected are in work. That means the factory worker on the night shift, the carer who looks after elderly people around the clock and the cleaner who cleans the Chancellor’s office while his curtains are still drawn and he is still in bed. The Chancellor calls them scroungers. What does the Prime Minister call them?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman just said that we are not cutting taxes for people in work. Someone on the minimum wage who works full time will see their income tax bill cut by one half under this Government. The fact is, under this Government, we are saying to working people, “You can earn another £3,000 before you even start paying income tax.” That is why we have taken 2 million people out of tax altogether. He should welcome that, because this is the party for people who work; his is the party for unlimited welfare.
Edward Miliband
Of course, as we might expect, the Prime Minister is just wrong on the detail. The Institute for Fiscal Studies table says quite clearly that, on average, working families are £534 a year worse off as a result of his measures. I notice that he wants to get away from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week. We know what the Chancellor was trying to do: he was trying to play divide and rule. He said that his changes were all about people
“living a life on benefits”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 544, c. 877.]
“still asleep” while their neighbours go out to work. It turned out that it was just not true. It is a tax on strivers. Will the Prime Minister now admit that the Chancellor got it wrong and that the majority of people hit are working people?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman says that we have not got the detail right. We know his approach to detail. It is to take a 2,000-page report and accept it without reading it. That is his approach to detail. Specifically on the Institute for Fiscal—[Interruption.] I am surprised that the shadow Chancellor is shouting again this week, because we learned last week that like bullies all over the world, he can dish it out but he cannot take it. He never learns. The figures—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer. [Interruption.] Order. Let us hear it.
The Prime Minister
To specifically answer the question from the Leader of the Opposition, he mentioned the figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but they do not include the personal allowance increase put through in the Budget, and they do not include the universal credit changes that come in next year and which will help the working poor more than anything. The fact he cannot get away from is that under this Government, we are lifting the personal allowance, we are taking millions out of tax, and we are standing up for those who work. He only stands up for those who claim.
Edward Miliband
I must say, I have heard everything when the boy from the Bullingdon club lectures people on bullying. Absolutely extraordinary. Have you wrecked a restaurant recently?
The Prime Minister does not want to talk about the facts, but let us give him another one. He is hitting working families, and the richest people in our society will get a massive tax cut next April—an average of £107,000 each for people earning over £1 million. Is he the only person left in the country who cannot see the fundamental injustice of giving huge tax cuts to the richest while punishing those in work on the lowest pay?
The Prime Minister
The tax take for the richest under this Government will be higher in every year than it was for any year when the right hon. Gentleman was in government. He has obviously got a short memory, because I explained to him last week that under his plans for the 50p tax rate, millionaires paid £7 billion less in tax than they did previously. The point of raising taxes is to pay for public services. We are raising more money for the rich, but where he is really so profoundly wrong is in the choice that he has decided to make. The facts are these: over the last five years, people in work have seen their incomes go up by 10%, and people out of work have seen their incomes go up by 20%. At a time when people accept a pay freeze we should not be massively increasing benefits, yet that is what he wants to do. A party that is not serious about controlling welfare is not serious about controlling the deficit either.
Edward Miliband
From the first part of his answer, it seems the Prime Minister is claiming to be Robin Hood; I really do not think that is going to work. He is not taking from the richest and giving to everybody else. Didn’t the Business Secretary give it away in what he said about the autumn statement? He said:
“what happened was some of their donors,”—
we know who he is talking about—
“very wealthy people, stamped their feet”,
so the Conservatives scrapped the mansion tax and went ahead with the 50p tax cut. They look after their friends—the people on their Christmas card list. Meanwhile, they hit people they never meet, and whose lives they will never understand.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman’s donors put him where he is, pay him every year, and determine his policies. It is perfectly clear what the Labour party’s choice is: its choice is more benefits, paid for by more borrowing. It should listen to the former Labour Trade Minister, who said:
“you know what you call a system of government where what you do is say ‘Oh, we’re in trouble, we’ll go and borrow loads and give it to people’? It’s called Greece”.
That is what the Labour Trade Minister said. Labour is not serious about welfare; it is not serious about the deficit; it is not a serious party, and everyone can see it.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me and, I am sure, the whole House in sending our deepest sympathies and condolences to the family of nurse Jacintha Saldanha, who died this week; in urging anyone who wants to support the family to donate to the King Edward VII’s hospital’s memorial fund; and in urging the press to continue their largely good record of preserving the privacy of the family at a time of most terrible grief?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the whole House, and indeed the whole country, will join my hon. Friend and me in paying tribute to this nurse, and in giving all our sympathies and condolences to her family. She clearly loved her job and her work, and cared deeply about the health of her patients, and what has happened is a complete tragedy. There will be many lessons that need to be learned, and I absolutely echo what my hon. Friend says about the press keeping their distance and allowing this family the time and space to grieve.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Q2. Does the Prime Minister still intend to introduce the snooper’s charter, euphemistically known as the communications data Bill? Does he realise that he and his Government will be spying on more people in Britain than all the press barons put together? Where did he get his advice and this idea from? Was it down at Wapping? Was it his friends down there—Rupert, Tony, and Rebekah?
The Prime Minister
I really believe that on this issue, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. This is a very important issue—I feel this very strongly, as Prime Minister—in which you have to take responsibility, first and foremost, for security, including national security, and people’s safety. The fact is that communications data—not the content of a telephone call, but the fact that a phone call took place—are used in every single terrorist case, and in almost every single serious crime case. The question in front of the House of Commons, and indeed the House of Lords, is simply this: because we currently have those data for fixed and mobile telephony, what are we going to do as telephony increasingly moves over the internet? We can stand here and do nothing, and not update the law; the consequence of doing that would be fewer crimes solved, and fewer terrorists brought to justice. I do not want to be the Prime Minister who puts the country into that position.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
The Government’s proposals on judicial review conflict with article XXIX of Magna Carta 1297. Do the Government propose the repeal of Magna Carta?
The Prime Minister
No, I can reassure my hon. Friend that we do not intend that. I am sure that he would understand—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I would like to learn about 1297 from the Prime Minister. I am sure that I am about to.
The Prime Minister
The point that we are making is that the extent of judicial review has massively increased in recent years, and we think that there is a need for some new rules to look at the extent, and indeed the costs, of judicial review, so that the costs are properly covered. In that way, we can maintain access to justice, but perhaps speed up the wheels of government a little.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Q3. Will the Prime Minister answer the question he was asked three times by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and dodged a few moments ago? Will he confirm that the majority of households that will be hit by the real-terms cut to benefits and tax credits are working households?
The Prime Minister
The point that I made is even bigger than that. Everyone on working tax credits will be affected by the fact that we are increasing them by only 1%, but we have to control welfare to deal with the massive deficit that we were left by the Opposition. There is a choice in politics. One can either control welfare bills or say no to a welfare cap, no to a housing benefit cap, no to the control of welfare—borrow, spend and build up our deficit, putting us straight back where we came from.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
At the Liaison Committee yesterday the Prime Minister began by saying that the Government would accept crucial Lords amendments to make the Justice and Security Bill acceptable on secret courts, but he ended the session by appearing to say that he would not accept those amendments. Could he clarify which one it is?
The Prime Minister
What I said very clearly to the Committee yesterday is that we want the Bill to pass through Parliament, having listened to the Joint Committee and to all the excellent points made in the House of Lords. I am sure we will be listening even more carefully in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I think the Leader of the Opposition is catching off the shadow Chancellor the disease of not being able to keep his mouth shut for longer than five seconds. We will listen carefully to the amendments. The fundamental choice is to make sure that those proceedings are available to judges, and it is judges who should make the decision.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
Q4. The Environment Secretary this week described wind turbines as “inappropriate technology which matured in the Middle Ages.”Does the Prime Minister agree? If not, why not?
The Prime Minister
We are making serious investments in renewable energy. We have set out a regime of subsidy that stretches right out to 2017 and beyond. That is why the renewable energy capacity of this country has doubled over the past two years under this Government.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government have had to deal with not only the catastrophic budget deficit that we inherited from the former Prime Minister but, as the figures reveal today, a tidal wave of immigration deliberately fostered by the Labour Government, and that concentrating on putting those two issues right is the most important task facing this Government for the delivery of security to the people of this country?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that immigration was out of control under the previous Government. Net migration ran at more than 200,000 a year—that is 2 million across a decade. Under the sensible controls that we have put in place, net immigration has fallen by a quarter in recent years. What is interesting about this is that we can have proper control of immigration while also saying to the world, “Our universities are open to foreign students to come and study here, and as long as they have an English language qualification and a degree place at university, there is no limit on the numbers that can come.” That is our policy—controlling immigration, but making sure that the best and the brightest come to Britain.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Q5. Iceland, which had huge economic difficulties, rejected austerity and has, according to Bloomberg seen, a recovery driven by domestic demand. Unemployment is 2.4% lower than the UK, growth is 2.5% and properties have risen at 110% of value. Those with children and the unemployed have received the most support in Iceland. Will the Prime Minister be gracious enough, notwithstanding other issues, to congratulate Iceland on working hard to turn things around? Does he think there is anything he can learn from Iceland?
The Prime Minister
If the case for an independent Scotland is “Make us more like Iceland”, I am not sure that will totally commend itself to the voters. Britain and Iceland have very good relations, and I will make sure that remains the case.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I, too, welcome the fall in youth unemployment, particularly in Hastings and Rye, where youth unemployment has fallen steadily for the past nine months and is at its lowest since May 2010. May I urge the Prime Minister to continue this Government’s investment in apprenticeships and the Youth Contract so that that can continue?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s point. We will continue not only with the apprenticeships, which have reached over 1 million under this Government, but with the Youth Contract, and particularly work experience, because what we are seeing is that a large number of people who do work experience find a job and come off benefits and find that it is a very good start to a working career. That is what we want to see.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
Q6. On the day that unemployment in Scotland showed the largest fall in four years, is the Prime Minister as shocked as I am by reports in the Sunday Mail and the Daily Record this week that some jobcentre managers are actively encouraging employers to convert paid vacancies into unpaid work experience placements in order to satisfy Department for Work and Pensions targets? Will he condemn that practice and ensure that it ceases immediately?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that we want work experience places to be additional places, encouraging more young people to get at least a feel for work so that they have a chance of getting a job. It is good that he welcomes the fact that employment in Scotland is up 27,000 since the election and that unemployment has fallen by 19,000 this quarter, so we are making progress.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Q7. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the progress that has been made across the country in supporting adults with autism since the Autism Act 2009? Following the recent National Audit Office report, will he join me in encouraging his ministerial colleagues and local authorities across the country to accelerate that progress next year, when the adult autism strategy is due to be reviewed?
The Prime Minister
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who was instrumental in getting the landmark Autism Act 2009 on to the statute book. The impact of the Act, I believe, continues right up to this day and beyond. We want all adults living with autism to be able to live fulfilling and rewarding lives within a society that properly accepts them. She is absolutely right that the review of the strategy is coming up next year, between March and October. It is vital that it is a proper cross-Government effort, and after her remarks I will make sure that it is dealt with in a proper and co-ordinated way.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Q8. The green investment bank is due to be given new borrowing powers in three years’ time. In view of the Chancellor’s abject failure to meet his borrowing target, because it was predicated on meeting the borrowing targets set by the Government, is the Prime Minister still committed to giving the bank borrowing powers and, if so, when?
The Prime Minister
First, let me make the point that this Government have set up a green investment bank within two years, whereas the Labour party did nothing about that for 13 years. Secondly, even at a time of fiscal difficulty because of the mess we were left, we put £3 billion into the green investment bank, so right now it does not need to borrow because it has the money to invest. I think that what is needed in green investment is that equity risk finance, and that is exactly what the green investment bank can provide.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend goes to the summit tomorrow. Has he noticed in President Barroso’s blueprint for federalisation of Europe the following sentence: “The European Parliament, and only it, is the parliament for the EU, ensuring democratic legitimacy for the EU”? Does he agree with that or repudiate it, and what will he say to the other leaders at the summit tomorrow?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend on that one, not President Barroso, for this reason: it is the national parliaments that provide the real democratic legitimacy within the European Union. When we are discussing banking union, it is to this House that we should account. When we are discussing the European budget, it is to this House, which represents our taxpayers, that we should account. I always bear that in mind when I am negotiating, as I will be tomorrow at the European Council.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Q9. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the autumn statement revealed that the Government are now borrowing £212 billion more than they previously planned to?
The Prime Minister
I would take that from the hon. Lady if her plans were not to borrow even more. The point is—[Interruption.] I know that the Labour party was desperately disappointed that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that borrowing would come down this year as well as last year, but that is the fact.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Q10. The Prime Minister has rightly said that we are locked in a global economic race. Does he share my concern that having the highest aviation taxes in the world makes it harder for business to compete and increases the cost of living? Will he ask the Treasury to conduct a full review of whether aviation taxes cost Britain more than they bring in?
The Prime Minister
I very much understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. Obviously, I get lobbied regularly by countries around the world, particularly Commonwealth countries, about air passenger duty. We do not have any plans to commission further research at this point because we have just completed a very thorough consultation. Despite the challenge of the budget deficit, we have limited the rise in APD to inflation over the period 2010-11 to 2012-13. As a result, APD rates have increased by only around £1 for the majority of passengers, but I bear in mind very carefully what he says.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Q11. The autumn statement did not include a forecast of child poverty as a result of the policies announced. Can the Prime Minister confirm that it will be published soon—I am sure that it was just an oversight—and could he tell the House whether he really believes that his policies will increase or reduce child poverty in Islington?
The Prime Minister
We want to see a genuine and lasting reduction in child poverty, and we need to have policies that not only address whether people are just above or just below the poverty line but actually address the causes of poverty—what it is that traps people in poverty. Of course, as the hon. Lady says, not enough money is part of it; not enough jobs is another, and that is why today’s news on unemployment is so welcome. We need to look at all the things that trap people in unemployment, which include drug and alcohol misuse and family breakdown, as well as, obviously, unemployment.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Q12. As my right hon. Friend knows, Plymouth is a global leader in marine science engineering research. I very much welcome the initiative by the Government to spend more money on our science base. However, would he be willing to meet me, my fellow Plymouth Members of Parliament, and Plymouth businesses to discuss how Plymouth might become involved in the small cities super-broadband initiative, which will help us to rebalance our economy and attract private investment?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. I know that he stands up very strongly for Plymouth and for Plymouth’s economy. He rightly says that we made the decision right at the start of this Government to freeze the science budget rather than cut it, as so many other budgets were cut, and I am sure that that was the right answer. Since then, we have added money back into the science budget. On broadband, I will look carefully at what he says about city broadband. I am sure that he will be glad to know that Devon and Somerset have been allocated over £33 million to deliver superfast broadband. We are working very hard to make sure that all the plans are on track to deliver the superfast broadband that is important for cities but very important for rural areas as well.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The Prime Minister and Members of this House will be fully aware of the very serious threat posed to democracy by dissident republicans in Northern Ireland. However, the police have stated that there is evidence of loyalist paramilitary involvement in some of the protests and violence in Northern Ireland this week, which included the sickening attempted murder of police officers who were protecting my constituency office. Will he take this opportunity to condemn this reprehensible assault on democracy from those who style themselves as loyal? Will he agree to meet me and my colleague David Ford, the Justice Minister for Northern Ireland, to discuss the very grave security situation that is developing?
The Prime Minister
First, I absolutely join the hon. Lady in condemning the violence that we have seen on the streets of Belfast. As she says, in no way are these people being loyal or standing up for Britishness. Violence is absolutely unjustified in those and in other circumstances. I completely agree with what she said about the sickening attack on the police officer. We should again pay tribute to the work that the Police Service of Northern Ireland do on behalf of us all. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our complete solidarity with the hon. Lady and her colleagues, who have themselves been threatened and intimidated over recent days. I am always happy to meet and talk with Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Q13. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating two very young entrepreneurs in my constituency who have taken the initiative to start Cornish Gouda Co. and Team K fashion? Does he agree that this is just the sort of business initiative that we need to see?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the entrepreneurs in her constituency. I am looking forward to tasting some Cornish Gouda cheese, although I probably should not for the sake of my weight. She is making an important point, which is that the start-up rate of new businesses in this country is at a record high. Because we need a rebalancing between the public sector and the private sector, we need this entrepreneurship to continue.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In opposition, the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted his Government to be the most family-friendly Government this country had ever seen, so why is he cutting maternity pay for working mothers?
The Prime Minister
First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to the House of Commons and congratulate her on her recent by-election success? We have had to take difficult decisions about welfare—both in-work welfare and out-of-work welfare—so we have put a cap of 1% on all the working benefits, including the one that she has mentioned. Above all, I think that the right thing to do is to cut the taxes of people who are in work, rather than taking more in taxes and then redistributing it through tax credits. We on this side want to cut taxes on those who work. That is what we are doing and there will be more of it to come.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Q14. Over the past five years, benefits have risen twice as fast as salaries. Does the Prime Minister agree that, while we have a duty to the least well-off, it cannot be fair that people who are out of work enjoy bigger increases in their living standards than those who graft hard, day and night, to support themselves and their families?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts it extremely clearly. Many people in our country have seen a pay freeze year after year, yet welfare benefits have gone up year after year. So, in politics, we face a choice: do we go on putting those welfare benefits up, which does not help those who are in work and on a pay freeze, or do we take the tough and necessary decision? We have taken the tough and necessary decision. The only Labour welfare Minister that anyone took seriously was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). He has said that Labour’s approach simply is not serious, and once again he is right.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the UK Government on following the lead of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament by introducing equal marriage, minimum alcohol pricing and, previously, the smoking ban. Given that unemployment is now lower in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, will he follow the lead of the Scottish Government by introducing more shovel-ready measures to stimulate economic growth?
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that, because of the measures taken in the autumn statement, there is an extra £300 million for the Scottish Government to spend, and if they want to spend it on shovel-ready measures, they can. I am also happy that, when good policies are introduced in any part of the United Kingdom, we all have the opportunity to follow them.
Wild Land and Wild Places
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The wild land and wild places of Britain have never been under as much threat as they are today from general development associated with increasing population, and particularly from the proliferation of onshore wind farms. The John Muir Trust is a growing and successful organisation that campaigns to protect wild places and has collected the names of 6,145 petitioners calling for the extension of national park boundaries or the creation of new national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty to ensure improved environmental protection for the most valuable areas of wild land in Britain.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of citizens of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners support the John Muir Trust’s call to extend National Park Boundaries, or put in place new National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to ensure improved environmental protection for the best areas of wild land.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend National Park boundaries, or to put in place new National Parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty as called for by the John Muir Trust.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001147]
Live Animal Exports
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
My local community in South Thanet has had to endure the live animal export trade for 18 months. We have had all sorts of emergencies in our port, which is not equipped to sustain that trade. We have unfortunately suffered the slaughter of 45 sheep on the portside, after they were unloaded in an unsuitable area, causing many of them to break their legs. A ram was shot on board a lorry and then dragged out, after its horns were broken due to lack of space. A whole transportation had to return to its starting pointing in Northamptonshire without unloading the animals as the lorries were not fit for travel. A thousand of my constituents want to ensure that the House understands the strength of opinion in my constituency.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of the people of Thanet,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the export of live animals is an outdated and unnecessary practice; that over the last year, the UK has seen the number of animals being exported from our shores rise significantly; that the live exports trade has moved to the Port of Ramsgate and that the Petitioners believe that the majority of residents are vehemently opposed to the practice given the undue stress caused to the animals through long periods of travel.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring a halt to the export of live animals from the UK, ensure that animals are slaughtered as close to point of origin as practicable, and reduce the number of hours an animal is allowed to travel to a maximum of eight.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001148]
Live Animal Exports
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) are shared by many people around the country, including in my constituency. I have the honour of formally presenting on behalf of the residents of Truro and Falmouth a petition in identical terms.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Truro and Falmouth,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the export of live animals is an outdated and unnecessary practice; that over the last year, the UK has seen the number of animals being exported from our shores rise significantly; further that the live exports trade has moved to the Port of Ramsgate and that the Petitioners believe that the majority of residents are vehemently opposed to the practice given the undue stress caused to the animals through long periods of travel.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring a halt to the export of live animals from the UK, ensure that animals are slaughtered as close to point of origin as practicable, and reduce the number of hours an animal is allowed to travel to a maximum of eight.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001150]
Patrick Finucane Report
(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Sir Desmond de Silva’s report on the nature and extent of state collusion in the murder of Patrick Finucane. The murder of Patrick Finucane in his home in North Belfast on Sunday l2 February 1989 was an appalling crime. He was shot 14 times as he sat down for dinner with his wife and three children. He died in front of them. His wife was injured, and Pat Finucane died in front of his family.
In the period since the murder, there have been three full criminal investigations carried out by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Stevens. Taken together, they amount to the biggest criminal investigation in British history, led by the most senior police officer, and consisting of more than 1 million pages of documents and 12,000 witness statements obtained with full police powers. As a result of the third Stevens investigation, one of those responsible, Ken Barrett, was tried and convicted in 2004 for the murder of Patrick Finucane.
There was a further report by Judge Cory. Both Lord Stevens and Judge Cory made it clear that there was state collusion in the murder. This itself was a shocking conclusion, and I apologised to the family on behalf of the British Government when I met them last year. But despite these reports, some 23 years after the murder, there has still only been limited information put into the public domain. The whole country and beyond is entitled to know the extent and nature of the collusion, and the extent of the failure of our state and Government. That is why, last October, this Government asked Sir Desmond de Silva to conduct an independent review of the evidence to expose the truth as quickly as possible.
Sir Desmond has had full and unrestricted access to the Lord Stevens archive and to all Government papers. These include highly sensitive intelligence files and new and significant information that was not available to either Lord Stevens or Justice Cory, including Cabinet papers, minutes of meetings with Ministers and senior officials, and papers and guidance on agent handling. He has declassified key documents, including original intelligence material, and he has published them in volume 2 of his report today. The decision over what to publish was entirely his own—it was entirely a matter for Desmond de Silva. I believe that Sir Desmond’s report has now given us the fullest possible account of the murder of Patrick Finucane and the truth about state collusion. The extent of disclosure in today’s report is without precedent.
Nobody has more pride than me in the work of our armed forces, police and security services. I see at close hand just what they do to keep us safe. As Sir Desmond makes clear, he is looking at
“an extremely dark and violent time”
in Northern Ireland’s history. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the police and security forces that served in Northern Ireland, but we should be in no doubt that this report makes extremely difficult reading. The report sets out the extent of collusion in areas such as identifying, targeting and murdering Mr Finucane; supplying a weapon and facilitating its later disappearance; and deliberately obstructing subsequent investigations. It also answers questions about how high up the collusion went, including the role of Ministers at the time.
Sir Desmond is satisfied that there was not
“an over-arching State conspiracy to murder Patrick Finucane”,
but while he rejects any state conspiracy, he does find frankly shocking levels of state collusion. Most importantly, Sir Desmond says he is
“left in significant doubt as to whether Patrick Finucane would have been murdered by the UDA”—
the Ulster Defence Association—
“in February 1989 had it not been for the different strands of involvement by elements of the State.”
He finds that
“a series of positive actions by employees of the State actively furthered and facilitated his murder”.
Sir Desmond cites five specific areas of collusion. First,
“there were extensive ‘leaks’ of security force information to the UDA and other loyalist paramilitary groups.”
He finds:
“In 1985 the Security Service assessed that 85% of the UDA’s ‘intelligence’ originated from sources within the security forces.”
He is
“satisfied that this proportion would have remained largely unchanged by…the time of Patrick Finucane’s murder.”
Secondly, there was a failure by the authorities to act on threat intelligence. Sir Desmond describes
“an extraordinary state of affairs…in which both the Army and the RUC SB”—
Royal Ulster Constabulary special branch—
“had prior notice of a series of planned UDA assassinations, yet nothing was done by the RUC to seek to prevent these attacks.”
When we read some of the specific cases in the report—page after page in chapter 7—it is really shocking that this happened in our country. In the case of Patrick Finucane, Sir Desmond says that
“it should have been clear to the RUC SB from the threat intelligence that…the UDA were about to mount an imminent attack”,
but
“it is clear that they took no action whatsoever to act on the threat intelligence.”
Thirdly, Sir Desmond confirms that employees of the state and state agents played “key roles” in the murder. He finds that
“two agents who were at the time in the pay of agencies of the State were involved”—
Brian Nelson and William Stobie—
“together with another who was to become an agent of the State after his involvement in that murder”.
It cannot be argued that these were rogue agents. Indeed, Sir Desmond concludes that Army informer Brian Nelson should
“properly be considered to be acting in a position equivalent to an employee of the Ministry of Defence.”
Although Nelson is found to have withheld information from his Army handlers,
“the Army must bear a degree of responsibility for Brian Nelson's targeting activity during 1987-89, including that of Patrick Finucane.”
Most shockingly of all, Sir Desmond says that
“on the balance of probabilities…an RUC officer or officers did propose Patrick Finucane…as a UDA target when speaking to a loyalist paramilitary.”
Fourthly, there was a failure to investigate and arrest key members of the West Belfast UDA over a long period of time. As I said earlier, Ken Barrett was eventually convicted of the murder. What is extraordinary is that back in 1991, instead of prosecuting him for murder as the RUC criminal investigation department wanted, the RUC special branch decided instead to recruit him as an agent.
Fifthly, this was all part of what Sir Desmond calls a wider
“relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice”
after the murder had taken place. Sir Desmond finds that
“senior Army officers deliberately lied to criminal investigators”
and that the RUC special branch
“were responsible for seriously obstructing the investigation.”
On the separate question of how certain Ministers were briefed, while Sir Desmond finds no political conspiracy, he is clear that Ministers were misled. He finds that
“the Army and Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials provided the Secretary of State for Defence with highly misleading and, in parts, factually inaccurate advice”
about the force research unit’s “handling of Brian Nelson.” On the comments made by Douglas Hogg, Sir Desmond agrees with Lord Stevens that the briefing he received from the RUC meant that he was “compromised”. However, Sir Desmond goes on to say that there is
“no basis for any claim that he intended his comments to provide a form of political encouragement for an attack on any solicitor.”
More broadly on the role of Ministers, Sir Desmond says that there is
“no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any Government Minister had foreknowledge of Patrick Finucane’s murder, nor that they were subsequently informed of any intelligence that any agency of the State had received about the threat to his life.”
He says that the then Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Mayhew, deserves
“significant credit for withstanding considerable political pressure designed to ensure that Brian Nelson was not prosecuted.”
As a result, of course, Nelson was prosecuted in 1992, following the first investigation by Lord Stevens.
The collusion demonstrated beyond any doubt by Sir Desmond, which included the involvement of state agencies in murder, is totally unacceptable. We do not defend our security forces, or the many who have served in them with great distinction, by trying to claim otherwise. Collusion should never, ever happen. So on behalf of the Government, and the whole country, let me say again to the Finucane family, I am deeply sorry.
It is vital that we learn the lessons of what went wrong, and for Government in particular to address Sir Desmond’s criticisms of a
“wilful and abject failure by successive Governments to provide the clear policy and legal framework necessary for agent-handling operations to take place effectively and within the law.”
Since 1989, many steps have been taken to improve the rules, procedures and oversight of intelligence work. There is now a proper legal basis for the security services, and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has established a framework for the authorisation of the use and conduct of agents. In addition, the activities of individual agents are now clearly recorded, along with the parameters within which they must work. The Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Office of Surveillance Commissioners now regulate the use of agents and report publicly to this House. Taken together, those changes are designed to ensure that the failures of 1989 could not be made today.
Policing and security in Northern Ireland have been transformed, reflecting the progress that has been made in recent years. The force research unit and the special branch of the RUC have both gone, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland is today one of the most scrutinised police forces anywhere in the world. It is accountable to local Ministers and a local Policing Board. I believe that it commands widespread support across the whole community.
Through all those measures, this Government and our predecessors have shown a determination to do everything possible to ensure that no such collusion ever happens again. We will study Sir Desmond’s report in detail to see what further lessons can be learned. I have asked the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland and the Cabinet Secretary to report back to me on all the issues that arise from the report. I will publish their responses. Other organisations that are properly independent of Government, such as the police and prosecuting authorities, will want to read the report closely and consider their own responses.
Sir Desmond says that his conclusion
“should not be taken to impugn the reputation of the majority of RUC and UDR officers who served with distinction during what was an extraordinarily violent period”.
He goes on to say that
“it would be a serious mistake for this Report to be used to promote or reinforce a particular narrative of any of the groups involved in the Troubles in Northern Ireland.”
I am sure that those statements will have wide support in this House. We should never forget that over 3,500 people lost their lives and there were many terrible atrocities. Sir Desmond reminds us that the Provisional IRA
“was the single greatest source of violence during this period”,
and that a full account of the events of the late 1980s
“would reveal the full calculating brutality of that terrorist group.”
During the troubles over 300 RUC officers and 700 British military personnel were killed, with over 13,000 police and military injured. I pay tribute to them and to all those who defended democracy and the rule of law and created the conditions for the progress we have now seen. We must not take that progress for granted, as we have seen this week, and I pay tribute again to those in the PSNI who are once again in the front line today. We will not allow Northern Ireland to slip back to its bitter and bloody past.
The Finucane family suffered the most grievous lost in the most appalling way imaginable. I know they oppose this review process and I respect their views. However, I do respectfully disagree with them that a public inquiry would produce a fuller picture of what happened and what went wrong. Indeed, the history of public inquiries in Northern Ireland would suggest that had we gone down that route, we would not know now what we know today.
Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years but there is still more to do to build a genuinely shared future. One thing this Government can do to help is to face up honestly when things have gone wrong in the past. If we as a country want to uphold democracy and the rule of law, we must be prepared to be judged by the highest standards. We must also face up fully when we fall short. In showing once again that we are not afraid to do that, I hope that today’s report can contribute to moving Northern Ireland forward. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Let me first thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the tone in which he delivered it. Let me also thank Sir Desmond de Silva for his work and how he went about his task. He has produced a serious and long report within the terms of reference he was set, and it will take time to absorb it. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s apology to the Finucane family; it is the right thing to do, and I am grateful to John Finucane for the conversation that I had with him.
Pat Finucane was a husband, father and brother who was murdered in his own home as he sat with his family on a Sunday evening. What makes it even worse is that 23 years after this appalling crime, his family are still searching for the truth with the utmost courage and dignity.
I agree with the Prime Minister that this report provides disturbing and uncomfortable reading for us all, because it makes it clear that there was collusion in murder and a cover-up, and furthermore that
“Agents of the State were involved in carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder.”
Of course, as the Prime Minister said, this should not diminish the service of thousands of police officers, soldiers and security service personnel who are dedicated to protecting and serving people in Northern Ireland. They have my admiration and I am sure that of the whole House. They will be as appalled as we all are by the findings of the report today.
As we examine and assess the findings of this report and whether it is adequate—the Prime Minister thinks that it is—it is essential that we remember the background. An investigation into the murder of Pat Finucane in which the public had confidence was an important part of the peace process that began under Sir John Major and has continued since.
At Weston Park in 2001 both the Irish and British Governments agreed to appoint a judge of international standing to examine six cases in which there were serious allegations of collusion by the security forces. That applied in both jurisdictions—the UK and Ireland. It was agreed that in the event that a public inquiry was recommended in any of the cases, the relevant Government would implement that recommendation.
Judge Peter Cory was appointed and recommended that public inquiries were necessary in five separate cases. Three of those on the UK side have been completed and the one inquiry recommended on the Irish side is expected to report next year. The only outstanding case in which a public inquiry was recommended but has not taken place is that of Pat Finucane. The last Government could not reach consensus with the Finucane family on arrangements for such an inquiry, but towards the end of our time in office the Finucane family indicated that they would support a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, and a way forward had begun to be discussed. As the Prime Minister knows, the Opposition continue to believe that we should abide by the obligations under the Weston Park agreement. In that context, may I ask him four questions?
First, does the Prime Minister recognise the concern that the failure to hold a public inquiry is at odds with agreements that were an essential part of the peace process? Secondly, I believe it is right to say that Sir Desmond could not compel witnesses or cross-examine them in public and had to accept the assurances of state bodies that he had been given all relevant material. Does the Prime Minister therefore recognise the concern about the limits of what the de Silva inquiry could do compared with a full public inquiry?
Thirdly, the British and Irish Governments had been at one on this issue. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with the Irish Government about de Silva’s review and about what their position is likely to be today?
My fourth and final question takes me to the issue of public confidence. Continuing to build trust and confidence among the communities of Northern Ireland remains essential, as the Prime Minister said. The appalling violence that we have seen on the streets of Northern Ireland in recent days reminds us of that. Judge Cory said that a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane was needed because
“without public scrutiny doubts based solely on myth and suspicion will linger long, fester and spread their malignant infection throughout the Northern Ireland community.”
Notwithstanding the good work done by Sir Desmond de Silva, can the Prime Minister really say with confidence that the whole truth has been established in the case of Pat Finucane? How can we say that when it is dismissed by the family and many in Northern Ireland?
We must, as a United Kingdom, accept that our state sometimes did not meet the high standards that we set ourselves during the Northern Ireland conflict. Anyone reading the report will believe that it describes an appalling episode in our history. Those in all parts of the House share a belief that we must establish the full and tested truth about Pat Finucane’s murder, but the Opposition continue to believe that a public inquiry is necessary for his family and for Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s response and the way in which he gave it. Let me say first that he is entirely right that we should take time to study and consider the report. There is a huge amount of detail in it, and lots of consequences may flow from it.
The right hon. Gentleman focused on the important question of whether there should be a public inquiry. I made the decision that it would not be right to have one for a number of reasons. First, if we look at the other inquiries that were started after the Weston Park agreement was reached—it is worth noting that that is now more than 10 years ago—we see that some of them took five or six years or longer and cost tens of millions of pounds, and I do not believe that they got closer to the truth than de Silva has in his excellent and full report. In fact, in the case of one of those inquiries, after six years and £30 million, the reaction of the family, which I can understand in some ways, was to ask for a further inquiry. To me, the real question is: what is the fastest way to get to the truth and the best way to lay out what happened and provide the security that that brings? I believe that the process we have been through is right.
On the Irish Government, I spoke this morning to Enda Kenny. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the position of the Taoiseach and the Irish Government has been in favour of a public inquiry, but I think they understand why we took our decision and respect the fact that we have been incredibly open and frank about what happened.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the limits of this process compared with the public inquiry process, we have held nothing back. De Silva says in his report that he had full access to all the documents and everything he wanted, and that the decision to redact any names or information was taken by him. Of course, there is always the question of the public inquiry. We took our decision, and I said at the time of the last election that I did not think it was right to have further open-ended public inquiries following the enormous time and expense of the Saville inquiry, and I think that that remains the right position. We need to look at ways in which we can get to the truth and help people to move ahead in Northern Ireland, and this has been a good exercise in doing just that.
Obviously the last Government considered this matter, I am sure very carefully, but I would make the point that they had all the time between 2001 and 2010 to start the work of an inquiry and did not take that decision. I think that was partly because they understood, as we did, the problems, dangers and expense of open-ended inquiries.
In the end, what matters is getting to the truth, and I cannot think of many other countries anywhere in the world that would set out in so much detail and with so much clarity what went wrong. It pains me to read the report, because I am so proud of our country, our institutions such as the police and our security services and what they do to keep us safe. It is agony to read in the report what happened, but it is right that we publish it. We do not need a public inquiry with cross-examination to do that, we just need a Government who are bold enough to say, “Let’s unveil what happened, let’s publish it and then let’s see the consequences.”
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I join the Prime Minister in condemning the collusion of some state agents in the murder of Mr Finucane. I, too, extend my sympathies to Mr Finucane’s family.
Does the Prime Minister agree that it is important to see this action in the context of the 1980s, which he has rightly described as a very dangerous time in Northern Ireland? Was it not extremely important, as it is now, that intelligence gathering took place, and that in general terms it saved many lives? Does he further agree that any leaks from the RUC that Sir Desmond has identified ought also to be seen in the right context, because the RUC at that time, like the PSNI this week, stood between Northern Ireland and the abyss?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer us back to what was happening in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and the atmosphere and pressures of that time, and to talk about the important work that agents do in countering terrorism. Of course, we should continue that work, properly regulated and dealt with, as I argued earlier. We have to be careful, though, because if we are proud of the health of our democracy, the rule of law and our system, we have to expect the highest standards when we look back. We cannot just say, “Well, bad things happened. Other people did bad things, we did bad things”. We have to be better than that, and that is what the report and our response should be about.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
May I ask the Prime Minister which Ministers he intends to consult on the matter? He was right to point out the destruction that the Provisional IRA wreaked upon people’s lives in Northern Ireland, but there is no equivalence between what a terrorist organisation does and what a state does. It is important that the Attorney-General should be involved in looking carefully at the report, because there might well have to be prosecutions arising from it.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes exactly the point that I was trying to make a moment ago. We cannot try to draw an equivalence between a state and a terrorist organisation. We have to have the highest standards, and it is right to ask that we live up to them.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point about what others should do, it is important in our country that the prosecuting authorities and the police are independent and go where the evidence takes them. I am sure they will want to study the report carefully, because it has new information and new facts and makes some uncomfortable points about what parts of the RUC and other organisations did.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
May I support the observation that the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) made about the need to consider whether prosecution is justified, which is a matter not for the Prime Minister but for the Attorney-General? In dealing with that, I have no doubt that the Attorney-General will show the same independence of mind and integrity that Sir Patrick Mayhew demonstrated in this case.
In the more than 25 years for which I have been a Member of this House, I cannot remember a statement from the Dispatch Box that has filled me with more revulsion and horror than the Prime Minister’s outlining of the events that happened. The violation of the Finucane family and the horror of the assassination were compounded by what we now know where deliberate attempts at obfuscation. If the report does anything, it surely points out the crucial fact that when dealing with terrorism, we must not descend to the terrorists’ level, because by doing so we lose the argument.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend puts the point incredibly clearly. There are some very shocking things in this report. What perhaps shocked me the most are some of the things that happened after the murder took place. The fact that someone who was effectively one of those responsible for the murder was then hired as an agent is truly shocking. The fact that the Army—it says here—did not co-operate properly with the Stevens inquiry, and effectively lied to it, is shocking. That is why it is so important that we lay this bare. The point my right hon. and learned Friend makes about never descending to that level is that whatever battle we are fighting against terror—and we are fighting battles against terror all the time—we have to maintain that we are at all times obeying the rule of law.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his efforts and his statement, which is indeed very welcome. I welcome the report, given its limitations, in so far as it takes us a little further down the road towards truth. It provides some further chilling detail for this House about what many of us already know, but in my opinion it falls far short and does not go far enough. It helps that some of the frightening details have emerged in the report, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about what happened after the murder. For me, that is significant, because it is only a continuation of some things that were done before the murder, which Sir Desmond was not able to confirm, and there was a deep conspiracy running through the elements that were involved.
There was failure, obstruction and general neglect of duty—the fact that the Army was not able to co-operate with Stevens; the fact that a Minister of this House was misled and misinformed prior to the murder, and made statements to this House. Indeed, my colleague Seamus Mallon, a former Member of this House, made reference to the very point, on the day that statement was made, that this would cost lives.
The report confirms that the UDA was steered and prompted to murder Pat Finucane by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary special branch, which should have been performing the role of questioning and putting people in prison. The UDA gunman was coached as to who might be targeted for murder—two other lawyers were targeted as well. Police files were handed to the UDA for further murder operations, involving not just those three lawyers but further people.
I was very proud to stand with the Finucane family in those desperate times at Pat’s funeral, as they buried him. The Social Democratic and Labour party and I will stand with them today—and indeed into the future—because we support their demand for a full public inquiry. We feel that we have still got only half the truth out. This report confirms why Judge Cory was right, as the family were right, to demand an open, international, independent inquiry. There are people out there who should be held to account, even though it is 23 years too late. In the light of this report, I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider and agree to the family’s request for a full inquiry and prosecutions.
Beyond that, the Finucane report confirms the case for a comprehensive truth process, which we all need. The need for such a process grows more urgent by the day. I echo the words of other colleagues. We should not set our standards by the standards of the Provisional IRA or any loyalist group, so will the Prime Minister please reconsider and allow a full inquiry?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that he speaks with real knowledge, passion and interest on this issue. First, on how we have a process in Northern Ireland of getting to the truth in more of these cases, I commend the work of the Historical Enquiries Team. It has done good work, it can continue to do good work and we should continue to fund it so that it can do so.
On whether an inquiry would find out more, I would make two points. First, if we have an inquiry process, the whole process, as we saw with Saville, would start with an enormous discussion about who had anonymity and how the case would proceed. In the case of Saville, that went on for many years before the investigation started. If we look at other public inquiries, I would argue that some of them have got less close to the truth than this report.
I would make one further point, which is that the Stevens process was an investigation with the full powers of a criminal investigation. Now it is open to the authorities, if they want, to repeat that process. That combination of having had a criminal investigation—which made some progress and led to a prosecution—having had the fullest possible disclosure of all the documents and all the evidence, and then saying to the prosecuting and other authorities that it is up to them, if they believe there is further work that can be done, is the right approach. It is faster and more effective than either starting with a public inquiry process now or, had we or a previous Government done so a few years ago, having one that would only just be getting into gear now.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
Speaking as someone who has been involved in both intelligence work and counter-intelligence work at this most difficult period, may I say that I was proud to stand alongside police officers and Army officers who did their work gallantly, properly and within the law? Will the Prime Minister please ensure that if there are cases for prosecutions of those who broke the law, they will be pursued unflinchingly?
The Prime Minister
I think the whole House and, indeed, the country—and many people in Northern Ireland—will have listened to someone who served in our forces, reached a senior rank in our forces, served in Northern Ireland and served in intelligence matters saying that as clearly as he has. That is extremely important. It is so important for our military, our Security Service and our police that serving and previous members say that what they did was done with honour, gallantry and in a way that was right. Their good name is besmirched by the terrible things we read in this report, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right that where there should be criminal investigations, there should be such investigations.
Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in extending an apology to the Finucane family, but may I also respectfully disagree with the conclusion he reaches from this report? My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is entirely right to conclude that we should uphold the call for a full independent inquiry. I say respectfully to the Prime Minister that it might be difficult to establish the terms of reference for such a judicial inquiry, but that should never be confused with the need for such an inquiry to take place. It might be difficult, but that does not mean that we should not pursue justice.
This report is indeed shocking. If I may, I want to ask the Prime Minister about one of its findings. I share his full admiration for the security services and the forces that have undoubtedly saved many lives in Northern Ireland, but this report finds, in just one conclusion, that Ministers were misled about the flow of information from the security forces to loyalist paramilitaries. Far from, as Ministers were told at the time, there being just a few rogue individuals—a phrase known to this House on other matters—it turns out that Desmond de Silva finds that between 1987 and 1989 there were 287 instances of that flow of information, some of which compromised the most top-secret security information.
I am afraid that this report is just the beginning of a set of questions. It is not a set of answers. The Prime Minister’s statement was indeed grave. For the good reputation of the security forces, he would be wise to reconsider. They have been very badly damaged by the conclusions of this report. For their good reputation and for the Finucane family, will he reconsider having an inquiry?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question and the way he puts it. Let me be clear: the reason for not having a full public inquiry is not that it would not be possible to establish the terms of reference. My view is that it is not the right approach, because I do not think it would achieve what we need to achieve. I do not necessarily think that a long, open-ended, very expensive inquiry would actually get further than what we have in this report, which has been an exercise in opening up government, the security services and the police to the maximum extent possible. Nothing has been held back, so I do not think we will get further. Of course, a public inquiry would put a stay on any potential prosecution while it was under way. We are not having a public inquiry because I do not believe it is the right approach; I think this report is the right approach—and as I say, I cannot think of any other country in the world that would open itself up in the way that we have quite rightly done so.
The point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about Ministers being misled is absolutely right. That is why I said in my statement that the Cabinet Secretary is one of the people who will report back to me about lessons that need to be learned or problems that still need to be uncovered or dealt with. That is important. The only point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman about the role of the security services is that things have changed fundamentally since 1989. In 1987 and ’88, it was still a time when Ministers at this Dispatch Box did not even admit that we had a Security Service. It is now on a statutory basis—it is properly regulated and under the law—there are information commissioners who have to examine what is done and ministerial permission is properly sought in all the proper ways. The situation is totally transformed. That does not mean that there are not lessons to be learned, however, which is why the Defence Secretary, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary will all be reading this report carefully and reporting back to me, and I will make those reports public.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I, like my good friend the hon. and gallant Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), was an intelligence officer in Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the identities of those people from all sides who gave information to the security forces—I had well over 100 people giving information to me, albeit sometimes indirectly—will be kept secret, because it would be devastating if such information were ever to get out?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the process of writing these reports, the author has to consider carefully article 2—the right to life of all those people contained in the report. It was Sir Desmond de Silva’s decision about who to identify and who not to identify. It is important to bear it in mind that although there are occasions where someone is not identified in the report because of that article 2 consideration, there are also occasions where someone cannot be identified because the report cannot be sure about who was responsible for such and such an action. It needs to be read in that way.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
When this review was announced to this House in October last year, I said that the murder of Pat Finucane was
“an atrocious, terrible, despicable crime.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 343.]
We repeat that today. Anyone guilty in any way of involvement in his murder needs to face justice. There should be no covering up or resiling from that. With reference to the fact that some 3,500 people were murdered in the course of the troubles, with over 1,000 of them being in the security forces, as the Prime Minister referenced, does he accept that he owes it and this House owes it to all the victims on all sides to ensure that all murders are fully investigated and that there is a sense of justice for all families, no matter on what side, who find themselves victims of terrorism?
Given the problems with public inquiries, not least the expense, does the Prime Minister accept that it is now clear that such inquiries do not provide closure—despite what has been said? We have seen that in Northern Ireland with the Bloody Sunday inquiry and other inquiries. The evidence is clear that they have had the effect in the minds of many of elevating certain crimes above other crimes where there have also been failings and which are equally heinous.
Finally, does the Prime Minister agree with me about the sight of Sinn Fein leaders hypocritically lecturing people today about human rights—leaders of Sinn Fein who have been deeply and intensely involved personally in murder and terrible terrorist crimes? People need to hear a clear message from the Prime Minister that wrongdoing on all sides will be punished, but that we will never succumb to the propaganda of elevating terrorists and equating them—no matter who they are—with the tens of thousands of decent ordinary people in the security forces who have protected life and limb during 30 to 40 years of terrible violence in Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Making sure that others in Northern Ireland can find justice is, I think, the work of the Historical Enquiries Team. As I said, it should continue with its work. As to what the right hon. Gentleman says specifically about wrongdoing by the IRA, the report could not be clearer that it bears an enormous responsibility, as I read out in my statement, for an extremely bloodthirsty campaign and for a huge amount of the suffering caused. Sir Desmond de Silva could not be more frank about that, but that does not mean that we should not do what a proper democratic state under the rule of law does, which is to explain what went wrong and how we learn lessons from it.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Sir Desmond in his report finds that successive Governments failed to put in place proper guidelines for agents and their handlers, which resulted in agents participating in serious crime without adequate control by their handlers? Will he reassure the House that there are now proper guidelines and adequate controls?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This is one of the report’s key findings for government: successive Governments, one after another, did not crack the problem of putting in place a legal basis for the security services and agent handling, or indeed provide guidance and processes. In my experience as Prime Minister for the last two and a half years, I believe that does now exist. We have the regulation of investigatory powers; we have intelligence commissioners and intercept commissioners; we have annual reports by the heads of the services; we have the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has given an enormous amount of access and information; and we have ministerial oversight by the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary of the two principal services. I think the situation is transformed. Even since I have been Prime Minister we have issued quite a lot of guidance—at the time of the Guantanamo detainees issue—to try to make sure that we deal with this problem properly. I am always open to further suggestions, but the situation has been transformed over the past 20 years.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the disagreement over an inquiry, may I commend the Prime Minister for the searing honesty of his statement, which allows the whole House to express solidarity with the Finucane family who are with us today? What this report and the Prime Minister have revealed is even worse than I thought and was informed about as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The fact that special branch agents and members of the Army’s force research unit were involved and up to their necks in this murder is horrendous. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right therefore that Colonel Gordon Kerr, commanding officer of the force research unit at the time, should have been promoted subsequently to brigadier?
The Prime Minister
First, let me echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Finucane family. They have carried out a very respectful, very legitimate and perfectly fair campaign, because they want justice for the appalling wrong done to Pat and the appalling way in which he was murdered. I had a meeting with them last year, and while, obviously, we did not agree about the outcome, I hope they can see that I was sincere in saying that I would open every door, I would open every part of Whitehall and do everything I could to try to get the fullest, truest picture of what happened as quickly as possible. I profoundly believe that that is the right approach, rather than a costly, lengthy public inquiry, which might not—may well not—get as far as this report.
On what the right hon. Gentleman says about the specific individual, much information about what individual people did is in that report. As I have said, it is now open for different authorities to take the steps that they find appropriate. I have specifically asked the Defence Secretary, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary to examine what is in the report and to give any lessons back directly to me, which I will then publish.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Prime Minister has just made a brief reference to the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Does he agree with me that the proposal to give that Committee enhanced investigative powers under the forthcoming Justice and Security Bill ought to add further reassurance for the future of the power and ability of democratic bodies to investigate alleged past abuses?
The Prime Minister
The Intelligence and Security Committee does an important job. I found particularly our recent meeting extremely helpful and informative. The Committee is like a second set of eyes on the judgments of Ministers and others, and it has the access in order to question and call them to account. That is an important part of the picture; as important are the guidance and rules that we set for our security and intelligence services. Those were clearly wanting—they did not exist in this case—but they are now in place.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I acknowledge the sincerity of the Prime Minister’s statement and of the apology he gave, but does he accept that if Widgery had been followed by a review rather than by the Saville inquiry—for all the time and money it cost—the apology he gave in this House in June 2010 would not have carried the force that it did. Does he not accept that, if the family continue to believe that there are questions that remain unanswered, their campaign for a public inquiry will continue and one day will have to be met?
The Prime Minister
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, because I know that he was a dedicated Northern Ireland Minister. What I would say is that there is a difference between the two cases. This review followed the three Stevens investigations, which were extensive police investigations with full police powers. It seems to me that after those, what was lacking—as Stevens had talked about collusion and pointed to collusion—was a full revelation of the extent of that collusion, and I think that that is what this report provides.
If there is a need for follow-up, in terms of, for instance, a policing or a prosecution, it is now open to those agencies to arrange that. If we went into a long inquiry process, it would all have to be put off until the future, with no guarantee that we would get any further than the massive amount of detail and disclosure that is included in this report.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the public inquiry into the murder of Billy Wright took some six years and cost £30 million to administer, and that in the end the family and everyone else were extremely dissatisfied with the outcome? Does he not agree that it is far better to take action now on this report, to bring those responsible to justice, and to achieve closure for the family and all who mourn Pat Finucane’s loss?
The Prime Minister
Let me say first that no one would want to compare Pat Finucane to Billy Wright. The report states very clearly that there was no evidence that he was a member of the IRA. However, my hon. Friend has made an important point about what happened at the end of some of those other inquiries—and the Wright inquiry is an example—after six or seven years, and after tens of millions of pounds had been spent. The Wright inquiry did not actually find the answer to the question of how the murder had taken place, and at the end of it the family said that they wanted another inquiry. My point is that the fact that an inquiry is public does not mean that we get any further than we have in the full opening process that we have now undergone, and that is why I think that this is the right answer.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
Today will be a very emotional and distressing day for the Finucane family. I know that they were viciously robbed of a father, a husband, a brother and a son, and my thoughts and prayers are very much with them at this very difficult time. They are also with those who serve Northern Ireland with integrity, and who will find the report painful reading.
The Prime Minister has outlined the changes in the security services and policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. However, Sir Desmond said in his report that there was a
“seriously disproportionate focus by the RUC on acting upon… intelligence that related to individuals… being targeted by republican paramilitary groups”,
as opposed to loyalist groups. Can the Prime Minister assure us categorically that such a disparity will never be permitted again, and that all terrorism will be treated with equal seriousness and diligence?
The Prime Minister also acknowledged that there were many other families who had lost their relatives at the hands of republican and loyalist terrorists, and to whom no inquiries had been granted. Those families are no nearer to knowing the truth about the death of their loved ones, despite the diligent work of the Historical Enquiries Team. Will the Prime Minister now commit himself to delivering a comprehensive process to address the past and its legacy—a process that can focus on truth, on justice and, crucially, on reconciliation?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady made an important point about the disparity between investigations of loyalist terrorism and investigations of republican terrorism. She should read the report carefully, because it contains some quite interesting figures relating to the number of loyalist murderers who have been brought to justice—and to some extent it is encouraging that that did happen—but I entirely agree with the thrust of her question, and that is why I think that the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been so important.
When I visited one of the PSNI’s training colleges some years ago, I was struck by the fact that the ethos of the organisation was all about trying to bring the community together and trying to police the community together, and by the fact that it focused on recruiting from right across the community. I think I can give an assurance that the danger of there being different levels of investigation of different parts of the community will not arise again.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for his robust, honest and heartfelt statement and apology. I also thank Sir Desmond for his report and the Police Service of Northern Ireland for their continuing excellent work, and associate myself and my colleagues with, in particular, the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) in expressing sympathy for and solidarity with the Finucane family.
Given that something deeply wrong was done on a regular basis by the state and agents of the state but there are now proper legal structures in which agents can work, will the Prime Minister assure us that in future no agents of the state or members of state institutions will work with the paramilitaries under cover, other than those whose actions have been authorised and have been reported to the authorities, and who are accountable to the relevant Committee of Parliament and to him?
The Prime Minister
I think that what my right hon. Friend is asking is that there should be no circumstances in which there are rogue agents. These things must be done within the law, within proper guidance and within proper procedures, as is entirely right. I can therefore give him the assurance for which he has asked.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his apology, and I welcome the tone of his statement. Like him, I do not think that a full new independent public inquiry into this very tragic matter would serve any purpose for anyone, but does he agree that the way in which the Government and the country can accept its failings should serve as a lesson to other countries? Does he not think that the Irish Government might consider looking into some of the rumours, and actual evidence, of collusion between the Irish police over such terrible atrocities as the Kingsmill bombing?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I hope that others can see that we are holding back nothing, but opening up and showing what happened in all its unbelievable ghastliness. I hope that the Irish Government will appreciate that, while perhaps still believing that a different path should be taken.
The House may be interested to hear the figures relating to other inquiries. The Robert Hamill inquiry began in 2004 and was completed in April 2011, but its findings have not yet been published because of live criminal proceedings. The Rosemary Nelson inquiry report was published in May 2011. The Billy Wright inquiry cost £30.5 million, the Hamill inquiry £32.6 million, and the Nelson inquiry £46.5 million. Each of those inquiries overran significantly in terms of both time and money. The Wright and Hamill inquiries were both established under the Inquiries Act 2005, so the argument that somehow all this was sorted because of a new Inquiries Act does not really hold water.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that facing up to the past in this way and looking at these awful events is a crucial part of the healing process that Northern Ireland so desperately needs?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is immensely painful to do, but I think the Government have shown that they are prepared to do it, and others must do the same in all parts. That, I think, is how we can come to terms with the past. I hear very clearly the remarks of Opposition Members about trying to create a single process, and obviously I listen to that, but in the end the best way of coming to terms with the past is to be open, frank, clear and transparent about what happened, and to apologise when that is appropriate.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I join others who have expressed condemnation of the murder of Pat Finucane. He was killed brutally in front of a devoted family, and I am deeply, deeply sorry about that. However, I must refute the widespread and unfair criticism of the RUC that I have heard in the House today.
The Prime Minister quoted Sir Desmond’s observation that nothing that he said should
“be taken to impugn the reputation of the majority of RUC…who served with distinction during what was an extraordinarily violent period”.
In the light of what Sir Desmond said, I ask the Prime Minister to take this opportunity to put on record his personal, sincere admiration for the extraordinary work done by RUC officers—men and women—of whom my late husband was enormously proud. He was Chief Constable at the time, and I am very sorry indeed that Pat Finucane died in such a brutal manner, but I should like the Prime Minister to pay warm tribute to the RUC, of whom my husband was so very proud.
The Prime Minister
I am happy to pay warm tribute to the RUC and the people who served in it, because they faced the most unbelievable pressure. They were dealing with the most unbelievably difficult set of circumstances. I know that the overwhelming majority of people in the Royal Ulster Constabulary served with bravery, with dedication, and with regard to the law and to truth; I know that the hon. Lady’s husband was one of those; and I know that in his report Desmond de Silva was very clear about the good work that the RUC did. That is why it is so painful to read about the bad things that happened in parts of the RUC. It is particularly striking that the RUC CID wanted to prosecute Barratt, who should originally have been prosecuted for the murder, but the Special Branch decided to recruit him. It is clear there were some very bad apples doing the wrong thing, but that does not impugn the reputation of the whole of the RUC that served our country with great dedication.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the statesman-like way he has presented this case. It cannot have been easy; indeed, I suspect it was incredibly difficult. I also pay tribute to the family, who must have gone through a very difficult time over the past 23 years, and I pay tribute, too, to the servicemen and women who did their job in a legal manner, especially the Royal Marines, as I know they lost a number of lives in Northern Ireland. If there were a review, how long does my right hon. Friend think it would take?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about those who served and those who continue to serve, including the Royal Marines. One cannot say exactly how long a public inquiry would take, but as we have learnt from experience, an enormous amount of ground clearing work would need to be done before it could even get going—the process of everyone hiring lawyers and trying to work out who is going to have anonymity and so forth. I came to office having made a promise that we were not going to have further costly open-ended inquiries. I have looked at the evidence in this case, and I have met the family, and I have seen that there is nothing the Government are holding back. I could see a stronger case for an inquiry if there was an open question about whether we were prepared to admit there was a problem with the MOD; we are. Was there a problem with parts of the RUC? There was. Were Ministers misled? I can say yes, they were. There is no argument that we are holding back on, so what matters is getting to the truth with the greatest disclosure, and I do not think that that requires an inquiry.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister must realise that many of us find it hard to leave these matters simply to the interpretations and inferences Desmond de Silva has drawn from the dreadful evidence his inquiry has produced. We are dealing with a situation where terrorism took on the form of paramilitarism and military intelligence took on the form of para-terrorism. That is what was happening. In Special Branch, the force research unit and the secret services, there was a culture of anything goes but nobody knows—and following Desmond de Silva’s report we are still being asked to accept that nobody knows. Our predecessor Social Democratic and Labour party MPs told the Ministers of the time that that was what was going on. That is why we said we needed a new beginning to policing and we needed Special Branch to go, yet in all that time we were denounced, denigrated and dismissed. The one good thing about the Prime Minister’s statement today is that others in this House can no longer be in denial about what was happening.
There were so many levels and layers of collusion—all the deadly dereliction and the deviance and the dark deployment—but we are being asked to agree that it all adds up to there being no co-ordination. The Prime Minister must know that if we are to get to the bottom of this, we have to get to the top of it, but Desmond de Silva is trying to tell us, “No, there was no top.”
The Prime Minister
I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, the campaign he has fought and the points he has made. He and his predecessors in the SDLP were right about what went wrong, and this report shows that they were right. It shows the extent to which we are prepared to open up and be clear about what happened. As for the organisations he mentions, the FRU has gone, and the RUC Special Branch has gone, so the question now is whether there is anything else to discover that this report has not discovered but a public inquiry would, and I do not believe there is.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question about how high this went, Sir Desmond de Silva is absolutely clear that Ministers were misled and briefings were given that should not have been given, but he does not find that there was a ministerial conspiracy or ministerial order for the murder of Pat Finucane. That is very important. We now have a true picture and it is for others, including the police and the prosecuting authorities, to work out whether there is anything more that can be done.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s statement was full of shocking and shameful revelations. Notwithstanding the dignity and good work of the vast majority of our security services in the past, can he confirm that the oversight, scrutiny and accountability of our intelligence services today is completely different?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to give that assurance. I would not stand here and say it is perfect in every way. There are always improvements that we can make to the arrangements, which is why we have an Intelligence and Security Committee that scrutinises what is done and an Intelligence Services Commissioner who looks into the work that is done, but the situation has been transformed. When we read this report and think about what happened and what these agents were doing, it appears that that was a completely different world, where there does not seem to have been rules, processes, the rule of law, consideration of human rights or ministerial oversight. There were not those things that there are now.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has told us that the report makes it clear that Ministers were misled during this process. What does the report say about when Ministers were first made aware in briefings that this collusion was taking place?
The Prime Minister
I have not got that information to hand, but the advice to Ministers is covered in the report. I think one of the report’s key findings on ministerial action is to do with whether Nelson should have been prosecuted. It is argued that the advice to Ministers was misleading, and as a result a decision was made to hold a Shawcross process, which is when the Attorney-General asks Ministers for advice on whether a prosecution should go ahead. The key point is that, as de Silva says, Paddy Mayhew as Attorney-General demonstrated his independence—and, indeed, good judgment—and said a prosecution should go ahead.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Can the Prime Minister confirm that this report has provided us with the fullest possible account of what happened in this tragic case?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I think the report has done that. As Desmond de Silva makes clear in the introduction to the report, he was given access to all the papers he wanted to see in every part of Government, including Cabinet papers and intelligence papers. I must not put words in his mouth, but he was not left saying that a further inquiry was necessary. He was left saying, “I got all the information I needed to set out the fullest possible picture I could.”
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Coming from a family that knows the pain caused by the murder of loved ones, I understand the pain experienced by the Finucane family, but in the light of the demands by Enda Kenny for a public inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane, has the Prime Minister made representations to the Irish Government to hold a public inquiry into collusion between previous Governments of the Irish Republic and the IRA, including the arming of the Provisional IRA and inflicting 30 years of murder and mayhem on the people of Northern Ireland? Should an apology not be forthcoming from the Irish Republic, and should all those guilty of murder not face the full rigours of the law, irrespective of who they are and what position they hold, whether in the Dail or Stormont?
The Prime Minister
Every organisation—every Government—has to face up to its own history and explain what it did and why. The British Government get all sorts of criticism, but I do not think anyone can criticise us for not being incredibly open about what happened. I would also say that British-Irish relations are better today than probably at any time in the last 25 years. Getting to the truth about the past really matters, of course, but so, too, does trying to secure a peaceful future for Northern Ireland, and those relations are very important for that, and I want to build on them.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I have met the family of Pat Finucane here in Parliament and I pay tribute to them for the dignity with which they have conducted themselves in their quest for justice. Public inquiries do not have to be over-long and over-expensive, as the Baha Mousa inquiry shows. If after reading the de Silva report the family of Pat Finucane still request a public inquiry, will the Prime Minister listen to their request?
The Prime Minister
I myself met the Finucane family and I will always listen to what they say, but I have to say that I think that what we have done—we have taken a very open approach, putting all the information out there in public—is the right approach and is the best way to get to the truth of what happened.
The hon. Gentleman says that public inquiries do not necessarily take a long time. I refer him to the fact that the other inquiries set up after 2004 ended up costing tens of millions of pounds. The Baha Mousa inquiry was about one individual and a number of hours spent in custody, whereas this is about an issue that has had the biggest police investigation in British history—involving three separate sets of investigations and millions of documents. There would be no concept of a short inquiry for this; it would be multi-year, multi-million pound, with absolutely no guarantee that it would get closer to the truth than this extremely open and truthful document we have in front of us.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The review has now been completed, the Prime Minister has, again, come to the Dispatch Box and apologised, and, yes, the murder has to be condemned. However, may I remind the Prime Minister that there are those of us on these Benches, including my own family, who have lost loved ones to the provos over the past 25 years? My family lost four of its members, but no review and no public inquiry was offered to them. When are we going to see equality for all families?
The Prime Minister
Many people in this House have suffered loss because of terrorists. I remember the first Member of Parliament who ever represented me, Airey Neave, and I think of Ian Gow, for whom I once had the huge privilege of writing a speech when I was a junior researcher. I remember going to have a drink with him in this House and getting to know him a little, and then reading one day that he had been murdered by the IRA. We cannot have an inquiry into every one of those murders; we have to find a way of trying to come to terms with the past. People have suffered dreadfully, but we have to find a way of moving ahead in Northern Ireland, which the people of Northern Ireland have done, and I believe it is our job to encourage that.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House with this statement. Nevertheless, this remains a paper review. He has asked a number of his Departments to look at various issues and open up Whitehall to questions, so may I ask him to think again about a public inquiry? There is a Treasury Solicitor’s Department—a Government Department—which can co-ordinate a public inquiry very simply and cheaply, along the lines of the Baha Mousa inquiry. May I also ask the Prime Minister to meet the family today to ask them whether they think this paper review seeks the truth about the death of Pat Finucane?
The Prime Minister
I would not describe this simply as a “paper review”; Desmond de Silva did meet some people and conducted interviews. The hon. Lady should also remember that it was a review based on the fact that there had been the largest criminal investigation in British history, which had interviewed everybody and had the documentation. Alongside that—all the access to the Stevens material—Desmond de Silva also had access to all the intelligence and other material in Whitehall. On that basis, I think it is a very complete piece of work.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I stand solidly and squarely with Geraldine Finucane, her two sons and daughter, and the wider Finucane family. I recognise that many people and many families, not least Members of this House, from Northern Ireland have also suffered as a result of more than 30 years of the troubles. Does the Prime Minister not now consider, in view of de Silva’s report, which indicated very high levels of state collusion, that there is a need for an international public inquiry that will address issues of collusion and complicity? We in the Social Democratic and Labour party—our current three Members and our predecessors—always recognised and acknowledged the deep levels of collusion in Northern Ireland that resulted in murders right across the community, whether on the loyalist or on the republican side. For that reason, we now need an international public inquiry, to investigate not only Pat Finucane’s murder but all the other murders that were a result of state collusion and state complicity.
The Prime Minister
This report is about state collusion and state complicity. I cannot think of a country anywhere else in the world that would have revealed in more detail, with no holds barred and no documents held back, the full extent of that collusion, and stood up, put its hand up and said, “This is what went wrong. This is what we apologise for. This is how we will make sure it never takes place again.” I recommend that the hon. Lady look at paragraph 113, where de Silva talks about his “Lessons for the future” and states:
“It is essential that the involvement of agents in serious criminal offences can always be reviewed and investigated and that allegations of collusion with terrorist groups are rigorously pursued. Perhaps the most obvious and significant lesson of all, however, is that it should not take over 23 years to properly examine, unravel and publish a full account of collusion in the murder of a solicitor that took place in the United Kingdom.”
I believe that Desmond de Silva is saying that that is what has been done; that is what has been laid bare. It has not taken a public inquiry; it has taken a Government to open up everything and say, “Let’s get the truth out. And here it is.”
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
If the Lawrence and Hillsborough families have taught us anything, it is that the families will not go away until they see justice in their terms. In an Adjournment debate I sought in 1999, I read into the record statements made in 1989 by an Under-Secretary at the Home Office. He had said that “a number of solicitors” were “unduly sympathetic” to the cause of the IRA, adding that these statements were made on the basis of “advice” and “guidance” from people “dealing with the matters”. Pat Finucane was murdered three and a half weeks later. The inquiry has said that there is no basis for any claim that the then Under-Secretary intended his comments to provide a form of political encouragement for any attack on any solicitor, but these words were certainly unwise and they contributed to a climate in which solicitors were made vulnerable—not only Pat Finucane, but Rosemary Nelson. Because these were statements by a Government Minister, does the Prime Minister’s apology extend to an apology for those expressions by the then Under-Secretary?
The Prime Minister
Let me first respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Hillsborough. There was a public inquiry and an inquest, but they were, in effect, faulty. It took an act by Government, with the Bishop of Liverpool, to lay open all the information. The families have thus been able to see the truth and, hopefully, they will be able to get that new inquest. I would argue that in this case that is what has happened: there was this full police investigation, but instead of having a public inquiry we have opened up and given all the information that is necessary.
On Douglas Hogg, I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the report carefully. It finds that Douglas Hogg was briefed in a way that he should not have been briefed, that that compromised him and that therefore what he said was unfortunate. But the report does not find that he in any way encouraged the action that took place or in any way knew about it. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to read the report very carefully in that regard.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
There has of course been widespread condemnation of the murder of Pat Finucane and of all the others in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister alluded to trying to get at the truth of this issue. Does he accept that after a series of inquiries, reviews and reports that have cost tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions, into a small number of totally and utterly regrettable and unacceptable incidents, the problem that we have in this House is the credibility gap, because others out there caused the violence in the first instance and have never apologised, have never reviewed and have never reported? They have never said sorry for the activities that they carried out, which ensured that others responded to their activities. Will the Prime Minister indicate that they should open up and say sorry for what they have done—for 30 years of murder?
The Prime Minister
Everyone has to face up to what they did and what they got wrong. It is up to those people responsible for violence, for terror, for murder to do that; they should apologise for what they did. But let me repeat: we should not put ourselves in this House, in government and in a state that believes in the rule of law, democracy and human rights, on a level with those organisations. We expect higher standards and when we get it wrong, we need to explain and completely open up in the way that we have done today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I agree with his decision not to have a public inquiry. The Prime Minister is aware of the hurt that runs very deep among the whole of Northern Ireland—among people on both sides. Hurt is not just on one side of the community; it is universal and we all have it. I am thinking of the Darkley gospel hall massacre, when people worshipping God on a Sunday night were killed by republicans; the people killed—burnt to a cinder—and injured by republicans at the La Mon restaurant; the people who were killed and injured by republicans at the Abercorn restaurant as they were enjoying a meal; the Ballydugan killing by republicans of four Ulster Defence Regiment men, three of whom I knew personally. Some £191 million has been set aside for the Bloody Sunday inquiry into the deaths of 13 people. The Prime Minister has mentioned the Historical Enquiries Team, whose budget is £38 million to carry out 3,487 inquiries into murders. What steps has he taken to help the HET do more and get answers for people who have lost loved ones?
The Prime Minister
We continue to fund the Historical Enquiries team. I think it does good work and it should continue to do that. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that whatever terrible event we are discussing, people will always bring up other terrible events and quite rightly say, “Well, what about an inquiry into that? What information can we find out about it?” What is different in this case is that it highlights the appalling level of collusion there was and brings to the surface, effectively, not just one appalling murder but a series of appalling steps that were being taken and that need to be addressed.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
As we kick over the charred embers of Ulster’s past, an appalling and awful picture emerges, but today we are seeing only one tiny part of that. The Prime Minister is utterly correct to make it clear that there should not be a public inquiry into this matter, first because it would be wasteful, and secondly because if he grants a public inquiry in this case he knows that a chorus of hundreds of people from before Patrick Finucane was murdered and hundreds of people from after Patrick Finucane was murdered will ask, “Why not my relative? Why not me?” The Prime Minister is right to hold fast to that view and should not be swayed.
I also agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and ask the Prime Minister to respond to them directly. They made it clear that there is more than a shred of evidence that the Republic of Ireland’s Government armed the Provisional IRA and that there should be an investigation into that and honesty about it so that we can see the whole picture.
My constituents are sick and tired of a one-sided narrative of revisionism that says that the Provisional IRA were actually quite good and the troops and police were quite bad. That, in the current circumstances in Northern Ireland, is bloody stupid—and I mean literally bloody. It will send a signal to my constituents that people have to push, kick, throw and petrol bomb to get what they want, and not abide by the law. We are trying to tell them all to abide by the law.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about my decision not to hold a further public inquiry. Let me be clear again that that is not because the Government want somehow to hide or run away from the truth. We could not have marched further, faster or more clearly towards the truth than we have by publishing this document today. As for his point about republican terrorism, let me read to him from paragraph 117 of the report’s executive summary, where de Silva states:
“I have no doubt, however, that PIRA was the single greatest source of violence during this period and that a holistic account of events of the late 1980s in Northern Ireland would reveal the full calculating brutality of that terrorist group.”
That is the point that he makes and he is right to make it.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Prime Minister and colleagues.
Bills Presented
Multinational Motor Manufacturing Companies (Duty of Care to Former Employees) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Geraint Davies, supported by Stephen Metcalfe, Mrs Siân C. James, Martin Caton, Mike Freer, Nia Griffiths, Jonathan Edwards, Dr Hywel Francis and Mr John Whittingdale presented a Bill to require multinational motor manufacturing companies to provide a duty of care to former employees in respect of pension provision.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February 2013, and to be printed (Bill 107).
Lords Spiritual Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Frank Field presented a Bill to make provision for filling vacancies among Lords Spiritual sitting and voting as Lords of Parliament.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 108).
Planning Act 2008 (Amendment)
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Planning Act 2008 to exempt planning applications for onshore wind farms producing 50 megawatts or more; to provide that they be referred for decision to local planning authorities; and for connected purposes.
I am pleased to report that County Durham has played more than its part in the development of renewable energy. The equivalent of 70% of the county’s household electricity comes from renewable sources; what is more, the equivalent of 27% of the county’s energy needs are already supplied from renewable sources, only 3% off the 2020 target of 30%. Some 68% of the renewable energy generated comes from wind energy. In total, 193 MW of renewable energy is either operational or approved, 132 MW from wind. A further 109 MW is in planning, all of it from wind energy. That is one of the best records of any local authority area in England.
I want to see further renewable energy development in the county, but as far as wind farm development is concerned, I believe the landscape in the county is near or at full capacity. If it is allowed to continue, the cumulative impact on the landscape will become severe. The county now hosts 17 operational wind farms, a further six have been permitted but are not yet operational, and another 13 are in planning. At present, County Durham has 70 commercial-scale turbines and a total of 155 turbines of various sizes. Another 72 turbines of all sizes are in planning, without counting the 24 turbines E.ON would like to build at the Isles in my constituency, which, on a good day, would generate 63.5 MW of electricity.
It is apparent that my Bill is not born out of any sense of nimbyism, because Durham has done its bit. The county understands the need for a good energy mix and has played its part. Today in Durham, the sheer size of the turbines is starting to place a burden on the landscape that I do not believe was envisaged by the legislators when the policy was devised to ensure that local people, through their planning authority, could not say no to a wind farm proposal if the energy generated exceeded 50 MW. Instead, the decision lies with the Secretary of State, through the Planning Inspectorate.
The Isles wind farm proposed for my constituency exceeds the 50 MW threshold and must therefore be referred to the Planning Inspectorate because it is deemed a nationally significant infrastructure project. The county council will merely be consulted. The national significance of the Isles wind farm is not its physical size but the energy it produces. According to E.ON, on a good day it would produce sufficient energy for towns such as Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield in my constituency. Newton Aycliffe and Sedgefield are great places to live, but is a wind farm that can generate sufficient energy for them an infrastructure project that warrants national significance? I think not. For me, Hartlepool nuclear power station, which is about 10 or 12 miles from Sedgefield and generates 1,190 MW of electricity, is an infrastructure project of national significance.
This is why I believe that onshore wind farms, especially in areas where there are many of them, should be exempt from the 50 MW threshold and that the planning decision on whether they should be built should lie with the local planning authority. If the Isles wind farm gets the go-ahead, local people will be left with a wind farm that covers 12.5 square miles and hosts 24 wind turbines, seven of which will be 126.5 metres high, whereas the other 17 will be 100 metres high. That is in an area that is designated as able to accommodate only four turbines. It would be the largest array of turbines as part of a network of wind farms on the Tees valley plain, including those already operational at Butterwick and the Walkway, as well as those which have received consent at Moor House farm, Lambs Hill and Red Gap farm but have yet to be built.
The Isles wind farm is not a power generating station of national significance, but it is an imposition on local people. Their views should be listened to and the decision on any approval for such a wind farm should be made locally. But where exactly did the 50 MW threshold come from? The figure is enshrined in the Planning Act 2008, in a spirit of consistency since the same figure was used in the Electricity Act 1989. That Act is now almost a quarter of a century old and wind farm technology has moved on.
In fact, during the debates on the 1989 Act, wind farms did not take centre stage. The Government wanted to create a new tranche of renewable energy capacity, but hydro was mentioned rather than wind. In 1994, when Durham county council wrote “Renewable energy in County Durham”, the first strategy document of its kind to be prepared by a local authority, the average wind turbine generated 300 to 400 kW and had a tip height of 40 to 50 metres. By 2001, the wind farm at Tow Law in County Durham was furnished with the latest turbines, which generated 750 kW and stood 71 metres high. The technology has moved on apace, but so has the size of the turbines, from 40 to 50 metres at the end of the 1990s to well over 100 metres today. Some of the turbines destined for the Isles will be 126.5 metres high—six times the height of the Angel of the North or almost twice the height of Durham cathedral. Consequently, the Government should look at increasing the 50 MW threshold.
The threshold is used by utility companies to their advantage because they can design a wind farm to exceed the 50 MW threshold, taking the planning decision out of the hands of local planning authorities. E.ON’s proposal for the Isles is a case in point. Its original proposal was for 10 turbines, but it was withdrawn because it knew that in all likelihood Durham County Council would turn down the application because it was following an Arup report on wind farm landscape impact, which said that the Isles could not take more than four turbines. E.ON withdrew the application, and introduced a new proposal for 45 wind turbines, but has settled on a wind farm of 24 turbines after taking planning restraints into consideration.
To achieve that, however, E.ON has performed all kinds of contortions. The area allocated for the wind farm is huge, but to avoid conservation areas it is designed to stand in two clusters about 2 km apart, each with its own substation. Looking at the map, people would think there were two distinct wind farms, not one. I have pointed that out to E.ON, which told me that as the wind turbines appear within the area designated for the wind farm, it is one wind farm. On that basis, E.ON should draw a red line around the whole of County Durham and have done. E.ON’s approach is cynical and takes for granted the good nature of the people of County Durham.
Durham has led the way in the pursuit of a cleaner and sustainable environment, and Durham county council is to be congratulated. I am not against wind farms, and accept the need for a strong energy mix. Durham county council and the county have done their bit, and we are proud of it. The possibility of a huge wind farm in an area that has proved that it is not averse to accepting wind farms is a step too far, which is why the threshold figure of 50 MW should be withdrawn for onshore wind farms, or at least increased significantly, as they do not provide infrastructure of national importance when compared with nuclear power stations, for example.
County Durham’s industrial heritage is one of coal mining. Those days have gone, and the slag heaps that once scarred the landscape have been removed. Yes, a wind turbine is more elegant than the pit heaps I grew up with, but with the pit heaps came thousands of jobs. What we are experiencing in County Durham today is the re-industrialisation of the landscape without the jobs. What we face in County Durham is massive utility companies being cynical in their approach by attempting to impose on the landscape wind farms which are not really of national importance.
Exempting wind farms from the 50 MW planning threshold, especially in locations where wind farms already dominate and are close to communities, will ensure that other parts of the country, which need to play their part in developing renewable energy, including wind power, are not taken for granted.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Phil Wilson, Pat Glass, Tom Blenkinsop, Grahame M. Morris, Natascha Engel, Angela Smith, Ian Lavery, Mrs Mary Glindon and Mr Richard Bacon present the Bill.
Phil Wilson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2013, and to be printed (Bill 109).
Opposition Day
NHS Funding
(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:03 - The House divided: - Ayes: 233 / Noes: 303 - Question accordingly negatived.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the letter of 4 December 2012 from the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Andrew Dilnot CBE, to the Secretary of State for Health concerning public expenditure on health, further notes Mr Dilnot’s statement that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10; and calls on Ministers to reflect this position in their public statements.
Some people question whether Opposition days ever achieve anything, but not us. Last month, we brought to the House our concern about plans for regional pay in the national health service, which found an echo among Government Members. Within days, the plans of the previous Health Secretary for market-facing pay in the NHS were scuppered in the autumn statement. To some, that was just another day, another U-turn, in the life of this shambolic coalition—no big deal—but to thousands of NHS staff in the south-west facing pay cuts it was a real relief, although we are still waiting for the consortium formally to back down. We will be vigilant until it does so.
Fresh from that success, we set ourselves a more challenging task in today’s Opposition day debate to bring some much-needed honesty to the public debate on the NHS, particularly on NHS spending. Across the country, people can see the signs of an NHS in increasing distress: cataract operations are restricted; A and E departments and walk-in centres have been closed; hospitals are full to bursting, some struggling for survival; over 7,000 nursing jobs have been lost—[Interruption.] Government Members should listen to the facts before they shout out, because this is the reality and the chaos that the previous Secretary of State created on the ground. People can see that with their own eyes, but when they go home and switch on the television they see Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box making complacent boasts about “real-terms increases” that they have given the NHS and saying that everything is fine.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to have integrity and demonstrate honesty in this debate, will he at the outset condemn the Labour party in Wales for the real cuts that everyone knows are being made in the Welsh health service? Will he level with the British people about that, rather than offer this empty political rhetoric that does not deal honestly with what is happening in Wales?
Andy Burnham
We are discussing the hon. Gentleman’s Government today, but let me deal with Wales. His Government have given the Welsh Assembly Government a real-terms £2.1 billion cut. The Welsh Assembly Government have done their best to protect health spending in that context: they have protected the NHS budget in cash terms. May I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that since 2010 there has been no real reduction in front-line staff, particularly nurses, in Wales, which is quite unlike the position under his Government? Before he appears a bit too cocky on these matters he should read up on the facts. The Welsh Assembly is doing the best that it can with the awful hand of cards that he and his Government dealt it.
There is a mismatch between ministerial rhetoric and the reality on the ground in the NHS, and it is in danger of causing confusion. If left unchallenged, it may lead to unfair claims that the problems in the NHS are all down to its staff and have nothing to do with the Government. Today we need a bit of accountability and a bit of honesty. Once and for all, we will nail the myths, spin and sheer misrepresentation of the facts that roll off the Government Benches week after week.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
In North Yorkshire, we have some of the lowest spending per capita in Britain. Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the removal and reduction of health spending on old people and rural areas under his watch?
Andy Burnham
I think that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark, because there was no reduction in health spending on my watch. I left plans for an increase, as I am about to explain. He illustrates the point that I am making: we are getting half-truths, spin and misrepresentation from Government Members on NHS spending. Indeed, we just got some more, and it is about time that we had a bit more accuracy in the House from them.
The story starts with the 2010 Conservative party manifesto. Let me quote from it:
“We will increase spending on health in real terms every year”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
Absolutely right.
Andy Burnham
Mr Dilnot may be watching; the Minister needs to be careful what she says.
That promise was carried into the coalition agreement, which said:
“We will guarantee”—
guarantee, mind—
“that health spending increases in real terms in each year of the Parliament”.
The Secretary of State has stopped nodding; he was nodding earlier. [Interruption.] I will be interested to hear how the Conservatives make those claims stack up, because week after week, Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards have stood at the Dispatch Box and claimed that that is exactly what they have delivered.
Until recently, this appeared prominently on the Conservative party website:
“We have increased the NHS budget in real terms in each of the last two years”.
Then, on 23 October, the Secretary of State said to the House:
“Real-terms spending on the NHS has increased across the country.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 815.]
[Interruption.] “It has”, he says again today. Okay, but this is where the story changes, because last week, he received a letter from the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Andrew Dilnot CBE. Let me quote the key sentence, which puts Mr Dilnot and the Secretary of State at odds, if I heard the Secretary of State correctly a moment ago:
“On the basis of these figures, we would conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10.”
[Interruption.] I am coming on to it all. In other words, NHS spending is lower, in real terms, after the first two years of the coalition, than when Labour left office.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the next sentence says:
“Given the small size of the changes and the uncertainties associated with them, it might also be fair to say that real terms expenditure had changed little over this period”?
Andy Burnham
Let me say to the Chair of the Health Committee that today I am challenging the veracity of ministerial statements made at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that as a former Secretary of State with many years’ experience of the House, he will know that when Ministers are at the Dispatch Box, they have to be accurate; they have to say the truth. A moment ago, the Secretary of State for Health said that he and the Conservative party were right to say that NHS spending had increased in real terms. That directly contradicts the letter that the Secretary of State had just been sent. Is it any wonder that the public are losing trust in the Government if that is the kind of arrogant spin that comes from those on the Government Benches, week after week?
Andy Burnham
I give way to the right hon. Gentleman once more, but then I will make some progress.
Mr Dorrell
Is it fair to characterise the letter as saying that
“real terms expenditure had changed little over this period”?
Andy Burnham
That is what the letter says, but it is a cut; that is what the letter says. The right hon. Gentleman might say that, in the context of the NHS budget, £1.9 billion is not very much, but it is still a change, and it is a cut. He stood for election on a manifesto promising a real-terms increase. He has just acknowledged that there has been a real-terms cut. Does he acknowledge that there has been a real-terms cut? I think he will have to. I am amazed; the Conservatives come here today to try to con the public, yet again, into thinking that they are fulfilling their promise.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I enjoy every moment in which a blow is landed on the Government; they squirm and try to come back. Will my right hon. Friend comment on how much of the budget is being thrown away and wasted on top-down reorganisation, redundancy payments and everything else that is going on?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
We need short interventions. There are a lot of Members who wish to speak. I am a little bothered by the comments made; I am sure that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) did not want to suggest that the Prime Minister conned people.
Andy Burnham
I am coming to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), because the context is that £1.6 billion, on the Government’s own figures, was spent on the back office, and taken away from the front line. The Chair of the Select Committee says that the cut was a little one, as though that is okay—“It’s really an increase, because it’s only a little cut”—but one has to add £1.6 billion to that to see the full extent of the diversion of funds from the NHS front line.
As the chair of the UK Statistics Authority has established, NHS spending was lower in the first two years of this coalition than when Labour left office. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that it is the same. Let us have some honesty here. Mr Dilnot says that it was a cut; accept what he says, and get on with the job. If the Secretary of State starts being a bit more honest at the Dispatch Box, he might get a bit more respect from the public.
The Prime Minister has cut the NHS—fact; but just as he airbrushed his poster, he has tried to airbrush the statistics, and he has been found out. To be fair, the Conservatives admitted it and corrected the Tory party website, but the problem is that we have a long list of similarly false claims made in the House that, as of now, stand uncorrected. Today, we invite the Secretary of State to correct the parliamentary record in person.
I am not surprised to see a few sheepish looks on the Conservative Benches, because we have been checking Conservative Members’ websites, and we found that the hon. Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), and for Hendon (Dr Offord), the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), and the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham)—
Andy Burnham
They are certainly sheepish today; they need to get back to their offices pretty sharpish to amend their websites in light of the letter from the chair of the UK Statistics Authority.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The website of the Conservatives in Salford says, on the budget that was going to increase,
“we would see more investment in our local NHS”
under a Conservative Government, but in Salford Royal hospital, 750 jobs have been cut. Between them, all our local hospitals have had 3,100 jobs cut in the past couple of years, and two walk-in centres have closed. If the budget is the same, why all these cuts?
Andy Burnham
This is the reality on the ground, as my hon. Friend says. There is also the mental health budget cut. There has been a mismatch; people see all those things, yet they hear the statements from the Government, and it does not make any sense, but now the truth and the facts about our NHS are being told, and things will begin to make sense to people.
What I find most troubling about all this, and most revealing about the Government’s style and the way that they work, is that even when they are warned by an official watchdog, they just carry on—as they are doing today—as if nothing had happened. When they admitted cutting the NHS in 2011-12 by amending their website, what was the excuse that they offered to Sir Andrew? Labour left plans for a cut; that is what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week. It is what the Secretary of State said in a letter replying to Mr Dilnot. Again, that is simply untrue.
According to Treasury statistics, Labour left plans for a 0.7% real-terms increase in the NHS in 2011-12. From then on, we had a spending settlement giving real-terms protection to the NHS budget. It was this Government who slowed spending in 2010-11, who allowed the resulting £1.9 billion underspend to be swiped back by the Treasury, contrary to the Secretary of State’s promise that all savings would be reinvested, and who still have published plans, issued by Her Majesty’s Treasury, for a further 0.3% cut to the NHS in 2013-14 and 2014-15, contrary to the new statement that the Conservatives have just put on their website. The Secretary of State has a lot of explaining to do.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I should be interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on the statement by John Appleby, the chief economist of the King’s Fund, who said that before the general election, the former Chancellor left plans for 2011-12 and 2012-13 that would see a cut in real terms. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to that?
Andy Burnham
I have not seen the quote, but I did the deal with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer just months before the general election, protecting the NHS in real terms. A deal was done for schools and for the Home Office too. Those were the plans. At the election I was arguing for real-terms protection. The Secretary of State was on the hustings calling for real-terms increases. I said it would be irresponsible, yes, to give real-terms increases over and above real-terms protection because the only way he could pay for that would be taking it off councils, hollowing out the social care budget. That is what I said at the election, but the right hon. Gentleman has not even given real-terms protection. He has cut the NHS in real terms, so it beggars belief that he has the nerve to heckle and shout out from the Front Bench, when he has cut the NHS lower than the plans that I had left in place.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is not just on the budget that the Government have let people down. They promised that they would not close accident and emergency departments. Before the general election the former Secretary of State went to Bexley and said he would not close the accident and emergency department at Queen Mary’s, Sidcup, and it closed after the general election. Now they are planning to close the A and E at Lewisham—another broken promise about the NHS. It just goes to show: you can never trust the Tories with the NHS.
Andy Burnham
The two guilty men here have a list of broken promises as long as their arm. The previous Secretary of State toured marginal seats before the election, promising the earth—“Burnley A and E? Oh, we’ll re-open that. Whatever you want. Chase Farm? That won’t close.” It was unbelievably cynical politics. It was all self-serving politics for their own ends and it had nothing to do with the reality in the NHS, but the problem for the present Secretary of State is that he has presented this false version of events to the House. On 13 November he said that
“there has been a real-terms growth in spending—actual money spent in the NHS, compared with Labour’s plans.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 188.]
[Interruption.] He says there has been. I ask for your help, Mr Deputy Speaker. How can Ministers deny the facts—deny what the watchdog is telling them? What do we do in such circumstances, when they have the sheer nerve and brass neck to carry on making these false statements?
Based on what we know, there is no way the Secretary of State can back up that claim, and I ask him to withdraw it today. It is an inaccurate claim. He made it at the Dispatch Box; the onus is on him to withdraw it. We know that he is taking time to come to terms with his brief, but he is in danger of developing a credibility problem with his utterances in the House. Take this from last month’s Health questions:
“Cancer networks are here to stay and their budget has been protected.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 127.]
But again the truth emerges, and it is somewhat different from the version of events presented to us by the Secretary of State. On Monday, responding to excellent research by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), the national cancer director conceded that in future cancer networks would have to live with a smaller budget. What are we to do? Who are we to believe? We have a Secretary of State who is making statements that contradict his national cancer director. It is shameless.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Even the north-west regional centre for cancer treatment, the Christie hospital, recently announced that 213 posts will go. I do not know how it stacks up with the Secretary of State’s claim that the NHS budget is going up, when we see cancer patients getting a reduced service at the Christie hospital.
Andy Burnham
The priorities are all wrong. The Government are spending the money on a reorganisation that none of us wanted in the north-west, and as my hon. Friend says, cancer networks are being cut and are shedding staff. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West revealed this week, they are cutting back on the vital work that they do—and there could be no more vital work. Yet we continue to have a false version of events given to us. Ministers must think we are daft, but we are telling the facts to the country today and people will judge for themselves.
When we put the whole picture together, what we see is a tissue of obfuscation and misrepresentation of the real position on NHS spending. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), who is, sadly, not in the House today, once made some interesting observations about those on the Government Front Bench, but it is not just that they
“don’t know the price of pint of milk”.
The arrogance of which she spoke seems to give them a feeling that they can claim that black is white and expect everyone to believe it. If they say it is so, then it must be so. Well no, actually. The intelligence of the House need not be—
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Has the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) informed the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) that he would be making comments about her in the debate today?
Andy Burnham
Yes, I have done so, Mr Deputy Speaker.
If in future any Minister mentions the NHS and real-terms increases in the same sentence at the Dispatch Box, Members on all sides will at least have the facts. Better still, by carrying our simple motion this evening, we can give the House the opportunity to make sure that Ministers take much more care than they have previously shown with their statements on NHS spending.
Let us look to the future. What does all this mean for the NHS and what effect is the Government’s cut to its budget having in the real world? In its briefing for today’s debate, the NHS Confederation refers to a survey of NHS leaders which found that a full 74% described the current financial position as “the worst they had ever experienced” or “very serious”. The reason why the Government’s cuts feel much deeper to people working in the NHS, as we heard a moment ago, is that they are contending with the added effect of a reorganisation that nobody wanted and that they pleaded with the former Secretary of State to stop.
Cuts and reorganisation are a toxic mix. According to the Government’s own figures, a full £1.6 billion has been diverted from patient care and the NHS front line and spent on back-office restructuring. Look at the waste already: a full £1 billion spent on managerial redundancies—1,300 six-figure pay-outs and, scandalously, 173 pay-outs over £200,000. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State chunters away. I am surprised he has the nerve even to be here. Such pay-outs are unforgivable and unjustifiable when patients are seeing treatment restricted and nurses laid off in their thousands. But it is not just the financial cost. It is the opportunity cost—the colossal distraction this has proved to be from having the focus where it should be—on the money.
After the election, the £20 billion Nicholson challenge should have been the only show in town. Instead, no one stood up in Cabinet to the previous Secretary of State, who was allowed to proceed with his vanity reorganisation of the NHS. The consequence has been two years of drift, where no one knows who is making the decisions. The danger of this unwieldy and unmanaged approach to the efficiency drive is that, as trusts start to panic about the future, increasingly drastic cuts are being offered up that could have serious consequences for patient care.
I want to end by focusing on four such consequences. First, let us look at staffing levels on the NHS front-line. For two years, we have had the mismatch of Ministers making boasts about rising spending while the number of staff was dropping at an alarming rate. A full 7,134 nursing posts have been lost since the coalition came in, with 943 in the past month alone. [Interruption.] Government Members keep mentioning doctors. We left those plans for doctors coming through. The Secretary of State has not done anything about the training of those doctors, but on his watch he has seen more than 7,000 nursing posts cut.
Training places are being been cut by 4.6% this year, after a 9.4% cut in 2011-12. No wonder the chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing warns that we are “sleepwalking” into a crisis. Peter Carter says:
“On a daily basis, nurses are telling us they do not have enough staff to deliver good quality care.”
The situation has taken a serious turn. In its annual report, the Care Quality Commission found that 16% of hospitals in England did not have adequate staffing levels. I am surprised that a warning of this seriousness has not received more attention. It cannot go ignored. It would seem that the NHS is failing to learn the lessons of the failure at Mid Staffordshire, where the first Francis inquiry found inadequate staffing levels to be one of the main reasons why care standards fell so low.
The Health Secretary tells the Health Service Journal today that he is not going to interfere with the day-to-day running of hospitals, but let me remind him that it is his responsibility to ensure that our hospitals are safe. He must develop an urgent plan to stop the job losses and protect the NHS front line. He should tell us which hospitals do not have enough staff and explain what action he is taking on the CQC’s warning to ensure that all hospitals in England have safe staffing levels.
The second consequence of Government cuts to the NHS is the growing number of restrictions on treatment. We have revealed how 125 separate treatments have been restricted or stopped altogether since 2010, including cataracts, knee replacement and varicose veins. Just as they make false boasts about increasing NHS spending, so we hear repeated claims about reducing waiting lists. But that is because people cannot get on the waiting list in the first place.
Figures from the House of Commons Library show the effect of those restrictions on patients. More than 50,000 patients are being denied treatment and kept off NHS waiting lists, and there have been big falls in operations for cataracts, varicose veins and carpal tunnel syndrome. Ministers have promised to stop cost-based rationing if they are given evidence of it, but we have presented them with the evidence on a number of occasions, so let us now see some action.
Thirdly, the lethal mix of cuts and reorganisation is destabilising our hospitals. They are the first to feel the full effects of the free-market ideology that the Government have unleashed on the NHS. There is no longer one NHS approach in which spending is managed across the system; there is a broken-down, market-based NHS. The Government’s message to England’s hospitals is this: “You’re on your own. There’ll be no bail-outs. Sink or swim. But if it helps, you can devote half your beds to treating private patients.” We see the signs of increasing panic as hospitals struggle to survive in this harsh new world. In Bolton, South Tees, and Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells, a large number of staff have been given 90-day redundancy notices, and we see half-baked plans coming forward to reconfigure services with efforts to short-circuit public consultation.
Will the Secretary of State today remove the immediate threat to Lewisham A and E by stating clearly that it is a straightforward breach of the administration process rules to solve the problems in one trust through the back-door reconfiguration of another? Will he ensure that the future of all A and E provision in Greater Manchester is considered in the round as part of a city-wide review, rather than allowing the A and E at Trafford to be picked off in advance. In St Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust, will he reverse the comments of the previous Secretary of State, who told the clinical commissioning groups that they had no obligation to honour financial commitments to the hospitals entered into by the previous primary care trusts? It is chaos out there. The Secretary of State urgently needs—[Interruption.] In fact, all the Health Ministers urgently need to get a grip, not just the Secretary of State.
Robert Flello
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the West Midlands ambulance service only yesterday advised that there are about half a dozen hospitals in the west midlands whose A and E staffing situation is so critical that it is having a knock-on effect on their ambulance turnaround times?
Andy Burnham
I hear reports from ambulance services all over the country that they simply cannot hand over patients at the door of A and E departments and are having to queue outside. Consequently, large swathes of the country are being left without adequate ambulance cover. That is unacceptable, especially as we go into winter and temperatures drop. We need to see some evidence that the Government have a grip on these things. I have been told that large parts of my constituency have occasionally been left without adequate ambulance cover. We must have answers on these matters today.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I am very disappointed to hear the right hon. Gentleman talk down the NHS. As he has just acknowledged, before the election the NHS knew that it was facing an unprecedented efficiency challenge. He will also know that under Labour productivity in the NHS fell continuously. I wonder whether—[Interruption.] Okay, but for almost every year—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Lady needs to ask a sharp and punchy question as an intervention, and very quickly.
Dr Wollaston
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the NHS’s achievement in making a productivity gain?
Andy Burnham
The hon. Lady just made another untrue statement. She talks about talking down the NHS, but productivity has not fallen. I am sorry, but let us have some honesty. We are not just going to sit here and take one statement after another—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
We all know that all Members are very honest in this House.
Andy Burnham
Inadvertent claims are being thrown around the House all the time.
Fourthly, and finally, cuts and reorganisation are resulting in a crude drive to privatise services, prioritising cost over clinical quality. Across England, deals have been signed to open up 396 community services to open tender under any qualified provider, but those deals are not subject to proper public scrutiny because they are held back under commercial confidentiality. In Greater Manchester, plans are advanced to hand over patient transport services to Arriva, despite the fact that an in-house bid scored higher on quality and despite the fact that the CQC recently found serious shortcomings with the same provider in Leicestershire. The trouble is that nobody has asked the people of Greater Manchester, or more importantly the patients who rely on that service, whether they want that change.
Lucy Powell
My right hon. Friend might not be aware of another point. The patients who use the Greater Manchester passenger transport service are coming to me regularly and crying their eyes out in distress at this decision—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) says “Aaah”, but those are poor and vulnerable people who rely on that service to take them to and from hospital. It is an absolute disgrace that the contract has been given to Arriva bus service, so don’t patronise them or me. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way.
Andy Burnham
Thank God my hon. Friend got up to deliver that to Government Members, because they need to hear a bit more of it. They say “Aaah,” but we are talking about people who desperately need that service, trust it and like it the way it is. The Government have not even bothered to consult them about the changes they are making. That is what is so wrong.
“Any qualified provider” is turning into the NHS version of compulsory competitive tendering, a race to the bottom and a rush to go for the cheapest bid, regardless of the effect on patients and services. What clearer symbol could there be of a privatised, cut-price coalition NHS than the decision to award patient transport in Greater Manchester to a bus company?
Let me remind the Secretary of State of the rights of patients and staff as set out in the NHS constitution:
“You have the right to be involved, directly or through representatives, in the planning of healthcare services, the development and consideration of proposals for changes in the way those services are provided, and in decisions to be made affecting the operation of those services.”
If the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) referred to sought to enforce those rights by bringing a legal action against the North West ambulance service, can the Secretary of State confirm that there would be a fair chance that it would have to halt its plans? If so, why does he not just press that pause button and ask people whether they want their ambulance services run by a bus company?
The first line of the NHS constitution states:
“The NHS belongs to the people.”
But it will not when this Government have finished with it. We are losing the NHS, and that is why we will keep stepping up the fight for it. People will remember the personal promises the Prime Minister made on the NHS in order to win office, promises that it now seems had more to do with his desire to detoxify the Tory brand than with any genuine regard for the NHS. He promised no top-down reorganisation of the NHS; that was broken. He promised a moratorium on hospital changes; that was broken. He promised real-terms increases in every year of this Parliament; that was broken. They can now see the chaos that the breaking of those promises is visiting on the NHS: nurse numbers cut, health visitors cut, mental health cut, cancer networks cut, and cataract operations cut. He is the man who cut the NHS, not the deficit. The House cannot vote tonight to stop the damage, but it can put down a marker against an arrogant and incompetent Government who need to show the NHS, its patients and staff a little more respect. I commend the motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
We have heard a lot of bluster and nonsense today. At its heart is an extremely uncomfortable truth for the Opposition: this Government are spending more on the NHS than Labour would have spent. That spend has moved away from consultancy and the back office to the front line, so the NHS is now performing better—I know that it is uncomfortable, but it is true—than it ever did under Labour. That means more treatment—[Interruption.] This might not be what Opposition Members want to hear, but they might as well listen. That means more treatment, more care and more lives saved. The previous Government talked the talk on the NHS, but it is this Government who have delivered an NHS of which we can be immensely proud.
Mr Hunt
I said that I would make a little progress, if that is all right.
I must confess to being both surprised and delighted at this afternoon’s motion, because I would have thought that the last thing the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) would want to do was remind the nation of his opposition to our increasing the NHS budget. The motion is about spending, but we can spend only what is in our budget. What did he say about budget and spend during his failed bid for the leadership of his own party? [Interruption.] I think that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches should listen to what those on their Front Bench are saying. He said:
“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”.
So let me ask him to clarify this to the House: does he stand by his comment that it is irresponsible to increase NHS spending?
Andy Burnham
Yes, I do. I said in my speech that the NHS should be protected in real terms at the front line. That is what the Secretary of State has not done. I cannot believe that he is contradicting the contents of the letter from Andrew Dilnot. He really needs to tread very carefully before he goes any further.
Mr Hunt
Let me say very gently to the right hon. Gentleman that he can hardly come to this House criticising us for an alleged cut in NHS spending if his own plans would have led not to higher but to lower NHS spending. We are increasing spending by £12.5 billion, and he thinks that that is irresponsible.
Grahame M. Morris
Will the Secretary of State at least acknowledge that the previous Labour Government increased resources in the NHS from £30 billion when we took office to over £100 billion when we left office in 2010?
Mr Hunt
I will confirm for the hon. Lady that the nurse-to-bed ratio has gone up so that nurses are spending—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition will want to hear about issues of care. The average bed is getting two hours of nursing care per week more than under Labour.
Let me give the right hon. Member for Leigh another chance to clarify Labour policy on health spending. In Wales, Labour has announced plans to cut the NHS budget by 8% in real terms despite an overall settlement protected by Barnett. Given that the motion condemns an alleged cut in NHS spending, will he, once and for all, condemn the choice that Labour made in Wales? If he does not want to do that, let me tell him what the British Medical Association says is happening in Wales. It talks of a “slash and burn” situation and “panic” on the wards. Would he want that to be repeated in England? If not, he should not sit idly by but have the courage to condemn the choice that Labour has made in Wales.
While we are on the subject of Wales, the right hon. Gentleman will know that NHS patients there are five times less likely to get certain cancer drugs than English NHS patients, but the Labour Welsh Health Minister has said it would be “irresponsible”—the same word that the right hon. Gentleman used—to introduce a cancer drugs fund in Wales. Does the right hon. Member for Leigh support what Labour is doing with regard to cancer drugs in Wales—yes or no?
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State tell us whether that has anything to do with the cuts in capital spend from Westminster central Government? Does he have any comment to make on National Audit Office figures showing that spending on health in Wales is higher than that in England, or does that not fit with his fictitious version of events?
Mr Hunt
I gently remind the hon. Lady that this is about the choice made by the Labour Government in Wales. They had a choice. They could have protected the NHS budget—they had the money under Barnett to do that—but they chose not to do so, and that is supported by the right hon. Gentleman.
Julian Smith
Does it surprise my right hon. Friend that we heard nothing from Labour Members about productivity, innovation or the Derek Wanless report, which demonstrated that Labour’s health spending led to lower productivity rather than higher productivity?
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Hunt
I am going to make a little progress, if I may.
The right hon. Member for Leigh rather helpfully spelled out the difference between his position and our position when he admitted in the New Statesman that we are spending more than he wanted to spend on the NHS. He said of the NHS budget:
“They’re not ring-fencing it. They’re increasing it.”
In respect of NHS spending, he said:
“Cameron’s been saying it every week in the Commons: ‘Oh, the shadow health secretary wants to spend less on health than us’…it is true, but that’s my point.”
It was a good point, because we are spending more and he would have spent less. So why on earth call an Alice in Wonderland Opposition day debate condemning levels of spending in the NHS when he has so clearly put it on the record that he wanted that spending to be less?
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disingenuous, should it be allowed by the Deputy Speaker to say that, of the shadow Secretary of State and Labour Members—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are not going to be disingenuous, are we? We are going to be friends together, and I am sure that a good experienced Member like you, Mr Stuart, could word it better.
Mr Stuart
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that correction, which I required. Obviously, it is an inadvertent tendency towards disingenuousness on the subject. I would like to apologise for pointing out, on behalf of patients right across the country, that for the Opposition to have a debate on health funding, when they were proposing to cut it—when they are actually cutting it in Wales—and when productivity fell, is the height of hypocrisy.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not think we can have “hypocrisy” either, so we will have the Secretary of State instead.
Heidi Alexander
The Secretary of State seems to be very keen to ask questions of our Front Benchers. Why will he not answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)? How many nurses have lost their jobs on his watch? I do not want to be told about the nurses-to-beds ratio—answer the question.
Mr Hunt
It is because we have protected the NHS budget that the number of clinical staff in the NHS has gone up and not down. [Interruption.] Okay, let me explain this, because there is a very important point here. Unlike Labour Front Benchers, I do not want to micro-manage every hospital in the country and tell them exactly how many doctors and how many nurses they should have. I want them to put money on the front line, and the result is that the number of clinical staff—doctors, nurses, midwives and health visitors—has gone up and not down.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) is not going to walk out after his intervention and will stay a little longer.
Mr Walker
The meeting is in thirteen minutes.
My right hon. Friend knows that it is not just about funding but about good management. He cannot be responsible for management across the NHS, but in the East of England ambulance service there are question marks over the quality of its senior management. Will he find time to cast his eye over those senior managers?
Mr Hunt
I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the concerns that he raises, which are frequently raised with me by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has a constituency in the east of England. I follow that situation carefully.
Let me now deal with the substance of the motion. I have always talked about spending going up from the first year of the comprehensive spending review—the first year when this Government had full control of the budget and were responsible for setting the spending plans. In 2011-12—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State should listen to the facts. He tabled the motion, so he probably should hear the answer, although I know it is not what he wants. In 2011-12, spending went up by £2.5 billion in cash terms—0.1% in real terms—on 2010-11. This year, 2012-13, it will go up again, as it will in every year of the Parliament.
Andy Burnham
Would the Secretary of State care to remind the House of the commitment in the coalition agreement? Could he read that out for us?
Mr Hunt
I have just said that spending will go up in every year of the Parliament. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that these are small real-terms increases, albeit ones that he bitterly opposed. That is why, given the uncertainties around GDP deflators, Andrew Dilnot’s letter says, in the sentence that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to read out, that
“it might also be fair to say real terms expenditure has changed little over this period.”
There it is, exposed for all to see: a bogus Labour motion trying to paint a picture of cuts to the NHS budget when even the head of the UK Statistics Authority says that the broad picture of NHS spending is that it has been protected in real terms—something that almost certainly would not have happened had Labour been in power.
Andy Burnham
I am struggling to believe what I am hearing. The Secretary of State is saying that Andrew Dilnot agreed with him that there had been real-terms increases in every year of this Parliament—[Interruption.] That is what he just said at the Dispatch Box. Let me quote Andrew Dilnot again, for the sake of accuracy. He said that
“we would conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10”.
How can the Secretary of State square what he has just told the House of Commons with what is in Andrew Dilnot’s letter? Is he saying that Andrew Dilnot is wrong?
Mr Hunt
Some politicians walk into the same trap not once but twice. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the sentence that comes straight after that, which he did not want to quote. It says that
“it might also be fair to say that real-terms expenditure had changed little over this period.”
That is what Andrew Dilnot is saying, which is why the motion is so completely bogus.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I am no statistician, but my understanding of that English is that things have not changed much. However, the Secretary of State has consistently said that he and the Government have pledged to implement an increase. There is nothing in that letter to suggest that any increase has occurred.
Mr Hunt
The right hon. Lady’s party has been saying that spending has been cut, and it had the foolishness to call an Opposition day debate on the basis of a letter from Andrew Dilnot that states that, broadly speaking, spending has remained unchanged. That is why, at its heart, the motion is bogus.
The sad fact is that this is not the debate that the Opposition planned to have, two years into this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman dreamed of coming to the House to remonstrate about an NHS that was on its knees and that was not delivering for the public. He wanted to argue about waiting times, but they have gone down, with fewer people waiting a long time for an operation than at any time under Labour. He wanted to argue about treatments, but there are more people getting new hips and knees and many other treatments than under Labour. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen to this. He wanted to argue about cancer, but 23,000 people are now getting drugs under the cancer drugs fund that Labour refused to set up.
Today, the right hon. Gentleman has tabled a motion criticising the decisions taken by the coalition and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) on NHS spending in our first two years in office. This is also about how we spend the money, as many of my hon. Friends have said. What are the decisions that the right hon. Gentleman is criticising? They are precisely the decisions that mean that the NHS is now performing at record levels, and vastly better than at any time under Labour.
Let us look at those decisions. There was the decision to reduce the number of managers by 7,000 and transfer resources to the front line. There was also the decision to cancel Labour’s disastrous attempt to embrace the technology revolution that cost billions and set the NHS back by years. Then there was the decision to end the wasteful consultancy spend, which has now been cut by 39%. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman needs to listen to this. There was the decision to stop the scandal of unsustainable private finance initiative projects that left the NHS with a £73 billion debt and £1.6 billion-worth of repayments every year. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Christmas is coming. Let us show a little bit more Christmas spirit towards each other. Members on both sides of the House want to hear the Secretary of State.
Mr Hunt
I could not agree with you more, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am trying to give the House some good news, but it is difficult for the Opposition to take it in.
There was also the decision, championed by both coalition parties, to transfer that money to the front line, so we now have more clinical staff, including 5,000 more doctors; better access to drugs, including £600 million invested in the cancer drugs fund; 500,000 more elective admissions every year than under Labour; over 3 million more out-patient appointments every year than under Labour; nearly 1 million more going through accident and emergency every year than under Labour; and 1.5 million more diagnostic tests every year than under Labour. On top of all that, we have 60,000 fewer people waiting longer than 18 weeks than under Labour; 90% fewer people waiting more than a year than under Labour; clostridium difficile down more than a third compared with under Labour; MRSA halved compared with under Labour; and the number of people facing the indignity of mixed-sex wards down by 98% compared with under Labour.
Of course the NHS faces huge challenges with an ageing population and increasing demand, but we are now facing up to those challenges with ambitious plans to tackle dementia, to reduce mortality rates for the big killer diseases to the lowest in Europe, to embrace the technology revolution—but getting it right this time—and to improve the quality of care which, in parts of the system, has been allowed to become shockingly poor for far too long. All those priorities were ignored by Labour in office and, even worse, they have been rejected by Labour today as a “meaningless list”. Those were Labour’s words. Well, tell that to the 157,000 people who die from cancer every year, or the 800,000 people who have dementia, or the people whose families suffer from the poor care that we read about every week in the newspapers.
None of the improvements to the NHS, and none of the ambitions for our NHS, would be possible without the extraordinary dedication of our doctors, nurses and front-line professionals, to whom I pay tribute today. But none of them would have been possible either if we had not increased the NHS budget and NHS front-line spend, contrary to what Labour intended and wanted. Labour’s plans would have meant less spending in real terms on the NHS, and vastly less spending on the NHS front line. No clever fiddling with baselines can obscure the harsh reality that Labour’s policy towards the NHS is a mass of contradictions that fools nobody—certainly not the brilliant doctors, nurses and professionals who have given their lives to saving and improving the lives of others. I urge the House to reject this ridiculous motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches is displayed on the annunciator screen.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Today’s debate centres on the Prime Minister’s broken promise to protect the NHS, which was expressed as a commitment to increase spending on the NHS year on year. That is not the only promise that he made. In opposition, he spoke passionately about retaining essential local services and named my local hospital, Lewisham, as one of the 29 hospitals that he would personally defend. Today we can offer him and the Secretary of State for Health that opportunity. The bottom line for NHS spending has to be the provision of safe, quality health care that meets the needs of the local population and is free at the point of need. Nothing is more important to the vast majority of our people.
The four tests that the Government have set for any local reorganisation proposals are: that they should have the support of local GPs; that they should have strong public and patient engagement; that they should be backed by sound clinical evidence; and that they should provide support for patient choice. Not one of those criteria has been met by the current proposals for Lewisham hospital by the trust special administrator.
Mr Graham Stuart
The right hon. Lady is speaking movingly about local services. Does she welcome, as I do, the £12.5 billion increase proposed for the NHS budget during this Parliament? Does she disagree with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who believes that such increases are irresponsible?
Dame Joan Ruddock
If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will discover that I find it impossible to see the increase. What I see on the ground are cuts, cuts, cuts. That is what I want to speak about today.
As I was saying, not one of those criteria is met by the trust special administrator’s proposals for Lewisham hospital. The TSA was appointed in July by the Secretary of State for Health to sort out the considerable financial problems of the neighbouring South London Healthcare NHS Trust. His remit required him to find tens of millions of pounds of savings from the services provided by the trust’s hospitals in Woolwich, Farnborough and Sidcup. That could not be done, so the TSA’s response was to grab a successful, solvent and highly regarded hospital, Lewisham, and propose to destroy it to raise money from the sale of two thirds of the site currently occupied by the hospital, a fact that was not even mentioned in the consultation document.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents have similar concerns about the future of their local hospital in Kettering, despite assurances that changes are being driven by the best clinical advice and guidance and by clinical outcomes. Contrary to the unrecognisable picture described by those on the Government Benches, we know that the cuts in Kettering hospital’s services, which will affect my constituents in Corby and east Northamptonshire, are a result of a £48 million deficit that is a direct result of the Government’s policies. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that this is about those cuts in funding rather than the clinical outcomes?
Dame Joan Ruddock
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. If all hon. Members are honest in providing a record of what is happening on the ground, we will see that the reality is, indeed, cuts and reductions in services.
It is a case of not only how much money we spend on the NHS, but how wisely we can spend it, and there may be agreement throughout the House on that. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) that just four years ago, Lewisham hospital gained a new wing through a successful and affordable private finance initiative contract. Just two years ago, a state of the art new birthing centre was opened, and only in April of this year the £12 million refurbishment of the A and E department was completed.
Now, however, the trust special administrator proposes to close both the full A and E service and the full maternity service at Lewisham hospital. The consequence of closing the A and E department and replacing it with an urgent care centre means the closure of the intensive care unit, the coronary care unit and the acute medical and elderly medical services. Every year, more than 13,000 people benefit from those acute services, 4,500 babies are born in the maternity unit, and more than 120,000 people use the A and E department.
The proposals are, to be frank, catastrophic—they will remove vital services from a growing population of more than 270,000 people. This is an accountant’s solution to a problem that does not even exist in Lewisham itself. Not a single constituent, patient, GP or hospital specialist has come to me in support of the plans.
My colleagues, Lewisham hospital trust and I are not opposed to change aimed at greater efficiencies and higher standards. Indeed, that was the Labour Government’s policy and philosophy for the NHS all along. We know that closures of small hospitals have led to safer services. We know that paramedic services and blue-light ambulances taking people to highly specialised centres save lives every day. We also know that the NHS could be more efficient, but there is no evidence that the needs of Lewisham people for A and E or maternity services can be safely met elsewhere in south-east London. All other existing provision is full to capacity, and travel from most of Lewisham to Woolwich is highly problematic.
The TSA report is full of assertions and aspirations that are completely divorced from the realities of people’s lives in a borough that contains some of the most deprived wards in the UK. If the proposals were to go ahead, the 750,000 residents in the boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich and Bromley would be dependent on a single A and E department. As the report says, hospitals are part of a bigger NHS family, which is why the Secretary of State must look at London as a whole. It cannot be just or sensible to try to find enormous financial savings to rescue one health trust by destroying another.
The public have had just 30 days to respond to the extraordinary proposals in what is a deeply flawed consultation process, but such is the anger that more than 32,000 people, including more than 100 local GPs, had added their names to a petition started by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) by the time we presented it to No. 10 last Friday.
Last week the trust board of Lewisham hospital issued its response. It supports in principle the merger of Lewisham with Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich, and I must say that that is worth considering, but the trust says:
“We are concerned that the financial modelling completed by the TSA team at pace will include errors that will work against financial viability of the proposed Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust and Queen Elizabeth hospital reorganisation.”
That would simply repeat the history of the hospitals in the South London Healthcare NHS Trust that have had continuing financial problems.
The trust board goes on to say:
“The TSA process has made it impossible to have the engagement and involvement that proposals such as these would normally warrant, and our clinicians do not feel they have been listened to in this process.”
The rest of its submission to the TSA is entirely damning. It says:
“We do not believe there is a convincing case for the major change of services proposed in Lewisham. The TSA has overlooked the significant role that LHT provides in the broader provision of services to local people. The TSA recommendations will result in worse, rather than better, care for the people of Lewisham. We believe a health and equalities impact assessment would show this but has not yet been completed—a significant weakness of the TSA Report.”
When the Secretary of State comes to view the TSA’s report, whatever form it takes, I urge him also to review all of the evidence that has been presented by local people, local experts, local consultants, GPs and the hospital trust itself. As the local Save Lewisham Hospital campaign says, this is not a difficult decision for the Government—it is potentially a deadly one. I urge him to give the most careful consideration to what is being said. The criticisms are damning and we have absolutely no faith in the proposals that the TSA will put before him.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
You challenged us earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, to introduce a little Christmas good will to the debate, and I want to try to do that in two ways. First, I want to respond to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who spoke from the perspective of the local constituency and community interest in Lewisham. The challenges that she described repeat themselves many times over in the health care system, and it is those challenges that I want to address.
Secondly, I want to surprise the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), by welcoming the fact that his motion, although I do not endorse it, refocuses the health debate on the core challenge facing the health service, and the health and care system more broadly, as it thinks about how we meet demand—in truth, there is bipartisan agreement on this—in the more challenging resource environment in which we now live.
Although we were not able to detect it in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, the fact is that he, as Secretary of State, introduced the changed resource outlook within which the health and care system now operates. It was in May 2009—not on election day in May 2010—that Sir David Nicholson issued his annual report on the challenges facing the national health service. He made it clear that the system has to meet demand against the background of a resource outlook that is not only unrecognisably different from that during the generous funding of the Labour years between 1997 and 2010, but that has fundamentally changed from the one that the NHS has experienced throughout its whole history since 1948.
Andy Burnham
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that I had to give the NHS that reality check and set the Nicholson challenge. With that in mind, does he agree that the Nicholson challenge should have been the only show in town after 2010, and that it was catastrophic to combine it with the biggest ever reorganisation that the NHS has ever seen?
Mr Dorrell
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I agree that the prime focus of health policy since 2010 should have been on how we can change the way that care is delivered in the health care system and the social care system to ensure that we can meet demand against the very different resource outlook that I have described. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have done many times in this Chamber, that he shares some of the responsibility for the two-year trip down memory lane that we have had. It has been comfortable for the Labour party to say that the Tory party does not believe in the health service. We have been reminded numerous times that Tory MPs—all of whom are now dead and most of whom died before most of the current Members of the House of Commons were born—voted against the establishment of the national health service in 1946. We have had reminders from Government Members that the Labour party voted against the establishment of NHS trusts and then went ahead with the policy in office. The Labour party says that it is against choice and competition, but it was that party that established the choice and competition panel to ensure that those influences were brought to bear in health care policy.
We have had a two-year trip down memory lane, in which we have engaged in party political arguments that have avoided the issue that the right hon. Gentleman articulated as Secretary of State: how can we meet rising demand for health and care services against the background of a budget that, as the Select Committee has said repeatedly, is flatlining in real terms? That is why I was so keen earlier to read out the sentence from the Dilnot letter that states that it is
“fair to say that real terms expenditure had changed little over this period.”
The way that I prefer to put it is that if the decimal points are knocked out, real-terms expenditure is running at zero. The question is how to act against the background of a very small growth in resources, which is what the Government are committed to.
What the right hon. Gentleman did not cover in his speech is that the revenue expenditure of the NHS, which is what actually treats patients on a day-by-day basis, has grown modestly in real terms since his last year as Secretary of State. In my view, it will continue to grow modestly in real terms. He is frowning, but it is there in the arithmetic that there has been modest real-terms growth in the revenue expenditure, which is another definition of front-line services. That is the expenditure that funds the delivery of services to patients on a day-by-day basis and that is where the pressure is felt.
Lucy Powell
In addition to the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, has he considered the chronic pressure that is being put on the NHS, which will get much worse from next April with the cuts to adult social care and the desperate cuts to local government? The conversation that we are having has to take into account what the money has to be spent on. The service will decline dramatically from next April.
Mr Dorrell
I have made the point more than once that we should look across the traditional divide between the national health service and the social care system towards a health and care system. The only way of responding to the efficiency challenge that the right hon. Member for Leigh was the first Secretary of State to set out—what the Select Committee has described as the Nicholson challenge—is to rethink the way in which services are delivered across the health and social care divide. The National Audit Office, another independent body, has stated that 30% of non-emergency hospital admissions are avoidable—not unnecessary, but avoidable. We need decent community-based services that meet the demand early in the development of the condition to avoid the unnecessary development of acute cases that have to be treated though hospital admission.
Andy Sawford
The right hon. Gentleman has been a vocal advocate for a long-term solution to the issues relating to the integration of health and social care. I have enjoyed engaging with him on those issues in the past. Does he agree that it is incredibly disappointing that we are not making the progress that we should be making in finding consensus on the future of social care funding and, in the short term, on diverting more funding, particularly from NHS underspends, to prevention?
Mr Dorrell
I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the challenge. I was looking forward to him congratulating the Government on taking a step in the right direction, although it is not a total solution, by investing in prevention some of the resources in the health care. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman indicates that it is only a little and that it should be more.
We need to look across the statutory divide that reflects history, but not the demands of today’s generation of patients. The key thing that we must recognise in the debate about health and care is that we have inherited a system, which all of us have supported through most of its history, that is built on the assumption that the typical patient will be restored to good health. In Bevan’s day, that was true of the typical patient in the health and care system, but it is not true of the typical patient in today’s system. The majority of the resources in today’s health and care system go towards delivering care to people who will not be restored to full health. That, not surprisingly, requires a different set of institutions, shaped in a different way from the institutions that we have inherited from history.
The challenge that faces all of us in this House who care about the health and care system is not to protect the different bits of the system as though they were listed buildings, but to change the system so that it uses today’s technologies to meet the needs of today’s patients. That is the core challenge that faces my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues and, if I may say so, the right hon. Member for Leigh and his shadow ministerial colleagues.
Mr Dorrell
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not.
For the second half of this Parliament, we could have a reprise of the first half and we could trade party political slogans about a system that increasingly thinks that the political debate has nothing to do with it, or we could engage with the people who understand what real life feels like on the front line of the system, which has been described by one or two Opposition Members, and we could show that we in this House support the need for change in order to use taxpayers’ resources to meet taxpayers’ health and care needs. That is the real challenge that faces the House this evening.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is leaving because, before going on to discuss what is happening in my local health community and local hospital, I want to pick up on a couple of the things that have been said. First, I am pleased that this very dry motion has been tabled because I hope that it will concentrate our minds on what is happening in the national health service and, in particular, to spending.
The Secretary of State said that spending is related to budgets. He did not respond to the point posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that in 2010-11, there was a £1.9 billion underspend in the national health service budget. No use was made of the budget exchange scheme, so none of that money was moved into the following financial year. We can assume that £1.9 billion went back to the Treasury.
In the following year, 2011-12, the underspend was £1.4 billion, and £316 million was carried over into 2012-13. An underspend in the region of £3 billion from the first two years of this Government—including the year they won the general election—has gone back to the Treasury. Those are the facts; I do not know if any Front Bench Member wishes to dispute them.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
Does the right hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that the average underspend in the last four years of the Labour Government was £1.9 billion?
Mr Barron
I recognise that there has been underspend, but I take this debate, and the debate we had running up to the general election, a bit more seriously. The chairman of the UK Statistics Authority said that there had been an underspend, and what we have just heard is not true. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said, the Conservative party manifesto stated:
“We will increase health spending in real terms every year.”
Mr Barron
I will give way in a few minutes. When the Conservative party was in opposition, the current Prime Minister said in 2009:
“With the Conservatives there will no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
I want to keep reminding hon. Members of that because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh pointed out, we may be able to take £20 billion out of a budget over four years—that is a big ask and has never been done anywhere in the public or private sector—but to do it while we are also having mass reorganisation is creating chaos in the health service. I will refer to what is happening in my local health service in a few minutes.
In 2007 the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) was shadow Secretary of State for Health, although he has now moved to Leader of the House. He said that the NHS needed
“no more top-down reorganisations.”
Indeed, in terms of expenditure the coalition agreement stated:
“We will guarantee that health spending increases in real terms, in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision will have on other departments.”
It also stated:
“We will stop the top-down re-organisations of the NHS”
so we can take that with a pinch of salt as well.
Mr Stuart
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) is a former distinguished Chairman of the Health Committee. My right hon. Friend rightly said that spending on the NHS is broadly flat, and that the most important question we should be debating, rather than scoring points over 0.1% of spend, is how to use the money most effectively. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that, and that we must look at the allocation of spend around the country? I represent a rural area and it does not seem as if funds are fairly allocated now.
Mr Barron
The issue of allocation has been looked at by many Select Committees, including by the Health Committee when I chaired it in the last Parliament. We did not find the level of unfairness that people, particularly those from rural areas, used to say there was. We looked for it but we did not find it.
Let us look at what is happening in the real world. My local Rotherham hospital foundation trust is not a bad hospital trust in any way and scores quite well in many areas. It received foundation trust status a number of years ago, and when this Government took office, it is fair to say that the efficiency factor was there already. On 16 March 2011 the trust announced that more than 60 jobs were to be axed at Rotherham general hospital, and confirmed a potential reduction of 62 posts in medical and surgical areas. Earlier this year on 6 March 2012, the local BBC announced that more than 70 NHS staff were facing the threat of redundancy, and the trust is seeking to save about £4 million. On 26 October 2012, an internal report given to the local media stated that the trust now intends to cut 750 jobs—about 20% of its work force—by 2015.
The NHS trust said that it needed a smaller hospital with substantially fewer beds and a smaller work force to save £50 million over the next four years. The internal report—aptly named, “Creating Certainty in an Uncertain World”—said that it was necessary to save £50 million from the £220 million budget before 2015 to meet Government targets. That was confirmed by the trust in a press release.
On 5 November 2012, the chief executive of the trust said that it would show staff the plans and invite them to come back with alternative views on how things might be done differently. The trust stated:
“We’ve made it very clear that there may have to be redundancies, but to be honest with you until we have gone through the process, I don’t know how many we will be able to lose through natural turnover and how many will have to be made redundant.”
What type of planning is there in any of this when we have such a situation in a district general hospital on which about 80% of my constituents rely if they have to go into secondary care?
On 20 November 2012, the chief executive announced his retirement. On 3 December 2012, the hospital announced that staff will be informed about the decision to postpone the formal consultation launch into work force restructuring. It went on:
“We realise this an anxious time for all members of staff, but it is imperative that we do what is right for the Trust, our staff and our patients. This means that we need to take more time to ensure our workforce proposal is exactly what the Trust requires and we anticipate the launch to take place later in the month.”
On 7 December 2012—last Friday—a headline in the local newspaper stated that the trust had recently engaged the services of a director of transformation on a time-limited basis. The acting chief executive said:
“It is important that the trust acts quickly to take the action required to safeguard the future clinical and financial sustainability of the Trust. This appointment, which was made after a competitive process, is required to provide additional expertise and impetus to the changes we need to make, whilst allowing others to remain focused on delivering the healthcare services that the people of Rotherham need and deserve.”
I do not stand here and support the way the NHS has been structured now or in the past, and I have been critical about many areas of that. I agree with the chief executive of the NHS, David Nicholson, who said at the NHS confederation conference this year:
“We need to change the model of care to one which supports patients and focuses more on preventing ill health from happening in the first place...and move away from the default position of getting someone into a hospital bed.”
At the same conference the then Health Secretary said that closure decisions were not an issue for national politicians, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said that the current Health Secretary said very much the same thing—“It’s nothing to do with me, guv.”
Let me say to the Minister, and other hon. Members who have made relevant interventions, that if changes and reconfigurations inside the national health service are getting better care to more patients, that is fine. However, the chaos in my local health service is about cutting back and saving money. I have played an active role in health care in my constituency over many years and, as far as I know, there has been no debate with local Members of Parliament, patients, patient groups, local doctors or people engaged in health provision in Rotherham. There have been no discussions whatever about reconfiguring the district general hospital to improve the position of patients and of the people of Rotherham and the surrounding area. Instead there is a drive to save money, which is creating chaos in my local health service.
Norman Lamb
Does that not demonstrate a complete failure at local level to address the real problems that we are trying to grapple with? There is therefore a case for a changed system whereby a health and wellbeing board brings all the parts of the system together to debate such issues.
Mr Barron
The events of the past two months suggest to me that the people in whom the Minister has faith to reorganise health care in Rotherham do not know what they are doing. They have brought in new systems and produced a report inside the hospital, which I understand was given to the trade unions. It ended up on the front page of a local newspaper and was countered by a press release by the hospital itself. Where is the debate about improving health care for my constituents and others? It is absent.
I say to the Minister that it was wholly wrong for the previous and current Secretaries of State—he is not the Secretary of State himself, but we never know, he may be one day—to say “These are not matters for Ministers”. I have not been consulted about them. The three local MPs had an appointment with the chief executive of the trust about two weeks ago, but it was cancelled because he had announced his retirement the week before. That is not acceptable.
The hard reality on the ground is that no matter what we would like to happen in health care, trusts are charging into cutting budgets. They are cutting jobs, because that is where the major expenditure is in health care, and that is creating the chaos that I have described. It is not acceptable. My constituents pay their taxes to pay for health care—it does not come out of the budget down here in Westminster—and they deserve better than what they are getting at the moment.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
While you were not in the Chair, Mr Speaker, you missed a lively and interesting but predictably arid debate. We have reached a kind of stalemate. Those who understand the dark art of political messaging tell me that it is important to say the same things again and again, and psychologists tell me that those who do that are more likely to be believed. Prior to the election, the Tories were unique in having as an important part of their messaging the wish to ring-fence and preserve NHS spending.
That message was then embodied in the coalition agreement and has influenced subsequent spending decisions. We all recognise that there are good reasons for that—the NHS is a demand-led service. It is therefore perfectly sensible, in the Westminster bubble, for the Opposition to make an issue of it. Members have come to the debate with predictable information from the Whips-SpAd axis about the private finance initiative, the misdemeanours of Wales, evidence of unexpected service rationing, reconfiguration trouble, positive and negative variations in waiting lists and ambiguous data on productivity. We have all been given that stuff, and we can use it as we wish.
Meanwhile, the public have clocked that we have a real problem. The demands on and expectations of the NHS will continue to rise, resources are tight and there will potentially be a huge problem. They know that politicians cannot be seen to reduce the NHS offer—they simply would not tolerate that. They do not know quite how all the sums will ultimately stack up, and nor do we. That is the big question.
Andy Sawford
Will the hon. Gentleman accept, though, in the interests of being transparent with the public, last week’s letter from Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority?
Andy Sawford
The letter stated unequivocally that
“we would conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10.”
Until both Government parties acknowledge that truth, which independent experts have told us about, they will not have any credibility in health debates.
John Pugh
I think I will take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and move on.
I think we all agree that the only acceptable answer to the problem is to spend public money wisely. Currently, the NHS is holding up—sort of—by making economies and savings, largely off the back of a wage freeze, which is not sustainable. However, I am starting to be alarmed by the disagreement about what else we can do and what strategies we should follow. I will run briefly through the suggested options.
It has been suggested that we should keep people out of hospital, but we already have fewer hospital beds than almost anywhere else in Europe, and according to the NHS Confederation there is no clear evidence that treating people outside hospital would necessarily be cheaper.
Some people recommend personalisation and personal budgets, but it can be argued that that would not lead to better use of scarce resources, despite the fact that it would be more popular than some current service configurations. Telehealth has also been suggested, and I am a great enthusiast for it—it is my personal favourite suggestion, and I am chair of the all-party telehealth group. However, although there are cost-effective pilots, the Nuffield Trust has expressed some criticism of telehealth, saying that it may not save us anything like the money that we believe it will. The industry itself is concerned that if the roll-out is not efficient and effective enough, telehealth simply will not take off.
Mr Dorrell
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I have some sympathy with him, but will he acknowledge that the arguments for those options are partly about health economics but partly related to the need to deliver better quality to those who rely on community-based services? We do not want acute cases if they are avoidable.
John Pugh
I agree; none the less, we both agree that there is still a huge economic problem.
Even reducing the number of managers has mixed impacts, because asking doctors to manage services or buy in management service from elsewhere has cost implications. It uses up medical time, which needs to be replaced. Then there is the blighted history of IT and the uncertain role of technology and innovation, which can increase demand but also reduce cost. Even if we see public health as the answer, it is still not a complete answer by itself, because if we do not solve the huge problem of dementia, there is no saying that prolonging life and keeping people fit will necessarily reduce overall costs in the long run. If we look at things such as rewarding doctors through the quality and outcomes framework, and so on, we find some pretty expensive deployment of public money, albeit not always to massive effect. The point I am trying to make is that there is a whole medicine chest of remedies available, but no complete agreement on precisely how or where best to use them. None of them seems to be a cure-all, and many have undesired side effects.
As we choose to use those remedies, they need to be employed with skill, judgment and the benefits of experience, because we are dealing with an almost insurmountable problem. We have to approach the problem—almost like good medicine—using the right remedy, at the right time, in the right way and with skill, judgment and experience. However, that will not result simply from using market forces or creating some sort of ersatz market—that is just another tool we might choose to use. What we want—I am sure the Minister agrees—is integrated services, which would avoid expensive duplication, cost-shunting and piecemeal provision. It would be really nice if we could exploit better economies of scale in procurement, for example, or make better use of the NHS estate. It would be nice if we could discover good practice and roll it out across the piece quickly. It would be really nice if the NHS was a well oiled and efficient machine—a truly integrated system with proper clinical networks that were properly protected. It would be nice if we got what the Minister describes as integration, which is a kind of holy grail at the moment.
However, I have a problem—I am sure the Minister has a response to it—in that we have just abolished what I think would be the best agency for integration. The strategic health authority, unloved as it was—a bit obese, misunderstood, and so on—was a vehicle that could perform that role, applying the right remedies in the right place. I must own up: we decided in the Lib Dem manifesto that we wanted to get rid of the SHA. However, perhaps over the fullness of time the NHS Commissioning Board will create something like that—quietly, privately—because to some extent, I think we all agree, it is needed. Meanwhile, there are key things we need to get on with. We can certainly improve procurement without any difficulty. We can try to release ourselves from the pointless grip of the EU working time directive, which adds appreciably to salary costs. We can also work hard to move data around the system better. There is an enormous amount to do and it is not obvious who is going to do it.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I am not going to make a speech as such; I am just going to read some quotations from the hundreds and hundreds of personal testimonies that I have received in the last few days.
“I am a former director of nursing at a university teaching hospital…Since my retirement…there have been four occasions when it was necessary for me to visit family and friends in hospital. Each visit resulted in a serious formal complaint about the standard of nursing care and medical diagnosis, experiences that have caused me to be ashamed of the profession I was once very proud of.
In the first incident a friend, dying, was left sat in a chair at visiting time with no pyjamas and his genitals exposed. On making inquires we were told that no clean pyjamas were available.
My mother was in hospital suffering from a bladder infection some weeks after bowel surgery for cancer…When we arrived she wanted to use the toilet, having asked for help several times. We found her being completely ignored so I took her to the toilet myself. On our way there she could not hold the flow of urine, most of which poured onto the floor of the ward. Naturally she felt ashamed, embarrassed and humiliated. At that time, and in full view, not one nurse was attending patients at their bedside and we counted eight nurses and a doctor doing nothing at the nurses station. My family insisted that mother be transferred to another hospital where within two hours she was diagnosed with malnutrition and dehydration—mother had been in the previous hospital for three weeks! Unfortunately the new hospital, a few days later, ran out of colostomy bags and just left mother in a faeces-covered bed.”
Another statement says:
“I was trained as a nurse myself when I was young, and subsequently retrained as a Community Worker and then a Social Worker. I worked in community care Social Work for 20 years. I also witnessed many incidents of inhumane treatments in hospital settings whilst working in Community Care…My… father was admitted to hospital due to some long standing serious bowel problems...Not long after being admitted, my father contracted C. difficile, from which he did not recover. He was frequently left lying in his own faeces. His basic care needs were neglected on every level, and he was made to feel guilty every time he soiled the bed. He developed such severe Thrush in his mouth, he was unable to eat or wear his false teeth. Despite numerous requests for treatment, it was never treated. I also tried numerous times to have him transferred to the small local hospital for palliative care as it was obvious to me that he was dying, but the staff insisted that he was NOT terminally ill…In the end, I DID stand in the corridor in desperation and virtually scream. I shouted at the nurse in charge, ‘The treatment of my father is f***ing inhumane’ and demanded that he was moved for palliative care…This happened after I found my dying father lying half out of a chair with freezing cold bare feet and one light blanket in late afternoon. According to other patients he had been sitting there since early morning. (It was easier for nurses to clean him up if he soiled himself in the chair, although they used the excuse of it being good for him.) He died in the small local hospital 3 days later. The staff there said his bed sores were so extensive and severe, there was nothing they could do for him. They kept him comfortable, and thankfully allowed him to finally die with some dignity and tender, loving care. However, by this time, my beloved gentle father had endured 3 months of indignity, abuse and misery.”
Another testimonial said:
“Your story was so similar to the loss of my dad exactly 2 years ago in our local hospital…he had worked from the age of 14 until his 65th birthday, he was in the RAF in the war and he was treated in the most dreadful way by most of the nursing staff, doctors and administrators at the hospital. We became frightened of pushing them to be kinder whilst he was in their care, in case, if possible, things became even worse. Surely something must be done about this situation. I could hardly believe my ears the other day when a representative of the nursing profession was saying they are pushing for an emphasis on compassion and consideration in nursing—when did this disappear? I would have thought it was part of the human condition to want to care for and help a person or a creature who is suffering.”
Another letter says:
“My friend and I have both experienced appalling neglect and abuse to close relatives at the hands of NHS nurses (at completely different hospitals—one in the Midlands and one in Surrey) who received no dignity or care right up to the moment they died…We find it equally sickening when we hear people…describe nurses as ‘Angels’! We also have to endure the continual mythology surrounding Nursing as a profession, e.g. ‘it’s low paid, low morale, poor staffing levels etc.’—when in reality nursing pay scales have increased dramatically over the last decade and it is now a well paid profession compared to many other jobs like hospital porters., and crucially, even if there is genuinely low morale it never excuses such blatant cruelty.”
Another letter read:
“When I sat at my husband’s bedside I did wonder…why some of the so called nurses bothered to put on their uniforms. The arrogance and indifference of some left me bewildered. The Ward Sister of the ward my husband had the misfortune to be sent to after the excellent intensive ward did not bother to speak to me for the whole 17 days he was on her ward and I am told that she was so busy running the ward she did not have time to talk to relatives…As a Doctor said in an article in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago since they made nursing a degree course the wrong kind of people are entering the profession and they think they are above the menial tasks that the old fashioned nurses undertook from day one. We do not need a load of snooty nosed pen pushers, we need compassionate nurses who are entering the profession because they care for people not for the salary.”
Another letter read:
“My father, who was a GP…had a severe stroke. He went to hospital and they would leave the food in front of him to ‘look at’. He was paralysed and could not use his arms or legs. If we were not there, he would not be fed or given any fluid. Then they didn’t pull the side gates up on the bed and he fell out and broke his femur.”
Another letter read:
“I feel that indifference by nursing staff to patients’ suffering and needs is all too common, and those nurses who show kindness and take time with their patients stand out as the exception.”
Another letter read:
“I do know how understaffed the nurses were in my mother's ward but I found a dismissive attitude from all levels of medical staff including nurses, consultants, surgeons and ward orderlies. Nobody cared about our mother or took a moment to get to know her. I barely managed to keep my temper, fearful that an angry outburst from me would rebound on my poor mother. Cruelty, indifference and a cavalier attitude to my mother's care marked her final weeks of a long life in which she devoted herself to the care of others.”
I ask the Secretary of State: what is going wrong?
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Let me first pay tribute to the impassioned speech made by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The tales that she told almost left me in tears, and it is hard to imagine how difficult it must have been for her to read so many stories of that kind, given the unfortunate position in which her own family have been. I know that there are a number of nurses in the Chamber today, and in my constituency, who would be horrified to hear what happened to those individuals, and to the right hon. Lady’s family. No one would want anyone to be treated in such a manner. I think that her speech illustrated the difficulties involved in arguing about whether 0.1% is an increase or a decrease, and underlined the fact that today’s debate should focus on whether or not we provide good-quality patient care.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in praising NHS members of staff, including nurses, who are brave enough to come forward and express concern to the senior management of hospitals and in other settings when they see that their colleagues are not putting patient care first and are providing poor-quality care, so that appropriate action can be taken and atrocities such as those about which we have just heard can be prevented?
Stephen McPartland
I entirely agree. My hon. Friend has made an important point about the courage of staff whom many would describe as whistleblowers, and who are getting into a great deal of trouble not only with their management for casting light on what is going on in a particular hospital, but with their colleagues for telling tales.
I am proud of the NHS, I am very proud of the staff who work in it, and I am proud to have the Lister hospital in my constituency. We have heard much impassioned talk about the NHS throughout the Chamber today. I think it is fantastic that Members on both sides of the House, and all Members individually, do all that they can to improve the NHS and the service with which their constituents are provided on a day-to-day basis. I know how proud I am of the doctors, nurses and clinical staff who save lives every day in my constituency, and I know that the headlines only appear when things go wrong.
In my constituency there is an organisation called POhWER that provides an advocacy service to some of the most vulnerable individuals who are having difficulties with the NHS. It now has contracts for London, the south-east, the midlands and the east of England. It was created many years ago by a group of service users who were severely disabled and had difficulties daily in interacting with their NHS and other services. They created this charity and are its trustees. It has helped hundreds of thousands of people. It launched a telephone service in the middle of last year, and it has already received 30,000 telephone calls. I had the great pleasure yesterday of taking those involved to see the Minister with responsibility for charities, The Party Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), to demonstrate some of the work they are doing.
Every Member, irrespective of party, wants their NHS to be the best it can be and to provide the best possible care to their constituents. We can all make political points, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) referred to the fact that the Whips on both sides put out lots of statements for us to use to attack each other. We could argue that spending in the health service in Wales is going down by 8% under the Labour Administration there, but I do not want to put that case.
Instead, I want to say how much I respect the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). It was refreshing to hear him say he felt he did all he could in terms of NHS spending given the constraints of the budget he had. I do not want to cast political aspersions, because I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he wanted to improve the NHS every bit as much as our Secretary of State and Ministers want to do so. I dearly wish the NHS was not a political football and we did not bandy about figures and information.
A great deal has been said about the first and second part of a sentence in a letter from Mr Dilnot. I have read the letter. I imagine most people would not really care about whether 0.1% less or more money was going into the NHS. They are interested in the fact that £12.5 billion extra is going in over this Parliament. The Health Committee Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), made a powerful and eloquent speech—it was far more eloquent than mine. He explained that revenue expenditure has been growing modestly over the past couple of years, and that is the expenditure that the day-to-day care delivered to patients in the NHS comes from.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that there is discrimination against certain parts of the country, such as rural constituencies, including mine in North Yorkshire? As my constituency is rural and has a lot of elderly residents, we do not seem to get our fair share from the funding formula.
Stephen McPartland
I do not represent a rural constituency, but I think everybody in every part of the country should have access to the best possible heath service and there should not be any postcode rationing issues. My hon. Friend’s constituents should have access to the best NHS care; indeed, I hope it is almost as good as the care my constituents get.
NHS spending should be focused on improving the quality of care and the experience of patients and their families. We all know that things go wrong, and one of the problems is that when things go wrong, doors get closed and people feel very vulnerable and lonely. People put their mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter in the hands of someone whom they consider a professional, and they place their trust in them. I hope all of us feel able to put our trust in those professionals.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
In Ashfield, there are proposals to close down wards at the community hospital. If the closure goes ahead, the situation will be particularly difficult for some patients who suffer from severe dementia, as their relatives will have to travel 17 miles to see them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is unacceptable?
Stephen McPartland
I understand that the hon. Lady has a specific issue in her constituency, and I would like to point out one in mine: anyone in my constituency who requires radiotherapy treatment has to travel to Hillingdon in London to have access to the linear accelerators, with the typical journey being more than 4,000 miles during the course of the treatment. I do not want to blame any particular Government or party, but the reality is that there are difficulties everywhere. I have a campaign, which I would love all hon. Members to join, to bring cancer care closer to people’s homes, and I want to have a radiotherapy unit based in my constituency. There are discrepancies and disparities all over the country, and it would be great if we could iron them out.
Grahame M. Morris
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a good use, not only in Stevenage, but across the country, of some of the underspend that has been mentioned by hon. Members from across the House would be to buy advanced forms of radiotherapy equipment?
Stephen McPartland
That would be fantastic use of the money, but Hillingdon already has eight linear accelerators and a cyber knife, which reduces the course of someone’s treatment from about 25 visits to eight. The key for my constituents is that the people accessing that service are generally elderly and they would have to access it by public transport, which they find very difficult, so they rely on friends and family. I want that treatment to be brought closer to their home, which goes back to my point about the patient’s experience.
Earlier in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker called for a little bit of Christmas cheer, so I have great pleasure in being able to announce that earlier this morning, when it was minus 6°, I was outside my local hospital having my photograph taken and the Government were announcing £72 million of funding for infrastructure in the Lister hospital—the money is part of an ongoing investment programme worth more than £150 million. That is the third of 11 projects. We are having a huge accident and emergency department rebuilt, and a lot of people are going to be accessing it; and we are having new ward blocks, theatres and endoscopy units. A huge range of services are coming to the Lister hospital in Stevenage; it is fast becoming a centre of clinical excellence. I know that many hon. Members think I am quite lucky, and I am very proud and happy about what is happening.
That investment highlights one of the issues I want to raise. When we have these debates, we often find that the passions of hon. Members on both sides about small amounts and figures can create a sense of fear in the NHS that services are being delivered poorly day to day. In my constituency, for the past two years, construction has been going on and new services have been coming to my local hospital, with a range of users able to access them. That building will go on until 2014 to early 2015, and it is what we are calling phase 4. I refer to my radiotherapy campaign as phase 5—people are not aware of that, but we are keen to access the money for it. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) suggested using the £1.6 billion underspend, and it will now be my target for where we get the funding.
In my constituency, the NHS is daily delivering better and better care; a legion of doctors, nurses and clinical staff, backed up by great administration staff, are providing a fantastic level of service and improving the NHS. I am proud of the NHS and of the staff in my constituency who work in the NHS, and I am delighted that we have had the opportunity to have this debate.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the measured and thoughtful speech that the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) has just given. May I also put on the record my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the vital work she is doing, at what must be an incredibly difficult time for her, on putting the importance of care and compassion back at the heart of our NHS?
I wish to focus on the current threats to NHS services in south-east London. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) has already spoken about the threats to Lewisham hospital and the plans on the table, and I am going to treat the House to my own concerns about that matter. We are rightly debating national expenditure levels on the NHS today, but the harsh reality in Lewisham is that my constituents are confronted with the fact that their local accident and emergency and maternity departments may have to close in order to deal with financial pressures elsewhere in the NHS.
The Government can claim all they like that they are investing in the health service, but it does not feel that way in Lewisham. Last Friday, along with local doctors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), I presented a petition against the closure of Lewisham’s A and E and maternity departments to No. 10 Downing street. As has been said already, in five weeks the petition has been signed by more than 32,000 people. The proposed changes at Lewisham hospital are not only unwanted, but arguably unsafe and unjustified.
Lewisham is a busy hospital. More than 120,000 people visit the A and E each year and last year more than 4,000 babies were born there. Lewisham is a place where average life expectancies for both men and women are below national averages. Sadly, it is a place where sometimes, admittedly infrequently, a stab victim will walk into the A and E from the streets and a place where many teenage girls will give birth to their babies.
The A and E and maternity departments at Lewisham hospital are a matter of life and death for many of my constituents. I am therefore not surprised that more than 32,000 people signed the petition to keep a full A and E and full maternity service there; I am also not surprised that more than 100 local GPs, including the chair of the new clinical commissioning group and the head of every single clinical group at the hospital, have written to the Prime Minister to express their concern about the proposals.
The question for the Minister today is: will the Government listen? Will the special administrator to the South London Healthcare NHS Trust, a man appointed to sort out financial problems in neighbouring hospitals, think again about his plans for Lewisham when he draws up his final recommendations to the Secretary of State for Health?
I do not think that anyone can be under any illusion about the degree of local opposition to closing the A and E and maternity departments at Lewisham. I recognise that trying to balance the books at the South London Healthcare NHS Trust is a hard job, but asking a hospital that is not even part of the trust to pay such a heavy price seems patently unfair.
The plans for Lewisham are based on inaccurate data and flawed assumptions. The size and nature of the caseload at Lewisham’s A and E have been misunderstood. The estimated additional journey times to neighbouring hospitals have been woefully underestimated, yet the speed with which it will be possible to reduce the need for hospital care seems to be hopelessly optimistic and based more on wishful thinking than on hard fact.
Those are not the only problems with the proposals. I also cannot see how the current plans make financial sense. In the past week, we have had—even though the Government dispute this—independent verification that there has been a real terms reduction in spending on the NHS in the past few years. Surely it then becomes all the more important that every pound spent is spent wisely and well. How can it be wise to sell off more than half the Lewisham site for £17 million only to have to reinvest £55 million in reconfiguring the remaining buildings on that site to do different types of work? Why sell off the existing buildings, only to shell out money at other hospitals to increase capacity to enable other parts of the NHS to do the work that Lewisham is already doing very well?
The 4,000 babies who are born to Lewisham mothers every year will have to be born somewhere. Where? There is no free capacity in the system at the moment, so that will require investment. Where are the people who use Lewisham’s A and E going to go? We have all seen the reports of more and more ambulances queuing outside hospitals, with patients waiting to be taken into A and E but being kept in the ambulance because of a lack of space.
It is asserted that in Lewisham, if the proposal to close the A and E went ahead, only one in four people would have to go to other A and Es, while the other 77% would still be treated in the urgent care centre that would remain. That figure is fanciful. The emergency doctors at the hospital say to me, based on their analysis of patient numbers and the nature of the work that they do, that just 30% of people could still be treated at the urgent care centre.
I accept that the NHS cannot be preserved in aspic and I understand that it must change to meet the demands and challenges of the 21st century. However, those changes must be driven by patients’ health needs, not an accountant’s bottom line. That is not what is happening.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
The hon. Lady may be aware that we have had a long fight against the downgrading of my hospital, Chase Farm. Many people think that that fight is over, but I do not. With the new demographic figures and population increases in London, it is important that we continue to press authorities and Ministers to take these things into account, even at this late stage, because where people go is even more of a priority than she assessed it was before the figures came out.
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is completely right. Lewisham’s population is growing, and has increased by 10% in the past 10 years. All the indicators suggest that London’s population will continue to grow. It is a diverse population with varied health needs, so it is imperative that people in our capital city can access high-quality services close to home.
In conclusion, before the election, the Prime Minister told us that he would cut the deficit and not the NHS. In 2007, he promised a bare-knuckle fight over the future of services at Lewisham hospital. How times have changed. He has broken his promises on NHS spending and he has broken his promises about Lewisham hospital. If anyone needs proof that the Government cannot to be trusted with the NHS, they need look no further.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in a debate that is incredibly important to my constituents. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for opening the debate. He is aware of my grave concerns about the future of hospital services that serve people in Corby and east Northamptonshire.
It has long been the ambition of people in Corby—a large, important town that is growing—to have their own hospital. I hope that in future we can realise that ambition. For a long time, however—and for the foreseeable future—we will be served by Kettering general hospital for most of our hospital needs. At Kettering general hospital there are 650 beds and more than 3,000 staff. The hospital is more than 115 years old, and received massive investment, including under the Labour Government. I make that point not so much politically point but as a local person who remembers driving down Hospital hill in Kettering and seeing the fundraising barometer outside the hospital and wondering why we relied on car-boot sales to fund vital hospital services.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, a former Health Secretary, and his predecessors began to put that right, and there was huge investment. Kettering general hospital now has 17 operating theatres and an obstetrics unit that delivers more than 3,500 babies a year. It has something that serves only a few of my constituents but is incredibly important to all of us—a neonatal intensive care unit, or special care baby unit. My own family has had cause to be grateful to that unit and its brilliant staff.
Kettering general hospital offers a 24-hour accident and emergency service, with level 2 trauma services, which sees more than 2,000 trauma patients a year. There are concerns, however, and I have agreed with the hospital and local people to champion certain issues in the House as the local Member of Parliament, including per capita funding of Kettering general hospital, which we believe is inadequate and lower than average compared with other areas. With a growing population and growing health needs, that must be addressed.
Recently, a report on the hospital by Monitor raised serious concerns, particularly about accident and emergency. I have met the hospital chief executive and the chair of the trust to discuss those concerns, and to assure them that I will seek to do whatever I can, including making sure that a case for adequate funding for the hospital is made, so that those concerns are addressed.
The big issue that causes us all concern locally is a major review of health services—the kind of review that other Members have experienced in their areas. In Kettering, the Healthier Together review of five hospitals has already cost more than £2 million; that was the figure in the summer, and I have no doubt that it is rising rapidly. The review has also taken a great deal of time and effort. In early September, together with local nurses and others, I met the people leading that review, as a public member of the trust, and I was incredibly worried about what I heard, both as a user of the services, and as a representative of local people.
The Healthier Together team gave us a pledge card telling us about their plans and giving us some assurances. The context was also set. We were told that the review was driven by a desire for the best clinical outcomes, by expertise, and by research on how local people could be provided with the best health care. We were told that there were considerations to do with more services being provided in the community, and a shift to prevention, which are things I recognise it is important for our local hospital and its partners—the clinical commissioning group and the other hospitals—to consider.
It was slide 2 that really got to the heart of the problem. It told us that the five hospitals face a combined funding gap of £48 million, and that my local hospital, Kettering general hospital, faces a future funding gap of £6 million a year. I have no doubt that the comments that Andrew Dilnot recently made about the real-terms reduction in funding are very much connected to that, but I do not want to make that wider political point again; it has already been made eloquently by my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. I simply say that all local people recognise that resources are getting tighter and tighter at the hospital.
Norman Lamb
Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that in many local health economies, private finance initiatives are causing a massive strain on resources?
Andy Sawford
I want to keep my remarks to Kettering general hospital, and I do not think that PFI is the issue there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Healthier Together programme; it is clear that many of the hospitals in that programme have very high PFI debts. We will get the figures for him, to clarify that, in the closing remarks.
Andy Sawford
A few weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he had no intention of misleading the House—talked about the funding issues at Kettering general hospital being driven by PFI deals in Anglian hospitals, which are not really part of the group that I am talking about.
Andy Sawford
I will not give way; I want to make important points for my constituents. It is important that these things are put on record, so I shall not be giving way to the hon. Gentleman again. He has not done a great service to people in my constituency in the way that he has addressed these issues.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency earlier this year, and I am sorry to hear about Kettering. Both the accident and emergency departments and one 500-bed hospital in my constituency are due to close. Neither of those A and E departments is PFI, and none of the four A and Es closing in west London is PFI, so is that point not a complete red herring?
Andy Sawford
I have had some experience of my hon. Friend in the past, and as ever, he talks a great deal of sense. Certainly, in Kettering, we are looking at something driven by funding cuts.
I want to address the issues, because I seek real answers from the Front Benchers, and real assurances about the future of my local hospital. Healthier Together has assured us that no hospitals in the group of five of which Kettering is part will close. I have never heard any claims that those hospitals will close. The local media have been very clear that they are not aware of any assertions that Kettering hospital will close. There has, at times, been the presentation of an Aunt Sally by some of my political opponents, who have sought to say, “The hospital won’t close, so there’s nothing to worry about.”
Let us be clear what is being talked about. The Healthier Together review had six different models, and it has refined that to two options. The status quo is very clearly not an option, and it is not consulting on it. One of the two options would see five hospitals going into three for some of the services, though all the hospitals would remain open and provide some services. The services that are at real risk in two of the five hospitals include in-patient paediatrics. Last year I took my son, who had pneumonia, late at night to the Dolphin ward at Kettering general hospital. It concerns me deeply that paediatrics might not be there. I would have had to go elsewhere, and so will local people in the future if the paediatric ward goes.
Under the proposals, obstetrics would go at two of the five hospitals and be replaced by a midwife-led unit. People in Corby have experience of a midwife-led unit. At one time there was a births in the community facility in Corby, as there still is in some other smaller midwife-led hospitals around the country. Where those exist, if local people want them to continue, they should have that opportunity, but we have a full maternity service in my area and people are very concerned that that could be lost under the proposals.
I have talked to midwives who tell me that during labour it would not be possible to give an epidural, for example, if the labour became more painful for the mother. Among my family and friends, I have heard about people who hoped their children would be born at Melton hospital, which is a midwife-led unit, describing the worst hour of their life as following a blue light on an ambulance taking their wife and hoped-for child across to Leicester royal infirmary or another available hospital so that the care that was needed could be given. We want our proper obstetrics-led unit to remain and we do not want it downgraded to a midwife-led unit.
At two of the five hospitals, trauma services would be lost. I have already described how Kettering general hospital provides level 2 trauma and treats more than 2,000 trauma patients a year.
As to where we go from here, it is important for Healthier Together and the Government to be honest about the proposals. It is important for geography to be recognised as a critical factor. Healthier Together will talk about the clinical evidence and the clinical drivers, but it must recognise that local people are very concerned that Luton and Dunstable hospital is 50 miles away, and that the nearest hospital in the group is 45 minutes away from Corby at Northampton along a very busy road. The journey takes 45 minutes at the best of times; the road is seriously in need of upgrading and improving. People are really concerned about the geography, and that has to be balanced with specialisms which people understand. There are already specialisms in our local health care system at other hospitals.
I am pleased that despite the empty assurances from Government Front Benchers, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) had the courage to raise these issues on 9 November—notwithstanding the by-election inconvenience for Government Front Benchers. I now look to work with him as we seek real assurances from the Healthier Together team and from the hospital that they will not proceed with the proposals if they mean that we will lose all those vital services for my constituents.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I am confused: the Government continue to state that they are increasing health spending in real terms; the UK Statistics Authority says that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than in 2009-10; the Government say that that is not true and that they are still spending more. Of course, they have wasted millions on their top-down reorganisation, which has seen the biggest shake-up of the NHS since its inception.
However, the people of Bolton West are pretty clear in their beliefs. Their local health services are being cut. They know that their local hospital has faced 5% cuts each year since 2010, and they know that it has been told to save £50 million over the next three years—a sixth of its budget. They see no growth, only cuts. We all know that the Royal Bolton is in a mess. Some of that is of its own making; contracts were signed that repaid less money than the cost of treatment that the hospital is outlaying, and it has faced fines for missing targets, such as £4 million for missing its clostridium difficile target.
That seems utterly mad to me. On the one hand the Government say, “Your treatment was inadequate.” On the other hand, they take a fine of £4 million from the hospital, taking that money from the health care of my constituents, which must make that treatment more inadequate. The Royal Bolton has a new leadership in place and I am confident that it will turn around financial and clinical control in the hospital, but faced with £50 million-worth of cuts, services will have to be reduced.
Already, 7% of patients are having to wait longer than 18 weeks for treatment, and more and more people are having to wait longer than four hours in accident and emergency—and of course that will lead to more fines, which seems nonsense to me. Royal Bolton hospital will have to shed between 300 and 500 jobs. Of the positions at risk, 146 are for nurses, midwives and health care assistants, 20 are medical and dental, 93 are for technicians, scientists and clinical support staff, 193 are for non-clinical staff and 45 are in estate facilities.
The Government parties would like us to believe that hundreds of public sector workers are sitting around and doing nothing, but the hard-working nurses, porters, cleaners and—yes—administrative staff across the NHS utterly disagree. If the Government cut a job, they cut the work that that person was doing, so there must be a reduced service. My constituent Colin was admitted to Royal Bolton hospital for four nights with a strangulated hernia. He told me that only one nurse was on duty for the entire ward for the 12-hour shift from 7 pm to 7 am, and she often had to leave the ward to help a colleague in a similar position on an adjoining ward. Owing to staffing levels, patients were woken in the middle of the night for their medication and blood tests. Colin was full of praise for the hospital staff, who were determined to do their best and apologised profusely for having to wake patients. He told me that he feels that their dedication and commitment are being seriously compromised by Government cuts.
It just does not make any sense to me. The Government are adamant that they are spending more on the NHS, but every Opposition Member looking at local provision sees cuts, so where is the supposed increase in spending going? It is certainly not going to Bolton or Wigan, and it does not seem to be going to any of the areas represented by Labour MPs, but I cannot believe that the Government would be so cynical as to put money into the more affluent areas represented by Tory MPs. Who should we believe? Should we believe Dilnot, the Secretary of State or the shadow Secretary of State, or should we believe our own eyes, which tell us that our local hospitals are undergoing cuts? The 99-year-old man who waited for 75 minutes for an ambulance while bleeding on a cold pavement and the 69-year-old woman who waited for more than an hour while lying in a park with a broken shoulder think that it is the cuts in health services that affected their treatment.
Now, of course, we face the challenge of Healthier Together. NHS Greater Manchester’s review of the area’s health care programme is likely to see the closure of a number of A and E departments across the conurbation. None of us would argue against changes made on the basis of clinical need. Indeed, Bolton has a super neonatal unit, which provides enormous expertise for extremely premature babies across Greater Manchester, and Hope hospital is our neurology and stroke centre. However, I cannot accept changes and closures that are based simply on saving money. For me, it is not about the blue-light service to accident and emergency, because we know that they can travel incredible distances in an incredibly short amount of time; it is about people with broken legs and illnesses who need to get themselves to an A and E and need their families and friends around them.
Owing to the time limit, I will not talk about the funding difficulties for public health and care services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) talked movingly about what is happening in hospitals, and Members will know about some of the issues that have affected my family directly. However, I will say that the NHS is in crisis, and it does not help when the Secretary of State says that there is no problem and that funding is increasing, because on the ground we see cuts and patients waiting longer. We see patients being neglected and not being fed, and we see an increase in trolley waits and ambulances not in service because they are queuing outside A and E departments. Let us have honesty in this debate. Whatever the figures say, needs are not being met. Action is needed, not rhetoric. Our constituents are at risk. They need the Government to act.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of the motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. The Deputy Speaker suggested that we might introduce a bit of Christmas cheer into the proceedings, and the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) certainly painted a very rosy picture of investment in his constituency. I thought he made a very good speech, incidentally.
In case Ministers are making their Christmas lists, let me tell them that one of the first things that this Government did was cancel a new hospital that served part of my constituency in order to save £464 million. Restoring that funding might be a good use for some of the £3 billion underspend. It was not a private finance initiative scheme but a scheme that was approved by the Department of Health and the Treasury but stopped in the emergency Budget.
I want to concentrate on two specific issues that are directly linked to the motion and on the important question of trust in the Government’s pledge on the funding of our NHS. I believe that the Government are keeping the public in the dark about a range of issues relating to publicly funded contracts delivered by private sector organisations, including on cancer care.
On trust, none other than the Prime Minister broke yet another pre-election promise. Having said before the election that he would extend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to all publicly funded organisations, he did not do so. As a result, the public cannot access information about private sector providers in the NHS. This does not apply just to the NHS. In his comments, the Prime Minister referred to other publicly funded organisations such as the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust, the Local Government Association, and traffic penalty tribunals. It is increasingly apparent that many of the large corporations that apparently enjoy cosy relations with this Tory-led Government are extremely anxious that the Prime Minister does not extend the Freedom of Information Act to them. Currently, it instead allows them to hide behind a cloak of commercial confidentiality as billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are awarded to them in barely transparent contracts. The public are deliberately being kept in the dark, and I have no doubt that an expensive lobbying campaign is under way to ensure that the Prime Minister and the Tory party do not change their minds on this issue.
Meanwhile, private companies benefit by gaining intimate knowledge of public sector bodies through their own submissions of freedom of information requests. That information is then used to undercut or outbid the very same public sector bodies when contracts are tendered or put up for renewal. Members might ask what the relevance of this is in the NHS context, but as someone who worked in the NHS, who is passionate about it, and who has tremendous admiration for the people who deliver the service, I can say that it is a huge concern to me. The area that I worked in—the pathology service that carries out diagnostic tests—is under threat. This huge uncertainty continues, and we need to know precisely what the position is.
Virgin Care, Circle, Serco, Care UK and any other private sector companies awarded a public contract to provide hospital, community or even specialist diagnostic cancer services are not subject to the FOI Act. We have no idea how these companies went about winning those lucrative, taxpayer-funded contracts. Under current arrangements, the best that may be hoped for in terms of any rudimentary accountability is achieved through a Commons Select Committee inquiry of the type conducted by the Public Accounts Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge). However worthy this process, it is by its very nature very limited in scope, and such inquiries can only ever touch the tip of the iceberg.
This is a national scandal that has prompted me to table early-day motion 773, which has attracted quite a wide range of support, mostly from Labour Members. It calls for the FOI Act to be extended to private sector bidders for public service contracts, particularly in organisations such as the NHS.
My concern is that this has overtones of the Government’s response to Leveson, in so far as I do not believe that the Government want their corporate friends to be accountable to Parliament, even though our public services are being awarded to those companies in ever greater numbers. We should follow the public pound and ensure that we know who is getting it, and how and why they are spending it.
The Secretary of State has said that there will be no large expenditure projects that are not fully thought out and properly costed. That brings me to my second point. Responses to FOI requests from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) have made it clear that the Secretary of State is presiding over cuts to essential cancer networks, yet we know that he is planning to spend £250 million of taxpayers’ money on two proton machines, even though, according to the Department of Health’s own report, there is little evidence that they provide any benefit. There are no clinical trial data and no randomised control trials, which are the gold standard by which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence judges the effectiveness of clinical therapies. Indeed, the new chair designate of NICE appeared before the Health Select Committee earlier this week and said exactly that.
The economic justification for purchasing those two machines has been based on informal discussions with the manufacturers who make them. If the machines are to be viable for the two hospitals that are to have them, they will need to treat 1,350 patients a year at a cost of £40,000 per patient. However, according to the Department of Health’s own dataset, the highest number of patients ever treated with proton therapy in one year is 79.
I would like to draw the House’s attention to the situation in Germany, which has invested more than most in proton therapy. Today, two of the three proton machines in that country are being mothballed. In Kiel, €250 million was spent last year on a machine, but it is now being dismantled and put into storage because of a lack of demand.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Can my hon. Friend explain to the House what a proton machine actually is?
Grahame M. Morris
Probably not, in the very limited time available, but I can tell my hon. Friend that proton therapy is a form of advanced cancer treatment.
My argument is that the money the Department is proposing to spend on those incredibly expensive machines would be far better spent on advanced radiotherapy machines such as the stereotactic body radiation therapy machines that the hon. Member for Stevenage mentioned. There are other forms of therapy that are far more cost- effective. I might add that we in the northern region have no access to such therapies. Indeed, whole regions of the country do not.
The one remaining proton machine in Germany is at the university of Heidelberg, and it treats a maximum of 1,200 patients each year. The German Radio-oncology Society has said—[Interruption.] I hope that the Minister will listen to this. The society has said that
“for the vast majority of cancers there is no proof that proton therapy is more beneficial than other forms of innovative radiotherapy that are one hundred times less expensive”.
This proton debacle highlights the perversity with which the Government are running the NHS budget, and these questions lie at the very heart of whether we can trust Conservative promises on the NHS.
The Prime Minister tells the public that by April next year every cancer patient who needs innovative radiotherapy will get it, while at the same time the Secretary of State for Health starves dozens of hospitals and cancer networks of vital money needed to buy innovative radiotherapy equipment. We now know that money is being redirected into those two highly dubious projects. The Secretary of State needs to cancel those projects now and redirect the money into radiotherapy machines that will help tens of thousands of people in my constituency and across the country. This has the potential to be a monumental scandal and a waste of public money. I urge hon. Members who share my concern to sign early-day motion 773, to lobby the Health Secretary and ask him to reconsider his spending priorities in relation to cancer therapies, and to support the motion on the Order Paper.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Jim Shannon. I am not putting the clock on him, but he must resume his seat by 4.44 pm.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that I will finish in time.
We are well aware of the pressures in every area to implement Government cuts and how difficult it is to do that. Whether we are in government or in opposition, we all have a job to do in sorting out that problem. In my opinion, there is no worse place to carry out cuts than the NHS. Sick people need treatments that are often expensive and doctors are working out treatment plans and thinking about how they can keep to their budget and provide top-class care. There are pressures on the doctors in the system and they are ever mindful of the budget that they have to work to.
Everyone inside and outside the Chamber is aware of the issues and of the value of the NHS. The debate is about how we can do things better. The Opposition tabled the motion and their concerns have been well rehearsed today.
In my constituency—many hon. Members have given similar examples—a young lady had been unwell for 10 years with ulcerative colitis. She was responsive to her treatment of infliximab, and yet the doctor had to take her off it because it was too expensive and other more serious cases needed the treatment. However, once she was off the treatment she worsened, had to go on the sick and received numerous warnings from her workplace about losing her job. Where would the money truly be saved in such a scenario—stay on the treatment, stay in work, or go off the treatment, go off work?
My mother had a saying—I am sure that many hon. Members will be able to relate to this—“Your health is your wealth.” It clearly is and those of us who are in good health are fortunate.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is no longer in her place, but she made an excellent, compassionate speech. I think that she probably told the story of this debate in the examples she gave. I told her before she left the Chamber how important it was to have those comments on the record.
It must be remembered that in its review of independent NHS trust three-year plans up until 2014-15, Monitor, the NHS’s economic regulator, warned that cuts were unlikely to be matched by any let-up in the number of patients requiring care. There is an emphasis on preventive medicine and how best to use it. I am sure that the Minister will address how we can ensure that people who are getting older do not succumb to the many diseases and other problems. Sometimes, there is nothing gracious about growing old—it is a fact of life.
The Minister will talk about efficiency savings—they can achieve much—but when I consider the great job that the Northern Ireland Minister of Health, who happens to be a colleague of mine, has done on efficiency savings, I wonder whether the further cuts to Northern Ireland’s block grant will be applied to health again over the next few years. How much more can we save through efficiency? There is a limit—a ceiling—to what efficiency savings can do without affecting health. John Appleby, the chief economist of the King’s Fund think-tank, has said that the outlook for hospitals in 2013-14 and 2014-15 is particularly severe, with anticipated cuts of about 1% when the Government’s inflation forecast is 2.5%. That is a clear difference.
Some hospitals plan to partially offset the radical drop in NHS income by expanding their private patient work, aided, as their financial plans say, by moves to restrict NHS funding for certain surgical procedures. This is expected to fuel an increase in patients funding surgery privately. That greatly undermines what the NHS is about—its very thrust—namely care, no matter the condition, provided by national insurance contributions. As has been said, if we introduce a two-tier care system to operations, how long will it take until we find ourselves providing a system similar to America’s private health care system? How ironic it is that the Americans are attempting at this time to a design a system that is in line with our own NHS. Perhaps we can take some lessons from that.
I also want to comment on the problems that arise when we cut NHS funding. The number of MRSA cases in hospitals has increased. That is not through any particular fault of the staff—I am clear about that—but it is a problem that occurs whenever cost-cutting becomes the No. 1 priority for hospitals. We have to be careful.
We have already implemented cost-saving measures, such as carrying out certain treatments as day procedures followed by care at home, which, as well as being cost-effective, makes a lot of people feel more secure. However, it is essential that the patient is at the heart of any decision made and any strategy must incorporate that. There is a fine balance between cutting costs and cutting care. My fear is that the latest cuts, which will filter through to Northern Ireland through the block grant as a matter of course, will tip the balance for many people.
Many people in my office tell me that they were brought up to respect authority and that if a doctor tells them something, they accept their word. I come across other people who challenge their doctors and push them for the experimental treatment that they know is available, although at a cost, or for a referral to the mainland for innovative treatment. It saddens me that the results differ between those two types of people. In my opinion, it puts our health care professionals in the difficult position of choosing who deserves and who does not deserve the nth degree of care.
Recently in this Chamber I questioned the Secretary of State about the shocking use by doctors of so-called death lists—I am very careful about using that terminology—for elderly people, whereby they withhold certain treatments from those who they believe will die anyway. It is a dangerous precedent to set for the NHS when that can and does happen. If one puts oneself in the doctor’s shoes and realises that the Government are putting a great emphasis on cost, one can see that they are almost forcing that choice. That makes it a little more understandable, but no more acceptable.
As an MP, I have come across many constituents who have come to the mainland to have hospital operations and examinations. We are thankful that we are able to do that, but it involves a cost.
I am not the kind of person who believes that money grows on trees. I wish that it did. I have some trees in my garden, but I cannot find any money on them. We could spend, spend, spend, but I know that we must reduce the deficit. In my opinion, there are other ways of doing so, such as adopting the proposals put forward in the debate in May on the NHS and foreign nationals. To give a brief reminder of that debate, an article in The Daily Telegraph stated that official figures suggest that
“more than £40 million is owed to NHS hospitals by foreign patients who were not eligible for free care”.
It stated that a freedom of information request showed that
“the average unpaid debt for the provision of care to foreign nationals was £230,000 in the 35 trusts which responded.”
The article went on to note that the doctors’ trade magazine Pulse claimed:
“If this figure was the same across all 168 English acute trusts, the total debt would be almost £40 million”.
Perhaps in his response the Minister could give some detail about whether that money has been collected, and if not, when it will be.
In that debate, it was suggested that there should be a £1,000 threshold. Has that been implemented yet? Have those who owe the money been chased down? Has the six-month registration period for a GP been altered? In my opinion, by acting on such matters urgently, we can save money without cutting care. Does the Secretary of State agree that such angles must be pursued if we are to stop cutting services and still save money?
Time has got the better of me, so I will end by urging the Government to look at people and not simply at numbers. If everybody does their job more effectively, we can ensure that all people have top-class care, no matter where they live, without having to pay for it. The NHS is truly a jewel in the crown of this country. Many owe their lives to it and many depend upon it. Let us retain it and build upon it to ensure that in the years to come, it will still be the jewel in the crown that all in this nation cherish, love and depend upon.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
During this debate, Ministers and the few Government Members who have spoken have either denied that the Government have broken their promise to increase NHS spending or have claimed that it does not matter, as if the Prime Minister’s clear, direct and personal pledge to voters can easily be swept to one side. They—perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh)—have also skated over or ignored the waste, confusion and utter distraction of their back-room NHS upheaval.
In contrast, Opposition Members have talked about the harsh reality of the double whammy of cuts and reorganisation on their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), my right hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Andy Sawford), for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke powerfully about their concern that changes to local services are being driven by money alone, not by improving patient care. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who spoke with bravery and compassion about the unacceptable standards of care in parts of the country, which must be tackled.
Perhaps the most worrying example of the combination of cuts and reorganisation that the Government are forcing through involves what is happening to cancer networks. Those groups of local specialists were set up more than a decade ago under Labour’s 2000 cancer plan to help tackle one of Britain’s biggest killers. It is widely acknowledged that cancer networks have played a central role in improving mortality rates, cancer survival rates and equality of cancer care, and they have done that on small budgets with few staff, offering good value for taxpayers’ money. Crucially, the specialist local skills of cancer networks are vital to making even greater improvements that cancer patients need and deserve in the future.
Ministers have repeatedly promised to protect budgets for cancer networks. On 31 January last year, the then Health Secretary told the House that
“cancer networks funding is guaranteed during the course of 2011-12.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 612.]
On 27 November this year in a debate on the NHS mandate, the new Health Secretary told the House:
“Cancer networks are here to stay and their budget has been protected.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 127.]
Those promises have been broken.
In response to a freedom of information survey from Labour, cancer networks report budget cuts of 13% in 2011-12 alone—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State shakes his head but he can look through all the figures, including individual examples, if he wants to see those cuts. In total, budgets have been slashed by 26%—by a quarter—since the Government came to power.
The Government’s national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards, at least has the honesty to say that
“cancer networks will have a smaller proportion of the budget in future.”
I understand that the Health Minister in the House of Lords, Earl Howe, has also been forced by an urgent question to admit that less money will be available to cancer networks.
Mr Hunt
First, these networks are brilliant. They are a good thing and they have done a huge amount. The Government support them and we are expanding them. That is why instead of just having cancer, cardiac and stroke networks, we will also have networks for dementia and maternity. The budget for those networks is going up by 27%.
Liz Kendall
The budget for cancer networks has been cut by a quarter. The Secretary of State is not expanding those networks but merging them and diluting their specialist expertise, as I will show. The cuts and the Government’s NHS upheaval mean that cancer networks have lost one fifth of their staff, withdrawn or scaled back current work, and put future projects on hold—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is still denying that so let me tell him what the networks actually say.
The Arden cancer network in Coventry and Warwickshire says that it has lost its vital chemotherapy nurse. The Peninsula cancer network in Devon and Cornwall says it has had to turn down £150,000 from Macmillan Cancer Support to fund a programme for cancer survivors because its future is so uncertain. Essex cancer network says that posts have been removed, its staff are in a redeployment pool, and that it will have
“no presence in Essex from April 1st next year.”
Instead of supporting those vital local experts, as well as specialists in heart and stroke networks, the Government are merging them into 12 generic clinical networks that cover bigger geographical regions and far more health conditions. No one is against sharing the skills and experience of cancer and cardiac networks. However, as Maggie Wilcox, a former palliative care nurse, breast cancer patient, president of Independent Cancer Patients’ Voice and the layperson on the recent review by the Department of Health into breast screening said,
“subsuming cancer networks into generic clinical networks could be disastrous for cancer patients…you cannot be both a specialist and a generalist.”
That is especially important in an area as complex and fast-developing as cancer. Staff will not be able to make the same depth or scale of improvements if they are forced to cover a large area and more conditions with fewer members of staff.
The Secretary of State ploughs on regardless, denying that there is a problem and telling BBC Radio 5 Live that it is too early to know what will happen. How utterly complacent and out of touch. Networks are already disappearing. Their staff have left or are looking for jobs because their future is in such disarray. With their reckless NHS reorganisation, the Government have wasted not just taxpayers’ money but the knowledge and expertise of specialist staff, and patients are paying the price.
Liz Kendall
I do not think the Secretary of State understands that in a really complex and fast-developing area such as cancer, we need to know about individual, specific issues and concerns. If there are fewer staff covering bigger areas and more health conditions, we will not get specialist expertise.
If the Secretary of State does not believe me, perhaps he would like to comment on what Dr Mick Peake, the clinical lead for NHS cancer improvement and the national cancer intelligence network, has said. He has stated:
“With the shift towards GPs commissioning, the need for this expert…clinical advice will become ever more crucial…I am worried that in the process of reorganisation of the networks…we will lose many expert and very committed individuals, and that this could impact on the quality of commissioning and cancer services in the future.”
What will be the impact on patients, who are what the network is supposed to be about? Let us take prevention. Who has championed prevention by increasing the uptake of screening programmes? Cancer networks. Who trains GPs to spot the signs of cancer so that patients get earlier diagnosis? Cancer networks. Who has helped patients get their tests and scans done in days, not months, and slashed waits for cancer specialists to two weeks? Who has helped hospitals compare their performance, use the best drugs and treatments and transform patient information and support, and who has been central to setting up the new national cancer outcomes database, which the Government rightly say will help reduce cancer variations and drive improvements in future? Cancer networks. So why is the Secretary of State diluting—[Interruption.] Oh, now he switches to talk about the cancer drugs fund, because he knows that by stripping away vital local expertise, he is putting care at risk.
When the Secretary of State tells Radio 5 Live that he does not know why Labour is flogging this issue, calls cancer networks a mere pilot and says that his upheaval will be in patients’ best interests, cancer specialists, patients and Opposition Members know that he is wrong. We know that he cannot sustain the progress on cancer and make even more improvements in future when he is ripping away the foundations of better cancer care. As Earl Howe has just told Members of the Lords, it is “perfectly correct” that the share of the pot that cancer networks will be able to get will be smaller next year than it is this year. I rest my case.
The Prime Minister said that he would increase spending on the NHS, but NHS spending is lower in real terms today than it was when Labour left office—broken promise No. 1. Health Ministers repeatedly claim that they have protected cancer network budgets—broken promise No. 2. No top-down NHS reorganisation, mental health a priority and social care budgets protected—broken promises three, four and five. The list goes on. The Prime Minister claims that his priority can be summed up in three letters—NHS. That very same organisation is responding with its own three letters—SOS. I commend the motion to the House.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
I start by acknowledging the moving contribution of the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). Her testimony was shocking and should force the whole system to recognise that such experiences are utterly intolerable and have no place in a modern health system in which kindness and compassion must always take first place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to put that at the top of his agenda. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also spoke about that point.
I have sat in this Chamber for many debates on the NHS; I have spoken in many of them too. I have heard many arguments about a lot of different things, but unfortunately this is one of the most misguided motions I have ever seen. I get on well with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), but on this occasion he is completely wrong. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) said, the debate should be about the massive challenge we face in caring for people with long-term chronic conditions.
The right hon. Gentleman blames us for his spending plans when he was in office—plans that he signed off when he was in government. Let us have a quick reality check. The coalition’s spending plans kicked in in 2011-12, not before, and in that year there was an increase in real-terms spending. However, hon. Members should not take my word for it: they should ask Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority and a highly respected and eminent economist. He confirmed that in 2011-12, NHS spending increased in real terms compared with the previous year by 0.1%. It says it all that the right hon. Gentleman refused to complete the sentence from Andrew Dilnot’s letter and give the complete picture. Spending will carry on going up for years to come, despite the legacy of financial irresponsibility left us by the last Government—the billions frittered away on a failed IT programme; the vice-like grip of PFI schemes mortgaging—
Norman Lamb
I have very little time.
Seventy-three billion pounds outstanding on PFI projects, mortgaging the NHS’s future and causing a massive strain on local health economies—that was something alluded to by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and the hon. Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and for Corby (Andy Sawford). The problems of PFI are massive. Labour also had 25,000 people working in health quangos. That is Labour’s legacy, but now, under the coalition, over the four years to 2014-15 the NHS budget will rise by more than £12.5 billion.
Nigel Adams
May I appeal to the Minister to ensure that rural areas such as North Yorkshire are given a fairer funding formula when the Secretary of State reassesses the formula shortly?
Norman Lamb
I understand the concern about rural areas and I will write to my hon. Friend about that. That £12.5 billion will go into improving services, hiring staff and keeping people well. That money will help to protect our health even as the age of the population goes up.
Lucy Powell
I thank the Minister for giving way. [Interruption.] Let me tell the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that I am not going to read anything out. After such a long and lively debate, I just want to know whether the Minister will now clarify the matter that is before the House. Was NHS expenditure, in Dilnot’s words, lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10? Yes or no?
Norman Lamb
The letter from Andrew Dilnot—the part that the right hon. Member for Leigh did not read out—also said that
“it might also be fair to say that real-terms expenditure had changed little over this period.”
In 2011-12, it went up according to Andrew Dilnot.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already gone through the numbers outlining what is happening in the NHS today. He has already mentioned all those areas where the NHS is now healthier than under Labour—60,000 fewer people waiting longer than 18 weeks than under Labour; a determination to give access rights to those with mental health problems, as well as those with physical health problems, which was something bizarrely left out by Labour; more than 3 million more out-patient appointments every year than under Labour; more clinical staff, including 5,000 more doctors; and better access to drugs than ever before, including £600 million for the cancer drugs fund. On the cancer networks, the budget for networks as a whole is going up by 27%, which includes dementia and maternity—something that was also left out by Labour. Had the Labour party had its way and cut NHS spending, what would have happened to the networks in those circumstances?
Here is the important point, a point that Labour Members have unsurprisingly chosen not to mention throughout the length of this debate—that money would not be there under Labour. I have no doubt that they will protest, but it is there in black and white, immortalised in Hansard and in the press: for years, they have consistently advocated spending less than us on the NHS. In 2010, the right hon. Member for Leigh, in an interview with the New Statesman, said:
“Cameron’s been saying it every week in the Commons: ‘Oh, the shadow health secretary wants to spend less on health than us.’”
The interviewer fired back:
“Which is true, isn’t it?”,
and the right hon. Gentleman admitted ,“Yes, it’s true”. In the same year, as reported in The Guardian, the right hon. Gentleman said:
“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”.
Yet it goes even further than that. A year before those interviews, in 2009, he could not even promise that the NHS would be protected from cuts. The chief economist from the King’s Fund agrees. Commenting on Labour’s plans, he said that the implication of the overall budget for the NHS was that it would be cut in real terms from between a very small amount to up to 5% over two years. That is what would have happened, had Labour won the election. It will fool no one: it will not fool the public, patients, the professionals or this House. We all know that the coalition is moving heaven and earth to protect the proud heritage of the NHS and drive up standards for everyone—whoever they are and wherever they live.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood rightly says, the challenge is how we rethink how services are delivered across the health and social care divide to prevent crises from occurring. Prevention is what we should be doing, as the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) rightly pointed out. If Labour Members do not like our plans, it is up to them, but if they think the NHS would be doing better with less money, more mixed-sex wards, longer waiting times and fewer clinical staff, they are more than welcome to that position. They can cling on to that as long as they wish, but what is unforgivable is for them to try to hoodwink the public into belittling an NHS that is getting better and better all the time. We have an NHS that is treating more people than ever better than ever, an NHS that is preparing itself for new challenges every day.
Let us compare that with Labour’s real NHS project in Wales, where we see cuts—cuts that have resulted in half a billion pounds taken out of the NHS in Wales by Labour. Waiting times are longer than in England and a higher proportion of patients is waiting for treatment. That is the true face of Labour on the NHS, and in England we should fight it as passionately as we can.
We have seen clearly today the desperation of the Labour party—a desperation that has led it to try to misinterpret inconvenient statistics. Frankly—
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Backbench Business
Church of England (Women Bishops)
(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
For clarification purposes, this debate can last up to three hours. Although I shall not put an initial limit on Back-Bench contributions, if those who have indicated that they wish to speak could focus their minds on about 10 minutes a time limit might not have to be imposed.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the Church of England Synod vote on women bishops.
I am delighted to see so many hon. and right hon. Members in their places. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to schedule the debate and my colleagues on both sides of the House for supporting it. I was encouraged to apply for the debate by the huge level of interest from Members on both sides when, in a move that I think was unprecedented, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) came to answer an urgent question after the General Synod rejected the Women Bishops Measure.
Some people think that we should not be discussing this matter at all and that it is no business of Parliament to involve ourselves in the affairs of the Church, but that is to fail to understand our constitution. The Church of England is not like any other faith group—it is the established Church, answerable to Parliament. We can have a debate about whether or not that is a good thing, and I am sure hon. Members will do so.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech, but does he agree that in a multi-faith society there is no longer any place for an established Church?
Mr Bradshaw
No, I am afraid I do not agree. For the record, I support establishment, because it provides for what I call a servant Church—a Church that is there for anyone. Many of us will have had experience of that in our constituencies at times of great civic celebration or mourning or simply in the lives of our constituents who may not feel themselves to be particularly religious but find the Church of England is there for them when they need it when they wish to baptise, marry or bury a loved one.
With establishment comes privileges, such as the presence of Church of England bishops in the House of Lords for example, but with those privileges come duties, one of which is the legal requirement for Church of England legislation to be approved by Parliament. To those who say we should not be talking about this, I say not only that we should be but that we do not have a choice. If Synod had passed the Women Bishops Measure, the Ecclesiastical Committee, on which I and a number of other hon. Members and Members of the other place sit, would have had to consider and approve it in the coming months. There would then have had to be debates and votes on the Floors of both Houses.
What has been forgotten in the debate since the Synod vote is that it is perfectly possible that we in Parliament might have rejected the Measure. It is interesting reading the proceedings of this House on women’s ordination more than 20 years ago. Then, Parliament acted as a brake on progress. I remember Members such as John Gummer, Ann Widdecombe and Patrick Cormack, who ensured that extra safeguards for the opponents of women’s ordination were written into the legislation.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the issue of women bishops, but does he agree that the vote was not simply about the principle of being for or against women bishops? It was about protections for dissenting voices, like those written into the legislation to which he refers. When we talk about those who were dissenting, we should not just characterise them as being for or against women’s rights when a significant number are simply taking a doctrinal view.
Mr Bradshaw
I shall come on to that in a while.
I was making the point that back then, Parliament acted as a brake on women’s ordination, but in the intervening two decades there has been a huge change in attitudes in both Houses to gender equality in general and on the role of women in the Church in particular, as we have experienced and witnessed women’s ministry in practice in our communities. My assessment is that when a resurrected Women Bishops Measure comes before the House, the main danger for it is not that it will contain insufficient safeguards for its opponents but that it will contain too many and be deemed inconsistent with widely accepted views on equality.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Figures that have just been released show that half of those who voted against the legislation to allow female bishops were women. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on that?
Mr Bradshaw
The hon. Gentleman will have to examine the Church personship of those particular members of Synod, but it is not a secret that there are as many female members of the conservative evangelical and conservative Catholic wings of Synod as there are male members. We do not necessarily make choices and choose values based on our gender.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Arising from that intervention, does my right hon. Friend not agree that when women were campaigning for the parliamentary vote and to sit as Members of Parliament, it was argued that the majority of women wanted nothing of the kind?
Mr Bradshaw
Indeed, that is an interesting historical parallel.
It is important that we in the Church consider the reality of parliamentary opinion as the bishops, led by the new archbishop, try to chart a way forward. If they are to resolve this matter quickly using the usual or some form of expedited Synod process, they will still need a two-thirds majority in all three Houses of Synod—bishops, clergy and laity—and they will need to get it through Parliament.
It has been widely reported that if the Measure is further watered down in any way or more concessions offered to opponents, it will not get through Synod. However, it may well not get through Parliament either.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the Church is for everyone. I have received letters from constituents who have a genuine, deep-rooted objection in conscience to the Measure. Does he agree that it is important for the Church to make every effort to accommodate those of faith and conscience who have a long-standing doctrinal view, even though it may come into conflict with what he described as the values of today?
Mr Bradshaw
My view is that the Church should make every reasonable effort to accommodate those views, but the feeling of the overwhelming majority, both of Synod and of the Church of England, is that concessions have gone far enough. As I shall explain, the danger for opponents is that they may have overplayed their hand at the last Synod, and they will not get a deal as good as the one that was on the table then.
I want to make one more point to those who argue that this is none of our business. Many of us are members of the Church of England, and those who are not have constituents who are. Any Member of Parliament who has had contact with Churches in their constituency in the past two weeks will be aware of the enormous shock and hurt among many Anglicans about the Synod vote. We have had women priests for 20 years. The majority of new ordinands are women. Some of the deans of our great cathedrals are women. The Church has been debating women bishops for years.
Everyone thought that it was a done deal. The dioceses voted 42 out of 44 in favour. In Synod itself, the bishops voted 44 in favour and two against, with two abstentions. Three quarters of the clergy voted yes and even in the House of Laity, 64% voted in favour, but that was 2%—just six votes—short of the required two-thirds majority. If we look at the analysis of those who voted that was helpfully provided by the Thinking Anglicans website, we can see that supporters of women bishops in the House of Laity all voted yes. The blocking minority was made up, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) indicated, of opponents from the conservative evangelical and conservative Catholic wings. The composition of Synod is not due to change until 2015, so unless some of those who voted no this time can be persuaded to change their mind, I doubt whether the bishops can be confident of getting a revised Measure through before 2015 under the normal or even an expedited procedure that requires a two-thirds majority in every House.
The only way we might persuade some of the opponents to change sides is by offering them more concessions, but that would be anathema to the majority and would not get through Parliament. There is no guarantee, of course, that if we wait until after 2015, it would be any different.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Is the right hon. Gentleman as surprised and delighted as I was by a petition that began in one of my smaller villages to try to persuade the Bishop of Oxford to have a shorter, much simpler process in a week? That petition has already gained 1,500 signatures.
Mr Bradshaw
Indeed, and I understand that there have been spontaneous meetings at local and synodical level all over the country. At an emergency meeting this week, the synod in Bristol voted in a similar vein. There has been a real upswelling of indignation and sadness among many ordinary Anglicans.
As I was saying, things may be no better in the new Synod. The conservative evangelicals are well organised and motivated. If we look at the voting figures in the House of Laity, we see that the majority of lay representatives from some dioceses voted no, even when their diocesan synod had voted overwhelmingly yes. Of course I hope and expect that there will be conversations at local level with these people, to whom it should be gently pointed out that they have not really represented the views of their diocese very well. I have had quite a lot of dealings with the opponents, and particularly conservative evangelicals, and I am not filled with confidence that they will be persuadable.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
As I understand it, the Synod vote was not about whether there should be women bishops; apparently, that has been agreed already. The vote may well have been—I stand to be corrected—about how the Church can be kept together, in light of the fact that a minority of people, perhaps for theological reasons, cannot accept the oversight of a woman. That might be the nub of the problem. That is a question, as much as a statement.
Mr Bradshaw
The answer, of course, is yes, but the Measure made very generous provision for opponents of women priests and bishops; it would have allowed them to continue to have their own bishop. Supporters of the Measure believe that the concessions were pretty generous, and I do not think that they will become any more generous in the weeks and months to come.
That is why I say to the bishops that there comes a time in any organisation, whether it be a political party or a Church, when it is no longer sustainable or possible to move at the pace of the slowest, which in this case means not moving at all. The overwhelming majority of Anglicans do not want more delay. They believe that the opponents of women bishops will never be reconciled. If some of the opponents decide to leave for Rome or to set up their own conservative evangelical sect, so be it. Similar threats were made over women’s ordination. In the event, far fewer people left the Church of England than was predicted, and as time has gone on, more and more parishes that originally decided that they did not want women priests have come to accept and celebrate them.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is vital that the Church of England considers its trajectory and progress, bearing in mind that women bishops are already part of the international Anglican community in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States and elsewhere?
Mr Bradshaw
Yes. I shall mention some of the provinces of the Church of England that already have women bishops when I come on to one of the possible solutions to the impasse.
I was talking about people coming in and out of the Church. For every one person who may leave the Church of England over women bishops, there will be many more who stay or come back; there are also people who, at the moment, shrug and say, “Why should I take a second look at an institution that treats women like this?”, but who will take that second look if women are fully celebrated in the Church. In the discussions that we often have about the importance of Church unity, we very rarely talk about those who have already left or been driven out of the Church, or who have not come in, including members of my extended family and my circle of friends—I am sure that the same applies to many hon. Members—because of the failure of the Church to make progress more quickly.
Having announced on the eve of this debate that they will have another go in July, the Bishops need to be sure that they will win. The process must be concluded quickly—in months, not years. If they are not sure that they can deliver, they should ask Parliament for help. Since the Synod vote, many of us will have been contacted by priests and lay members of the Church, appealing to Parliament to act. A priest from Lancaster wrote to me, saying, “Please, please, please, help.” She went on to ask us to remove the Church’s exemption from equality laws, describing it as
“deeply offensive to most women priests.”
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I am very much a supporter of the Church of England having women bishops. Do we speed up the pace at which the Church moves by having this debate, or is it much better to let the Church of England get on with it?
Mr Bradshaw
The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) may be able to add some helpful intelligence in that regard when he replies, but from all the conversations that I have had with people from the archbishop downwards, they are encouraging us to have this debate. They feel that they need the pressure to be kept on from this place, so the simple answer to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is that it is helpful.
Other correspondents have questioned the continued presence of an all-male episcopate in the other place, and suggested that the Prime Minister put a hold on new bishop appointments until the issue is resolved. A male vicar from London wrote to me saying that because the failure lies in the synodical election process, Parliament should intervene. The Dean of Sheffield wrote to me saying:
“Parliament has a responsibility to take action when the future of the established Church is threatened by the actions of a vocal and determined minority.”
Canon Jane Charman, the diocesan director of Salisbury, wrote:
“The Church of England has a privileged place in our national life and Parliament has not just a right but a duty to help us fulfil our responsibilities appropriately.”
She goes on:
“I believe it would be a kindness to the Church and to our Archbishop designate if Parliament can now do for us what we have proved unable to do for ourselves and so bring this shameful situation to an end.”
Canon Charman goes on to suggest this could be done by a simple mechanism of Parliament amending Canon C2, as we would have been asked to do if the Women Bishops Measure had passed.
Women and the Church, or WATCH, which is the umbrella group for those supporting women’s ordination and consecration as bishops, also says that resolving the issue would be a simple task requiring the repeal of one clause of the 1993 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure or the removal of one clause of one section of Canon Law. WATCH is pessimistic about the prospect of a successful compromise in July and now advocates a simple measure legislating for women bishops. It says that that is the only legislation that Parliament should accept. Provision for dissenters, it says, should be as in all the other Anglican provinces that have women bishops—that is, based on pastoral and informal support.
A non-stipendiary priest and senior civil servant has written to me advocating a simple amendment to legislation, making it legal for anyone to be a bishop regardless of gender. This permissive model would not force the Church to have women bishops but, he predicts, the Crown Nominations Committee would nominate a female bishop within a year or so and some diocesan bishops may well start appointing female suffragans pretty much immediately.
What we have here is not Parliament wishing to intervene or relishing intervening in Church affairs, but priests and lay people in the Church pleading with us to do so. Some people have suggested that it would be unfair or unconstitutional for Parliament to single out the Church of England in legislation in this way. But that is exactly what the Government are proposing to do on same-sex marriage. The Church of England is to receive special legislation, at its own request, applying exclusively to it, banning same-sex weddings in Anglican churches. If Parliament can legislate exclusively for the Church of England to ban same-sex weddings, something the Church is perfectly capable of deciding to do for itself, why should not Parliament legislate exclusively for the Church to do something it wants but cannot deliver for itself—women bishops?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Has my right hon. Friend noticed a particular irony? It looks like this House and the House of Lords will have a significant majority in favour of the legislation that he has just referred to, but the one place where it will not be possible to perform such a marriage is the Crypt Chapel of Parliament. Would it not be a good idea if that were handed over to all the faiths, rather than just one faith?
Mr Bradshaw
Yes, there are all sorts of anomalies in the legislation that was presented yesterday, but today is not the time to debate those. We will have plenty of opportunity to do so. It is interesting that the Church of England was asking for Parliament to protect it from itself, so to speak, over equal marriage, yet it is still rather resistant, as things stand, to our helping it to legislate on something that its says it wants to do but so far has not been capable of delivering for itself.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Before we get diverted down discussions that we had yesterday and will have in future on other subjects, will the right hon. Gentleman return briefly to what has happened in the other provinces? Can he say slowly and clearly that where they trusted diocesan bishops to make suitable arrangements, those arrangements were made, and the heavens have not fallen in on those who might be regarded as conservative or dissenters?
Mr Bradshaw
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Canada and South Africa all have women bishops, and they have systems that are without any legislative alternative for episcopal oversight; they have voluntary pastoral care. From what I hear, that works well and people are perfectly happy with it, and the women bishops themselves deal with it very sensitively.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
Would it help the right hon. Gentleman’s argument if I pointed out that the Church of Scotland, which is also the established Church, and which has no bishops or hierarchy, has no problems whatsoever of discrimination against women? It has had women ministers for many years, and indeed a woman Moderator of its General Assembly, without any adverse effects.
Mr Bradshaw
Yes, indeed, and I commend the Church of Scotland for that. Of course, the Scottish Episcopal Church, which is the sister Church of the Anglican Church, legislated for women bishops about 10 years ago. I do not think that it has appointed any yet, but that is already possible and the heavens have not fallen in north of the border.
When the Minister and the hon. Member for Banbury respond to the debate, I hope that they feel they can comment on the various suggestions for legislative solutions that we have collectively received. I also hope that the hon. Member for Banbury can reassure us that the bishops have an acceptable plan that will work, and work quickly. In the crisis meeting that was held between the bishops and Members of this House and the other place the day after the Synod vote, I was struck by the total unanimity from MPs and peers on the view that the vote had been a disaster for the Church, that the matter had to be resolved quickly and that, if it was not, Parliament would act.
Mr William Fittall, secretary-general of the General Synod, has said:
“Unless the Church of England can show very quickly it’s capable of sorting itself out, we shall be into a major constitutional crisis in Church-State relations, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with any confidence.”
Some people might relish such a prospect. I and, I believe, most Members of this House and most members of the Church of England do not. That is why together we must find an urgent solution to this damaging impasse.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate. I agree almost entirely with what the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) has said. I will not dwell on the great theological arguments or the interpretation of St Paul’s letters. Instead, I want to give a view from the pew which I think is very different from that expressed by the House of Laity.
I have been a member of the Church of England since my baptism. I have served on parochial church councils for more years than I care to remember. I have been a church treasurer and, for five years, a church warden. During that time, I can recall—to my shame—voting only once in an election for a General Synod representative. It is a process clouded in mystery, and one in which the vast majority of churchgoers are uninterested.
We are all completely mystified about why people lack interest in the democratic process. I am sure that we all have appeared at church and village halls in front of—how shall I put it?—small audiences, but I can recall only one occasion when no one turned up to a public meeting, and that was when I stood for election to the General Synod six or seven years ago. We held three or four meetings across the Lincoln diocese, to which all the candidates were invited. On one occasion about 15 people turned up, and four turned up at another, but at the one held in a church hall in Brigg the one person there was the caretaker, and he did not want to be there. It makes us question how representative the House of Laity is.
Democracy is a wonderful thing. I was reflecting on that a few weeks ago, because the elections for police and crime commissioners and the vote on women bishops more or less coincided. We had a wonderful result in the Humberside police force area, but the winning candidate received fewer first-choice votes than the loser, while in the Synod, the votes for women bishops were greater in number than those against. We have to reflect on the system that is used. I am encouraged by the noises that I hear coming from the Church saying that changes are afoot. I sincerely hope that the Synod, particularly the House of Laity, becomes much more representative in the not-too-distant future.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On democratic systems, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) mentioned the rule for having a two-thirds majority in all three aspects of the Church. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is completely out of touch and that there should be a single majority, as when Members of Parliament are elected to this place?
Martin Vickers
My instinct is to say yes, but having just reflected on different voting systems and the potential outcome, I recognise that we need careful thought on how we proceed. I very much hope that the Church will, at a very early date, make alternative proposals.
The important thing is that we quickly move on from this. I mentioned the average person in the pew. We desperately want a Church that proclaims the gospel and cares about its mission in local communities, and at a wider level about being recognised and appreciated by the great majority. It may well be that a smaller number of people than not so long ago will admit to being a Christian, and that is sad, but it is certain that that number will not grow if the Church is seen to be concentrating on these interminable internal arguments in which the wider world is not the slightest bit interested. I want the Church of England to play an important role in our society, because it is vitally needed. As we see time and again at a national and a local level, it brings people together both at times of thanksgiving and in difficult circumstances. There is clearly a role for the Church to play in its mission not only to believers but to non-believers and agnostics.
I urge the Church to move as quickly as possible to revise the election procedures, particularly within the House of Laity, so that the Synod becomes more representative. The message needs to come from this House that we are concerned about the situation and want to nudge the Church in the right direction, and hope that it moves in that direction, but we should not completely rule out taking the matter into our own hands.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I do so with some trepidation. Although I am a Christian, I am a Roman Catholic, and we do not tend to have too many debates about democracy in the Church of Rome.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) rightly said that although the figure has dropped, 33 million people in this country still regard themselves as Christian. It is therefore right that the House of Commons discusses issues regarding the Christian Church and Christianity. I have a great deal of time for the Anglican Church. It is a great force for good in the world, and in terms of international development it has done a great job for people who suffer. In my own country of Wales, it is a remarkable institution. Yesterday the Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan, rightly expressed some confusion as to exactly what the Government are intending to do in relation to the disestablished Church in Wales as regards same-sex marriages, but I am sure that they will be able to sort that out as time goes by.
When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Church of Ireland—the Anglican Church there—played a hugely important role in the peace process, particularly under Archbishop Robin Eames. As I have said, I am not an Anglican, although my mother was, but my personal experience is that the Church is a great force for good.
One might think that, as a Roman Catholic, I would oppose women bishops. I actually do not take any particular view on what the Church of England should do; it is a matter for the Church. Logic tells me, however, that if we have women priests, we should have women bishops, and I think that the majority of practising Anglicans think so too. I understand, however, that there are people in the Church of England who do not share that view, and they need to be safeguarded somehow. I guess that a compromise will eventually be found.
The thrust of my remarks is to ask what Parliament should be doing about this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) made an impassioned, powerful and sensible speech on the issue. I do not necessarily agree with everything he said, but I understand the passion with which he made his arguments. As parliamentarians, we need to take great care with anything we do in relation to a Christian Church, even though that Church is established. The Anglican Church in Wales is not established, so this does not apply there, but the Church of England is established, and it is different for that reason.
In the 25 years I have been in this place, I have never voted on any Church of England Measure. That is not because I did not have a view on those matters, but because I believe that, as a Catholic, I should not vote on them. Also, as a Member of Parliament representing a Welsh constituency, where the Anglican Church is disestablished, I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to take part in such votes. I will continue not to vote on any such issues until I finish in this place.
We are in a rather muddled position at the moment. The Church of England is established, which means that there are bishops in the upper House and that certain things have to happen in the House of Commons. However, the composition of the House of Commons is very different now from what it used to be. Many Members are not Christians, never mind members of the Church of England. Is it really right that they should take part in decisions on what a Christian Church should do? I worry about that. I believe that common sense will prevail at the end of the day, however, and that debates such as these might prod the Church of England to reach a speedy conclusion on this matter.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
This has been an incredibly damaging episode for the Church and, as other Members have said, we should reserve the right to act. However, the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is highly valued as an institution, and the best way by far for the Church to reverse this terrible public relations damage would be for it to resolve the problem itself.
Paul Murphy
That is the feeling that lay behind the thinking of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) when he was Prime Minister. He said that he would not take part in choosing bishops of the Church of England, and that that should be a matter for the Appointments Committee. I believe that he was right. I do not see why a Methodist, a member of the Church of Scotland, a Roman Catholic or someone with no faith at all should decide whom the head of the Church of England should be. That would be incredibly wrong in this day and age. The Church itself should make that decision. I accept that there are strong views on this issue, but as I said, I believe that this debate will have some value in that it might prod the Church of England into reaching a speedy conclusion.
Chris Bryant
I rather sympathise with my right hon. Friend’s take on the state of the Church in relation to its established nature, not because I want it to be disestablished, but because I think that there could be different ways in which it could be established that were more akin to the established nature of the Church of Scotland. In Scotland, Parliament never decides on any such matters. The truth of the matter is that, as the law and the settlement stand, if women bishops are to happen, that decision will have to come through here. If there are more concessions, I cannot see that getting through Synod or through here.
Paul Murphy
I understand the problems. I am in a difficult position in relation to the establishment of the Church of England. On balance, I think that it should remain established, but that the settlement of establishment might have to be changed, as my hon. Friend has just suggested. Its establishment sends a signal that we are, I hope, still a Christian country. The fact that it is established underpins that. However, I beg Members to be conscious of the fact that it must still be the Church itself that makes this decision. We might have our views on the matter, but we are not members of Synod—except for one or two of us—and should not be in a position to take that final decision. So this is a word of warning— a kind word—for the Church of England and for Members on both sides of this House who hold strong views about this.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I support wholeheartedly the argument for women bishops and believe strongly that it will happen; the question is not if, but when. The recent decision was a great disappointment. It is a great honour and privilege to follow three of the finest speeches that I have heard in some time, by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy).
I was a lapsed member of a religion. It was well and truly bred out of me by having to go twice a day and three times on Sundays as a child. It may have also been assisted by the fact that I discovered horse racing, and my talent as a bookmaker did not endear me to the local vicar where I went to school. When I became a jockey—a very poor one, I admit—many people prayed that I would improve, because I kept losing on favourites, which upset them tremendously.
I have now reverted to the faith and am an enthusiastic member of the Church of England. I rise to speak not because I believe that I have a great deal to contribute to this debate, but because I want to address one specific issue. I urge that the Church be allowed to resolve this matter—I strongly endorse this—of its own volition and in its own way. It concerns me desperately when the state starts to interfere with matters of the Church. I accept entirely the points made by the right hon. Member for Exeter and endorse the comments made by some of those who intervened on him. It is accepted that this place has a role to play, by reason of its statutory controls, in overseeing and ultimately endorsing the Church’s actions. However, we would take a large and significant step—in this I disagree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—if we attempted to mandate, order or empower the Church to take any action that it could manifestly resolve itself.
It is self-evident that rights are often won very slowly. Some parties to the argument wish the debate to move speedily and for the matter to be resolved. I am one of them, but that does not mean that I should tell the Church how it should behave such that it would not be able to resolve its own difficulties itself. In that respect, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who said after a previous debate:
“This is not an issue which can in any way be parked for the next couple of years or so, waiting for another round of synod elections…This has to be an issue that has to be resolved as soon as possible.”
That implies that Parliament should get involved, but I disagree.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
That was certainly not the implication. With all due respect to my hon. Friend, he has misunderstood what I said. I was saying that the Church has to get on with it, and I am very glad that it is getting on with it, as evidenced by this week’s meeting of the House of Bishops and the programme of work that it set out.
Guy Opperman
I am happy to take that guidance and clarification, because some people will have interpreted some of our debates and the questions that have been asked over the past month or so as giving the impression that we wish to get involved, rather than allowing the Church itself to make those decisions. I endorse entirely my hon. Friend’s point that the Church has bravely taken the step to expedite matters as fast as possible. Tomorrow, some of us will meet Bishop Justin Welby, who I understand is anxious to resolve the matter as quickly and efficaciously as possible.
It is right that we discuss this issue. We should take this opportunity to celebrate the role of women in the Church. It is patently obvious in my constituency that their presence has transformed the Church and improved it immeasurably. The Church is much more open and is much enlivened by the presence of females leading the congregation. That can only be a good thing.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s argument that it would be better if the Church resolved this matter itself, but does he not accept that there will be limitations on that, given, for example, that there is currently a bloc of Members in the other place, all of whom happen to be men? There is a limit to how long that can continue.
Guy Opperman
I would go further. I see it as the natural progression from this debate that there will be women bishops, that there will be women bishops in the other place and, ultimately, that there is the potential for women archbishops, although I have no doubt that that will not happen speedily. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says and he moves me on to my next point, which is that there cannot be partial equality. Eventually, equality must be total. In that respect, what goes on in the other place must follow what is taking place in this debate.
As one of my female priests put it to me, the Church is not actually about the House of Laity, but about the work that it does locally in its parishes. That is the most important part of its work. In my constituency and across Northumberland, I am certain that it is providing a fantastic service. Although I may have been a lapsed sinner in respect of the vices of horse racing, bookmaking and being a poor jockey, I am happy to now be in the right place.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
When I first heard the result from the Synod, I was surprised, not only by the sense of despair but by the amount of joy that I felt. The joy was caused by seeing so many people, particularly women, taking the result seriously. I thought that it would be dismissed as another little local difficulty for the Church and that very few people would pay much attention to it. I was genuinely surprised and pleased by the number of women who are not Church members who were affronted by the decision.
I was surprised by my despair over the decision. The Church of England had just gone through the establishment of a commission to appoint a new Archbishop of Canterbury. The commission came to the conclusion that the guy who had hardly got his clothes on as a bishop should be given the top job. Given that the Church thinks that God moves in mysterious ways to guide its decisions, if that was not seen as the powers that be suggesting to the Church that the gene pool was pretty poorly based and that it would be foolish to continue to hide itself from half the human race when it comes to questions of leadership, one despairs at the experts in the Synod who are supposed to read the times better than the rest of us.
The result of the commission was, in the words of a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), to appoint a “holy thug”. We are into very interesting times with this new archbishop. He is already showing his leadership by suggesting that the Church will confront this issue and be encouraged to remake the decision.
If I may, I will make two points about the remaking of the decision. There are moves that should legitimately be made by the Synod and moves that we should make. I do not favour, at this stage, interfering with the Synod’s processes. Therefore, I do not think that we should change the rules of the game by changing the canons or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) suggested, changing the legislation in such a way that it makes it inevitable that there will be women bishops. That move is long overdue and, as my Roman Catholic right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said, once the key decision has been made and there are no theological objections to women being priests, there can be no theological objections to their being bishops. Bishops are those in ministry who are given additional responsibilities. The nature of their task is not different from that of a priest—indeed, it may not be as important as that of a local priest—but they have added responsibilities.
What areas should hon. Members and the synods be concerned with? The synods, I hope, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, will follow the diocese of Bristol and table motions of no confidence in the current Synod. Presumably at some stage such a total of dioceses will have done that that the Synod will have to be dissolved and new elections fought. Clearly, those elections will be fought on the issue of women bishops, and I look forward to that very much. When the new Synod gets down to business, it might look at the extraordinary procedure to which it subjects itself when trying to pass reforms, which is very harmful.
The message is that the Synod should get on and start reforming itself, but that must come through the parishes and the dioceses. At some stage, the dioceses will force the hand of the Synod. To those who say that they cannot afford it and that the Church must stumble on like this for a number of years, I say that that is an appalling argument to put forward and I hope that the Synod will not pay attention to it.
What can hon. Members do? Two suggestions have been made about how we might act. One was that we should withdraw the privilege that this place gave to the Church to discriminate against women 37 years ago. If one reads the debates, this place was convinced by the argument that the Church needed a bit more time to sort out the matter. Most of us would think 37 years—quite a few Parliaments—is long enough for it to have sorted itself out. I therefore hope that Members who agree with that approach will support the Bill that I have promoted, whose Second Reading will be on 18 January, to limit that privilege and say that the Church has had its time and that we will act legitimately in that area.
The second measure, which has also been hinted at, was presented as a Bill today and will also have its Second Reading on 18 January. Under the present circumstances it is totally proper for this House to say that no more writs can be issued to allow male bishops to take vacancies in the House of Lords. My short Bill proposes that the power to issue such a writ will go to the archbishop, who will choose from senior women deans to fill places in the House of Lords. We will have what would have been in the pre-reformed Church—[Interruption]—and those deans can take their place in the House of Lords.
I hope that hon. Members feel—this is the theme of the speeches we have heard this evening—that we should not cease to be concerned about this matter, but that we must be careful to keep to legitimate activities and not interfere with the Synod’s powers to expedite the measure and reform itself. Unless we get real movement on that, I hope that hon. Members who support both those measures will be in the House on 18 January not only to wish but to ensure that those Bills are speeded on to the statute book.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for leading the debate so well and to the Backbench Business Committee for choosing it.
I will declare my interests. I was baptised into the Church of England and confirmed into the Church in Wales—the latter makes me much more comfortable, because I support disestablishment. I am chair of a Church primary school, nominated by my diocese, Southwark, a trustee of a Church secondary school in my constituency and a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee in Parliament.
Like everybody who spoke immediately after the Synod’s decision, I despaired at the folly of the Church of England in making a huge public mistake. After so long, everybody was clear about the view of the Church as a whole. We have heard that 42 of the 44 dioceses are in favour of women bishops, and we have heard the view of the leadership, including Archbishop Rowan Williams, who did everything he could to ensure that the change was delivered during his time as Archbishop, for which we thank him.
I come from the evangelical tradition, and many evangelicals support the ordination of women as both priests and bishops. The situation is not one category in favour and another against. In the church to which I belong, St James in Bermondsey, which would be classed as an evangelical church, I do not think there is a single person who does not support the ordination of women as bishops.
Evangelicals look back to the scriptures, as does everybody else who gets involved in this argument. Although I understand why people have come to the view that they cannot accept that there can be women priests or bishops, that has very little biblical foundation. Nothing in my New Testament says that Christ set up a structure by saying, “You will have churches, and you will have deacons, priests and bishops, and they will all be men.” I may have missed something, but I have read the whole New Testament at one stage or another and there is nothing that says that. Although a tradition of having men has built up, some of the early leaders of the Church right from the beginning, when Christ was executed and rose again, were women. Indeed, in the early days some Churches had women bishops, for heaven’s sake. I do not understand why we are having to revisit this issue after so long.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I find myself agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. It has always surprised me that women seemed to have a good, established position in the early Church, right up until it was legalised and then became the state religion of Rome. That leads me to feel that we should overturn the centuries of discrimination against women in the Church, possibly by disestablishing it. Maybe, once it is disestablished, it will be able to see a proper route to incorporating women as a proper and fundamental part of the Christian family.
Simon Hughes
The hon. Lady and I are on the same wavelength on that. I understand the arguments for establishment, but I believe that a radical Church should not be part of the establishment. We should be outside the establishment campaigning for Christian values, but we have ended up being in the establishment by accident. That is a debate for another time, and we will not resolve it today.
One paradox is that the established Church of England has decided not to have women bishops when the head of the Church of England, the supreme governor, is a woman. The whole thing is inconsistent. There is another anomaly in the argument that, because of the relatively recent history of the Church, only men can be priests, and that people want to be under the pastoral responsibility of a male bishop. The Church has provided that option in relation to priests, and it works. Now it has come up with a similar proposal for those who want a male bishop. It seems to me that if the first worked, the second is likely to work. I ask people to be generous and less suspicious and untrusting. It is understood that some people have a different view, and everybody has tried hugely hard to accommodate it.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I remember my wife, as a female Secretary of State, taking the present Bishop of London to see the Queen to present the bishop, who would not ordain women, to be head of the Church of England.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Church of England decided not to have women bishops. The fair way to put it is that the Church of England Synod decided by a very large majority to have women bishops, and it is now a question of how and when, rather than rejecting that.
Simon Hughes
I agree.
I am clear that, in theory, there is no objection to women priests according to the Bible and Christian teaching. I am not a theologian, but the theology seems clear to me. However, it also seems to me that the Anglican Church has accepted women bishops all around the world. According to the information that I have, there are five Anglican provinces that already have women bishops, one of which has a woman presiding bishop—New Zealand and Polynesia, Australia, Canada, southern Africa and the United States. There is also the diocese of Cuba, which is not in any province.
A further 12 provinces have agreed that they can have women bishops and they are not, as it were, the usual suspects—Bangladesh, Brazil, central America, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, north India, the Philippines, Scotland, Sudan and Uganda. If I may say so, for heaven’s sake, if all those places have dealt with the theological argument and concluded that this is possible, then the Church of England is far from leading the Anglican communion; rather, it is following behind. There is a remaining group of provinces that have not yet accepted that they can have women bishops, but which have women priests, so they are clearly on the way. It therefore seems that many people in the Anglican communion have addressed this issue both in theory and theology and in practice.
Let me repeat what has been said strongly by others. My experience is that the Church has benefited enormously from allowing women into the ministry of the priesthood in the last 20 years, not just through their life experience, pastoral, academic and intellectual qualities and preaching ability, but simply through the sheer numbers. The right hon. Member for Exeter, who opened the debate, referred to that. At the moment, 20% of ministers in the Anglican Church are women. Across the Christian denominations in the UK, 20% is the average—the Methodists have 40%, but the average is 20%. In 2010—the last full year—more women than men were ordained as Anglicans into the priesthood for the first time. There are now 50% more women in the Church of England in full-time parochial appointments than 10 years ago. One in five of the paid clergy are women. All the evidence is that people are saying—from evangelicals to those in other parts of the Church, from women to men, from old to young—that they believe there should be women bishops in the Church.
The Church desperately needs more people willing to be its priests, its bishops and its leaders, to get out there and do the job of preaching and teaching. To say that women cannot be allowed any further than the first two rungs of the ladder—that they cannot be in the leadership—is ridiculous. It is to deny a pent-up opportunity that all of us who have watched women at work in the Church have seen—and I would not be forgiven if I did not say that among them is my wonderful sister-in-law, who is currently a chaplain for a hospice in Essex and who has served in the Chelmsford diocese for many years as a wonderful priest and member of the Church.
Let me refer to what we do now, because that is the question. I do not think we should take over the role of the Church of England now, not just because I believe in disestablishment, but because I think it would be inappropriate. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field)—that we may however want to take control of what happens at the other end of this building in deciding who is admitted to represent the Church of England as bishops. It has long been anomalous that in the House of Lords—the Lords itself is anomalous—one bloc has to be all-male. That seems inappropriate.
Government and Parliament need to offer their best offices to the Church of England so that the new proposal—which the bishops mercifully have today announced they will make for Synod next year—can receive their support and technical advice and therefore pass both the Synod and this place. The bishops need to know in advance—I pay tribute to other colleagues on the Ecclesiastical Committee—that what they come up with will not be tripped up in Parliament, and we need to know in advance that it is compatible with our principles of equality, of which colleagues have spoken around the House.
The majority of people who go to church in this country are women. The leadership that the country calls for must include the majority of people in Britain, who are women. I hope the Church has learnt its lesson. I have every confidence in the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, who is coming to meet us tomorrow. I hope that by this time next year we will be celebrating not just the change in the Church’s rules, but the beginning of a transformation that will embolden the Church, improve it and increase the effectiveness of the ministry of the Church to proclaim the gospel to everybody, which is best done by everybody who is capable of doing it.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for securing this debate. I am very pleased to be able to take part in it. My Durham constituency is an ecclesiastical and Anglican centre, so this is a matter of great importance for a number of my constituents. I am tempted to spend a few moments just highlighting the beauty and spirituality of Durham cathedral, but I have a feeling that you may rule me out of order if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would, however, recommend that all Members visit the cathedral at some stage.
It was some considerable time ago—1992, so 20 years—that the General Synod first voted to allow women to become priests. Without legislation to extend this to include bishops, a glass ceiling has been created for women in that their careers in the Church are limited purely by their gender. A number of us hoped that this situation would be rectified in November this year; unfortunately, the General Synod voted no, although narrowly, to women bishops. This is somewhat surprising, given the great advances made by women in the Church of England. The most recent data show that more women priests are being ordained than men—290 women were ordained into the priesthood in 2010, compared with 273 men. Partly because of this growth in the number of women priests, the result in November was particularly devastating, especially when considered alongside the view that has been expressed since—that it could be 2015 before this matter is considered again.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this has been a real blow to a great number of women who have dedicated their lives to the service of the Church. Given that there are some real difficulties in reconciling different views on the apostolic succession and the laying on of hands, is it not absolutely crazy that with ground having been conceded on the issue of ordaining women priests, they cannot then move up through the organisation to become bishops?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. I shall come on in a few moments to the difficulty of finding a compromise other than the one considered in November.
I am going to argue that the Synod needs to reconsider its decision as a matter of urgency. This time, it will I hope come up with the right answer, which is to allow women to become bishops. The change needed is really a simple one. All it needs is the simple repeal of the clause in the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 that states:
“Nothing in this Measure shall make it lawful for a woman to be consecrated to the office of bishop.”
As I say, this simply needs to be repealed.
Unlike some Members, I think that because the Church is established, this is a matter for Parliament. What I want, however, is for the Church to resolve the matter first. It seems to me particularly important for it to do so. I also think we have to recognise that the Church has had a pretty long time to do that—[Interruption.] Yes, a very long time to do it. The specific Measure before the Synod in November had been considered for five years, during which many legislative committees had brought together members of the General Synod who supported women bishops and those who opposed them, but no agreement other than the compromise before the Synod in November was agreed. If those five years of talks did not reach any other conclusion, prolonging a decision further is unlikely to get any other one put in front of the Synod. This suggests that action simply needs to be taken now. As the campaign group WATCH—Women and the Church—highlighted, this creates a difficulty. Those who support women bishops require women to be bishops on a par with their male colleagues, with no legal no-go areas. Those who will not accept women bishops require legal separation from women bishops.
As I have said before, I think that if another compromise were sought it would prove elusive, and that it would be better to consider how a general Measure supporting women who wish to become bishops could proceed. I should like that to happen quickly, because a number of constituents have written to me about the matter. Although I knew that there was a very strong Christian community in Durham, I was surprised by the number of letters that I received and the anger that was expressed in them. Perhaps I should start with the Bishop of Durham himself, the Right Rev. Justin Welby. He is soon to become Archbishop of Canterbury, and I think that Durham’s loss will be the country’s gain.
Mr Frank Field
Is it not extraordinary that, although he has already been appointed, he will not take up his post until Easter? Would it not be a good move for the Synod, having elected a new leader, to put him in post speedily, particularly when he has a reforming programme to accomplish?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
That is an interesting point, and if I were not about to lose a really wonderful Bishop of Durham I might well agree with my right hon. Friend. In this instance, however, we are in no hurry to get rid of our bishop, and I am quite pleased that he will be with us until Easter. I suppose that it might be to the greater good for him to move earlier, but I am sticking to my position, which is that we need his ministry in Durham for as long as possible, and certainly until we have someone else to take his place.
I was about to tell the House what the Bishop of Durham said, which I think is very important. He said:
“It is a very grim day, most of all for women priests and supporters.”
I also heard from Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, a vicar at Belmont and Pittington in my constituency. She said that she felt
“rejected by the church that accepted me for ministry”
but was not prepared to consecrate her as a bishop.
A letter from Richard Cheetham, a constituent of mine, is typical of many that I have received. He said:
“I find the whole thing a huge insult to women priests, and to women in general. Women can rise to the top positions in industry, commerce, education, and politics. Therefore I find the decision not to allow women bishops totally unacceptable.”
Mr Bradshaw
Is it not testimony to the strength of these women—and, indeed, that of other people who have been rejected by the Church—that they carry on, and stick with it? The strength of their faith, and their dedication to it, must be far greater than that of their male colleagues, given the way they stick it out, with good grace and good humour.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I agree with my right hon. Friend. In fact, I do not think that I received any letters or telephone calls from people saying that they were considering resigning, which, as my right hon. Friend says, is extraordinary in the circumstances.
I absolutely agree with Mr Cheetham and with others to whom I have spoken and who have written to me. The decision not to allow women to become bishops seems particularly absurd when we know that women priests and their ministry have been so very successful.
A recent article in The Observer highlighted the story of the Rev. Philippa Boardman, vicar of St Paul Old Ford church. When she arrived at her London church in the mid-1990s, St Paul Old Ford was derelict, its Victorian structure rotting away quietly after a decade of neglect. Under the watch of the enterprising new vicar, however, it was born again. It reopened as a thoroughly modern church-cum-community centre, with a gym in the attic and a café in the entrance. It also provides Zumba, WeightWatchers and after-school clubs. Last year, in recognition of her efforts, Ms Boardman was appointed MBE, and many members of the church community believe that she is also a prime candidate to become a bishop. Without change, however, that cannot even be considered.
I think that most of us who have women priests in our constituencies know what a fantastic job they do. In my constituency, Margaret Masson does a tremendous amount of community work. She sets up schemes to address the needs of older people, and she is at the heart of her community. I could mention others, too, but I will not take up the House’s time. My point is that women do a fantastic job at all levels in the Church. It is unfair that they are not able to become women bishops, and I do not think it is good for the Church either.
James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, said the Church would collapse if all the female priests in place now were somehow removed. Other Churches have made progress with this issue, and perhaps we have something to learn from the Church elsewhere. Some 29 female Anglican bishops have been consecrated worldwide. In many of the countries where that has happened, such as Canada, the USA and Australia, those who will not accept female bishops are offered provision informally and pastorally.
If we were to accept this approach, just one simple change would be required: the removal of clause 1(2) from the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993. I hope the Synod will consider that. I urge the Church to reconvene the Synod and reconsider its decision, and to allow all of us to benefit from the ministry of women bishops in the future.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
Having listened to the right hon. Members for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), and having heard before from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), I am filled with envy. I feel a little like the boy with his nose pressed against the pie shop window, looking inside at the good things within and feeling very excluded. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Exeter and those who have spoken in his support understand how fortunate they are. For them a decision on the issue—which has now confronted the Church for a number of decades—as to the acceptability, doctrinally and theologically, of women priests and women bishops is so obviously, decisively and clearly reached on one side.
They are extraordinarily fortunate to be able to reach a conclusion of such a decided kind, because some of us cannot do so, even after very careful and patient reflection. I fully respect the conclusion and the sincerity of the right hon. Member for Exeter, having listened to him today, and I ask him to accept that some of us cannot reach the same conclusion with the same decisive finality. Those of us who read the Bible and listen to what ancient texts say and hear the words of the Roman Catholic Church find it hard to conclude that the steps the Anglican Church has taken over recent decades are necessarily the right ones.
I know that the sentiments I express today are shared by many. I have received letters from people who feel the same way. Many of us also acknowledge that the decision taken some years ago to admit women priests to the Anglican Church is irreversible and the march of relentless logic will probably mean there should also be women bishops. However, that minority of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke so critically includes many people of sincere Christian faith who wrestle daily with their consciences on this issue, and who appreciate with humility that there are hundreds or thousands—or possibly tens of thousands—represented on these Benches here today who have reached a contrary conclusion to that which their own conflict on this subject leads them to reach, and who feel that this is a matter so free from intellectual difficulty that they can reach such a conclusion.
In the presence of that, this minority feel some sense of humility but simply cannot bring themselves to dismiss the tradition of 2,000 years, the convictions of the Roman Catholic Church and the convictions of many millions of people around the world with the ease and facility that the right hon. Gentleman does. That they feel sincerely, I ask him to accept.
The right hon. Gentleman was critical, probably rightly, of the fact that when people divide into the trenches, as they have on this issue, mistrust breaks out. He expressed concern that the negotiating position of the conservative wing of the Church is not held sincerely and these people do not wish to reach a conclusion. I can talk only about the letters I have received from the laity in the rural areas I represent. Many of them agreed with the position that he takes, but some did not. Those letters do not resonate with entrenched obstructionism; they seek a way forward. They sound with a sense of authentic pain. They are from people trying to grapple with an issue on which they realise they are in the minority, and they are seeking a way forward. It will test the leadership—
Mr Cox
Not just now. It will test the leadership of the Church, and I hope that this new leader of the Church is the God-sent thing he appears to be. I hope that he will be able to bring along the minority, among whose number I count myself, because the last thing that that minority wishes to do is see the Church they love riven by this issue. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman, and others in the House who, understandably, support so passionately their view, to entertain Christian compassion for the minority, who do not seem to have much of a voice in the debate today, nor had much of a voice in the statement the other day.
Mr Bradshaw
I assume from what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying—I hope he will forgive me if I am wrong—that the safeguards that already exist regarding women priests have kept him, and many others who did not and still do not want women priests, in the Church of England. What does he think was not adequate with the concessions being offered to the opponents of women bishops that would have prevented them from staying in the Church of England?
Mr Cox
I will come to that, because I intend to tackle the specifics in a moment. First, it is important that I set out the background to the remarks I intend to make, because I am approaching this, a matter relating to the Church, as beyond political propaganda and the crudity of political discourse; the things we are dealing with are precious to us all. They are part of our common bond of spiritual inheritance. For those who believe in the Church as I believe in the Church—an essential part of the fabric of our constitution that I cannot envisage ever being without—the fate of the Anglican Church is a crucial issue. We need to approach it in a spirit that tries to unite people, not divide them. The rules by which the decision of the Synod was reached the other day were created for a reason. Constitutionally weighted majorities are invariably introduced around the world, not only in the Church, but in countries, to protect minority opinions. That is why the Synod introduced the rule. People may argue with it now. They may say, “It is too high. It is unrealistically high. It puts into the hands of those who do not seek agreement too powerful a weapon”, but two-thirds majorities—weighted majorities—are there for a reason.
So fundamental a change after 2,000 years of tradition should receive a weighted majority. We cannot complain. We should not point the finger of accusation at the Church because those who conscientiously could not agree exercised their right not to do so. The rules were put in place by the Church so that decisions of this magnitude and gravity should be taken only with the overwhelming support of the Church; just because it failed to reach that threshold and the bar was not passed according to that majority, we should not complain. We should not say to the Church, “You have failed to do your duty.” The constitutional threshold was there for a reason: to ensure that when this change or any similar change on so fundamental a matter was introduced, it carried the overwhelming weight of the Church.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who spoke a moment ago and is no longer in his place, that it is inevitable that we shall have women bishops. The question is only how and when, but we must entertain the patience to allow the Church to make that decision on its own, for it will surely do so. We should not bully it or exert pressure on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will forgive me for saying that although he says he did not do so, when I listened to him in the urgent question the other day, he seemed to go perilously close—I will not say to bullying, because that would be unfair—to putting pressure on the Church. We have 2,000 years of tradition and we have been discussing the question of women bishops for 40. That is not long set against 2,000 years.
We should have the patience and the compassion to allow the Church to work this out on its own. For my part, I daily see the extraordinary devotion and dedication of women priests in my constituency. I am humbled by their dedication. I see them serve remote rural parishes and fight for their communities. I see the good that they do and I grapple with this question of whether we should have had women priests and have women bishops. I try to persuade myself that we should and I am acquiescent in the inevitability that it should happen—resigned. Perhaps I acknowledge too that the doubts I have on that score are wrong, but I simply ask that those who are so fortunate as to have such conviction on this subject to understand that this conflict is serious. It is perhaps more serious than anything in politics, because it affects one’s Christian faith. That is why I urge the House to pause before it takes the step of weighing in to determine this issue on behalf of the Church. Let us allow the Church, guided we must believe by God, to reach this decision on its own in its own time. I believe it will do so.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Yes, it will be for those women.
Mr Cox
I accept that those women will have to wait for another two or three years, but I cannot bring myself to believe that that is the presiding imperative set against the harmony and unity of the Church. Although I respect the work that they do, I repeat that I do not seek to hold out—
Mr Cox
No, not now.
Let me make it clear that I do not seek to prevent this step, but merely to argue that we should allow the Church to reach this conclusion and to heal itself on its own.
I repeat: it is no use complaining because a constitutional majority threshold was not reached. The liberals in the House and those in the House who believe in constitutionalism have no right to point the finger at the Church and say that somehow its systems are defective. That constitutional majority was not reached. It was set in place for good reason, to ensure that the whole Church, or as much of it as possible, was taken with the decision.
In 1998, the Lambeth conference resolved that those who could not bring themselves to accept the existence of women priests or bishops should nevertheless have rules created for them that allowed them to exist in the highest degree of communion with the Anglican Church. In 1993, the Ecclesiastical Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Exeter serves, accepted that rules should be created in perpetuity for those who took that view. We cannot break those promises but, equally, I agree with him that those who are on the conservative side must negotiate with sincerity. They must not set the bar so high that it is unacceptable to the majority. I appeal to those who have the good fortune to be in the majority to be tender towards those who are in the minority.
Sir Tony Baldry
Before my hon. and learned Friend concludes may I redirect him to answer the question that was put to him by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)? What was it about the Measure, which had the overwhelming support of the archbishops and the House of Bishops, the vast majority of the House of Clergy and a clear majority in the House of Laity, that my hon. and learned Friend found objectionable?
Mr Cox
I will come to my hon. Friend’s question. He cannot complain, and he certainly, in a genial and bluff manner, should not, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, kick the Church into adopting a view that he represents when, in fact, the constitutional majority was not reached. That is the rule by which the Church agreed that the decision should be made. To begin to bully the Church into taking action to follow his convictions is wrong and unrepresentative of the Church as a whole.
To come to my hon. Friend’s question, first, the code that is supposed to exist was never written. How on earth can we vote something through, expecting protective measures to be written in future? Why did the Church not create the code, in draft at least, so that members such as me would be able to read it? It was not written. Secondly, there is an existing protection for Church councils to be consulted, including councils that have taken the view that they ought to be excluded from the jurisdiction in which women priests celebrate the Eucharist. The priest must consult the Church council before an invitation is extended to a woman to celebrate the Eucharist. That protection is to be removed under the current provision. How can we expect those on the other side, already feeling bruised as a minority and feeling that the Church does not necessarily want them—that may be the case, but it is certainly not the publicly professed view of the Church—to have confidence in Measures that are not written and which remove existing protections?
My hon. Friend asked for another example. As I understand it, if a Church council writes a letter of request asking to be excluded from the dominion of a particular bishop, a priest is able to veto that request. That does not give confidence to those parishes where a majority feel that they do not wish to be ministered to by a woman bishop. It cannot give confidence that they will be able to live according to their consciences.
I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury three examples, and I hope that he will deal with them. First, the code was never written, so one is asked to accept a series of protective measures that have not even been given proper detail. Secondly, an existing protection is removed—these are only examples—and thirdly, the priest in charge can veto the Church council’s view on the dominion of the female bishop.
I say again that I have no wish to engage in expressing divisive or entrenched views. I accept that women bishops will come. As for my doubts on this score, perhaps I will find that I am wrong when I see the good that they do and the astonishing devotion of some that I know. I hope that I am wrong. I am willing to be wrong, and willing to accept that I am. I profoundly hope that others of my persuasion will come round to the idea, and that the Church’s unity can be maintained. I simply ask my hon. Friend for some patience. I know that he and others have been patient for a long time.
Mr Cox
Yes, I know, but we are talking about a minority. The change will come; I ask only for a little further patience, so that we can get the settlement right, and so that those thousands of people who are, as I am, in a state of uncertainty and doubt, can be brought along.
I ask hon. Members to contemplate what it must mean for a member of the Church, who is brought up to it, celebrates it daily, and loves it as so many thousands of us do, to feel that the Church is leaving us behind, and moving away from us. I know that there are hon. Members who disagree and do not feel like that, but others do. Imagine how it must feel. We are wrestling to come to the conviction that other Members have reached. [Interruption.] I can only say to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is commenting from a sedentary position, that I feel that I have already exposed far too much of my personal convictions, and have probably trespassed on her patience, but I did so because I believed, having listened to the debate, that this particular voice and body of opinion has not been represented in the House. I realised when I stood that what I said would not be popular, and would attract mirth, perhaps mockery; that some might be impatient with it; and that those on the other side of the debate have waited a long time.
I only ask that Members see the other point of view, and that the Church be allowed to reach this decision in its own time. I agree with the right hon. Member for Exeter that sincerity is necessary on both sides, and that the majority have come a long way in order to satisfy the concerns of the minority, but I ask for an extra effort. I ask for compassion. I ask for Christian patience.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. It may be helpful to hon. Members who have yet to speak in the debate if I set out the clear time constraints. The debate will end at 8.20 pm. I need to allow time for a number of speakers, so the wind-ups will start at 10 minutes to 8. There are five Members left to speak, and I intend to make sure that all of them get in. Rather than apply a time limit, I ask each Member to take less than 10 minutes—some may feel that they do not need 10 minutes—so that we can conclude the debate in an orderly fashion.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing the agreement of the Backbench Business Committee to holding this exceptionally important debate.
I thought it would be appropriate to wear purple in this debate. I joined the Movement for the Ordination of Women 30 years ago and I found November’s Synod decision worse than disappointing. It is totally disgraceful that the whole of my adult life has seen this endless struggle over the position of women in the Church of England. I feel deeply sorry for women clergy up and down the country. In my own constituency I think of Jane Grieve, Brenda Jones, Linda Gough—fabulous women doing fabulous work. Even if they are not called to be bishops, the decision is demeaning and demoralising. Furthermore, as other hon. Members have said, women play a huge role in most parishes among the laity. I am sure women are the majority of the laity in the Church of England.
However, my greatest concern is for the mission of the Church. This country faces many challenges where the Church’s unique voice needs to be heard—how to bind fractured communities, how to address alienation and the inexorable rise of consumerism, and how to protect the natural environment. Who will listen to a Church when it behaves as Synod behaved last month? How much more time and energy must we spend on this question?
We have all heard from many members of the public and members of the Church in recent weeks. Some of those who are opposed seem to believe that Members of Parliament are, by and large, in favour of consecrating women bishops because they see it as a justice issue, rather than a theological issue. Of course, some of the people who are opposed to women bishops think this will give the Church a new lease of life, and that is the last thing they want, but that is not, by and large, the view that we have heard.
On the concerns about theological issues, the views were very well represented by the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). In the light of what he said, it is clear that we need to go right back to the beginning of the argument. Genesis 1 verse 27 says:
“So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them”,
and the passage goes on to say:
“Be fruitful and multiply”.
The notes in my Bible, which is the New Revised Standard Version—an ecumenical Bible recognised for use by the Protestants, the Catholics and the eastern Orthodox—say:
“Together men and women share the task of being God’s stewards on earth.”
I would like to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman how the passage ends:
“God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.”
Now let me whizz forward 3,000 years to the New Testament. I take my understanding from the much maligned and misunderstood St Paul, who wrote in one of his letters to the Corinthians that in Christ there is neither male nor female but all are one in the spirit.
Since when, I ask those who are opposed to the consecration of women as bishops, has justice not been a theological issue? The justice tradition is the glory of the Old Testament, and in the New Testament we see it radically re-envisioned. Let us take, for example, the beatitudes, the roles given to the three Marys, the Magnificat—
“he hath regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden . . . scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts . . . exalted the humble and meek.”
Lyn Brown
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is going to get to John, chapter 4, in which Jesus reveals himself for the first time to the Samaritan woman. It is not to a man, or to one of the 12 nominated disciples, but to someone who was possibly the lowest of the low, a Samaritan and a woman to boot. For me, that speaks volumes about the equality of the New Testament message.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend gives another excellent example from the New Testament.
The legislation in Synod foundered on the adequacy or otherwise of the guarantees offered to those opposed to change. I cannot accept their self-description as a vulnerable and oppressed minority. In modern Britain, people have a choice about whether to stay or go. They do not face being burnt at the stake. If they are excluded, it is self-exclusion. There has been so much fence-sitting in the Church to keep a minority on board that the fence is now collapsing under the weight.
I also know that many people believe that it is extremely important to maintain the historic coalition of the Elizabethan settlement. I remind the House what Richard Hooker, one of the great theologians of that era, did and said. His argument was essentially that it was not about keeping everyone happy in the short term, but about having a coherent polity and coherent Church governance. That seems to me to be absolutely relevant to the position we find ourselves in today. All these exceptions, constraints, conditions and flying bishops are making the situation excessively complex. It would be impossible to know where authority lies in the Church or to give a clear picture of our theological view of the role of men and the role of women.
Hooker also said—I think it is relevant—that because things were ordained by God does not necessarily mean that they were ordained for all time. He felt that we should use our God-given reason to tell which points of scripture had what kind of authority. When the old way, which might have been right in its own time, might be wrong now, he said there was “some new-grown occasion”. I believe that we are now in a new-grown occasion. Of course growth can be painful—we all know that from personal experience—but it is also essential.
By far the best outcome would be for the Church itself to resolve the issue quickly. I know that Bishop Justin wants to address it straightaway, and I endorse everything my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) said about his capacities. It is right that the Church should resolve the issue itself, but if it cannot, that will inevitably raise profound questions about the established Church’s relationship with the state. I will put it simply. What do we want? Women bishops. When do we want them? Now.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I should begin by declaring an interest, one that is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a church organist. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) rather surprised me last night when he told me that he has left in his will a stipend—hopefully a sizeable one—for me to play at his memorial service when the dread day comes.
The argument has been about Church governance and whether we should let the Church get on with it or take an interest in it ourselves. I am encouraged by the speeches that have been made, because they will allow the church to make its way through to achieving a resolution. When I was asked, prior to Synod, what members attending it should do, I told them to beware of the House of Laity; its members are representatives, not delegates, just as we are, and will vote as they wish. I said that because there is nothing unspiritual in recognising that the Church of England has to indulge in reason and discourse. I pray in aid Richard Hooker, whom the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) mentioned. He established that there were three pillars on which the Church of England rested—scripture, tradition and reason. His firm belief was that God’s purpose can be worked out as much through discourse as scripture and tradition, and that it was therefore absolutely right to indulge in that. I am not going to dissent from that view except to say that this has to be worked out at the level of the parishes, not at Synod level.
I was very much taken by the news that one of my local villages, which has a socking great abbey in the middle of it, but which is quite a small village now, was putting forward a petition to the Bishop of Oxford to try to get in place a simple, smooth process for resolving this issue. Within a few days, 1,500 people, which, by my estimate, is about double the population of the village, had signed the petition and were going to get a move on with it.
I come from a completely different wing of the Church than my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), but I would not dissent one iota from what he said about the way to tackle this and the process that needs to be sorted out.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I speak with some caution on this issue since, as I have mentioned in previous exchanges, I am not involved with the Church of England or with any other religious institution or establishment. Why, then, should I speak in a debate in which everyone except me is a religious believer and a member of some wing of the Church of England? If the Church were not established, I certainly would not speak in the debate. I would take the view that whatever rules a particular religion may have, that is a matter for it, not for me. However, the Church of England is an established religion, and bishops sit in the House of Lords as of right because that has been the custom and practice over a long period.
Moreover, whatever decision the Church came to, and certainly if it were in favour of women bishops, it would be necessary, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said, for Parliament to approve it or otherwise. Therefore, although it appears as though I am an outsider, as a Member of Parliament I am involved, as I was involved 20 years ago when the issue of whether women were to be ordained as priests had to come to the House of Commons. It will not come as a surprise to anyone, but I voted for that, and no one said to me, “Keep out of it: it is not a matter for you, you are not a religious believer and you are not involved with the Church of England.”
I could not disagree more with the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), but I respect what he said. I recognise his viewpoint, and he argued with all the skills that one would expect from a leading barrister. I listened to his eloquence, as I always do, with great interest, while not necessarily, and certainly not on this occasion, agreeing with him.
What I find so difficult to understand about this controversy is that the principle of women being ordained was accepted, and it has been a fact for 20 years. Inevitably, as a layperson, I must say to myself, “If women are ordained as priests, how on earth can it be argued that there should be a barrier to their promotion to bishop—or indeed to further promotion?”
The space around the Admission Order Office contains extensive displays depicting the struggle that women waged in order to obtain the parliamentary vote and to stand for election. Hon. Members who have not yet seen them might like to do so on their way out. I am sure that all of us, including the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, would agree that tribute should be paid to those women who fought so hard 100 years ago and more, who went to prison and who starved themselves and in some cases actually died for the cause that they believed in. How right they were.
It was finally conceded at the end of the first world war that the other half of the adult population should have the right to vote and to stand for Parliament, but let us imagine what would have happened if the Government of the day had said, “Yes, you may stand for Parliament and become a Member, but if you are elected, you may go no further. You may not become a Minister.” That would have been illogical, but the issue of women bishops is no less illogical. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon quoted scripture from his wing of the Church, and I understand that, but he himself acknowledged that the principle of women priests had been accepted. This is not a question of whether women should be ordained or not. That has been happening for 20 years and we rightly pay tribute to the contribution that they make, in my constituency and elsewhere, so why on earth should we prevent them from becoming bishops?
In December 1966, when I represented a different constituency, I had an Adjournment debate on the problems being faced by some black youngsters who were being discriminated against simply because of the colour of their skin. This was before the Race Relations Act was brought in under that Government. I now find myself, nearly half a century later, standing here speaking about discrimination against women. I believe that there should be substantial parliamentary pressure for a change to occur, bit it might come as a surprise to some Members that I do not believe that Parliament should necessarily override the decision of the Church. I want the Church itself to reach the decision. But—and it is an important “but” for most of us—it is necessary that the Church should come to the right decision very quickly. If it does not do so, there will be more and more impatience in the House and certainly outside it for parliamentary action to be taken.
It would be far better if the Church understood what was needed, and I believe that it does to a large extent. The vote that took place resulted in a two-thirds majority in two of the Houses of the Synod, with the House of Laity nearly achieving one. It has been quite clear from the debate tonight what the feeling of Parliament is on this matter—apart from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon—and if the Church of England as a whole recognises the pressure and the concern that undoubtedly exist in this House, that will be all the more reason for it to come to the right decision promptly. I hope that it will do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I am sorry; I am having a senior moment. I call Diana Johnson.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate. I should also like to congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing the debate to take place because of the importance of the subject. I want to say at the outset to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) that my comments this evening might not be seen as tender, and that I am very impatient. I am also on the side of the oppressed—in this case, the women in the Church who are being discriminated against.
The Times this morning carried a report on the 2011 census, which showed that Hull, my home city, had had the largest fall in Christian belief in this country over the past decade, at 16.8%. The row that is going on in the Church over women bishops will just make the established Church’s struggle for relevance even more difficult as it seeks exemptions from the realities of the modern society that it wishes to serve. We all know that women are the mainstay of the Church in communities throughout our land. As has been said many times, the theological argument over women priests—and, therefore, their position in roles of authority—was settled 20 years ago. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), I was involved in that campaign to get women ordained. The argument was won, and since 1992 more than 3,000 women have been ordained as priests, which is a huge success for the Church of England—new wine in old bottles. The next natural step, as many people have said, is to see some of those excellent ordained women priests move into positions of church leadership as bishops.
Discrimination in the wider community is wrong and prevents the talents and abilities of all from flourishing, so it is important in the established Church that the experience and skills of both men and women are used. The Church should be led by the very best, not just those who happen to be male. As I said during the urgent question to the Second Church Estates Commissioner last month, the stained glass ceiling for women in our Church must go. As a result of the House of Laity being just six votes short of a two-thirds majority on 20 November, the Church of England now stands to be left behind by the society it seeks to serve and made to look outdated, irrelevant and, frankly, eccentric. It also stands to be left behind by the Anglican community around the world.
I want to remind the House of some of the arguments that have been deployed as to why we should not have women bishops. Some hold the belief that God created man to lead and that women are there to be his obedient helper. They take the view that the Church should be run by Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve. Those in favour of women bishops more commonly draw inspiration from the theological arguments that both men and women were created equal in God’s image. We can also rely on facts that are usually painted out in biblical history. For example, in the early Christian Church, until about 400 AD, there were female priests and it was common for congregations to be led by women.
Theology and theological debate evolve over time. My celebrated predecessor in Hull, William Wilberforce, fought a 30-year campaign against the slave trade, with theological arguments for slavery deployed against him. Theological fundamentalists tried to resist the scientific work on evolution by Charles Darwin and others. Afrikaner theologians also made a case in favour of apartheid. Those who oppose gender equality in the Church often draw on literal, if selective, interpretations of the Bible, and I have heard personally from some such opponents in recent days.
The House might like to hear just a few of the comments I have received from those whom I call the three wise men. The first said to me:
“God actually knows better than you”.
Thanks, Mr Dave Croton—I am only a woman, after all, so what would I know? The second wise man said to me:
“The language of ‘equality’ seems to me to be profoundly unhelpful in this debate.”
Thanks, Mr Ian Colson—equality is often “unhelpful” to vested interests. Finally, I was told:
“How dare you seek to go against the will of Almighty God. Almighty God will hold you to account for what you have said in the day of judgment. Ask his forgiveness and beg for mercy.”
Thanks, Mr Jonathan Buss—I will take my chances on that one.
Forward in Faith has produced a briefing that is heavy on public relations advice for how opponents of change should lobby Members of this House on today’s debate. I will quote an example of the quality of its case:
“We do not, for example, have women in Premier League football teams but this is not seen as a failure in equal opportunities.”
We are asked to believe that the physical demands of being a bishop are like premiership football—and obviously beyond what women can do. I am not really sure that that is the strongest argument for a team that is fighting relegation.
I am worried about what will happen next. The decision made by a minority in the House of Laity means that this essential modernisation of the Church of England has potentially been put back another five years, with no guarantee of progress even then. A broad Church is being held to ransom by a few narrow minds, even though the vast majority of its members want to see women bishops. Some of those who tell us that they want to see change claim that it must not be rushed. However, this issue has been debated in the General Synod since 2000, so I do not think that the Church can seriously be accused of acting in haste on gender equality.
So what needs to be done? As long as we have an established Church, Parliament has a role to play in supporting it through its time of crisis. The Church and wider faith communities often seek to inform and inspire our deliberations in politics. It is now time for the Church to pause and reflect on how wide the gap has become between it and the society that it wishes to serve and influence.
As the established Church is part of the settlement of this country, this House should consider what the decision of the 20 November vote means for the Church’s role in our law making. The Synod’s vote means the entrenchment of the discriminatory nature of the 26 places in the House of Lords that are reserved for bishops who can only be male. Such sexual discrimination would not be allowed to determine membership anywhere else in the Houses of Parliament. In light of the Government’s deferral of wider reform of the other place, we have to question the role of the 26 bishops in this Parliament, unless the Church decides to ordain women bishops.
First, I agree that there should be a moratorium on the appointment of new bishops until this gender discrimination ends. Secondly, if the bishops want to send a clear message that they are engaging seriously with women in the Church, they should end the practice of meeting and voting in private when amending primary legislation, even though their standing orders allow the press and public to be present. Thirdly, it can no longer be right for the Church of England to be allowed exemptions from equalities legislation. We are all meant to be equal before the law, and nobody is above that law.
I have a message for the many friends who have worked so patiently for so many years to see women bishops. They should take up the fight with added vigour and less willingness to compromise with those who will never accept change and who never compromise themselves. They should seek inspiration from British history. Left to itself, the Church will not restart its slow, uncertain process on women bishops until July 2013. July 2013 will mark 125 years since a group of low-paid, exploited, mainly women workers went on strike at the Bryant and May factory in Bow. They won and changed history. One movement that followed the match girls was the suffragettes. The Church of England would struggle to exist without the voluntary work and good will of women all over the country, so what if the women of the Church of England had their own strike? Perhaps it is true that well behaved women seldom make history.
In conclusion, the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate has agreed to meet Members of Parliament and I will certainly be there. I hope that the all-male group of bishops will start to work with and listen to senior women in the Church, who have so much to offer. I hope that the House will support the one-clause Bill that I intend to bring forward in the spring to introduce women bishops. I will finish with the words of a former leader of the Labour party, John Smith, who was a man of great faith. He summed up what most women in the Church of England seek:
“A chance to serve, that is all we ask.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Before I call the next speaker, I apologise to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), whom I have known for a very long time. I was listening and reflecting on this excellent debate and not paying enough attention to what I should be doing, which is chairing the debate. I apologise that she had to prompt me on whom to call.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow all the speakers in this excellent debate. In particular, I should mention the lecture in divinity from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who chose to wear purple. It is no accident that she represents a constituency called Bishop Auckland.
I was not born into the Church of England. I was born in Glasgow into a Congregationalist family, where I was privileged to have as my first minister the very first woman minister ever ordained in Scotland, Vera Kenmure. It took about nine years before I ventured south of the border, but I remember my first occasion in an English church. I thought, “What a funny lot you English are. You actually allow men to be priests!” I could not believe that a man was standing there in the robes of a minister. It was an image that always struck me as very odd.
The ministry I received from Vera Kenmure 50 years ago was exceptional, and it was probably what convinced me, from absolute infancy, of the value of women’s ministry in the Church. When I came to England and entered the Anglican Church, after a short period I joined the Movement for the Ordination of Women. In fact, my now wife—she was then my girlfriend—and I joined MOW together.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the first occasion on which a vote was taken on the ordination of women was in 1978. I will never forget that Una Kroll, who led the Movement for the Ordination of Women, listened in silence and in shocked horror to the vitriol that came across in that debate. There was vitriol against women who dared ask to be allowed to serve in their Church, and I remember that at the end of the debate Una Kroll stood up and said, “We asked for bread and you gave us a stone.”
A year or so later I remember listening to Una on the radio. She was asked whether because of the nature of the debate she still had the vocation and calling to the ministry that she had felt previously. I remember that her voice stuttered and she had obviously not reflected on that point until that moment. She said she was not sure whether she could still say that she felt God’s calling.
I listened with great care to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and I acknowledge the sincerity of his views. He asked for tolerance, for provision to be made and for understanding, but that tolerance, provision and understanding was not made in 1978 or beyond. My girlfriend became my wife, and as we marched down the aisle, the “War March of the Priests” was our introit—at that point both of us wanted to be ordained as priests in the Church of England. However, because of the nature and vitriol of the debate, many of us felt that we had lost that sense of vocation and that calling. Therefore, when the hon. and learned Gentleman asks for patience now, he is asking for something that he must accept he and his colleagues in the debate back then did not afford to us.
Mr Cox
First, in 1978 I was 18 and I was not participating in such debates. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that even if what he says is right—I deplore it if it were so and regret it profoundly—that is no excuse, reason or basis for not extending compassion and understanding now. That is simply to compound one sin with another.
Barry Gardiner
I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says and I do not hold him responsible for what happened then or for the loss of vocation that I or many others felt as a result. He is right to say that understanding and provision must be made within the Church now for those who cannot assent to the doctrinal excellence of the position that the Church has reached, which is that there is absolutely no distinction between the deaconate, the priesthood and the bishops. That is a fundamental theological principle. There are those who cannot accept it, and they have asked that provision should be made for them. Just as provision was made for those who could not accept the ordination of women in the first place, so it must be made for those who cannot accept the consecration of women bishops. However, that provision has been offered and rejected. It is now time for the Church to put its house in order and press forward with what it knows to be doctrinally accurate. That is why I greatly respected the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland made—she sought to base her arguments in theology.
The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon talked about the issue that confronts the Church of the consecration of women bishops. That is not the issue that confronts the Church; it is poverty and injustice in the world. This is a sideshow that should not occupy the Church. We should not have to debate it over and over again, year after year. It is nonsense, and it is not what the Church should be about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland spoke powerfully about the lessons from scripture. It seems to me that the fundamental heart of Christian theology is the power and the vision of the resurrection. I do not think anyone in the Church would deny that. Who were the witnesses to the resurrection? Women—it was the women who went into the garden and witnessed the resurrection, at a time when their word had no basis in Judaic law. They could not give testimony in a court, but our Lord had them as his witnesses to the resurrection to bear testimony to the entire world of the essential truth of the Christian faith. If that is not a vote for women to take up their place in the Church, I do not know what is.
Barry Gardiner
Not at the moment.
Two or three years ago, on Christmas eve, my wife and I went into our local church to celebrate midnight mass, and there was a woman celebrating. I have to say, she gave one of the worst sermons I had ever heard. It was dreadful. As we got into the car after the service, I turned to my wife and said, “You know, that was really quite inspiring.” She looked at me and said, “Are you mad? That was one of the worst sermons I have ever heard.” I said, “Yes, but just think—25 years ago, could we ever have imagined that we would be sitting in a conservative evangelical parish on Christmas eve listening to a woman priest give just as bad a sermon as any man? That is progress.” We went forward that Christmas eve with a renewed sense of faith, joy and possibility.
What happened a couple of weeks ago dashed that feeling and made us think, “For goodness’ sake, why can’t we get on with the purpose of the Church?” The purpose of the Church is to serve the world, not to keep looking in on itself. Fundamentally, the Church has made one great mistake in its history. It has always had a fixation with sex instead of love and power instead of service. I pray God that it will put it right quickly.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
This evening’s debate has been full of eloquent and incredibly passionate speeches. I pay tribute to everybody who has participated, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who secured the debate. It has been clear this evening and over the past couple of weeks that there is widespread agreement in this House—I accept it is not unanimous, not even this evening—that what was arrived at in General Synod a couple of weeks ago is not acceptable to Parliament. Today’s debate has also highlighted the prevailing view here that the Church should take speedy action to rectify the matter. It is also clear that the mood in this place is that if the Church does not act, Parliament should and will.
There might be some—my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) referred to this—who see that suggestion as unwarranted interference in the Church’s affairs or as undermining freedom of religion, but the Church of England occupies a special constitutional position as the established Church. That brings with it specific responsibilities, including making the law of the land. As has been noted, 42 diocesan bishops are entitled to sit in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual, with 26 permitted to sit at any one time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said, surely our Parliament must at every level be reflective of the society it represents. That is not compatible with the reservation of places in our Parliament that could only be open to men. Further, whether we like it or not, Parliament’s role in relation to the Church’s decisions cannot be brushed aside. Although the Church enjoys legislative initiative, decisions of the General Synod must be approved by Parliament. It seems clear that there would be no hope whatever of last month’s decision receiving the approval of this House. A rethink is therefore essential. The Church really has no option, as it has recognised.
If that threatened uncontained confrontation between Parliament and the mass of Church membership, we might of course be concerned about a brewing political and constitutional crisis. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and others pointed out, it is important to remember that the majority of Church of England members want to see women bishops in the Church. That was the majority vote in all three Houses of the Synod. Only in the House of Laity was the requisite two thirds majority not secured.
This is not a situation where Parliament is pitted against the will of the majority of Church members. Indeed, many Church members, along with hon. Members today, have highlighted the special value they place on the contribution that women bring to the Church and the priesthood. They argue that it is right that women should also have the opportunity to bring their personal style and quality of leadership to the role of bishop. Those Church members point to the fact that the head of the Church is a woman—and not for the first time in its history. For those who care deeply about the status of the Church of England in the eyes of the country at large, there is regret and concern that the decision to refuse women bishops serves to present the Church as wholly out of step with society and remote.
The mood here is that action must be taken swiftly. Most hon. Members of this House have made it clear that they would not find it acceptable to wait until 2015 for the Synod to begin revisiting the matter with a view to moving forward. That urgency also appears to be recognised by the Church. As parliamentarians, we urge the Church to take the most rapid steps to resolve the issue. I particularly hope that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), will be able to enlarge on how the Church might approach that.
We on the Labour Benches will not accept any solution brought forward by the Synod that entrenches discrimination against women bishops. It will be important that in finding a new solution, the currently exclusively male House of Bishops consults extensively with women in the Church of England—in the clergy, in the House of Laity and, importantly, as hon. Members have said, in the parishes themselves.
If the General Synod fails to make progress, we on these Benches will support the Government to take the necessary action to ensure that the introduction of women bishops is not held back further by those—a minority—who do not reflect the views of the modern Church. We all hope that that will prove unnecessary, and that the Church itself will find the solution that is sought in this House, in wider society and, indeed, among the majority of members of the Church.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
This has been an important and poignant debate, with powerful contributions and speeches from every single Member across the House who has been able to speak today. I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate and bringing it to us this afternoon and this evening.
It is clear from what has been said today and from views expressed over the last few weeks that the decision of the General Synod not to allow the appointment of women bishops has generated very strong feelings indeed, among those who wish to see women appointed as bishops in the future and those who want to retain the status quo. As our Prime Minister has made very clear indeed, the Government strongly believe that the time is right to enable the appointment of women bishops. Women already do a tremendous job within the Church of England, including in their role as members of the clergy, so it is very disappointing that a vote taken to address this issue has failed, despite a clear majority of Synod members voting in favour of the proposal.
The role of discrimination law in this matter has been raised. Let me make it very clear that there is nothing in discrimination law that would prevent the appointment of women bishops, should the Synod vote to do so. It is right and proper that the Church of England, just like any other religious organisation, is not exempt from having to comply with our equality law, namely the Equality Act 2010.
However, it is also right and proper that certain exceptions exist within the 2010 Act to recognise the specific nature of religious organisations and the unique role they have to play within our society. One such exception exempts religious organisations from certain parts of the Act’s employment provisions, where
“the employment is for the purposes of an organised religion”.
This exception is used by a number of religious bodies, allowing Roman Catholics and orthodox Jews, for example, to appoint only men as priests or rabbis. Amending the 2010 Act to remove this exception with the intention of forcing the appointment of women bishops would potentially have effects going far beyond the Church of England alone.
Diana Johnson
I am listening to what the Minister says. In the light of what was said yesterday about the special legislation being brought forward for the Church of England with regard to gay marriage, how does what the Minister has just said fit in with yesterday’s statement?
Mrs Grant
The two issues are completely different and unconnected, and should not be conflated.
Amending that exception would risk seriously affecting the work of various other religious bodies in some extremely sensitive areas. In any case, our law enables women bishops to be appointed; that is not a stumbling block here.
Some Members have pointed out today that changing discrimination law is not the only option. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that, in theory, it would be open to Parliament to legislate on Church of England matters without the involvement of the General Synod, for instance by amending canon law to require the appointment of women bishops. However, Parliament and Church work well together on so many matters. We would not want to disturb that balance by making impulsive changes, given the special relationship that exists between the state and the Church of England as the established Church of our nation.
The Government have made their views very clear on the matter of women bishops: we would warmly welcome their appointment. However, we respect the independence of religious organisations, and it is right that decisions of this sort about internal structure are ultimately matters for the Church of England itself to decide.
I particularly thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), for his earnest remarks about the position in which the Church finds itself today. I am heartened by his acknowledgement of the difficulties and emotions that the General Synod’s vote has generated and his determination to ensure that the Church resolves the issue as soon as possible, and I look forward to hearing from him again in a moment.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)
I think that the whole House will be very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate, and to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for the way in which he introduced it. We owe a debt of gratitude to all who have spoken today, genuinely and with integrity and honesty, expressing a strong desire to ensure that we can collectively find the best solution for the Church.
The Church of England is a national Church. It is a Church for the nation, or it is nothing. It is a Church that exists in every parish in the country. It is a Church to which everyone can look for spiritual and pastoral guidance. It is the Church of Remembrance Sunday, it is the Church of funerals and bereavement and of joy, happiness and celebration, and it is also the Church that marks disasters when they occur. Because it is a Church for the whole nation, it needs to reflect the values of the whole nation.
I think that everyone within the Church of England recognises that until we can resolve the issue of women bishops, we will not be able fully to fulfil our role as a national Church, and we will not be fully able to concentrate on mission and growth, which must surely be the fundamental purpose of the Church. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), there are many issues that the Church must address, such as justice and poverty, from which we will continue to be distracted as long as we focus on the issue of women bishops.
After the vote in General Synod, the Archbishop of Canterbury said:
“a Church that ordains women as priests but not as bishops is stuck with a real anomaly, one which introduces an unclarity into what we are saying about baptism and about the absorption of the Church in the priestly self-giving of Jesus Christ.”
Earlier this week, the House of Bishops met at Lambeth palace and considered the implications of the recent rejection by General Synod of the legislation to enable women to become bishops. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), and others who perfectly properly have said that women should be involved in the further deliberations, that it was absolutely appropriate that at those discussions with the House of Bishops, the House of Bishops benefited from the participation of Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, Christine Hardman who chairs the House of Clergy, Dr Paula Gooder and Mrs Margaret Swinson, all of whom are senior women in the Church of England who had all previously served on the steering committee or a vision committee for the legislation.
The House of Bishops rightly started—as almost every contributor to this debate has done—by expressing gratitude and appreciation for the ministry of ordained women in the Church of England. We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to women priests, deacons, archdeacons, canons and deans in the Church of England for what they do in rural areas, inner cities, hospitals and prison chaplaincies throughout the realm. Without them, the Church of England would have considerable difficulty in reaching, and ministering to, every part of the nation. The House of Bishops recorded its sadness that recent events should have left so many women in the Church feeling undermined and undervalued. I hope that if nothing else results from this debate, a message will go out to all women clergy in the Church of England that they are valued and appreciated by Parliament for the work they do for us all and for our community.
The House of Bishops acknowledged the profound and widespread anger, grief and disappointment felt by so many in the Church of England and beyond. I suspect that many Members will have been surprised by the wider resonance General Synod’s decision had in the community as a whole. In our constituencies, people who one would not normally have expected to take an interest in the Church of England came to us to express concern and disappointment at the decision.
The House of Bishops clearly agreed that the current situation was unsustainable for everyone, whatever their convictions. I was grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) for making it clear that the view of everyone from all parts of the Church is that the current situation is unsustainable, because I think everyone acknowledges that in due course there will be women bishops. Indeed, General Synod agreed in 2008 that there should be women bishops.
The House of Bishops expressed its continuing commitment to enabling women to be consecrated as bishops and, I am glad to say, it intends to have fresh proposals to put before General Synod at its next meeting in July. This is not an issue that can be parked. This is not an issue that, as we lawyers would say, can just be adjourned generally to some other time in the future. It has got to be worked at until a solution is found.
I am glad to say that early next year the House of Bishops will be organising meetings, at which it intends to involve large numbers of lay and ordained women, to discuss how women might more regularly contribute to the Church, and further action will be taken in order to avoid any delay in proposing new legislation. The House of Bishops has also set up a working group drawn from all three Houses of Synod. Its membership, which is to be determined by the archbishops, will be announced before Christmas. That group will arrange facilitated discussions with a wide range of people of a variety of views in the week beginning 4 February next year, when General Synod was due to meet. I very much hope that all right hon. and hon. Members in the House tomorrow will take the opportunity at 9.30 am of going to the Moses Room in the other place to listen to the Bishop of Durham, the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, because they will hear directly from him, as the next Archbishop of Canterbury, his clear and determined commitment that the Church of England will resolve this issue itself as soon as it can.
The House of Bishops will have an additional meeting in February, immediately after those discussions, and expects to settle at its May meeting the elements of a new legislative package to come to Synod in July. There has been, on occasions, some criticism of the bishops, so may I just say that the House of Bishops voted overwhelmingly in support of there being women bishops in the Church of England? The bishops have sought to give the greatest possible leadership in what is, after all, an Episcopal Church, where the bishops are meant to lead. The House of Bishops has been doing all it can, with God’s good grace, to give that leadership and will continue to do so.
The House of Bishops also made a number of observations that have been reflected in this evening’s debate. It concluded that in future for a Measure to succeed and command assent it will require much greater simplicity. If I may, I will write to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon; I do not want to have a fight now, because that is not in the spirit of this evening’s debate. I can say, however, that the draft code of practice was published earlier this year and there are very good reasons for the provisions to which he drew attention. However, his point illustrated that the whole thing had become so complicated on the protections that nobody was quite sure who was being protected, against what and by whom. I thought, as a member of General Synod, that one of the most moving speeches there was made by a female member of the clergy from the diocese of Oxford, who asked, “Why is it that the Church needs to be protected from me? What is it about me?” That went to something of the heart of some of the issues we had to resolve. Some of the protections had become so complicated, so I think that much greater simplicity will be required.
However, I think it was genuinely helpful that my hon. and learned Friend spoke in this debate, doing so with great sincerity, because I agree that it is also important, as the House of Bishops made clear, that there needs to be a clear embodiment of the principle articulated in the 1998 Lambeth conference that those who dissent from and those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate are loyal Anglicans. No one is saying that one form of Anglicanism is better than another; in so far as it can be achieved, everyone needs to be involved in this.
However, an important point made by both Front-Bench teams, and by many in this debate, is that we cannot square the circle by creating second-class women bishops. If we are going to have women bishops—everyone has agreed that we are going to have them—they have in every regard to be treated the same as, and have the same powers, rights, privileges and disciplines as, their male counterparts. One cannot have a category of second-class women bishops or in some way create a church within a Church to accommodate this matter. When I was first appointed as Second Church Estates Commissioner, I went to General Synod at York in 2010 and said, “I need to tell General Synod that if and when a Measure comes to Parliament, it will not get through if it is creating second-class women bishops. This is not whipped business and there is no way in which we will get a Measure through Parliament if there are to be second-class women bishops.” Although of course we need to recognise and seek to involve and include all the traditions, we cannot square the circle in that way.
The House of Bishops also agreed that there must be a broad-based measure of agreement about the shape of the legislation in advance of the beginning of the actual legislative process. The House of Bishops endorsed the view of the Archbishops Council, which had met the week before, that the Church of England must now resolve this issue through its own processes as a matter of great urgency. Some voices this evening, quite understandably, have suggested that if the Church of England does not act, Parliament might need to. It is my earnest prayer that over the coming months the Church of England can and will demonstrate that it can resolve this issue itself.
I have no doubt that there are those in the Church of England who will have heard the voices of people who are not just senior Members of this House but senior churchmen. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is a very distinguished member of the Church of England and chairs a number of relevant committees and when he finds it necessary to present Bills to the House on the nomination of bishops to the other place, the Church of England should take account of that and listen. These are not enemies of the Church of England—everyone who has spoken in the debate is a friend and supporter of the Church of England who wants it to succeed. I am quite sure that it will listen to what Parliament has said collectively, which will ensure that the Church of England, House of Bishops and General Synod will address the issue with urgency.
If any right hon. or hon. Lady or Gentleman has any concerns about that, I invite them to come and listen to the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate tomorrow. They will hear from the Bishop of Durham a very clear message that there is determination to ensure that there are women bishops in the Church of England at the earliest possible moment.
Mr Bradshaw
With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker. I shall be very brief. I sincerely thank our colleagues, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, for a worthwhile and quality debate. In particular, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). It was very important that the dissenting voice was heard and it made for a much better debate. We had some wonderful contributions and it would be invidious of me to single anybody out.
I was very pleased by the contributions made by those on both Front Benches. It is very nice to see the Culture Secretary in her place, as she has come to listen without taking part. That is noted and, I hope, appreciated by Members. Last but not least, I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). We could not wish for a better Second Church Estates Commissioner. If anybody can help Parliament and the Church together through this impasse, it is he, and I wish him well.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the Church of England Synod vote on women bishops.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The wild land and wild places of Britain have never been under as much threat as they are today from general development associated with increasing population, and particularly from the proliferation of onshore wind farms. The John Muir Trust is a growing and successful organisation that campaigns to protect wild places and has collected the names of 6,145 petitioners calling for the extension of national park boundaries or the creation of new national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty to ensure improved environmental protection for the most valuable areas of wild land in Britain.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of citizens of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners support the John Muir Trust’s call to extend National Park Boundaries, or put in place new National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to ensure improved environmental protection for the best areas of wild land.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend National Park boundaries, or to put in place new National Parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty as called for by the John Muir Trust.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001147]
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
My local community in South Thanet has had to endure the live animal export trade for 18 months. We have had all sorts of emergencies in our port, which is not equipped to sustain that trade. We have unfortunately suffered the slaughter of 45 sheep on the portside, after they were unloaded in an unsuitable area, causing many of them to break their legs. A ram was shot on board a lorry and then dragged out, after its horns were broken due to lack of space. A whole transportation had to return to its starting pointing in Northamptonshire without unloading the animals as the lorries were not fit for travel. A thousand of my constituents want to ensure that the House understands the strength of opinion in my constituency.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of the people of Thanet,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the export of live animals is an outdated and unnecessary practice; that over the last year, the UK has seen the number of animals being exported from our shores rise significantly; that the live exports trade has moved to the Port of Ramsgate and that the Petitioners believe that the majority of residents are vehemently opposed to the practice given the undue stress caused to the animals through long periods of travel.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring a halt to the export of live animals from the UK, ensure that animals are slaughtered as close to point of origin as practicable, and reduce the number of hours an animal is allowed to travel to a maximum of eight.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001148]
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) are shared by many people around the country, including in my constituency. I have the honour of formally presenting on behalf of the residents of Truro and Falmouth a petition in identical terms.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Truro and Falmouth,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the export of live animals is an outdated and unnecessary practice; that over the last year, the UK has seen the number of animals being exported from our shores rise significantly; further that the live exports trade has moved to the Port of Ramsgate and that the Petitioners believe that the majority of residents are vehemently opposed to the practice given the undue stress caused to the animals through long periods of travel.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring a halt to the export of live animals from the UK, ensure that animals are slaughtered as close to point of origin as practicable, and reduce the number of hours an animal is allowed to travel to a maximum of eight.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001150]
Green Waste (Contamination)
(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The nation owes a debt of gratitude to its metal detector enthusiasts. As I will explain, individually and collectively they have identified a serious environmental disaster that must be averted.
At first glance, the concept of spreading garden waste across farmland seems to be an excellent idea—more “green” than burying it in landfill sites. The idea has been taken up with enthusiasm by councils across the country, encouraged by a combination of financial incentives and regulations to reduce, if not eliminate, landfill. Indeed, local authorities, spurred on by Government targets, compete against one another to see who can collect the most recycling materials. In principle, that is a worthy objective, but it has led to unintended consequences in the collection of so-called green waste from gardens. Once households had their own compost heaps. I still do. That is one basic we should go back to.
It is those serious, environmentally damaging consequences that I shall highlight this evening, in the hope that action will be taken with immediate effect by central and local government to prevent any further damage to the soil and water courses as a result of the contamination caused by discarded materials mixed in with what is often wrongly described as green waste and spread on food-producing fields.
I was first alerted to this worrying situation on 7 June this year, when a constituent, Mr Stuart Elton, attended my advice bureau. Metal detecting is his hobby. What he told me appalled me. Nowadays, when he and fellow metal detecting enthusiasts, with the permission of the land owner, go out looking for buried treasures from the past they are more likely to find a wide variety of metal, cut, crushed and mashed among the rotting green waste. That is not so much a needle in a haystack, but rather the contents of a scrapyard strewn across fields.
That led me to write to the president of the National Council for Metal Detecting, Mr John Wells. I was keen to learn more about the matter, both from a metal-detecting perspective and because of the obvious pollution and environmental consequences that my constituent had drawn to my attention. In due course, Mr Wells travelled from his home in Coventry to have a meeting with me at the House of Commons, which in turn led me to apply for tonight’s debate.
There was a time when the world of archaeology was variously sniffy or even hostile to those engaged in metal detecting, claiming that such activity was harmful to archaeological sites and discoveries. Quite often landowners were oblivious to what was going on. That is no longer the case. The National Council for Metal Detecting and its members have an excellent record of partnership working with all interested parties and have been responsible for some breathtaking finds that have added to the sum of our knowledge of the past. As I represent the first capital of Roman Britain, I am delighted to report that in Colchester we have an excellent metal detectors group, whose members epitomise best practice. It is currently full, with 100 members, and has a waiting list. As recently as 30 November, its chairman, Mrs Sue Clarke, was reported in the Colchester Daily Gazette as saying:
“Colchester is a great place to be part of a metal-detecting group. There is so much history around here. There is never a boring rally.”
The term “rally” in this context refers to members, with the permission of a landowner, going as a group to search for artefacts.
To get back to the subject of my debate—the consequences of the contamination of green waste—I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the serious environmental and pollution issues literally cannot be covered up any longer. Not everyone in the green waste industry is up to the job, whether we are talking about deliberate deceit or failure to comply with the strict regulations. The Minister’s briefing will, I trust, include accounts of people being prosecuted for spreading pollutants and other contaminated material along with so-called green waste.
One example that I have been told about involves a company called Vital Earth GB Ltd, which, in August this year, was fined £75,000, with costs of £13,535, at Derby magistrates court for offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The compost delivered by the company to a farmer was found to be contaminated with mixed waste, such as plastics, paper and metals, including kitchen knives, bottle tops and cigarette lighters—not at all environmentally friendly, and not friendly to those engaged in metal detecting, either. The compost quality protocol states that if quality compost is mixed with other waste materials, the resulting mix will be considered to be waste, and will therefore be subject to waste regulatory controls. Spreading it across England’s green and pleasant land is not what should happen to it. After the court hearing in Derby, an Environment Agency official said:
“This is a serious environmental crime. By depositing controlled waste Vital Earth have fallen significantly short of their environmental duties. We will not hesitate to prosecute in such cases.”
Perhaps the Minister could state how many prosecutions there have been under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 against those who have contaminated fields with compost that contains contaminated materials. This serious crime of pollution, which affects fields growing crops for human and animal consumption, and watercourses into which the pollution leaks, is a matter that needs to be addressed with the utmost urgency.
Mr Elton told me that a colleague contacted him to say that
“a farm near Colchester is covered in the stuff and is virtually undetectable. How long will it be before the whole of the Colchester area is affected?”
This afternoon he e-mailed me to wish me luck with the debate, and added:
“Although it was my metal detecting interests that brought me to this problem originally, having seen the dreadful state of some of the treated fields I believe everyone would want to stop this non-biodegradable rubbish turning our countryside into one big landfill site.”
I have been provided with other eye-witness accounts that include references to finding, in “green waste” on fields, medical waste, such as bandages. Another metal detector enthusiast observed that
“many local historical sites are becoming saturated in aluminium and making it extremely difficult to recover metallic artefacts such as coins and brooches and that side of things whilst not as important as the food we eat or environment we live in...will affect our national heritage and academic learning from the past.”
Mr Alan Charlish, from the west midlands, reports that
“Despite the known problems of contaminated compost we in the UK are allowing the stuff to be spread across our fields without, it seems, any form of control. It is not only the obvious contamination that we as metal detectorists see all the time, such as old batteries, various metals, plastics, etc, it is also the unseen chemicals that are going in.”
He added:
“Left much longer the problems will become irreversible. The fact is that despite the claims that screening takes place there are so many contaminants that are entering the food chain via local authority recycling schemes.”
As if those problems were not enough, I have been advised that we must now add ash dieback to the unwelcome ingredients in green waste, because leaves from infected trees are apparently finding their way on to farmers’ fields. I understand that last week, a soil conference conducted by the all-party group on agro-ecology was held at the House of Commons. Various speakers discussed the need for good soil and protection of the environment.
In addition to drawing the Minister’s attention to that meeting, I wish to advise him of the magazine “Digging Deep” which is published by the National Council for Metal Detecting. In issue 9 Mr Wells sets out the concerns of his members about the problem that is the subject of my debate.
I sense that what I have told the House this evening is only a snapshot of a major national scandal. The UK is the fourth largest producer of cereal and oilseeds in Europe, with cereals grown on more than 70,000 farms. There are more than 42,000 beef and dairy farms in England and Wales.
In his article Mr Wells states:
“Green waste is biodegradable waste that can be composed of garden or park waste, such as grass or flower cuttings and hedge trimmings, as well as domestic and commercial food waste. The differentiation green identifies it as high in nitrogen, as opposed to brown waste which is primarily carbonaceous.
This definition identifies those elements that when composted singly or together form nitrogen rich material that when added to existing soil serves to enrich and aid development of plants and crops.”
Thus, in theory, the spreading of green waste on farmland is sensible. Sadly, the reality is different. As Mr Wells so rightly observes:
“The so-called green waste now being spread upon fields cannot be classed as green waste. A high percentage of the content is not compostable and needs to be controlled in exactly the same way as refuse going to landfill or incineration plants.”
In his article he explains how things go wrong in the collection of garden waste, its onward transfer to a contractor, and the manner in which it is then processed and finally spread on fields. Frequently, at each stage, there are failures, the consequences of which are catastrophic.
Elsewhere Mr Wells writes:
“Farmers, in the belief that they are doing the right thing for the community, are being conned, and have their land contaminated with plastic, aluminium, glass and all kinds of other products, containing chemicals and substances which not only destroys the appearance of the countryside but also puts at risk the health of wildlife, our waterways and our human beings.
Thousands of tonnes of this toxic rubbish, containing syringes, bottles, gloves, toys, glass—some of which will not decay for hundreds of years—are being tipped on the fields each year.”
I conclude with a rallying cry from the president of the National Council for Metal Detecting, which I am confident will be echoed by every environmental campaigner in the country:
“The dumping of green waste on farm land is not only ruining our hobby, it is also contaminating the land for decades to come. If this continues, metal detecting in this country will become a thing of the past. The dumping of this material is nothing short of legalised fly-tipping—and has to be stopped.”
I invite the Minister to promise the necessary action to do just this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) for raising this worthwhile subject. He shows why there is a need to achieve a balance between encouraging the recycling of waste of all types and securing protection for people, animals and the natural environment.
No one should challenge the idea that it is right to encourage the treatment of green waste to produce valuable compost or soil conditioner. We strongly support measures that encourage the recycling of green waste. Over the past 10 years we have invested about £7 million in helping to develop new markets for quality compost. The composting sector in the UK has grown tenfold in the past five years as European and national legislation has encouraged local authorities to collect biodegradable garden and kitchen waste for processing into useful products, rather than consigning it to landfill. Let us not forget that organic waste sent to landfill produces methane, which has strong climate change effects. Composting is now a key component of many local authorities’ waste strategies, as my hon. Friend pointed out, as they work to improve the sustainable management of their waste.
The demand for composted products has continued to increase. The industry turned over an estimated £226 million in 2008-09, 36% above the figure for 2007-08. Agriculture is the most important single market for compost, accepting 1.8 million tonnes of a total production of 2.8 million tonnes in 2010. Green compost, when produced to the right quality standard and used in the right way, benefits agriculture, particularly on arable—cropped—soils. It replaces fertilisers or the use of peat and other material, thus conserving natural resources.
However, we must ensure that compost is produced to the right quality standard. That starts by ensuring that we keep green waste separate from other waste and avoid the introduction of contaminants, be they physical ones, such as pieces of metal, or less obvious ones, such as oil, rubber and residues found in street sweepings from the public highway. We need to ensure that the composting process is carried out in an environmentally sound manner and does not result in the production of polluting leachate that escapes into water courses or odours that cause a nuisance for those living nearby. The Environmental Agency has an important role in regulating composting and other waste recovery operations.
As has been graphically described, we do not want contaminated waste spread on land. We have in place quality protocols that are supported by publicly available standards—PAS 100 for compost and PAS 110 for the digestate for anaerobic digestion. Those specifications allow only source-segregated biodegradable inputs, including biodegradable garden and kitchen wastes collected from households. The PAS 100 specifications include stringent limits on physical contaminants, such as metal, plastic and glass, that can be present in the finished composts. Those limits were revised down from a total of 0.5% of dry weight to 0.25% in 2011. They are now the toughest in Europe. If those standards are met, the output is considered to be completely recycled and is no longer subject to waste management controls. Producing waste to those standards helps producers to guarantee compost that is safe to be marketed or spread on agricultural land as a quality product and helps to improve confidence in composted materials among end users.
Sir Bob Russell
I must express disappointment at the Minister’s response so far. He is describing the theory, but the reality is what metal detecting enthusiasts from across England and their hobby group are telling me. What he describes is simply not happening out there in the field.
Richard Benyon
I think that the point I was coming to might answer my hon. Friend’s concerns. I will say now what I was going to say later: the Government are in absolutely no way complacent about this. We might have the most stringent standards in Europe, but we want to see that we are enforcing them. Having the most stringent standards is just a factor on a piece of paper; we are concerned with outcomes. I want to assure him that we will follow up any cases where we believe there has been a failure to comply with standards, and I will move on to explain how the principle that the polluter should pay will continue to be a key component of what we do.
Of course, not all compost needs to be produced to such a standard. Lower grade compost and compost-like outputs can be legitimately used on land, for example as mulch. In those cases, the compost remains a waste and its use on land is subject to environmental permitting or registered exemption controls in the same way as the composting process itself. That is monitored and closely enforced by the Environment Agency. We are aware of cases of sham recovery where, under the guise of composting, some operators have seemingly been more interested in disposing of unwanted materials than producing a worthwhile product. Where such cases are identified, the Environment Agency will investigate and consider enforcement action in accordance, importantly for my hon. Friend, with its enforcement and sanctions guidelines.
The controls on compost spread to land are in place, but we are keen to guard more generally against adverse impacts resulting from the spreading of a wider range of waste and non-waste materials on land. For this reason, officials in the Department and in the Environment Agency have set up a joint project to look at the impacts of other materials spread on land and whether we have the right controls in place. Nobody has total possession of all wisdom in this regard, and we are happy to take up any cases that we hear about from hon. Members, local authorities, or members of the public and organisations such as the one that my hon. Friend mentioned. In doing so, we will need to be absolutely clear about the rationale for any further intervention and avoid unnecessary or disproportionate regulation. We believe that there are sanctions in place that can deal with every one of the cases that he raises. If that is not happening, we as Ministers want to know why, and we look to him and others to provide cases that we can take up with the Environment Agency, which we will do with vigour.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Will the Minister consider the fact that it is possible to look at the outcome as opposed to the process and perhaps offer some facility for the Environment Agency to recognise the integrity of agricultural and food-producing land and to offer some protection for that land? We already protect water voles and all sorts of other things in a number of different ways. If we looked to the protection of the land, any offence on it could be worked against by the Environment Agency rather than trying to classify every assault on the land.
Richard Benyon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What Government have to do is to create standards, and we do that in accordance, in the main, with European designations on such matters. However, that is a very prosaic and rather unambitious reason to do it. We also do it because we want to do so. We want to see a healthy environment. We want our food grown in a healthy way, and we want to be mindful of the health of the consumer and, of course, the impact on the environment. We are very concerned with outcomes, so we are genuinely worried when we hear such issues raised. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, we are in no way complacent. We take our responsibilities very seriously. We are absolutely desirous of having good outcomes from all the measures that are in place. Many people say that far too many regulations are imposed on our food-producing industry and that we need to try to rationalise them, but we do not do that at the expense of the health of our environment or the consumer.
We have covered a lot of ground in the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt). I understand the attraction of metal detecting as a hobby, because a lot of people in my constituency do it. It is not only a good way of getting out into the countryside and doing a worthwhile activity; it is part of our agenda of more people having access to the countryside. It is also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester points out, a fantastic way of collecting and identifying some extraordinary artefacts. We have all heard some of the wonderful stories in recent years, especially in and around the ancient Roman city of Camulodunum, now of course Colchester. I appreciate the frustration of the members of the National Council for Metal Detecting and note its recent petition on the subject. I particularly note the concern of those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I agree that we cannot accept the inappropriate spreading of what is alleged to be green waste, or the wilful damage to our environment.
The Government have a fundamental duty to continue to support and encourage the recycling and recovery of waste so as to conserve natural resources. We also have a responsibility towards the established principle in modern society that the polluter pays. That is an important sanction against the kind of pollution that my hon. Friend has described, and I reaffirm that if he can bring us evidence of this kind of thing happening, perhaps from his contacts in the National Council for Metal Detecting, I can assure him that there will be no lack of will among Ministers or those in the Environment Agency to take up those cases.
I hope that I have managed to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and the House that there are good regulatory systems in place, and sanctions that should be working. There are also quality protocols which, if complied with, can add immensely to helping our environment. Where they are not being complied with, the perpetrators can be punished.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Commonwealth Trade
(12 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the House this debate on Commonwealth trade. Hon. Members will know that I have always held a strong and passionate belief in the Commonwealth of Nations. If I may say so, I consider it a travesty that so little has been done by successive Governments to realise the full potential that the Commonwealth offers. Although I commend Her Majesty’s Government and particularly my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for putting the C back into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the capacity for building Commonwealth trade, which could stretch across every continent of the globe, is perhaps the area that has suffered most from the neglect of the past few decades.
Currently, 53 nations belong to the Commonwealth family. They range from the old dominions of Canada, New Zealand and Australia to countries from Mauritius to Jamaica, Cyprus to South Africa and Belize to Tuvalu. The newest member is Rwanda, which joined in 2009. The Commonwealth spans every time zone and yields a combined GDP of more than £5.2 trillion.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this important debate. Does he agree that increasing our trade with the Commonwealth can make us far less dependent on other areas?
Andrew Rosindell
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes a valid point. We trade and must trade with the whole world. We have focused on one area of the globe in recent decades. I believe that it is time to look to a wider trade relationship, and the Commonwealth is a natural group of countries, with which we have so much in common. That relationship must be developed for trade in the years to come.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the timeliness of the debate. He listed some—obviously not all—of the countries in the Commonwealth. Will he join me in saying that if countries that in the past were in the Commonwealth but had left, such as the Irish Republic, wanted to return, we would welcome them?
Andrew Rosindell
I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s view. I also believe that we must expand the Commonwealth and look to countries with historical links to the Commonwealth that may not have considered joining or that we may not have approached. A more vigorous policy to attract more countries to join the Commonwealth would be very welcome. I would like to see the whole of Ireland in the Commonwealth and I very much look forward to that day.
In addition to the Commonwealth nations, we of course have 21 British overseas territories—parts of the world that my hon. Friend the Minister is becoming more familiar with by the day—which stretch from Gibraltar to the Falkland Islands, Bermuda to the Pitcairn Islands and Montserrat to St Helena, along with five Crown dependencies: the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Australia also has external territories, such as Norfolk Island, and New Zealand has its realm states, such as the Cook Islands. All are part of our extended Commonwealth family. The English-speaking world is, I believe, the most powerful collection of nations on earth today. It is time to harness that power to extend opportunities for trade and to create the wealth that our people need.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing and very considerable interest in the British overseas territories. He mentioned the territories that are administered by Australia and by New Zealand, but what is the aggregate population of those territories if we are talking about trade and Britain’s trade balances?
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I commend him for his commitment to the Commonwealth and his deep understanding of countries around the world with which we have a lot in common, such as Australia. However, I have to say to him that this is not only about population size; it is also about geography. It is about the opportunities that some of the smaller territories around the world present. Some of them can contribute in all kinds of ways. Yes, some of them have small populations, but surely they too should be welcomed as part of the family of nations and territories. We do not exclude a small territory because it has a small population; otherwise, what would we do with places such as Pitcairn, Sark and other places that have very small populations but are loyal to Britain and want to feel part of the extended Commonwealth family?
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. Before he leaves the subject of the overseas territories, might he not address the Government and say that if we were serious about protecting their interests and ours, we would have done what the French have done for their overseas territories: first, got them access to the European Union and, secondly, given them representation in this place?
Andrew Rosindell
Once again, I admire the right hon. Gentleman’s stance on these issues. I have enormous sympathy with his remarks. The Minister will recall that only yesterday I raised with him the failure of the United Kingdom in this regard. It is the only post-colonial nation to deny its territories the right to vote in its own elections. The Government in London, our Parliament, can of course make laws affecting our territories. We can declare war on their behalf. We can sign treaties and decide foreign policy and currency issues—a whole range of things—yet no one from our territories has the right to vote in our elections or to have any direct say. We do not even have a Standing Committee of Parliament that deals exclusively with our territories and dependencies. In that regard, we are unlike Australia, which has an external territories committee. Therefore we have, I believe, let our territories down over many years.
It is only since the election of the current Government that I have seen a genuine change of attitude to our territories. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who championed this cause as Minister for the overseas territories until only recently. Many of the representatives from those territories are truly grateful to him for everything that he did to change the relationship and to ensure that we have a much more positive attitude towards our overseas territories.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind remarks. On the overseas territories, does he agree that one should look not at the size of population but at GDP and per capita income? We should look at some of the territories that have world-class financial services and world-class hydrocarbons and at ways of harnessing bilateral trade in both our interests. Does he agree that any reinvigorated approach to the territories must focus more on the trade agenda?
Andrew Rosindell
I wholeheartedly support what my hon. Friend said. This is not just about population. There is a whole range of factors, as he mentioned, and we must look at all those opportunities if we are to capitalise on parts of the world that we have neglected. We have missed opportunities. We know that if we want a sustainable future for all our people, we have to stretch beyond the European continent, and what more obvious opportunities are there than those offered by countries with which we have so much in common, not least the English language?
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) hit the nail on the head in terms of what we need to concentrate on. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned Australia, whose economy is growing dramatically because of the demand for its natural resources from China. We need to concentrate more on the 53 countries and put money into them, rather than putting tens of billions of pounds into a black hole in the European Union, which is losing us money every year.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Gentleman speaks for the majority of the British people in that. Those outside this place cannot understand what on earth Governments have been doing over the past 30-odd years narrowly focusing on a small part of the world, which might be geographically close, but with which we have huge differences, when in other parts of the world, with which we have so much in common, we have neglected such opportunities. We need to unshackle ourselves from this deadweight and forge something new and positive that will sustain us with trade and co-operation in a range of areas in the years to come.
Andrew Rosindell
I will have to make some progress, but I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Frank Field
The hon. Gentleman talks about the change in attitude of the Government already to the overseas territories. As we know, changes in attitude can be important, if they are followed by action. What would he like to see that change in attitude deliver for the overseas territories by the end of this Parliament?
Andrew Rosindell
This is of course not purely a debate about overseas territories. It is about Commonwealth trade. Only last week, I met chief ministers and premiers from many of the overseas territories, who were here for the joint ministerial council, and the one message that I received from all of them was that although they appreciate all the different, new initiatives our Government are introducing and the much warmer relationship, they still wonder: are they British or are they foreign? That is the question they put to me. Why are British territories under the Foreign Office? They are British, not foreign. They are not even Commonwealth; they are not allowed to join the Commonwealth. They do not even have territory status in the Commonwealth. They feel that they are treated almost as an anomaly.
It is high time that we addressed all the issues and treated overseas territories as an equal part of the British family, while upholding their right to self-determination and home rule. We do not want to govern them from London, but we want them to feel securely part of the British family. Giving them elected representation and secure places in our Parliament, particularly for territories that are under threat from aggressive neighbours, such as the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, would signify that we intend to retain them permanently as British sovereign territory and that negotiations over their future will not take place. I appreciate the sentiments that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) expressed this morning.
The nations of the Commonwealth are dotted along the whole spectrum of the development index. Within it are some of the largest producers of raw materials, as well as a broad range of manufacturing and service industries. Combined with that rich diversity, we are all wonderfully tied together by a shared history, heritage and language. Many Commonwealth countries continue to share Her Majesty the Queen as their sovereign and Head of State, and of course Her Majesty remains head of the Commonwealth itself. The Commonwealth was not an accident; it was built on trade flows, the location of commodities, the availability of work forces and a mutual desire to develop and succeed.
Where have things gone wrong? Why has the United Kingdom sat back? Why has there been such a systematic failure to develop the debate over Commonwealth trade? I suggest that some of the fault may lie in our membership of a continental construction that has effectively tied Britain to a protectionist trade block. Although I welcome everything that the Foreign Secretary has said, perhaps blame lies with the low importance that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has given in recent years to our relationship with the Commonwealth.
Could the Minister tell the House how many people in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office actually work on Commonwealth issues? I am informed that it may be as few as six, and only one may be full-time. Is that true and, if so, why do Her Majesty’s Government not make the Commonwealth a greater priority? In addition, can the Minister confirm which UK representative, if any, joined the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting delegation in Tokyo in October of this year? I have no doubt that he agrees that the UK should take a leading role at such meetings.
Mr Spellar
As I understand the arcane discussions going on inside the Conservative party at the moment, one school of thought says that we ought to return to a relationship with Europe as a trading block, rather than continue in the European Union, and that negotiations should take place and there should be a referendum. But that would still mean that we were in a major trading block that would be our major trading partner. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that we ought to look for an alternative trading block, rather than a complementary or supplementary one. Will he clarify?
Andrew Rosindell
The shadow Minister misunderstands the point I am making. I value enormously our relationship with Europe. Co-operating and trading with Europe is very important, and I do not downplay it at all. I am sceptical over whether the EU, as constructed, is the right model for us to be part of. There are all sorts of ways to trade and co-operate with our neighbours on the continent, without necessarily being tied into a political union, which is, I am afraid, heading in the direction of an integrated united states of Europe. I do not think that many constituents of Members in the Hall today would support the idea of going further and deeper into that construction. If the Labour party intends to fight the next election wanting to sign up to an even closer relationship with Europe, I look forward to the election result.
What of the general UK presence in terms of trade with the Commonwealth? For example, how many UK trade delegations have been to Commonwealth nations since 2010? Maybe the Minister can answer that later. Sadly, it seems that Britain has delegated many such matters to Brussels. We appear to have lost our ability to conduct direct trade deals with countries outside the EU. The UK seems unable to carry out free trade agreements with a third party, due to our association with the EU customs union. Consequently, the UK can independently forge bilateral investment agreements only. In the light of that, could the Minister inform the House when the last bilateral investment agreement was signed by the UK and another Commonwealth country? Although we all recognise the importance of our trade relationship with our European neighbours as individual states, the idea that we must for ever have a Eurocentric focus is simply outdated and wrong. Commonwealth and European trade should not be seen as mutually exclusive; they should complement each other.
We run a trade deficit with the EU of £41 billion, but a trade surplus of more than £10.7 billion with the Commonwealth, so it makes sense to balance one with the other. More Commonwealth trade does not mean less trade with European nations. Germany, for example, had an extremely healthy surplus of £16.8 billion in 2011. Does anyone seriously believe that our German friends would stop that great deal with the British people if we forged a new agenda on Commonwealth trade? It would to be to no one’s advantage.
Our neighbours across the English Channel would be the beneficiaries of any new arrangement for Commonwealth trade. They, too, could plug into opportunities that Britain is in a unique position to create. We are in a unique position to concentrate on developing the potential for trade that exists beyond the continent of Europe, and we should not be held back from doing so.
In October this year, a paper authored by Tim Hewish and James Styles, “Common-Trade, Common-Growth, Common-Wealth”, set out the possibilities for Commonwealth trade. It examined in detail how we can further mould the Commonwealth into a relevant and practical 21st-century organisation, based around a mutually beneficial trade relationship, as well as how we can lift developing Commonwealth nations out of poverty. I highly recommend the book to the Minister. I hope that he will read it, and take it back to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to develop ideas based on its excellent contents. The case is supremely compelling.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the powerful case he is making for Commonwealth trade. To strengthen his argument and the report he just held up, yesterday the all-party group on the extractive industry was told by the International Council on Mining and Metals that the Commonwealth already plays an important role in capacity building in some developing countries, which ensures that they do not suffer from the resources curse and that they can deal with the classic issues of corruption and lack of transparency that have blighted so many economies. Does he therefore agree that Commonwealth trade can play an important role not only in increasing the UK’s trade, but in helping many developing countries to trade out of poverty?
Andrew Rosindell
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will refer to this later, but we spend rather a lot of money on aid, through our Department for International Development budget. It is probably more beneficial in the long term to assist such countries to trade. We should help people to trade themselves out of poverty, which is a far better solution than continuously giving them handouts. Trade is the way out of poverty, and the Commonwealth is uniquely placed to form a foundation for that. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
Mr Bellingham
Does my hon. Friend agree that a vital part of the Commonwealth organisation is the Commonwealth Business Council? In the past, it focused largely on India, the far east and the antipodes—rightly so, in some ways—but seven of the 10 fastest growing economies in the world are African, and many of them are in the Commonwealth. Does he therefore agree that the Commonwealth Business Council should concentrate more on Anglophone and, indeed, Lusophone Africa?
Andrew Rosindell
I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that his work in the Foreign Office laid the foundations for closer co-operation with our friends in Africa, which is an up and coming continent. Once again, Britain is uniquely placed to develop trade and co-operation with those countries, and the Commonwealth Business Council also has a role to play. But what were we thinking of, in the past few decades, when we completely forgot about countries all around the world, and focused purely on a model of Europe that, frankly, was alien to what most of us in this country believe? All those opportunities lie before us, and we now need the political courage to seize them and make the best of them, not only for our own people, but for those of all the Commonwealth nations. I believe that we have the chance to do so at this point in our history.
We all know that, in comparison with the combined Commonwealth annual growth rate of 3.7%, the European Union’s growth is shrinking. Under the so-called Commonwealth effect, the overhead costs of trading with the Commonwealth are reduced by about 15% in comparison with trade outside the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the Commonwealth factor in doing business.
We are the world’s sixth largest trading nation. Yet while we remain wedded to an outmoded customs union, emerging nations are at liberty to trade freely and openly in a healthy competitive environment. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing, despite that hindrance, to help UK small and medium-sized enterprises trade with other Commonwealth nations, and what platforms are open to UK SMEs to get information about Commonwealth trade?
I am left in absolutely no doubt that we are at a crossroads; not taking a practical outlook now on how the UK moves its trade relations forward will be viewed by future generations as utterly foolish. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in my work with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and as chairman of all-party groups relating to Commonwealth countries and the overseas territories, I am fortunate to have met and had direct dealings with many high commissioners, prime ministers, premiers, chief ministers, diplomats, Government representatives and those engaged with trade and commerce. Let me tell the House that there is a strong and clear message that resonates: the Commonwealth nations are eager for our business, and they want to explore and develop a trading relationship. But what do we do? We talk. We talk about the valuable asset of the Commonwealth, how relevant it remains to Britain and the potential for business and trade, but we seem to do very little.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider making that a central theme for Her Majesty’s Government to pursue in the second half of this Parliament. Will a Business Minister join him in Colombo for next year’s Commonwealth business forum to promote what I hope will be a new British vision for trade across the Commonwealth? I, for one, recognise how important it is for the UK to take a lead in Commonwealth initiatives. What could be more important in these times than to build steadfast foundations for trade for the decades to come? To all those who think that adopting a different relationship with the EU would put us on the periphery of Europe, I say no—it would place us on the doorstep of the world. That point runs much deeper, because increased Commonwealth trade and co-operation would bring a whole host of other benefits. A Commonwealth investment bank might cultivate projects in emerging markets, and a Commonwealth business visa could promote a trans-regional investor environment.
On that note, a few simple changes at our border would also provide a friendlier reception for Commonwealth citizens entering the United Kingdom. As colleagues will be aware, I am promoting the United Kingdom Borders Bill, which would provide for recognition at our border of people from Commonwealth realms where Her Majesty the Queen remains the Head of State. It would give people from those 15 nations the right to enter UK passport control in the same channel as the British, which would generate a tremendous amount of good will.
The shadow Minister, who has links with Australia, will know how passionately such people feel let down when, on arriving at Heathrow, they are told to queue with those from the rest of the world. They fought shoulder to shoulder with us in every war, they share the Queen as their Head of State, they speak our language and their culture and heritage is ours, yet we treat them as aliens. Why do we not allow people from those realms and territories the right to enter through the same channel as the British, while those from countries with whom we have not always had that much in common can enter through that channel? It is a shameful indictment of the failure of all Governments to recognise our very special relationship with those countries. I hope the Government will address that by supporting my Bill, which is now before the House. The Bill would boost tourism and trade by making it easier to move between Her Majesty’s realms and territories.
There is a social justice element to the argument. The UK currently hands out £8.57 billion a year in international aid, which is a lot of money, almost all of which is distributed to Commonwealth countries. However, as we have discovered, handouts are futile for long-term sustainability: endless handouts are not the solution. If we really care—in other words, if we really mean it—we should offer such nations a way to trade their way up and out of poverty.
The cruel reality is that that cannot realistically be achieved by the UK at the moment, for we cannot give Commonwealth states the chance to trade with us on equal terms. While other countries such as Russia and China are able to invest in mutually beneficial relationships with the Commonwealth nations in the developing world, Britain is left simply throwing money at well-meaning projects, because we are not able to have trading relations directly with those nations without going through the European Union.
Mr Spellar
Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of where China has been able to develop those relationships differently with, say, Australia or Canada?
Andrew Rosindell
Goodness me. The shadow Minister surprises me. Wherever I go in the world, I see the Chinese investing money, establishing institutions, developing opportunities for trade and ensuring that their best interests are looked after. Sadly, we cannot do that because we are shackled to an institution that prevents us from doing so individually as Britain with our Commonwealth partners. Even the Labour party must be able to see that this is no way to create wealth either for Britain or for developing nations.
Mr Spellar
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he give an example of the sort of projects that he is thinking about that the Chinese are able to develop and that our membership of the EU prevents us from developing?
Andrew Rosindell
Once again, the right hon. Gentleman surprises me. Like me, he must, on occasion, have the opportunity to travel to all parts of the world; over the past couple of years, for example, I have travelled to Africa and the Pacific. Everywhere one goes, the Chinese are there doing the business and ensuring that their interests are looked after. They can sign up to a trading arrangement with any of those countries, but we are not allowed to do so. The right hon. Gentleman should understand that the dead-weight around our ankles has to be taken away if we are to give those countries and ourselves the opportunity to trade in the years to come. Consequently, I ask the Minister to consider the example of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which exists primarily to promote trade. Perhaps he can look at the way it operates and report back to the House with his findings. We need to look at examples of how the Commonwealth can develop in a similar way.
We need to be more like the dynamic Asian economies and less like some of the high-taxed, over-regulated and welfare-bloated European states. It must be in the United Kingdom’s interests to be able to enter independently into negotiations with Commonwealth states to establish free trade agreements. Surely it must be in our interests and in the interests of all Commonwealth countries to have those opportunities, denied to us at the moment because of Brussels. Instead, we are left at the mercy of the European Union deciding what is best. What would be the thoughts of our pioneering forefathers who shaped what has become today’s Commonwealth? Oh, how we have let them down. But all is not lost. There are many things that Her Majesty’s Government can do immediately to turn it all around.
First, I propose the creation of the post of Minister for Commonwealth trade, with a joint role between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that the Commonwealth is better promoted and understood both abroad and within the United Kingdom. A team would also be established, based on UK Trade and Investment, dedicated to Commonwealth trade, which would act under the auspices of the suggested Commonwealth trade Minister to enhance the options of UK SMEs to trade with emerging and developing markets.
Secondly, I propose that the UK Government and others bring to the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting a resolution to study the viability of a Commonwealth investment and development bank to assist trade and business expansion. The current Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation is not enough, nor is it the best vehicle to deliver that demand. Thirdly, we should draw up a feasibility study into the creation of a Commonwealth business visa that will allow businessmen to move more freely between nations, have meetings, set up companies and invest.
Those three practical changes would make an immediate difference to our position on Commonwealth trade. I should appreciate it if the Minister could evaluate and address my recommendations.
In the longer term, I want to see the Government invest in the next generation of Commonwealth citizens by bringing the Commonwealth back to the classroom. As the author Stephen Luscombe observes:
“It is still surprising that an institution that lasted half a millennium, involved millions upon millions of people, that was responsible for some of the biggest population shifts and technology transfers in history and influencing nearly every corner of the globe should be largely ignored by the British political and educational establishments.”
Indeed the United Kingdom is in itself a microcosm of the Commonwealth. With an increasingly multi-ethnic population, it is paramount that children understand what it means to be British and what part the Commonwealth has played in that story. The United Kingdom is most fortunate to have a Commonwealth within, ready to be utilised, if only we ourselves appreciated it. Today is the day when people can hear this story. I say to the Chamber and to the Minister that we in these British Isles should open our eyes and lift our gaze further towards the potential that exists within our great family of Commonwealth nations and peoples.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to contribute to this debate, Mr Turner. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that my speech will not be quite as long as that of the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who was so generous in his handling of our interventions. I am immensely grateful to him for the way in which he has tackled this debate and for his genuine wish to engage with other Members in the Chamber. Such engagement does not always happen in debates, even though we call this a debating Chamber.
I wish to touch on three themes. The first is how important and perilous our exporting position is; any debate on trade, Commonwealth or otherwise, is of crucial importance to the House and our constituents. My second theme is to follow what the hon. Gentleman has already said about the need for us to build on our advantages with the Commonwealth, which we still have despite our neglect. Lastly, I will make a few suggestions about what the Minister can do to begin to change the position.
As you have said in the past, Mr Turner, it is always a good starting point in debates such as this to take the theme of the two nations: Britain and Germany. We need to look at what is happening to Germany and what is not happening to us. I have been here long enough to know that the balance of trade used to be a key factor in general elections; Governments won and lost elections over it. It now seems impossible to lose an election because of negative growth in the balance of trade. One day a reckoning must come on that score; how it will come I will leave for others to develop.
If we look at Germany’s performance over the current decade, we see that whereas its share of exports has risen from 8.9% to 9.3% of the total, our share has fallen from 5.3% to 4.1%. We as an economy are more dependent on exports than Germany—almost more dependent than any other country in the world, which relates to the contribution of the hon. Member for Romford about where we might look to for new emerging and important markets.
Unlike us, Germany has not been content to dig ever deeper into the European Union for its trading partners. Its trade with Europe, over the same period, has fallen to 38% of its total trade whereas ours is at 44.5%. We see the great economy of Europe disengaging from its European base and looking elsewhere for its markets just as we are getting more clearly and firmly entrenched in that market.
I share many of the doubts that the hon. Member for Romford expressed about whether it is sensible—by history, by inclination, by language and by culture—to try to develop in areas where there are barriers to us, in contrast with much, if not most, of the Commonwealth.
What should we be doing on trade, particularly on trade with the Commonwealth? That is my second theme. Clearly, we need to reorientate ourselves as an economy and a country to those areas where markets are growing and we should not remain content with dealing with areas where markets are shrinking. The truth is that we have been very poor on that score. A number of reports suggest that. For example, a CBI report recently suggested that if we can only reorientate ourselves to those growth markets, by the end of the next decade our trade will be £20 billion larger in real terms than it is today.
How do we achieve that reorientation? We can have debates until kingdom come, but I doubt whether they would make much difference in the outside world. However, we have been given this huge advantage by the hon. Gentleman today—not only did he locate our interests in the Commonwealth but he suggested some practical moves that we can make. I am sure that the Minister will not disappoint his hon. Friend; I am equally sure that he will not answer those points but he will join him in supporting many of the suggestions.
Before we look at the advantages of increasing Commonwealth trade, can we not look at the ease with which trade could grow with Commonwealth countries? We have the advantages of a common language, a common legal system and a common accounting system. All those are very significant advantages indeed; some experts estimate that capitalising on them—I call them natural advantages—reduces our costs in trade by 20%.
What might we do to strengthen Commonwealth trade? The hon. Gentleman has already said that we should make the Commonwealth Business Council more effective. That is putting it mildly, is it not? Sadly, most of us would not know that the CBC existed. If we are going to have some body that will drive this process, it needs at least to have a presence in this country as well as in other countries.
My second suggestion is that the Government ought to make much more use of Lord Howell; why he was dropped—shoved aside—in the reshuffle, goodness only knows. He was a jewel in the crown as far as Commonwealth interest went, and he did well during his stewardship at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; I emphasise the ‘C’ in ‘FCO’. I thought that the hon. Member for Romford was probably exaggerating when he said that there were six members of the FCO who actually had an interest in Commonwealth affairs and responsibilities, even if we include the part-timers in that total.
Lord Howell has made two important suggestions, and I put them to the Chamber today. First of all, we ought to be thinking about how we attract inward investment from the Commonwealth into this country. Some of the most important businessmen in this country are from India. They have brought huge investment and—to some of our constituents—very considerable prosperity. Why are we not developing on that success? The second suggestion of Lord Howell was that we use Commonwealth countries as a launching pad into neighbouring countries, which might provide us with easier access to those markets. Those two ideas are easy to implement.
Finally, I come to the issue that I thought the hon. Member for Romford only touched on: the budget of the Department for International Development. If we are truthful, we know that, for reasons known only to the Prime Minister, while we are cutting the budgets of other Departments and the living standards of our constituents, we are going hell for leather to increase our overseas aid through DFID. We also know that large amounts of that money end up in the wrong pockets. We are dealing with a very corrupt system.
I think we should go further than has already been suggested in this debate and persuade DFID that one of the most beneficial things it could do, to strengthen ties with the Commonwealth, including, in the longer term, trade ties, would be to get very serious about bringing Commonwealth students to this country. I am not saying that DFID should roll over and let vice-chancellors tickle its tummy; I think that vice-chancellors should go in and be very serious in negotiating what the terms should be. However, one very useful thing the Government could do, which would win them widespread support in the country as far as overseas aid was concerned, would be to say that from now on a growing share of that growing DFID budget should be given over to Commonwealth scholarships. One way of doing that, of course, would be to build on the beginnings of what Sir John Major is hoping to do with the Queen’s jubilee series of scholarships.
I hope that, by the end of this Parliament, we will have trebled—we could easily do it—the number of scholarships that we award to Commonwealth students to come here, to learn, to return to their countries, to be ambassadors for this country and to prepare for trade with this country. It would lead to more of our constituents being in employment, and to more of them seeing some sense in our having an overseas aid budget.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford on securing this debate. Nobody could accuse him of scaremongering. I thought that he was modest beyond belief in the gentle way that he approached the issue of how vulnerable this country—supposedly a great exporting country—is and how casual we are in our links and in developing our interests with countries with which we merely say we have a common language and culture.
Those Commonwealth countries fought with us in two wars. We are in the extraordinary position of thinking that we should be trading with those who were at our throats for those two wars—indeed, that they should have special access to our ports and airports. Meanwhile, those who fought with us in those wars are categorised as “foreign” and have to join the lot of people in that category when trying to come back to their mother country.
The Government could do much that would not cost a penny over the existing budgets. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in trying to take this debate forward.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I apologise, Mr Turner, for not giving advance notice that I wish to speak in this debate, but having heard two such excellent speeches from two Members whom I greatly respect and who talk a great deal of sense on this issue—my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field)—I was inspired to join in the debate and support some of the points that they have made.
Commonwealth trade is something about which we can both take lessons from the past and look to the future. Fundamentally, it is about Britain’s place in the 21st century and the opportunities and some of the risks, which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out, facing Britain’s place as a trading nation.
I have always believed that, because we are more externally facing and have greater links across the world than any other country in Europe, there are great risks in tying ourselves too closely into a European trading bloc to the exclusion of all else and that inevitably the process of closer union in Europe leads to compromises. Britain’s position as a trading nation with very strong external links throughout the Commonwealth and with other parts of the world, such as Latin America, can be compromised by compromising too far with our European neighbours, so I strongly support the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford has made.
Mr Spellar
Why does the hon. Gentleman think that membership of the EU constrains us in trading with the rest of the world, when Germany manages—dramatically successfully—to trade with the rest of the world? The last time that I looked, Germany was a member of the EU and even of the eurozone.
Mr Walker
It is absolutely true that it is possible to export to the rest of the world as a member of the EU—I do not deny that in the least. However, the EU puts up trade barriers, many of which have disadvantaged Commonwealth countries over the years. For example, in the famous banana wars, Commonwealth imports were seriously disadvantaged by European action, and that directly affected Britain’s relationships with some of its Commonwealth neighbours.
Mr Spellar
Surely, the banana wars were about regulations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Banana producers in former British and French territories were having problems with bananas produced by American companies on massive central American plantations; that had nothing to do with the EU—it was a general agreement on tariffs and trade issue.
Mr Walker
I am afraid I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Furthermore, by bringing some of their overseas territories into the European network, the French have been able to benefit them in a way that we cannot benefit members of our Commonwealth. We therefore need the flexibility to trade more freely.
Interestingly, this is not a new debate. In fact, I looked the issue up in Hansard, and I hope Members will indulge me if I read part of a speech by a former Member for Worcester:
“I suggest that it is the urgent duty of Her Majesty’s Government to pay far more attention to the markets of the Commonwealth than they have done in the past. I certainly feel that there has been something of a negative attitude towards the Commonwealth markets. There has been a tendency”—
this was when Britain was outside the Common Market, but trying to join—
“because we have been closed out of the Common Market, to call the Finance Ministers of the Commonwealth to this country not to discuss and formulate a vigorous policy for expanding our trade with the Commonwealth but to discuss the concessions which they may be willing to make to get into the Common Market countries. This is a matter which, I believe, has contributed to this large fall in the proportion of Commonwealth trade enjoyed by this country. In fact, it would appear that we are beginning to give away the substance of Commonwealth trade for the potage of possibilities elsewhere.”—[Official Report, 20 April 1961; Vol. 638, c. 1434-35.]
That Member happened to be my father, and that was his maiden speech in 1961. If we had taken a different route, as my hon. Friend said, we might be trading far more successfully with the Commonwealth today.
We need to look at the 21st-century world and at the rising powers in it, and we need recognise that the opportunities and challenges that we face are profoundly different from those in 1961. Europe is no longer such a large part of the world economy, and one of the rising world powers is India, which is a member of the Commonwealth. Britain therefore has an extra interest in trading with the Commonwealth and in breaking down some of the barriers to Commonwealth trade. We must recognise, however, that we no longer rule the roost when setting the Commonwealth’s rules. As we set out to increase Commonwealth trade and to work more closely with other Commonwealth countries, we must recognise that many of them have as much right to have a say in the process as we do. We should encourage and support other Commonwealth countries—particularly India, which stands out as one of the world’s emerging superpowers—to play a more active role in promoting the opportunities that would benefit us all.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of education. In his speech in 1961, my late father talked about the importance of creating a Harvard business school for Commonwealth business executives, so that we could have more Commonwealth-minded business people carrying out trade. There is a real opportunity in that regard. I recently visited China, which is not of course a member of the Commonwealth, and saw the work a university in my constituency is doing to bring rising people in the local civil service over from China, train them and send them back. That created enormous good will, and when I took a business delegation there—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—there were huge trade opportunities. We should look to do such things throughout the Commonwealth, especially given the enormous advantages offered by a common language and a common legal system. I therefore strongly endorse the point about the jubilee scholarships, which I should like to be taken even further to open up such opportunities.
We have an exciting opportunity to position Britain better in the 21st century and to work with some of the world’s fastest-growing economies and rising powers. We should not turn our back on Europe, but we should recognise that we are stronger if we have multilateral relationships in many different directions, and if we complement our trade with our European partners with trade throughout a world that is rapidly changing and in which the centres of economic power are shifting.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing the debate. I had hoped that it would focus on increasing trade around the world and especially on ensuring a fair share for manufacturing; I say that having, in a previous incarnation, been a national officer for the electricians’ union and represented two west midlands constituencies during my parliamentary career. I have a huge interest in manufacturing, and I would certainly agree that its interests and importance have not had sufficient attention, particularly among the ranks of the British civil service. I will touch on that later.
It is unfortunate that almost no debate in the House can now be conducted without focusing to an unhealthy extent on Europe, often in areas where Europe is not a relevant consideration. The hon. Gentleman talked about high-tax, welfare-bloated states; some would characterise Sweden as one of those—it is an archetypal Scandinavian welfare state—but it has a very effective exporting machine. Similarly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) will know, Germany laid the foundation for many social welfare provisions in the Bismarck era, as one of the early representations of a welfare state, and it is hugely successful at exporting.
Let me take another, very real example. Following the manufacturing downturn that resulted from the global financial crisis, civil service and Treasury officials here were hugely resistant—there was a considerable battle within the Government about this—to paying companies to keep their manufacturing workers on the books. We should compare and contrast that with what happened in Germany, which kept workers on and then had a work force who were ready to go when the upturn came.
Take a company such as JCB, whose owners are well known for their donations to, and involvement with, the Conservative party—although I will not complain about that on this occasion. We should compare and contrast its operation in Germany, which is a smaller part of the overall business, with its operation in Uttoxeter, in the midlands. When the upturn came in Germany, its operation there was able to take on work straightaway, but its operation in Uttoxeter had to go and find the workers that it had had to lay off to maintain financial viability. That is very much about using welfare provisions to maintain industrial capability, so it is not as though there is an inconsistency in having a proper welfare state and industrial efficiency.
That is the nub of my argument with the hon. Member for Romford. He put forward many interesting ideas, and I fully agree with him about the importance of stressing the need to develop, maintain and expand our relations with our Commonwealth partners. However, he focused on our relationship with the EU, when the fault, in Shakespeare’s words,
“is not in our stars, But in ourselves”.
The problems are in the UK, and constantly blaming people somewhere in Brussels means that we do not examine what we need to do in this country to improve and, in many areas, to build trading relationships, particularly—I was pleased the hon. Gentleman touched on this—through education.
We also need to look at how we have been reacting to Government purchasing, for example. It is hard to go to a foreign country and say “Buy British trains” when the Department for Transport deliberately turns its back, because of some complications in the bidding, on buying from Bombardier in Derby and buys from Siemens instead. It appears that yet again, as happens so often, it is allowing Siemens some variation to the contract. Why do I cite Bombardier in particular? Precisely because it is an extremely successful Canadian company, investing in UK train manufacture. It is also investing—I am sorry that our colleagues from Northern Ireland are no longer present—in what used to be Shorts in Northern Ireland; that is an extremely successful project, which is now securing an increasing share of the world market.
In that context, the hon. Member for Romford slightly underestimated the degree of engagement between us and many of our significant Commonwealth partners. Australia and the UK are either No. 1 or No. 2 as major investors in each other and, interestingly enough, the position of Australia has been rising in the past two or three years. There is significant investment between our countries.
There was enormous publicity during the year about the success of Tata, a major Indian company that has made a huge success of its ownership of Jaguar Land Rover. Now it is not only expanding production but moving down the supply chain. An investment in a substantial engine plant for Jaguar Land Rover in the Wolverhampton and south Staffordshire area is very welcome.
Andrew Rosindell
I accept a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Will he therefore agree that Britain is in a unique position to be a bridge between trade with the European continent and trade with the English-speaking world, and that we could have a unique and positive role to play if we were to harness the Commonwealth and the English-speaking world while retaining a trading relationship with our neighbours on the continent? Can we combine the two to the mutual benefit of all?
Mr Spellar
I am pleased that my eloquence has persuaded the hon. Gentleman that those objectives are not inconsistent but compatible and that, for a variety of reasons, many of which he enunciated effectively, we can act as a springboard into the European market. That is an attraction not just for Commonwealth countries, but, as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) will know extremely well, for Japanese companies coming to the UK.
Why are so many Japanese car companies based in the UK and expanding their investment and production? It is because we have offered a welcome mat to them, and they are now also expanding component manufacture here as well. It is enormously important for us to be able to tell those companies, “You have come to a country where you will be welcome, and where you have the advantage of the English language, the time zone and a developed commercial community that can service a variety of needs.” That is enormously important. I only wish we could also say, “And you will have easy access through airports,” but that is a matter that—regrettably and, I think, to the detriment of our business—seems to have been slipped slightly to the right.
The situation has come about precisely because we are an engaged member of the European trading bloc. There is a lot of talk—one can read about it in the excellent note produced by the Library—about the fact that so much of our trade now is intra-European, but that is not surprising. In all economies, especially as borders break down, geography is destiny. The United States has a huge cross-border trade with Canada. Up on the Detroit-Windsor border, trucks run back and forth every day between the major car and component plants in the United States and Canada.
It is the view of Australian politicians of all parties that it was inevitable, especially as China opened up and Japan developed economically, that trading relationships would grow between Australia, and Japan and China. That was inherent in their geographical position. The same goes for us. We do not count as a trade flow the fact that Toyota builds engines in Deeside in Wales and builds its cars in Burnaston. If, however, we considered that process happening between plants in Germany or France, it would count as trade flows, but that is the nature of modern industry and the interdependency of plants. We should welcome it, but it should not detract from our efforts also to build markets around the world.
Andrew Rosindell
The right hon. Gentleman surely realises that the concept of free trading around the world in some of the countries that he mentions is very different from the model of trading that we are presented with via the European Union. The harmonisation, standardisation, centralised control and single currency that are being introduced in the European Union are not being brought in anywhere else in the world. The model of trade that the right hon. Gentleman articulates so well is one I would accept, but that is not the model of trade prescribed by Brussels. He is talking about two different visions of what trade is all about.
Mr Spellar
There are always standards. Whether the European Union is involved or not, there are international standards. When the hon. Gentleman uses a DIN plug on some audio equipment, that is the Deutsche whatever-it-is; when he has a SCART lead that is the Syndicat—it is a French standard. Countries adopt international standards. It is the same in the oil industry. People work to standards normally set by the United States. Why is so much of that business still undertaken in feet and inches? Precisely because of where the main activity takes place. None of that, to get back to the point I made earlier, prevents Germany from being a major industrial powerhouse, which sells goods all round the world—and it does not prevent Sweden or French industry from doing that, either.
I agree with the hon. Member for Romford that we need to look at what we are doing throughout the world because there are several countries that are hugely important markets for us. Australia and Canada are both in the G20. By the way, we should also consider the huge growth happening in another G20 country, Indonesia, although it is not a Commonwealth country.
The EU has also recently signed a free trade agreement with Korea, which opens huge new markets to us. I hope that there will also be developments in the Japan trade agreement. The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of studying expanding markets, and ensuring that we produce the right sorts of goods and services and that Government purchasing encourages their manufacture in the UK. We should sell such goods and services and not underestimate our ability to sell services around the world—not just in the financial and legal sectors, but in the cultural field, where we have a unique selling proposition, which we should develop further. We should be thinking about building on our commonalities with the countries in question, as well as ensuring that we do not ignore other growing countries.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) has left the Chamber. It was a pleasure to work with him at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not only because of the work we all did, as the hon. Member for Romford will know, on returning the Turks and Caicos Islands to functioning democracy but because of his interest in Africa. I engaged with him on the issue of Somali pirates and my shadow ministerial colleagues engaged with him on Africa.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk was right to stress that many of the world’s fastest-growing countries are in Africa, and in the Commonwealth, and he is absolutely right that we therefore need to put in more diplomatic and commercial effort. I hasten to add that I would like the banks to be a bit more helpful to and co-operative with companies trying to expand and inevitably dealing with cash-flow issues. In manufacturing in particular, the banks are not as helpful as they should be—certainly not in the west midlands. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress those issues because they are areas that we ought to develop, but the matter is not exclusive to our relationships with Europe; it is part of an expanding international trading community, in which we ought to be involved.
I slightly query the hon. Gentleman’s stress on trade delegations, although I do not in any way underestimate their impact. When I was in Indonesia in July, it was clear that the Government trade delegation that had been there had been helpful and significant. We really need to follow up on that, and I am not sure whether we are doing enough.
Trade delegations are important, but we do not need one to Australia. Businessmen, politicians, academics and others are backwards and forwards to Australia and Canada. We should treat trade with such countries as part of our normal trading pattern. It seems to me that trade delegations are to open up markets and relationships. As things proceed positively—we hope—in Burma, we will undoubtedly need to be developing more there. That is the role of trade delegations, but we should be considering how we, our embassies and our high commissions around the world, facilitate the operation of businesses. We should also be moving towards doing normal business, as though going from Birmingham to Brisbane was like going from London to Edinburgh, rather than treating such business as separate, and just part of foreign policy.
To ensure that the Minister has time to reply, I shall make just one final point. I return to the question of the British independent overseas territories. As I said earlier, I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford on his work in raising the prominence of the overseas territories here in Parliament. There is no taxation without representation, but also no representation without taxation, so I am not entirely sure exactly how their having direct representation would work out.
The hon. Member for Romford is right to stress the strategic importance of some of the territories, but it worries me that we sometimes focus on countries that have, for one reason or another, political or media prominence but do not represent the real markets that we ought to be considering—the ones from which we get the volume and the ones that will be the hugely growing economies of the future. I conclude by saying that the hon. Gentleman has opened up a number of issues, and one day we might be able to have a debate without Europe dominating so much.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Turner. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), the Minister of State, sends his apologies for not being able to be here this morning; it is he who has responsibility for the UK’s relationship with the Commonwealth. He is abroad on business, but I know that he will read avidly the transcript of the debate. If I do not have time to reply to all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), I will ensure that he is written to in a detailed way that sets out the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s response.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on his knowledge and detailed understanding of the importance of the UK’s relationship with the Commonwealth—and with the overseas territories, which we explored in some detail at the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday. His speech today was typically passionate, articulate and lucid, and it showed a detailed grasp of the complexity of some of the issues that we are wrestling with this morning.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right in the central thrust of his argument: the necessity and importance of driving economic and trade ties with the Commonwealth, to stimulate economic development, wealth and sustainable job creation, as a significant contribution to alleviating poverty in some Commonwealth countries and to helping with our UK economic recovery. I would, however, like to address one or two issues up front, because my hon. Friend seemed to imply that nothing was being done at the moment to improve relations, economic trade and other ties with the Commonwealth.
Of course, I accept that more needs to be done. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) rightly mentioned Lord Howell’s significant contribution; I know from discussions with my noble Friend that he is still very interested in and engaged with driving forward the relationship with the Commonwealth. The issue is not, of course, just about economic and trade ties; it is also about building governmental capacity and strengthening ties in other areas, including through education. There is a keenness and enthusiasm to create links with UK educational establishments, to build capacity and to facilitate the work of the British Council where appropriate.
It is important that Members understand the overseas territories’ relationship with the Commonwealth. In our view, the territories should have either associate or observer membership of the Commonwealth, and we have been lobbying for that for some time. However, that is not in the UK’s gift; it has to be agreed by all Commonwealth member states.
At the joint ministerial council that I chaired last week, when all the overseas territory leaders came to London, one of the most significant sessions was when the Commonwealth secretary-general addressed the leaders and responded to questions. One of the most forceful points that was put across from a selection of overseas territory premiers and chief ministers was their desire to be a more integral part of the Commonwealth family, in their own right. It needs to be said, however, that they have benefited from and participated in some of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s functions and have attended some of the conferences that have taken place, particularly those relating to small island states.
At the moment, overseas territories cannot be observer members because, back in 2007, a Commonwealth sub-committee made a recommendation, which was accepted by the Commonwealth, that only sovereign states, and no subsets, were allowed to be full members. We continue to lobby the Commonwealth about changing that, and I hope that we will make progress.
In response to a point made by one of the hon. Members who has left already, I should say that we welcome applications to join the Commonwealth from countries that can demonstrate that they meet the requirements and are dedicated to the Commonwealth’s core values, particularly those of human rights, good governance and the rule of law.
I also want to pick up on a point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, about overseas territory direct representation in the UK Parliament. The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) was absolutely right. There is no aspiration or ambition in the overseas territories to be represented in the UK Parliament, and that would be the prerequisite for the commencement of any discussion in that direction. I gather that impression from my discussions, here and elsewhere, with senior overseas territory politicians and with many members of the broadest civil society. As the right hon. Member for Warley rightly set out, the territories would be extremely nervous about the potential impact, given what they would see as the removal of their responsibility to set taxation rights, drive their economies and deliver public services.
We are building a positive partnership relationship with the overseas territories. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) needs enormous credit and thanks for the significant work that he put in to ensure that the White Paper was formulated, that the consultation process was detailed and that, across the three significant areas of trade and economic ties, building capacity of public services and the all-important environment, we are growing the relationship in a positive direction.
I thank the right hon. Member for Warley for his significant and important work in the Turks and Caicos Islands to ensure that they returned to the democratic family.
I also want to bust the myth that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead talked about: it is not true that significant proportions of international development money disappear through corruption. The money has a significant impact on many people’s lives, both in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. Of course it is right that the money should be used for the purposes for which it is intended, and of course it is right to focus on outcomes to get the maximum bang for the British taxpayer’s buck. Where that does not happen, such as recently in the Ugandan Prime Minister’s office, swift action is taken to ensure that the aid is suspended.
I was going to comment on industrial capability, as raised by the right hon. Member for Warley, but time is ticking along. I suspect a little bit of rewriting history is going on there, but the coalition Government are determined to ensure that we rebalance the economy away from the prevalence of financial services and the public sector and that we reverse the decline in the manufacturing sector that happened in the 13 years under the Labour Administration. The right hon. Gentleman probably wants to intervene, but I will not give way because I have to plough on.
The context of what I want to say in the remaining minutes is that we came to office determined to reinvigorate the Commonwealth as an international organisation, and to reinvigorate our relationship with the Commonwealth and its integral member states, in the belief that we can use and capitalise on those networks and relationships in a globalising world to drive our agenda, and the Commonwealth’s agenda, of prosperity, stability and security. The Commonwealth is a long-standing network of old friends that lends itself perfectly to that ambition. One of the big challenges that we have faced in taking forward that agenda is ensuring that the Commonwealth as an organisation remains relevant in today’s changing world.
An important part of our work to reinvigorate the Commonwealth has been the modernisation agenda to achieve many of the recommendations set out by the eminent persons group, as it is rather grandly called. The relevant Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, is working extremely hard in an extremely focused way, alongside the Foreign Secretary, to ensure that we drive forward that modernisation agenda. I will not go into great detail, although if Members are interested, I am happy to provide it, because I want to focus on the prosperity side of the agenda.
I mention the modernisation agenda—the importance of democracy, the rule of law and the respect of core values—because it is a prerequisite that creates the conditions under which business can flourish; it gives business the confidence to invest and to trade, which inevitably leads to sustainable prosperity.
What are we doing to enhance our links—particularly trade links—with the Commonwealth? Since May 2010, we have put significant effort into refocusing and realigning all the FCO’s efforts on the prosperity agenda, creating firmer and greater co-operation across relevant Departments, particularly as that relates to some of the fastest-growing economies in the world, many of which are members of the Commonwealth—India, Nigeria, South Africa, Malaysia and Singapore. We are opening new missions, including a new deputy high commission in Hyderabad, and strengthening commercial teams in Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Mozambique, Ghana, Kenya, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea and Guyana. That is why there has been such focus not only from officials at the FCO but from Ministers visiting Commonwealth countries. Again, I could provide an endless list, but I will not take up time by doing that. We understand that prosperity, trade and investment are a central plank in the relationship between the UK and the Commonwealth.
The capacity of UK Trade and Investment has been significantly expanded since May 2010, with a focus on the Commonwealth countries. Twenty UKTI teams are in Commonwealth markets, and Ministers are looking to double the number of UK companies reporting, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford rightly raised. Again, there is an extensive list of Commonwealth countries where UKTI is playing a significant role in helping to drive the all-important trade and economic agenda. A key part of that is openness and transparency, particularly on procurement, to ensure that British business has the confidence to invest for a substantial period.
One of the key points that my hon. Friend raised was on trade delegations to the Commonwealth. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Warley that trade delegations need to be focused and outcome-based, which has been a significant thrust. Ministers have been engaged in significant trade delegations to many Commonwealth countries at a senior level: the Prime Minister led a trade delegation to Nigeria last year; the Business Secretary has led trade delegations; and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk led trade delegations to members of the Commonwealth when he was a Minister, too. I do not have a full list with me, but I am happy to provide the right hon. Member for Warley and other hon. Members with a comprehensive list of trade delegations. The most recent example that I can think of is when the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), took a renewable energy delegation to east Africa with significant results.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford mentioned access for Commonwealth nationals coming through Heathrow and other UK airports. I am happy to ask the UK Border Agency to study the card that is used, as a comparison with Asia, to determine whether a similar scheme would be practicable for the Commonwealth, too. Obviously, I will keep him informed.
The UK Government give significant support to SMEs trading with the Commonwealth. Ministers have made such support an export priority, and we are committed to doubling UK exports with the help of UKTI. My hon. Friend and other Members will be delighted to acknowledge that the Chancellor in his autumn statement announced significant additional resources for UKTI to drive that particularly important agenda.
Of course, this is not just about UK businesses exporting to Commonwealth countries; it is also about persuading Commonwealth countries, and businesses based in the Commonwealth, to invest here in the UK. There are significant examples of that from Malaysia, India and Australia. The right hon. Member for Warley rightly mentioned Bombardier, which is a significant Canadian business with significant investments here in the UK and is an example of the value of intra-Commonwealth co-operation and trade.
In the few seconds remaining, I reiterate the point that we do not see the Commonwealth and the EU as mutually exclusive trading partners. We must trade with everyone who we think can generate additional business and job creation for us. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford needs to recall that the EU is the biggest marketplace in the world. There are examples of advantages, such as the EU-wide free-trade agreement with Canada, that have significant positive benefits for the UK.
In conclusion, the Commonwealth is not only a fascinatingly rich part of Britain’s history; it is a dynamic and integral part of Britain’s future. The Commonwealth is an important part of the jigsaw of international organisations that we can, and do, use to pursue and achieve Britain’s objectives of prosperity, security and stability in the world.
Hospital Food (Animal Welfare Standards)
(12 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I thank you, Mr Turner, for allowing me to open the debate, in which I will call for the introduction of mandatory animal welfare standards for hospital food in England. It is a pleasure to do so under your chairmanship. As many hon. Members know, I am passionate about animal welfare, and I am both a proud member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the chair of the associate parliamentary group for animal welfare.
It may come as a surprise to many that the food served to patients in NHS hospitals in England need not meet mandatory animal welfare standards. Currently, Government buying standards are mandatory only for central Government buying departments, the Ministry of Defence and prisons. Schools and hospitals, which are excluded from the buying standards, account for 70% of public sector spending on food, meaning that prisoners currently have a guaranteed minimum standard but patients do not.
The welfare standard provided for animals reared for food is undoubtedly important, especially for animals reared for food bought by the taxpayer and served in public institutions such as hospitals. The animal welfare quality of food bought by hospitals in England varies widely, yet patients throughout the country deserve to eat food produced to the same high standards. We need a consistent approach to tackle the situation.
Animal welfare standards for hospital meat, dairy and eggs are subject to a postcode lottery. The programme for Government stated that the coalition Government would promote high standards of farm animal welfare, and it is important that public bodies set an appropriate example by ensuring that their purchasing policies are in line with that objective. Unfortunately, research published by the Campaign for Better Hospital Food and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reveals big regional differences in animal welfare standards for hospital food in England.
The research discovered a number of shocking findings: 71% of eggs bought by hospitals in England are laid by caged hens, and only 39% of eggs bought by hospitals in the south of England are cage-free. Only one in four eggs in the north of England, and only one in every six in the midlands and east of England, are cage-free. We can see how much it varies in the postcode lottery. The report also revealed that 86% of chicken and 80% of pork bought by hospitals is not certified to meet RSPCA welfare standards. The figures paint a sad and regrettable picture of the welfare standards for animals reared to provide food for our hospitals. Chicken, pork and eggs that have not been produced to RSPCA welfare standards are likely to come from animals that have not had a good quality of life. Government attempts to set animal welfare standards using voluntary measures have failed, which is why I am calling for a statutory solution.
Concerns about the quality of hospital food, including its animal welfare standard, are not new. A report by Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming, estimates that in the last 20 years, the Government have spent more than £54 million of taxpayers’ money on issuing guidance to hospitals encouraging them to improve the quality of the food that they serve, including the animal welfare standard of its production, yet the research by the RSPCA and the Campaign for Better Hospital Food shows that the guidance has had a disappointingly weak effect.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the issue to the House. Although it is important to improve animal welfare standards not only in England and Wales but in Northern Ireland and Scotland, he will be aware of the oft-stated comments about hospital food by patients and people who visit hospitals. Does he feel that improving animal welfare standards will also improve the quality of hospital food? That must be a good step.
Neil Parish
The reason why I talk about England is that the food served in hospitals is a devolved matter. However, it is still important for Northern Ireland. I am keen to get good animal welfare standards, and I believe that that will help with the quality of meat and eggs served to patients. The two are linked. I believe that most production in the UK and Northern Ireland meets high standards, and I want to ensure as far as is practical that that is the sort of food served in hospitals not only in Northern Ireland but across England as well.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, and I agree with the thrust of his argument. Does he agree that there are lessons to be learned from good practice in the NHS? My mum recently had quite a long stay in West Berkshire community hospital, and no praise is high enough for both the standard of care and the standard of food there. Knowing that this debate would be taking place, I asked the hospital about its sourcing, and it said:
“The food supplied to our restaurant is mainly from national suppliers that have been through a rigorous supplier accreditation process, using British-produced meat. Our Chef Manager on site, however, is very skilled in ensuring only the best but most cost-effective ingredients are used in his menus and, where possible, uses free-range meat in the restaurant.”
Does that not show that high standards of supply, value for money and good hospital food can go hand in hand?
Neil Parish
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In a minute, I will comment on various hospitals. He shows that hospitals can deliver high welfare standards, source a lot of their meat and egg products nationally and serve up good-quality meals, and that it can be done on a reasonable budget. The other argument is that the hospitals will turn around and say, “We only have a limited budget, and we have got to make it go a long way.” However, some hospitals manage to get a good deal and good welfare standards, and then produce good food.
I emphasise that I am not here to knock hospitals and the NHS. I only want to improve the welfare standards for the meat and eggs served in our hospitals. Our health service does a very good job, but sometimes—dare I say it—patients might like slightly tastier meals when in hospital. It would certainly improve our view of life, even if it does not cure us instantly. It can have a positive effect.
During the same period, in stark contrast, setting mandatory standards for food served in other public institutions has proved highly successful. For example, the introduction of mandatory school food standards by the Government in 2005 led to a dramatic improvement in the quality of school meals, ensuring that children who opt for them get healthy, tasty and varied options. The introduction of mandatory nutritional standards for food served in Scottish hospitals in 2008 and Welsh hospitals in 2011 resulted in a significant improvement in the healthiness of patient meals, and it has been at the forefront of the Scottish and Welsh Governments’ efforts to tackle the effects of poor diets on health, particularly in relation to heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes.
Although the introduction of mandatory food standards worked in those settings, the use of voluntary guidance for hospital food has not succeeded to the same degree. Hospitals in England spend a third of their food budget and £167 million of taxpayers’ money every year on meat, dairy products and eggs. Approximately £1 in every £4 spent on hospital food in England is spent on meat, and approximately £1 in every £10 is spent on dairy. That represents a vast amount of public expenditure, which the Government can use to ensure that taxpayers’ money is invested in rewarding farmers who have adopted ethical farming practices rather than those rearing animals in unacceptable conditions.
It also helps to ensure that most of the meat, eggs and dairy produce that feeds patients in hospitals is sourced from Britain, and locally, I hope. Some hospitals are proving that it can be done on budget. A handful of NHS hospitals in England already only serve food that meets the animal welfare standards I am advocating, proving that doing so is both practical and affordable. For example, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, and Braintree community hospital and St Margaret’s hospital in Essex, have all been—
Bill Wiggin
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I hope that my intervention gives him an opportunity to find his place in his speech.
My hon. Friend will have read the excellent speech about care made by the Secretary of State for Health. Does he not agree that this is the perfect opportunity to increase the quality of food for patients while delivering top-quality care for them? It is a win-win situation for the Government, if they follow my hon. Friend’s argument.
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which gave me the chance to find my place in my speech. I agree with him. Before he arrived in the Chamber, we were making the point that food produced under high welfare standards has the benefit, in many cases, of being that bit tastier for patients. We are also asking for a slightly more varied menu—dare I say it—in some hospitals, because that will be the key.
I re-emphasise that I am not criticising hospitals and the NHS in any way. I am asking them to use the good practice that many hospitals are providing throughout the country. We need many more hospitals to do that.
All eggs served by the hospitals I mentioned before my hon. Friend’s intervention are cage-free, and those hospitals will be working to improve the animal welfare of their food, including serving chicken and pork that is either organic or meets RSPCA welfare standards. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust spends less on its higher welfare food than other hospitals spend on food reared to low or no standards of animal welfare.
Hospitals that have been given a Good Egg and a Good Chicken award by Compassion in World Farming for buying RSPCA welfare chicken, pork and cage-free eggs include the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust in London, York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, North Bristol NHS Trust and Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust. I should probably have included West Berkshire community hospital, and I shall ensure that I do so next time. Although those hospitals show what can be achieved on an NHS budget, the standards they have achieved have not been replicated throughout the country, despite one in every 10 patient meals being thrown in the bin. Mandatory standards are needed.
Hospital food should reflect the ethical concerns of the British taxpayer. The introduction of mandatory RSPCA welfare standards for hospital chicken, pork and cage-free eggs is an affordable way to ensure that chickens, pigs and hens that have been reared for patients’ meals are given a good quality of life. It would also ensure that hospital food reflects the ethical concerns of British shoppers who, in a report by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last year, specified that the welfare of chicken, pigs and hens was an increasingly important influence on their purchasing habits. The report found that 75% of UK households said that the animal welfare standards of egg and chicken meat production is an “important issue”, 65% of households “actively seek” higher welfare eggs, and 50% seek higher welfare chicken when shopping. The increase in sales of RSPCA Freedom Food pork by a staggering 116% in 2010-11 also shows that a growing number of consumers consider pig welfare to be an important issue.
RSPCA welfare standards ensure that animals reared for food have been cared for and live a good quality life. It sends the right signal to the farming community, which is keen to have high animal welfare standards and wants to encourage people to pay that little bit extra for production, because there are extra costs for extra welfare. Again, this needs to be brought to people’s attention.
RSPCA accreditation ensures that food has been produced from animals that are reared to welfare standards exceeding legal minimum requirements and guarantees that they are cared for and enjoy a good quality of life. Farm animals reared to RSPCA welfare standards are provided with space to move around, comfortable places to rest, an interesting enriched environment that allows them to express natural behaviours, good health care and ready access to appropriate feed and water. The standards cover large and small farms and animals that are reared outside and indoors. The standards exclude some of the worst farming practices that are still allowed even here under UK law, including the use of so-called enriched poultry cages for egg-laying hens—these are quite controversial—which provide each hen with less usable space than an A4 sheet of paper. The standards also prevent producers from rearing chickens that are genetically selected to grow quicker, and forced to live in crowded and dark conditions.
To protect pigs, the standards prohibit farmers from keeping them on slatted or concrete floors and putting pregnant pigs in restrictive farrowing crates both before and after they give birth. Sometimes there can be an argument for putting a pig in a crate during birth, just to save the piglets, but certainly not afterwards.
As hon. Members may have seen in the supermarket, all meat, dairy products and eggs produced to RSPCA welfare standards are approved by the RSPCA’s Freedom Food assurance scheme, as shown by the logo on the packaging. Hospital food that meets RSPCA welfare standards is good value and affordable for caterers. Although RSPCA Freedom Food-certified chicken, pig meat and cage-free eggs may cost more than alternatives produced from animals reared to no welfare standards, they remain affordable for hospitals. In fact, figures from the retail sector show that RSPCA Freedom Food chicken, pork and cage-free eggs can sometimes be cheaper. For example, RSPCA Freedom Food barn eggs from Sainsbury’s cost the same as cage eggs from Tesco and Asda. I am not promoting different supermarkets. Sainsbury’s RSPCA Freedom Food chicken thighs and drumsticks are 22% cheaper than Sainsbury’s chicken and thighs that meet farm-assured standards.
The overall picture shows that hospitals can expect to pay more for food that meets RSPCA Freedom Food standards, but not by as much as we might think. Paying more money for a higher standard of welfare is a price worth paying.
To recap, substantial benefits would be achieved by introducing mandatory RSCPA welfare standards for hospital chicken, pork and eggs. Those standards would end the postcode lottery in the animal welfare standard of hospital meat, dairy and eggs, in which some hospitals serve much higher quality products than others, and would ensure that patients can be confident that good animal welfare production processes are used in all hospitals, in whatever part of the country. Taxpayers’ money would be invested in rewarding British farmers who are producing great food to high standards of animal welfare, and there would be a guarantee that hospital food meets the standards that many Britain consumers actively seek when shopping for themselves. Hospital chicken, pork and eggs would be served with clear information about the animals used to produce the food and where it is reared.
We can work together now, providing good food for patients in hospitals and ensuring that it is produced to high welfare standards. I am keen that farmers who produce high-quality food to high welfare standards have a market for their food, so that we encourage the right kind of production. There is a win-win situation for the Government in ensuring that they target taxpayers’ money on buying higher welfare standard food, making sure that patients in hospitals have good quality food to eat, and ensuring that farm production in this country carries on to meet the high welfare standards that the public at large expect of farmers. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for securing the debate and for his ongoing keen interest in ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare in farming and food production. We know how important that is because we both represent rural parts of the country, although I have a slightly more mixed constituency than he does, with a strong urban component. It is always in consumers’ interests for the quality of production to be high, and we do what we can to protect and support our food producers and farmers. We know that to be true, and it is something the Government take seriously.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, earlier this week, I met and discussed this matter with James Martin, a fairly well known—I recognised him—television chef. I am encouraged by the fantastic work that he is doing to raise the quality of food in hospitals throughout the United Kingdom, but particularly in parts of the north of our country. As a doctor as well as a Minister, I know how important it is that we always provide patients with high-quality nutritious food; it is especially important when looking after older patients, who need to receive high-quality nutrition as part of their recovery. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been so keen, early in his tenure, to support both high quality and dignity in care for older people, and to make sure that as a Government we actively promote greater consistency among hospitals in the provision of high-quality nutritious food and good buying standards.
It is worth outlining what the improving hospital food project is about. Good food is an essential part of hospital care, improving both patients’ health and their overall experience of their stay. Clinicians have a duty to ensure that patients get the right treatment for their condition, but it is also important that patients receive the right supportive care to enable a good recovery, and nutritious food is essential. Catering to everyone’s taste can be a challenge, and there are many ways to produce good food in hospital. It is right that local hospitals have the flexibility to decide which method is best for them in the context of the needs and preferences of their local population. People in Bradford or Liverpool will obviously have different preferences from people in more rural areas—demographic mixes and tastes differ. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees.
Our improving hospital food project highlights eight fundamental principles that patients should expect hospital food to meet. One is that Government buying standards for food and catering services should be adopted where practical and supported by procurement practices. The standards cover nutrition, sustainability and animal welfare—the issue my hon. Friend rightly raised in today’s debate. They apply to all food procured by Departments and their agencies and came into force for all new catering contracts from September 2011. They are not mandatory for the NHS, as he said, but via the improving hospital food project, we are strongly encouraging hospitals to adopt them.
Neil Parish
I can understand that the Government are slightly reticent to bring in mandatory controls, but are they going to monitor the provision of good food in hospitals? Will they keep an active eye on whether the situation is improving with contracts and whether the higher welfare standards for meat and eggs are being used? They need to monitor the situation, not just bring in a system.
Dr Poulter
Indeed. We are looking into that at the moment, with a committee and working party looking at how to roll out good practice.
If we have a mandatory system, we may stifle the potential of what we are seeing locally under the current system. My hon. Friend has highlighted many examples of good practice, and I could add to them: in Sussex, there is a good programme, from plough to plate, which is managed by the head of catering there, William McCartney; and there are other good examples in Nottingham and Scarborough. Local innovation is driving up standards, and that happens in different ways in different parts of the NHS. One of the fundamental principles in which we believe, and it has always been thus, is that hospitals are able to determine how they respond to local conditions. Only this Government have taken seriously the need to support and encourage local innovation better. Through the approach that we have adopted and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s interest in promoting good food in hospitals, we are now seeing many examples of local innovation driving up standards in local hospitals, and through such innovation we can identify and spread across the NHS better and good practice. The problem with a rigid framework or set of criteria is that it might stifle local innovation that can improve standards, as we have seen elsewhere in the NHS.
Our approach is for central Government to take an active interest in good hospital food for the benefit of patients, working through commissioning for quality and innovation payments. To promote good practice, the project is developing an exemplar pay framework within the CQUIN scheme, which enables health care commissioners to reward excellence by linking a proportion of providers’ income to the achievement of local quality improvement gains. We are developing two new CQUIN exemplars related directly to hospital food, one linked to the adoption of Government buying standards for food and one to excellence in food service. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by the fact that animal welfare is part of those standards. We are looking at linking CQUIN payments in the NHS to good, ethical Government procurement. We recognise and value the local innovation of various hospital food schemes, which have benefited patients from Scarborough to Sussex. That is better than a rigid framework and enables the NHS to learn from examples of good practice.
Mr Andrew Smith
The Minister referred to the more general application of Government buying standards. What is his response to the argument from the National Farmers Union that the standards would operate better if the red tractor standard of production was generally adopted as part of them?
Dr Poulter
Many of us are great fans of the NFU work to support the red tractor standard. Many great benefits can be obtained from British farmers, who often operate to higher standards of animal welfare and traceability. That is something that we are proud of, and there are great benefits for consumers in supporting such farmers. The Government therefore have an ethical framework for how food should be procured.
We are looking, through the CQUIN payments, at how to support and reward good practice in hospitals, taking into account the Government framework for welfare. When the NFU and other organisations highlight good local practice and support British farmers to lead the way in animal welfare through the red tractor standard, we want to ensure that we do not set up rigid frameworks that might prevent local hospitals from supporting such good ethical standards. Through local flexibilities that hospitals currently have, we are enabling the bar to be raised for animal welfare and the quality of hospital food.
Time forbids my going into greater detail, but we are encouraging friends-and-family testing in the NHS, putting patients and their relatives in charge of inspecting the quality of care and health care. That can be no more important than for hospital food. Recently, I visited Darlington hospital, which had had a patient-led inspection of hospital care, a key part of which was to look at hospital food, to ensure that every patient was served with nutritious food, cooked locally and on site.
A number of the issues raised in the debate cut across the responsibilities of Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, so I will write to them and highlight the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton today. In my Department, however, we encourage hospitals to use and maintain ethical standards in the buying of their food, but we also enjoy and support local flexibilities that benefit patients and raise standards throughout the NHS.
Food Poverty
(12 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure, Sir Alan, to serve under your chairmanship for the second time. I thank the Speaker’s office for the opportunity to raise this serious issue. It is less than two weeks until Christmas, which should be a time for people and their families to celebrate and relax. I want to speak on behalf of the thousands of households throughout the United Kingdom that will be worrying about whether they can feed themselves and their children.
We have seen the longest double-dip recession since records began in 1955, and we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis. We have seen an explosion in food poverty as households struggle with higher living costs, frozen wages, reduced working hours, and changes in welfare. The rising food poverty scandal is a national disgrace. I shall refer to two headline figures that I will talk about in more detail in a moment. Last year, the food redistributed by FareShare contributed to more than 8.6 million meals, and fed 36,500 people every day. The Trussell Trust, which operates a network of food banks throughout the country—I will speak about it in more detail in a moment—estimates that it will have fed 230,000 people in 2012-13. That is nearly double the number of people it fed in 2011-12, and the trust warns that Christmas is looking even bleaker for families on the breadline.
I want to speak about the extent of the problem, having given two headline statistics. What is the problem? FareShare states:
“Food poverty is suffered by people with low or no income with poor access to affordable nutritious food and who lack the knowledge, skills or equipment to ensure food is safe and prepared properly.”
We know from the latest Joseph Rowntree Foundation figures that 13.2 million people in the country live in poverty. A recent shocking report by Save the Children, which was released in September, just a few months ago, found that well over half of parents in poverty—61%—say that they have cut back on food. More than a quarter—26%—say that they have skipped meals in the past year.
Another serious issue that I will come to in more detail is that four in five parents in poverty say that they had to borrow money to pay for essentials, including food and clothes, in the past year.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She referred to the Save the Children report, which states that one parent said:
“A year or so ago, we literally relied on any money we raised at car boot sales to pay for food for the week. Some weeks weren’t too bad, others were dire. The British weather decided how we lived that week (when it rained, the turnout at car boot sales fell).”
Is it not a tragedy in 21st century Britain that people must go to car boot sales to raise money for food to feed their family?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which I am sure is the first of many that will share personal stories about people’s experiences. I called for the debate because it is a national scandal that in the 21st century, in one of the world’s most industrialised nations, there is an explosion in food poverty and the creation of food banks. That is why I and many other hon. Members have raised the matter in Parliament, and will continue to do so.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. It was a great pleasure to join her on a visit to a food bank that serves both our communities. Aintree fire station in my constituency has asked local people for donations because, despite there being several food banks covering our area and the amount of food coming in, it is going out just as quickly. Does she think that it is an indictment of the Government’s policies that people must rely on handouts for healthy living?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We went to that food bank together, and we have been to many others. I will speak in more detail about my concerns for the future, but I have a snapshot of where we are at the moment. We have just had the autumn statement, and reports show that the poorest 10% in our communities will be hit even harder. I worry about the future, and that the figures will become even worse.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and on the excellent work she has done over several months. She is right to look to worsening times. Last week, I was told about a constituent who currently has £12 a week left with which to buy food after paying his bills. That is less than £2 a day, which is about to be wiped out by the bedroom tax, and means that he will lose £12 a week in housing benefit.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. There is so much I could have included in my speech that I did not even reflect on the bedroom tax. It is a good point. I know many constituents who are affected. The problem on Merseyside, which is replicated throughout the country, is that the Government want people to move into smaller properties, and if those properties do not exist, our constituents will be hammered every week and will struggle to put food on the table.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, and on her work. On welfare reform, I draw her attention to the impending localisation of the social fund, and the impact on the very people we are talking about who, in times of crisis, have nowhere else to turn. Many of the changes facing us with the localisation of the social fund will make it more difficult for those people because the money is not ring-fenced, and a postcode lottery will develop throughout the country with different standards and approaches.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for raising another point that I could have included, but did not have space. The issue will disproportionately affect the councils that have the least to spend. My council in Liverpool has been hit hardest of any council in the country. We have a 52% cut in controllable spend by 2015. When there is no ring fence, the council will have less money coming in and will have to make difficult decisions, essentially doing the Government’s dirty work. The social fund will fall by the wayside, particularly in areas where it is most needed.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way to many hon. Members who are rightly identifying the causes of the problem, and it is right that she will address some of those causes. I hope that she will also talk about some of the great work by local community and voluntary organisations, such as the brilliant food bank in Corby. I was pleased to welcome her when she visited it recently. Co-operatives do great work, and have a fine tradition of trying to reduce travel miles, improve sustainability, and help to drive down food costs. For example, 30% of their healthy products are on promotion at the moment, which is brilliant. We should welcome such initiatives, and perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for raising the vital work done by many organisations in our communities. However, I do not think we should have food banks. The country has 270 under the Trussell Trust umbrella, and we know that there are many more independent initiatives, such as that at the fire station in Aintree, because food banks cannot deal with the pressure they are facing. What has happened in 2012 that we need them? I hope that the Minister will address that.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Hackney has a food bank under the aegis of the Trussell Trust, as have many constituencies, and Magic Breakfast works in many of our schools. A primary and a secondary school have spoken to me recently about the problem of young people being able to afford lunch. At the secondary school, the head dips into her own pocket to help fund lunches in some cases, and in the primary school, when parents come in to say, “We cannot afford £9 a week per child for the school meals,” which are nutritiously cooked, good-quality food, often grown on site in that particular school, the head tries to find a way of funding at least one or two of the children, so that they do not lose out on those hot meals. Along with that cost, the bedroom tax is a big issue that will hit hundreds of families in my constituency. They are not all aware of that, so the case will get much harder.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that example of the vital work done by Magic Breakfast. The fact that schoolchildren in our country are coming to school having not eaten any food, and are therefore less able to concentrate, is a very worrying and difficult state of affairs. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
Before the fantastic contributions of my hon. Friends, I was talking about the extent of the problem. It is worth expanding on that, because it is important that the Minister hears about many of the different studies that have been made. A recent report by Netmums found that one in five mums is regularly skipping meals to feed her children. Tesco did research recently, finding that 10% of people interviewed have suffered from some form of food poverty in the last 12 months. Tesco had some interesting and startling figures:
“Almost one in ten people in the UK have skipped meals, gone without food to feed their family or relied on family or friends for food in the last year.”
Nearly half of those who said they had skipped meals—48%—said they had done so
“for the first time this year.”
I would like the Minister to reflect on that in his response. More than 51% of people who had skipped meals said that they
“were forced to go without food for two days or more.”
I remind Members that we are in 21st-century Britain.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alan, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on a crucial subject. She was speaking about the impact of missing meals, but I am sure that she is also aware of the effect of families downgrading what they are eating. She may be familiar with the statistic that low-income families are eating 30% less fresh fruit and veg than they were in 2006. In his comments, I am sure that the Minister will want to address the hidden health costs to the whole population and to individual families.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention about the quality of food that people are able to purchase. One reason for that is food inflation, which I will talk about in a moment. We need to acknowledge that it is a contributing factor. It is restrictive, particularly when the cost of fruit and veg has gone up significantly, and it means that people have less access to healthier food.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that although it is wonderful that we are able to stand up and give examples of what is happening in individual constituencies, it is sad that organisations have to undertake those roles. In my constituency, the Moses Project has two food banks, one of which targets hungry, homeless young men who have no hope for the future at all. Another organisation, A Way Out, is working to open several more food banks in the constituency. Charities and Churches seem to understand the problem. Can my hon. Friend explain why the Government do not seem to?
Luciana Berger
I hope that we will hear from the Minister in his response that he understands the extent of the problem. I will refer later to a debate that we held in January, when it is fair to say that the responses were pretty weak. I was able to ask the Chancellor about it yesterday and his response, which I will come to in a moment, was not very strong either. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the responsibility of the Government to deal with this growing and exploding problem.
I want to extract one more point from the work done by Tesco. It looked at why people said they were skipping meals. The main reasons given—they are replicated by other organisations—were the rising cost of living or low income; 56% of people said that. Twenty per cent of people said it was because of an “unexpected bill or expense.” People just do not have the cushion if something comes up, perhaps damage to their property or if a landlord does not make some urgently needed repair; they have to fill in and they do not have the funds to pay for food. I am sure Members have anecdotal evidence from their visits to food banks, when they encounter people who have to access emergency food aid.
Other reasons were “paying off debts.” That was 15% of people. One thing that struck me was that 12% of people were skipping meals because of
“a reduction in working hours.”
What conversations has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the changing profile of work in this country? We know that people are increasingly moving to part-time work or they are on zero-hour contracts. From week to week, they cannot budget or plan. People are really struggling. From speaking to a trade union representative, I know that in one Tesco store alone, there have been 30 requests for an increase in hours, specifically as a result of the change in working tax credits. Those extra hours do not exist, so people are really struggling to get by.
Stephen Doughty
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Trussell Trust said that less than 5% of its clients are homeless—on the absolute breadline; in fact the vast majority are working families who are struggling to make ends meet.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, as I was about to make the same point. It is not the profile of people that we would expect; as he said, only 5% of the people accessing emergency food aid are homeless. It is the 95% that people just do not know about, and the Government need seriously to address that problem, as well as those who are homeless.
The problem has grown and exploded; I use the word “exploded” because the Trussell Trust’s figures show that the problem has increased tenfold since 2008-09. As I mentioned, close to a quarter of a million people are expected to have accessed food aid through a Trussell Trust food bank by the end of this financial year. FareShare, which is an organisation that I will explain more about in a moment, distributes food to what they call community food members, which are not only food banks, but hostels, old people’s homes, and breakfast clubs. It reports an average increase of 59% in demand for its services this year alone. At some of its depots, the increase in demand was as much as 90% or 100%, which builds on a 40% increase in the previous year. The Salvation Army has doubled the number of food parcels that it is giving out from food centres over the last two years, and Magic Breakfast, which I will talk about in more detail, has delivered more than 1 million free breakfasts. It reports a sharp rise in pupil hunger, and that working families are running out of food.
A number of Opposition Members have come to contribute to the debate, and I acknowledge that there are two Government Members. The issue does not just affect “poor areas.” It is a national scandal, as we have seen from the number of food banks across the country. It is a national problem. An article in The Guardian said:
“Foodbanks are thriving not just in Britain’s most deprived areas but in some of its wealthiest areas, like Poole in Dorset. The seaside town boasts some of Britain’s most expensive property but in April its local foodbank supplied food parcels to nearly 300 people—more than twice as many as in April 2010.”
We know that there are many food banks in counties such as Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire, where people would never normally expect food banks. I hope we shall hear contributions from Members on both sides.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The food banks around the country were initially set up in 2002, because the issue arose at that time. According to stats provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, food prices have risen in real terms by 12% over the last five years. This is not simply about now; it was going on under the previous Government as well.
Luciana Berger
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I use the word “explosion” again to reinforce the point. If we look at the figures, which I have in front of me too, there is an explosion in the numbers that have been created. I am not proud of the fact that 26,000 people accessed emergency food aid under a Labour Government—don’t get me wrong—but if we look at the figures now, it is 10 times as many in two and a half years. The Government need to take some responsibility for that and acknowledge that this is an explosion of the problem, and it is only set to get worse.
Stephen Doughty
I endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. There has certainly been an explosion in the use of the provision in my constituency. We would not expect there to be a 100% increase in the use of food banks month on month in Cardiff, the capital city of Wales.
In Penarth, the more affluent part of my constituency, I visited a food bank collection point in the local Tesco and asked whether the parcels were going to other, more deprived areas of Cardiff; in fact they were for the Penarth area. That is deeply shocking. I am concerned that the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) appears to be muddying the picture somewhat.
Luciana Berger
I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch.
Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. One of my largest local landlords has 250 families who will be hit by the bedroom tax. People are doing their best to help such people to get jobs and so on, but there will be a number of families with a shortfall. That is just one landlord in one constituency. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on any analysis that she has done, or thinks should be done, to assess the impact of that Government policy, which will have a direct effect on people’s ability to pay for food?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I share her concerns—concerns that have been raised since the start of the debate—about the bedroom tax. I reiterate that the Government want people to move into smaller properties, but in many places across the country such properties do not exist and people will be penalised as a result.
I am very concerned about the cumulative impact of people having to pay the bedroom tax and everything else. I will talk in more detail about the impact of the autumn statement—the cumulative impact of everything. Many hon. Members have called on the Government to make a proper assessment of the impacts that their changes to taxes and benefits will have on the poorest in our society and on child poverty. It is very disappointing that the Government have refused to do that.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the debate and on the fantastic YouTube video that she made—it is a must-watch, particularly for those on the Government Benches.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), in my constituency there was a clothing bank that did some food provision. The circumstances of people using that provision before 2010 were incredibly different from those in which people are now using it. Yes, food banks, clothing banks and other provisions were in place before 2010, but through the recession, people did not need to access it. It is as a direct result of this Government’s policies on things such as cuts to local authorities that 260,000-plus people need these food banks.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for making that intervention. I concur with all the points that he made.
I have talked in depth about the scale of the problem; now it is important to examine the causes. Many hon. Members have intervened to allude to the relevant points. I will reflect on a number of the causes. As I mentioned, rising food prices are a contributory factor. In the past five years, food prices have gone up by 12% in real terms, with the cost of essentials such as fruit, milk, cheese and eggs rising by as much as 30%. Last year, food inflation in the UK was the highest in the EU outside Hungary, putting an average of £233 a year on the average household food bill.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Does she agree that food price fluctuation is almost as difficult and dangerous to deal with as a steady rise in food prices? We have been subject to great fluctuations in food prices—certainly over the past five years, if not longer.
Luciana Berger
I acknowledge that food prices are a problem. I have given the figures: they have gone up by 12% in real terms. That obviously has an impact on household budgets and on the choices that people can make about the food that they eat.
Meg Hillier
The issue of food prices is important. Sometimes in government, especially from this privileged seat in Westminster, it is possible to forget what the real choices are for families on the ground. In my constituency, four pints of milk cost £1.35 in the Co-op, because it gives farmers a fair deal, £1.08 in Tesco and £1 in Iceland. There are people who will step across the road to save 8p on four pints of milk, because that is the margin that they are working on.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I can also share a story with the House; this may be something that other hon. Members have experienced. A number of us travel back to our constituencies on a Thursday, and I often do my shopping in my local Asda on a Thursday night. I am sometimes there at 10 or 11 o’clock at night if I have been to an evening engagement and I see people waiting for the knock-down-price milk. They wait there for the price of the milk to go down to 11p. People know what times to come in for the different items, and I have seen people fighting over items in the knock-down-price section. That breaks my heart, and there are other such examples. More Ministers need to see what that is like and why people have to make those choices.
Kate Green
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but I have one final point. The issue is not just the financial hardship, but the humiliation—the degradation. People feel demeaned by the fact that they are forced either to accept handouts or to buy low-priced, cut-price, poorer-quality food. They do not have the dignity of participating in the way the rest of us can.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The knock-down-price items are not necessarily things that I would like to eat, but for some people that is the only choice that they have.
When a food bank voucher is issued, people have to tick a box to explain why they are going to that food bank. I will talk more in a moment about the vouchers, but there were two main reasons why people were referred to food banks in 2011-12. The biggest reason was benefit delay: 30% of people nationally gave that reason when the Trussell Trust aggregated the reasons why people were going to food banks. It is higher in my own constituency; I will come to those figures in a moment. Low income was the second main reason, at 20%.
I will say a little about DWP figures. I know that this matter is not directly under the Minister’s control, but it is particularly relevant to this debate. The DWP has something called the AACT—average actual clearance time—target. It says that it aims to ensure that people get income support within nine days, jobseeker’s allowance within 11 days and employment and support allowance within 14 days.
If someone has no money and suddenly finds themselves in a desperate situation, those waiting times are difficult enough, but we know that 45% of professionals referring families and adults for food packages cited troubles and delays with benefits, that that figure was up from about 40% the year before and that it had more than doubled since the recession began.
The DWP has issued a response to the figures; this was in The Guardian on 16 October 2012. It stated:
“In response to the figures, a DWP spokesperson cited the fact that 80% of benefit claims were turned around in 16 days,”
so it is not even meeting its targets.
Luciana Berger
Could I finish? Forgive me.
I asked the question: what about the 20% of people who do not get their benefits within the 16 days? Those are the very people having to access emergency food aid. I know from speaking to many of the volunteers who run the food banks, not just in my own constituency but in other places, that their anecdotal evidence is that when the food banks opened a few years ago, people had to wait two weeks for their benefits, but now it is up to six to eight weeks. I reiterate the point that if someone has no money for six to eight weeks, they have no money. How on earth are they expected to live?
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me again—and feel chastised as well. To be serious, that tremendous delay in people receiving their money is a tragedy, and of course it drives people into the arms of the loan sharks, both legal and illegal, which sucks even more money out of their purses and wallets when they want to be feeding their children. Does my hon. Friend agree that the work done by our hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is essential as we go forward to protect people who are hungry?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for making that intervention. I will come to the point about the amounts that people have to spend on emergency finance. I mentioned before that four out of five people who were struggling to eat also took out a short-term loan. That is adding to their costs, which means that they cannot spend money on food.
Robert Flello
My hon. Friend is being most generous with her time. I am thoroughly enjoying her speech. Before she moves on from the delays in getting benefits, I want to mention the growing problem of people who have been on employment support allowance and are told, “Sorry, you no longer qualify.” Their higher level of benefit suddenly drops and they can be waiting not months, but a year or more for the decision to be reversed, which most of the time it is.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. A number of hon. Members here will have had constituents come to see them in clear need of employment support allowance. They have to go through the whole tribunal process to get the result they were expecting in the first place. While all that is happening, months go by and they have literally nothing. If they have no support structures, family or friends, they will struggle to eat.
I reinforce the point about delays in benefit payments because people say that it is the main reason why they struggle to eat, but the issue is also about income. The incomes of low and middle-income families declined by 4.2% between 2010 and 2011 and, according to the autumn statement, people are expected to face a 1.2% reduction in their post-tax income in 2015-16. There is a cumulative effect and a negative impact on people’s income, the choices they can make and the food they can buy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) mentioned payday loans and their cost. The number of payday loans has grown by 300% in the past two years, according to figures from the debt counselling charity, StepChange Debt Charity. About 5 million people now have to rely on legal loan sharks to make ends meet. I find that staggering. Legal loan sharks make huge profits off the back of lending to people at excessive interest rates of up to 16,000%. We have all heard of Wonga. This year, it made £45 million in pure profit and its main director took home a salary of £1.6 million.
I shall give just one story: a constituent got themselves into trouble trying to make ends meet and their repayments are now more than their take-home salary. That is a tragic state of affairs. Research last month from R3, the insolvency organisation, found that 8% of consumers said that they expected to take on a short-term loan to meet their costs over the coming weeks, which is particularly significant in the run-up to Christmas. Its research also shows that over the past six months, one in 10 had prioritised paying back a payday loan over paying for food.
I spoke a little about the extent of the problem and why people are affected, and other Members have mentioned it too. I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth made about the kinds of people who have to access food banks; it is not only the homeless or the out-of-work, as we might expect. I am sure we all have stories about when we went to food banks and heard first hand from those who have to access emergency food aid—there are as many in work as out of work. For many, food poverty is the product of a toxic combination of low wages, austerity economics, spiralling food prices, lengthy delays to benefit payments and cuts to working tax credit.
Government figures show that lower-income households are being hit hardest by price rises. They now spend about 15.8% of their income on food, which is nearly 3% more than the average household. Jobseeker’s allowance for a single adult is currently no more than £71 a week, leaving little over £1.50 a day for food. What happens if there is an emergency and someone has to pay for something? It leaves them with little or nothing to pay for food.
The picture is not much better for those in work. Apply the same calculation to a full-time worker on the minimum wage, and, after tax, they are left with just £4.66 a day for food. It is very difficult to eat healthily and properly on such small amounts.
Hon. Members have mentioned Magic Breakfast. I want to labour this point because food poverty is hitting children at school—children are going to school without food in their stomachs. Magic Breakfast is the largest provider of free healthy breakfasts in England. Last year alone, it provided more than 1 million healthy breakfasts, in 205 schools, to children who would otherwise have started the school day hungry.
With The Guardian, Magic Breakfast surveyed 600 teachers in June on their experience of pupil hunger. The figures are so distressing: 83% of teachers said that they saw evidence of pupil hunger in their classes in the mornings and 55% of them said that they had seen an increase in hungry children in their classes. When asked why more children were arriving at school hungry, they said that they believed that the biggest factors were general poverty, pressure from the cost of living and a lack of cookery skills and nutritional knowledge.
I shall reflect a little on my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) made some points about the food bank we went to in north Liverpool. I shall look at the scale of the problem in my locality; other hon. Members will talk about areas and communities that they represent. North Liverpool food bank serves my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend. Until 11 December—not even the whole year—it had issued 1,644 vouchers and fed 3,470 people, 1,272 of whom were children. The most common reasons for going to the centre were delays in benefits, 32.1%, and the refusal of a crisis loan.
I have not talked about the refusal of crisis loans yet, and other hon. Members may have stories of their constituents trying to access a crisis loan because they found themselves in crisis. I have heard stories from constituents who have spent all day on the phone trying to get through to the crisis loan number—they can no longer apply at the job centre—but they could not get through, so they had no money and could not eat.
Central Liverpool food bank, in my constituency, issued 2,051 vouchers and fed 3,900 people, 1,307 of whom were children. Comparing November 2011 with November 2012, the bank has seen a 114% increase in the number of vouchers given out a month. It is striking.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This has proven to be an excellent debate so far. In Bristol, the police are giving out vouchers to people caught shoplifting. Some might criticise that as being soft on crime, but I think it is an excellent initiative. They realise that people are shoplifting because they simply cannot afford to feed their families any other way. It is terribly sad that we are in a country and a society where such things have to happen, but does my hon. Friend agree that the police should be commended for that scheme?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We all have stories about the increase in shoplifting for food. The police in Bristol are running that initiative and I wonder whether other hon. Friends have examples of the police doing that in other cities. I do not know whether they are doing it in Merseyside. I will ask my chief constable.
I reflected on food banks in my area; I have used a lot of statistics and I will talk in a moment about the stories. I am conscious of the time. My speech is taking quite a while. No one walks into a food bank with their head held high. If anyone has heard their stories, they will know that people go to food banks feeling ashamed. We must acknowledge and recognise that.
I have been to the Merseyside depot of FareShare, which I mentioned. FareShare is a fantastic organisation that collects food at the point of production if it is a bit damaged or there is surplus. It distributes it to a network of not only food banks but other organisations, such as Churches, community groups and homeless shelters. FareShare Merseyside alone is redistributing 18.5 tonnes of food every month. It has seen a 50% increase in demand for food since July. I have seen it for myself. I have seen the board; it has a very long list of groups waiting to sign up, but it does not have the food to provide them with.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because I know she is under time pressure. One initiative, piloted in Bristol, worked with organisations such as FareShare and FoodCycle, to develop a database of exactly where food waste was, so that it could be linked with the outlets and donated to people in need. It was initiated after a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs summit. The supermarkets agreed to take part, because they were worried about legislative action—my Food Waste Bill—compelling them to give such food to charity. Now that the threat of legislative action is receding, it seems that supermarkets are less willing to participate in the pilot. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a great shame and that we need to make sure that food that is going to waste is linked up with people in need?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was going to raise the point in my conclusion, but I will reflect on it now. A good trial is going on in her area, and we hope it will be replicated across the country when the results are complete. Yes, all supermarkets have a responsibility to do everything not only to minimise the food they waste but to ensure they waste none whatever so that people can benefit. That is a separate issue, which needs to be dealt with by itself, and it will not necessarily address all the issues of food poverty. However, I wholeheartedly support what my hon. Friend said, and I hope the Minister can respond.
I want to take a moment to share some stories about constituents who are in this predicament, because it is important that we personalise the issue, rather than just using figures. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for referring to my film about food poverty, which I made because I was so distraught after January’s debate; indeed, now is perhaps a good time to reflect on what happened during that debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has responsibility for the natural environment and fisheries, singled out myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)—I do not know whether my hon. Friend recalls this—saying
“it is ridiculous to say that the rise in the need for food banks is attributable to this Government”—[Official Report, 23 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 80.]
I contest that 100%, and that is what motivated me to make my film, to carry on campaigning and to have this debate, although I should add that several other Members also called for it.
I want to reflect on people’s stories about why they have to access emergency food aid. In my film, I spoke to Patricia, who had been employed her whole life after leaving school. In her last job, she had worked for 22 years as a bookkeeper. She has only ever contributed and only ever wanted to play her part and to work. Having been in her post for 22 years, however, she was made redundant because of the cuts to local authorities. Of the past 13 months, she has worked for just two, despite making literally hundreds of applications. She cannot afford the internet, but she is in the library every day trying to seek employment, and she goes for interviews and all the rest of it. I went to Patricia’s small flat, and I saw at first hand that it was cold, that the cupboards were bare and that there was nothing in the fridge. She had £3.60 in her wallet to last her for the week. It is people such as Patricia—the strivers, who want to make a contribution and who have worked all their lives— who have to hang their heads in shame and go to a food bank.
I met a man who had been in hospital having heart surgery when his benefits were stopped. When he came out, he found that his electricity pre-payment meter had run out; he had left a light on, but someone had burgled his home anyway. A district nurse issued him with a food voucher because he had no food in his stomach and had not eaten for two days. Although still recovering from heart surgery, he walked four miles in the freezing cold and rain to access emergency food aid.
In addition, I met a single father of three who was trying to do the best for his family. Someone had said, “Here’s a food voucher so you can feed your children.” He had gone without food for more than two days to feed his kids. That is the reality that too many of our constituents face. I hope the Minister will not give us a similar response to his colleague, who told us that it is “ridiculous” to say this problem is attributable to the Government. I do attribute the blame to this Government, and the fact is that all those charities have to step in and fill the gap.
I was looking through the press, and I want to mention some of the stories and headlines. In just the past three months, we have seen headlines such as “Desperate people facing 20-mile hike for food” in the Metro. The Sunday Express—these are papers we would not expect to talk about these stories—had the headline, “3m people starving in the UK: Parents having to choose between eating or heating.” In the Daily Mail, we saw the headline “Schools teach cookery on Fridays so hungry children from families too poor to eat have food for the weekend.” Another headline referred to the fact that 10% of families do not have enough food. Other headlines included, “Mum starves herself to feed kids—and re-wraps their toys as Christmas presents” and “Demand for food parcels explodes as welfare cuts and falling pay hit home.” The Yorkshire Post ran the headline, “Rising food prices raise fears of a ‘hidden hunger epidemic.’” The list goes on. It is a really sad indictment.
I have mentioned some of the organisations involved. FareShare does a fantastic job of providing food to 722 community food members. The Trussell Trust has 270 food banks, and there are other food banks that are not included in that figure. The trust provides three days’ worth of nutritionally balanced non-perishable foods, and 90% of the food given out by the food banks is donated by the public.
I reiterate that people cannot just turn up at a food bank and ask for food; they need a food voucher issued to them. I and a number of other MPs are in the difficult position of being able to issue food vouchers to our constituents if we feel that they are in need. It is a difficult and sensitive situation to broach; sometimes when I meet constituents I feel that I really have no choice but to softly ask whether they want food vouchers. I can tell that constituents are ashamed and embarrassed, but they take the voucher because it means they will get to eat properly.
Stephen Doughty
If I might reflect on what my hon. Friend has just said, food parcels are extremely basic: they include basic rice and basic pasta—there is nothing glamorous in them at all. Other charities are doing equally important work in offering hot, nutritionally balanced meals, with meat, veg and everything else, rather than just what we find in a food parcel. I note that the audience includes colleagues from the Salvation Army, which runs a fantastic community café in my constituency called Grub In A Tub. The café provides nutritionally balanced meals for £3, and people go there every day to get warm and to get a hot meal inside themselves. I commend the work that such organisations do on top of the work being done by the food banks.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for commending the work of the Salvation Army. I mentioned Magic Breakfast. He is right to suggest that the food from a food bank is non-perishable and not fresh; it is tinned fruit, vegetables, meat and fish, as well as pasta, cereal and UHT milk, so it is nothing glamorous. I also commend the work of FoodCycle, which provides fresh meals for people across the country. Its network of three cafés is growing, and it does a great job using food that would otherwise go to waste.
I know that supermarkets have to play their part, but I would like to take a moment to commend their recent work on making food collections, which several of us will have been involved in. At the start of October, Sainsbury’s, in partnership with FareShare, did a national collection, collecting 2 million meals from its customers. As customers came into its stores, they were given a list of things to collect, and they donated them afterwards. Six hundred volunteers helped in that exercise. Only last week, the Co-operative group teamed up with the ITV breakfast show “Daybreak” and the Salvation Army for the “You CAN Help” food campaign. I went to my local Co-op store and saw the cans being collected, and I made a contribution myself. The final figure for the collection is not known exactly, but it is expected that more than 110,000 cans will be redistributed across the country.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I commend the work supermarkets are doing in partnership with charities—I had hoped to make this point later—but they must make sure they are not part of the very problem she talks about by paying people poverty wages or giving them zero-hours contracts and only part-time work. Obviously, it is commendable that supermarkets are doing something to try to deal with the problem once it is created, but they must make sure they are not part of the problem in the first place.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree. Some supermarkets are a lot better than others in terms of the contracts they give out. Not every supermarket has taken part in food collections. It is important to add that Sainsbury’s and Tesco both made sure that they did not make any profit from the collections that they made. Of course supermarkets have a massive role to play in many ways, including ensuring that their staff are not living on poverty wages.
I was at the Tesco collection in my constituency last week, at the store that collected more than any other in the country. People were incredibly generous. We collected 15,000 meals at the store in Allerton road. Tesco collected 2 million meals and gave a 30% top-up. The public have shown tremendous generosity, but we should not have to have such collections.
I want quickly to reflect on the future. I have spoken about people in work who are in poverty and mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation figures of the other week. There are in this country more people in poverty who are in work than there are out of work. That is important, and the Government should reflect on it. We have had the autumn statement; we did not get an answer from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time, but we know from analysis done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that 60% of the people who are most affected are those in working households and that the poorest 10% of the population will have the biggest percentage drop in their incomes because of the autumn statement. Many organisations have raised serious concerns about how that will affect what happens. Barnardo’s talks about families that currently exist on only £12 per person and are worried about the future.
Yesterday, as reported in column 152 of Hansard, I asked the Chancellor whether he was ashamed that by the end of this year, on his watch, 250,000 people would obtain emergency food aid. I was disappointed that he did not want to reflect at all on the substance of my question and the serious issue that people face. He referred only to having to deal with the economic challenges. I urge the Minister to think long and hard, particularly now that we are in the run-up to Christmas, about what the Government can do to help not only the people in our society who are most in need but the people we least expect to find suddenly in desperate and difficult circumstances.
I do not know whether the Minister has visited a food bank. Perhaps he will tell us whether he has been able to see one at first hand and speak to people who must obtain emergency food aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made a good point about the role that supermarkets should play in redistribution and in preventing the waste of food. That important issue needs to be dealt with. However, I would like to know what the Minister is doing and what conversations he has with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, particularly about delay in benefit payments, which is the largest contributory factor in the need to get emergency food aid. What conversations has he had or what representations has he made to his colleagues in the Treasury, in the light of the autumn statement, about the fact that the poorest in society will be hit hardest? My concern is that the situation will only get worse if the Government do not do something serious about it soon.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
We have had a full debate so far, and the hon. Lady was generous in giving way more than 20 times. The subject is important, and five hon. Members have written to ask to take the floor. I must call those Members, but the two Front-Bench Members must also speak, so if there are any interventions, can they be brief, and will those called to speak try to leave a little time for their colleagues to make their points?
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for obtaining it. Everyone will be shocked at the explosion in the number of food banks that have opened. On behalf of my party as well as myself, I thank charities, Churches and faith organisations that run food banks and particularly volunteers and donors who enable food to be made available.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I hear what the hon. Gentlemen says about his party; but does he condemn the Conservative party for not having a single person on the Benches with him?
Roger Williams
All I can say is it was a bit of a surprise when I turned up to the debate and I was the only coalition Back-Bench Member who had come to make a speech; but let that be as it may.
We have heard about the Trussell Trust. Giving out food is not a simple thing; there are all the hygiene regulations that go along with it, and the trust does a lot of work to support the banks to ensure that their work is properly organised.
Poverty is distressing wherever we see it, and food poverty never goes alone. The question whether to eat or heat has been asked for many years, and Parliament has addressed fuel poverty since 2001, when I was first elected. Food poverty is not a new issue, either. In February 2009, I asked a parliamentary question about the proportion of income spent on food by the poorest 10%. The answer that came back on 5 February 2009, as published in column 1451W of Hansard, was that they spent 22% of their income on food. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree gave a figure of 15%, which may be the result of a different form of statistics; I am not trying to make a point of that. The point that I want to make is that the issue is a growing one, which has had to be addressed for many years.
From about 1995 to about 2005, we were in a halcyon period for food prices, which reduced in real terms, and the amount that families spent on food as a proportion of their income was reducing, but we have had a change since 2005 and food prices have gone up for many reasons. Other countries have become more economically capable and have achieved higher incomes. There has been greater demand for meat and dairy products, for instance, from countries that previously relied on grain and rice. That has had a huge effect on the price of food over the period in question. There has also been an increase in world population. According to the Foresight report, which is an excellent book about food and food prices, if we have a world population of 9 billion people by 2050, we can expect even more pressure on food prices.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree set out today’s problem comprehensively, and she is right that it has two aspects, the first of which is obviously lower incomes in a time of economic problems. People are on lower wages and salaries. Many people’s salaries have been pegged for three, four or more years, and there have been problems with benefits as well; but I believe that we could also deal with rising prices. My speech, which will last just a few minutes, is mainly intended to tell the Minister that this country must play its part in ensuring that global food production can feed the world at a price that people can afford.
The period 1995 to 2005 was typified by low food prices, on the back of a huge amount of agricultural research done from the 1960s to the 1980s that gave us the capability to produce food. As food prices fell during that time, Governments and commercial organisations did not invest as much as they could or should in agricultural research. We have lost that driver, which would have ensured a secure supply of food to keep prices reasonably low and certainly affordable for the poor around the world as well as in this country. The Government need to play their part to establish such research once again.
I want to mention that the fluctuation of food prices can be very damaging for not only consumers but producers. The Foresight report states:
“High levels of volatility in global food markets are an issue because of the adverse effects they have on consumers and producers, because of the disruption they cause to the global food system, and, when particularly severe, because of the general economic and political instability that can occur. These effects will be most severe for low-income countries and the poor”—
in more developed countries—
“and spikes in food price can be a major cause of increased hunger.”
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is making important points, which I welcome, about the wider challenges of food prices in the world. Does he have any thoughts about the impact of speculative commodity trading on food prices and biofuel targets driving up the price of certain foods both here and abroad?
Roger Williams
If I had more time, I could deal with those issues. I was going to speak briefly about speculation and food prices. Some people say that forward buying and hedging on foods may lead to more level prices, but others argue exactly the opposite. The Government need to find out the exact effect of speculation on food prices.
The Government should also consider, certainly in a global context, having strategic reserves of staple foods. For instance, the amount of wheat now in store has been greatly reduced from what it was 10 years ago. It is not surprising that wheat costs about £220 a tonne on the market today, whereas 10 years ago the cost was certainly less than £100. Huge spikes and fluctuations have caused real difficulty for people on low incomes.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree on her speech. We must see food banks as a temporary measure—I hope that it is only temporary—to address food poverty in this country. In the longer term, we must look to more strategic approaches in playing a part to ensure that global food production is sufficient not only for this country, but for the whole world.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Order. There are still four Members plus the two Front Benchers to speak. If colleagues helped one another, that would be very good.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I will be as quick as I can, Sir Alan. I want to add a few points to the comprehensive introduction given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger).
Food poverty is becoming an urgent safeguarding issue for children in this country. Not only are malnutrition-related illnesses—anaemia, scurvy, diabetes and rickets—on the rise, but teacher surveys increasingly show that children come to school hungry and dirty. About half of teachers now admit to bringing in food for them from their own home, and about a quarter of teachers now say that they have given them money from their wages to buy food.
My police force—Greater Manchester police—has said that children shoplift simply to get food. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned a similar situation in Bristol, and the Metropolitan police have said the same. Recently, Save the Children launched its first ever UK-wide appeal for feeding and clothing children in the United Kingdom. In 2012, surely we can do better than that. I agree with Save the Children that that quite simply should not happen here. There is also the appalling spectacle of Jobcentre Plus referring people directly to food banks. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree that food banks are now seen as part of the welfare state.
How on earth have we got here? I can tell the Minister that we have got here for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend—a combination of rising food prices, which have risen at three times the G7 average, and benefit delays, high unemployment, part-time work and poverty. At the same time, the Government are stripping away support for children and families. We have seen cuts to the early intervention grant of about 40%, coupled with cuts to children’s services. We have seen changes to free school meals that will take 350,000 children out of that entitlement, although one in four children rely on free school meals for their only hot meal of the day. The Institute for Fiscal Studies now predicts that, by 2020, child poverty will stand at 2.4 million. In this country, that is a damning indictment of what this Government are doing to communities and children.
We are seeing not only a response from charities, but from Labour councils. Where the Government will not step in, they are doing so. In Islington and Newham, the councils have introduced universal free school meals, and in Hull, the council has reduced the cost of school meals to just £1. I want the Minister to take away this point: if the Government do not care about child poverty, fine—they do not care—but food poverty threatens completely to derail their own outcomes, such as education improvement and the other stated outcomes of the Secretary of State for Education. There is no chance that children who arrive at school so hungry that they cannot think straight can achieve the sort of outcomes that he talks about.
Similarly, the autumn statement has recently been delivered by a Chancellor who seeks to make a distinction between strivers and scroungers. Oxfam says that 60% of the families using its food banks across Greater Manchester are in work. About half the children now growing up in poverty have parents who work, in many cases with both parents working. That makes an absolute nonsense of the distinction between strivers and scroungers. If the Government will not feel shame from the moral case that is made about child poverty in this country, will they at least understand that it threatens their own outcomes and that action must be taken?
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be briefer than I had intended, Sir Alan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for securing this debate, her excellent speech and her campaigning outside Parliament, which has been noticed and appreciated by many people.
As a society, we want to look after our children, nurture them and make them happy and healthy. Everyone in the room surely finds the idea of children going hungry truly shocking. However, the evidence all around us is that many families find it increasingly difficult to give their children enough to eat.
It is worth pausing for a minute to let that idea sink in. In 21st-century Britain, when we carry around more technology in the mobile phones in our pockets than it took to get to the moon, when we can cure diseases that were deadly a generation ago and can pay our sports stars £250,000 a week, how can it be that any child goes to bed or to school hungry? That is shocking, and it should be shocking.
I agree that we have to admire the Church groups, charities, volunteers and groups such as the Trussell Trust, which have stepped in to run food banks to help the most vulnerable. Across the country, thousands of people have appreciated their help. They do tremendous work, and I would definitely pay tribute to their commitment, hard work and dedication. However, I am also deeply concerned that many people are forced to seek such help. I hope that this debate, and some of the personal stories that we have heard, will encourage the Government to take another look at what is happening here in the UK.
With food and energy prices rising more quickly than wages, more and more working families are finding themselves edging towards food poverty. They often struggle simply to get by from week to week. Many of them just do not have enough to spare when something unexpected happens. Any sort of unanticipated crisis—whether redundancy, bereavement, delays in benefit payments or even the breakdown of a freezer—leaves them with nowhere to turn but the food bank.
My local citizens advice bureau tells me that the majority of people needing food parcels in my area are in that situation because their benefits have been stopped or their expected payments have been delayed. That should particularly be in our minds when we consider the transition to universal credit. Other examples of reasons given by the CAB include people leaving prison who have had to wait for their benefits to start, someone who lost their job because of mental health problems after working for 23 years, and a woman whose husband had just died and was not able to access his bank accounts until after probate.
Many people who have received such help appreciate it, but I agree that in nearly every case they have exhausted every other option before having to turn to a food bank. We should acknowledge—I am pleased that other Members have said this—that it is never an easy option to go to a food bank. We should not underestimate the stigma that people feel when forced to do that. As our economy fails to recover, unemployment remains high and prices increase, I fear that it will become increasingly routine for the most vulnerable to have to turn to such help.
Last month, I joined Church leaders and volunteers collecting groceries from shoppers in my local Tesco store, for a food bank in east Tameside that has just been set up by the Trussell Trust. I was struck by the incredible generosity of people, many of whom are not enjoying the best of times. In only two days, the charity collected almost 2 tonnes of groceries from shoppers in Stalybridge, an incredible amount given that people are tightening their belts. That shows how determined we can be to help those most in need when we come together as a community.
It is appropriate that this debate should follow yesterday’s discussion of the autumn statement in the main Chamber. Government policies, whether it is the increase in VAT, the real-terms cuts to tax credits and benefits or decisions that have led to people losing their jobs, are hitting the most vulnerable people in society. As families struggle with higher living costs, lower wages and changes to welfare, the situation will only get worse, especially after April when some of the welfare benefit changes come into force.
If the Chancellor had come to the Chamber yesterday with an autumn statement that uprated benefits and asked everyone to give more, that would have been one thing, but the autumn statement represented a net give-away for the next three fiscal years. There was money for tax cuts for millionaires and for corporation tax cuts for banks, but the money has to come from the people who get up and go to work for some of the lowest wages in this country. How come that is not an economic necessity as much as lowering corporation tax is? That is the question that the Government must answer. I think, though, that we know the answer. It is a sick and cynical political game that is designed to be some sort of political strategy. We need to know from the Liberal Democrat MPs whether they think that is a good thing to go along with.
Finally, I agree with the points made about the long-term future of food banks. We know from America, where food banks operate very widely and often on a huge basis, that they are essential in the short term but are not a long-term solution. I do not want to see them publicly funded, as in some American states, and we should recognise that if that happened, it would be an erosion of the state’s responsibilities to its own people. To rely on food banks as a long-term policy solution would be to gloss over the underlying causes of poverty and falsely to give an illusion of security.
Rising food poverty should be of concern to us all. But up and down the country tonight, as families struggle with lower incomes and the squeezed cost of living, we all have to admit that food poverty is the reality of modern Britain.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me, Sir Alan; I know that I have only a short time—my voice is going, so I must be quick anyway.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on an absolute tour de force of a speech. She touched on many of the points that I was going to mention in my contribution. Like many hon. Members, I recently visited a food bank; this one was in Risca in my constituency. I went to Tesco and saw people giving up food that they had struggled to pay for. Their generosity moved me and got me thinking about this debate, which is about food poverty in the run-up to Christmas.
The most famous Christmas story is probably “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens, the great social reformer and writer who celebrates his 200th birthday this year. When the Ghost of Christmas Present visits Scrooge, he reveals a boy and a girl. He says:
“This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom.”
As I look around the Chamber today, I see many colleagues on the Labour Benches. I do not see a single Member from the Conservative party. Their absence damns them. It shows what they think of the most vulnerable in society. As they criminalise the unemployed, those who are too sick to work and those who find themselves in the most dire circumstances, they do not realise that those using the food banks and claiming benefits are people in work. Those are the people who are struggling. What would Charles Dickens say if he were to come alive at this point? He would be ashamed that in the 21st century—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the Minister to laugh.
Chris Evans
Yes, he is laughing. But food banks are now a way of life. [Interruption.] The Minister may get angry and annoyed, but when a person is struggling, when they do not have food in their belly and they are sending their children to bed hungry—[Interruption.] He says it is pathetic.
Chris Evans
You look into their eyes and you tell them that this Government’s policy is the right one. You tell them. You say that it is pathetic. You talk to those people in my constituency who are struggling and you say it is pathetic. The Minister should be ashamed of himself as he stands here today and defends his Government. Look into those eyes and remember those families.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
The last Member to speak is Stephen Doughty. Can you try to speak for a measured period of time? You have been very tenacious today and have had half a dozen interventions. It shows your tenacity, but we do not want to take away time from the two Front-Bench speakers, who need to give answers to the questions that have been posed, including many from you.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Sir Alan. I thank my hon. Friends and hon. Members for allowing me to intervene. I do not want to go over the ground that I have already covered. I would appreciate it if colleagues noted my recent employment at Oxfam and my work with the Trussell Trust, FareShare and the Co-operative Group, which has been in the last six months.
I want to share a couple of brief personal reflections. In 2005, when I was working with the charity World Vision, I travelled to Malawi and saw the work of the UN world food programme. Supplies were being handed out to people in the famine-struck areas of southern Malawi and southern Africa.
I watched as women, who were literally skin and bone, and people suffering from HIV were queuing up to receive packets of rice and basic foodstuff. I have seen absolute poverty in the world. I did not expect to come here to talk about people in this country receiving parcels from food banks. Although the circumstances that the people in Malawi and the people in Cardiff South and Penarth find themselves in are qualitatively different, the same loss of hope and dignity and the stigma are absolutely there. I really want to press that point on the Minister so that he can reply to it in his speech.
I have met many families in my constituency. In Llanrumney, I met a family who have a severely disabled child with a health condition and who wrongly had the support for that child removed. As they had to budget very carefully, they had realised that they had no money that week to pay for electricity or food. They had called up for a crisis loan—many of my hon. Friends referred to the use of such loans—and were told that they could not have one. Where was the child benefit, they were asked, and why had it been spent.
The mother revealed that she had budgeted very carefully the week before and had bought a birthday present for her daughter. The crisis loan helpline told her that she should not have bought that present and was therefore not eligible for a crisis loan, which was why she had to go to a food bank. I really want to press that point about the stigma and the indignity of the situation that many families find themselves in.
We have heard about the perfect storm of rising prices, low and stagnating incomes and their effect on people. I do not want to rehash the statistics, but I want to press the point with the Minister that people do not understand why millionaires are getting tax cuts when so many are having to rely on food banks. People look at the priorities of this Government and simply do not understand them.
I also want to reiterate the point about the impact on health. I have talked about how low-income families were taking in less fruit and vegetables, because the prices of those items have gone up by about 30%. It is clear from the evidence that low-income families have a higher rate of diet-related disease. Will the Minister tell us whether he has had conversations with colleagues at the Department of Health and in the devolved Administrations about the hidden costs of those health impacts on people in Wales and across the UK?
Many of my colleagues talked about supermarkets. I commend Sainsbury’s, Tesco and the Co-op for supporting the food banks, but I ask them to look at their own pricing policies. Some of the smaller stores, such as Tesco Express, charge differentially higher prices on key items such as milk and bread. The prices are far higher than in the larger supermarkets, which people who cannot afford to drive a car cannot reach. I urge the supermarkets to look at that matter. Has the Minister had any conversations with them?
I commend the work of many organisations in my constituency. I have mentioned Grub in a Tub and the many day centres that are providing hot meals for elderly members of the constituency. Oxfam and the Co-operative Group in Wales have been working together to raise funds for the Seeds of Hope programme, which is funding co-operatives in Africa and in Newport in south Wales. I thank you for your indulgence, Sir Alan, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of my points.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I am pleased to respond to this debate from the Labour Front Bench. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for what was, I agree, a real tour de force. Her speech set out in comprehensive detail and with passion what is happening not only nationally but in her own constituency. I commend her not only for opening this debate but for her work on the issue. I also commend the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and all other colleagues who have spoken so passionately on so many interventions. That shows the strength of feeling about this debate and the reality of what is happening on the ground. I also thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) for his contribution, some aspects of which I will address. I note that he was equally shocked at the recent explosion in the number of food banks.
In previous debates on food poverty and food affordability, I have discussed in great detail strategic aspects of food policy, including global commodity speculation, domestic food security and resilience, so I do not intend to repeat those arguments. Instead, I will ask the Minister a very simple and direct question that has already been put by many others today: why, at Christmas 2012 in an advanced and developed nation, are we facing a rising tide of food poverty, with working families and individuals, as well as the unemployed, turning up in greater numbers every day at food banks and relying more and more on the immense and invaluable generosity of others?
The contribution of time and effort by volunteers at food banks, kitchens and food collection and distribution points throughout the country is quite simply incredible and inspiring. People—who are often themselves of limited means—have risen to the challenge of sharing food with those who, temporarily or otherwise, are unable to feed themselves and their families. We should be proud of that generosity of spirit, and proud of that statement of shared humanity. It is not pity; it is far more than simple charity. It is a recognition that—in a way that the Government have failed to understand—we actually are all in this together.
That is why Labour is supporting the work of groups such as FareShare, the Trussell Trust, FoodCycle and so many more that have been mentioned today that are responding to a real, immediate and growing crisis in the country. We should be proud of that endeavour and proud of the amazing collective response; yet we should also be ashamed as an advanced first-world nation that the state—the Government—is quietly walking away from its responsibilities to its citizens.
As we approach Christmas, I say to the Government—to good Ministers in this Government—that they are playing their part at the moment in the good Samaritan parable, but it is not the role that we want them to play. As others are stepping in to help the victims of food poverty and wider poverty who are in need, the Government are walking by on the other side of the road.
The Government have now presided over a decline into “Breadline Britain”, which is the title of one of the most comprehensive studies of the parlous finances of working households—not the unemployed, but the employed. The study estimated that nearly 7 million working-age adults are living in extreme financial stress, despite being in employment, and each of those households was just one step from penury—from extreme poverty. There are 2.2 million children in those households, although Save the Children estimates that as many as 3.5 million children may now be experiencing food poverty.
That is why increasingly the human face of food banks is not only the person relying on welfare support, although they are there: the pensioner who is otherwise faced with a choice between heating and eating and who can postpone making that choice at a food bank and the recently jobless mother finding that she cannot make the budget stretch for the whole week, sometimes choosing between feeding herself and her child. They—and many more—are there and are receiving support. But so are the working poor—people who find that the rising costs of living and declining real incomes mean that the ends no longer meet. As economic indicators go, the rise in payday lenders on otherwise struggling high streets is a sad indictment of socio-economic failure.
I make a “Christmas future” prediction for the Minister. More people will rely on the support of food banks this Christmas than last Christmas, and next Christmas more people will be in that situation than this Christmas, when the changes to welfare—including those announced in the autumn statement—fully kick in, affecting not only those reliant on benefits, who we have heard about, but the majority who are actually in work.
If the Minister does not want to listen to me, I ask him to listen instead to the Government’s one-time poverty tsar and a former welfare Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who said:
“Recent welfare cuts and policy changes make it difficult to advise these people where they should turn to get out of it: it really is genuinely shocking.”
As the Member of Parliament for Ogmore, I personally endorse his concerns. The days of an MP signposting constituents to sources of support in troubled times are diminishing, as those social security and local emergency support structures weaken and crumble under this Government.
I do not believe that any Minister or coalition Member of Parliament came into the House to do the wrong thing by the people they represent, but they cannot continue to argue that they are helpless against global economic storms. The decline into “Breadline Britain” is happening on their watch, day by day, month by month, and now year after year. They can choose to do better, and that is why this debate cannot be, and has not been, simply about the amazing work carried out by those groups and organisations that have chosen not to walk by but to help their neighbours, in the best traditions of Christians, Muslims, all faith groups and no-faith groups—in the best traditions of humanity.
We applaud and continue to support the work of those groups and organisations—we could not do without them—but we ask the Government also to recognise that their own actions on benefits and tax reforms and their social and economic policies are not only failing to alleviate the problems but are worsening the situation. Think again, before it is too late.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
This has been a worthwhile debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for introducing it. I also commend the other hon. Members who have taken part: my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and the hon. Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). They have all made valuable contributions today.
I want to say from the start that I do not think that any Member should ever ignore the fact that there are people who face the most invidious choices that any person should ever have to make in their daily lives—choices about finding the money and deciding whether their family is able to eat or whether they have to meet the other demands on what are sometimes their very meagre incomes. That problem has existed for a very long time indeed, but I recognise—it would be very silly not to do so—that those pressures are increasing, particularly in the food sector, because of the cost of food and the fact that that cost is putting increasing pressure on many households at a time when the economic circumstances of this country are far from good and when there is a lot of difficulty.
Where I part company with some of those who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, is the contention that this has somehow been concocted by the current Government and that it is the current Government’s fault that we find people in these situations, because it clearly is not. The circumstances of poverty have been with us for a long time.
I am not sure that the concept of food poverty is actually a helpful one in this context. Poverty is the issue; the fact that people find it difficult to meet what is required to help their families to survive. That is the problem in this country. When we talk about fuel poverty, we are talking about a number of different factors; we are talking about whether there is energy wastage in people’s homes that they cannot afford to do something about. But with food, the essential issue is the price and the fact that people have or have not got enough money in their pockets to deal with it—end of story. That is why we must remember that these issues have persisted for a very long time and certainly through the most recent recession.
Mr Heath
No, I have not got time to give way.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree made a point, which was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, about the percentage of income or budget spent by a less wealthy family on food; she made the comparison between the figures of 15.8% and 11%. But the fact is that if we go back to 2003-04—a situation that was not, I think, the result of the present Government—we were looking at figures of 16.3% and 10.4%. So a higher proportion of their budget was actually spent on food by less well-off families in those days, and there was also a bigger differential. It is important that people recognise that.
What are the reasons why we have this difficulty? Well, we have a very significant increase in food costs—[Interruption.]
Mr Heath
Sir Alan, a lot of people seem to want to intervene from a sedentary position. I am trying to answer the debate in the very brief time that is available to me.
World food commodity prices are probably the biggest and most significant factor. The dollar-sterling exchange rate is a significant factor. There are oil price rises. There is demand for food, which again was a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. The fact is that there is now a global demand, and we have to address that as a country that is well placed to produce good-quality food.
I want to pay tribute to the people who are trying to address poverty in our nation, not just in the big cities. Let us remember those who live in rural areas as well and who do not often figure in these debates. I remember that in the last Parliament I was the one Member who raised the issue of rural poverty. I did not get much of a response from the then Government, because they did not want to know about people in rural areas—in better-off areas—who suffered the same problems as others elsewhere.
I give an enormous amount of credit to those who try to deal with this issue through the charitable organisations and the other mechanisms, but it is quite clear that we must do more. I recognise that fact, and I am prepared to do everything that I can, first, to talk to the supermarkets, to enable the maximum amount of food to be made available—
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Order. We now move on to the next debate. I ask all those Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so as quietly as they possibly can, so that we can start the next debate. That goes for everyone—Front Benchers and Back Benchers. Thank you very much, colleagues.
Affordable Social Housing (Walsall)
(12 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I have asked for this short debate because of my continued concern about the acute shortage of affordable social housing. I understand why the Minister for Housing, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), is not present and see that the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) will reply on behalf of the Government. She is supported by the Chief Whip—it is courteous of him to come along.
Related to the problems of the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in my borough is the reply that I received from the Homes and Communities Agency stating that it was currently not possible to fund some of the proposed housing development to be carried out by Walsall Housing Group. My concern arises, not surprisingly, from the number of constituents who see me at my regular surgeries and write letters and e-mails to me about housing. Housing is one of the chief topics of concern to my constituents, hence my pursuing the matter, as one would expect.
In many instances, it is a matter of people being rehoused in the first place because they are living with their in-laws, mothers or parents, or renting from a private landlord. In other instances, people are already housed in a rented flat but have young children and understandably want to live in a house. They therefore put their names on the waiting list, and when there is no response along the lines they would like, they understandably contact councillors and me, as a Member of Parliament. I then write to the relevant bodies.
I should explain—I am sure that the hon. Lady knows this—that housing was taken over by Walsall Housing Group from the local authority in March 2003, so the main supplier of affordable rented social accommodation in the Walsall borough is the Walsall Housing Group, and no longer the local authority directly. I concede that the replies I get are usually courteous and prompt—I have no complaints about that. The replies explain to me the position of the constituents I have written about, but rarely do they state that the people concerned are likely to be rehoused immediately or in the near future. They explain what category the people are in, and the band involved, but the people who have seen me already know that. Nevertheless, the information is officially put together and signed by the chief executive, and I pass on the reply to the constituent.
If accommodation was available, the position of Walsall Housing Group would be such that it would be only too pleased to offer a tenancy. I emphasise that it is the lack of anywhere near sufficient affordable housing in the borough that explains the long waiting times, which can be very long indeed. I do not suppose for one moment that the situation is different elsewhere.
I think that we can work on the reasonable basis that if the people involved could afford to do so, they would obtain a mortgage. I doubt whether many, if any, Members of Parliament are not owner-occupiers; as we know, in some instances they own more than one property. It is perfectly understandable that if someone has sufficient means they try to obtain a mortgage and service it accordingly. However, the annual average earnings in my constituency remain at under £23,000 which, as we can obviously all agree, is hardly a sum with which to maintain and service a mortgage.
In November, the National Housing Federation launched its report, “Home Truths 2012: West Midlands”. It had a well attended rally here—in fact, in the room next door—and made its points. Before the launch, I wrote to the federation, pointing out the situation in my constituency and saying that I hoped to obtain a debate on the matter. It was very supportive, and made the point that housing prices in my constituency are 6.7 times the average income. That is the situation faced by people who are not in a position to obtain a mortgage, who rely on rented accommodation and who have no particular desire, to say the least, to go to a private landlord.
I have to say that in all my years as a Member of Parliament I cannot recall a single constituent coming to me, or writing to me, to ask whether there was any chance that I could do anything to rehouse them with a private landlord—not once. The explanation is obvious: the insecurity, the high rents and the conditions of some of the privately owned properties. In my borough, and in all other parts of the country, the key issue is that people who cannot afford to buy seek good, affordable and secure accommodation, as I have described. We would do the same, would we not, if we were in the same position and could not obtain a mortgage.
Let me also make a point about the position of social housing in my borough. Some 21 years ago, in 1991, the total social housing stock amounted to some 36,000 properties. Last year, the total was less than 27,000, which is a reduction of somewhere in the region of 25%. The reason is obvious: tenants have bought—I have no complaint about that—but the accommodation is not replaced. When the legislation on that matter was going through Parliament, I said, “If tenants wish to buy they should be able to do so, but why not replace the accommodation?” Why not give local authorities or, in this case, the Walsall Housing Group, the opportunity of replacing the housing stock that is sold off?
The point that I wanted to make today is, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, that Walsall Housing Group plans to build some 224 units. Fortunately, finance is available for some of the units, but more than half of the proposed development depends on finance coming from the affordable homes programme in the west midlands.
WHG accordingly wrote to the agency to explain the position, and I was informed of what was happening. I take a close interest, as is to be expected, in what is occurring or what people hope will occur, and I was copied in to the correspondence. When I wrote to the agency, the reply, as I am sure is known, was that the programme in the west midlands is fully committed for 2011 to 2015. Finance will not be available, therefore, unless something occurs, which it might, but the reply certainly indicated that it is unlikely that finance will be available before 2015, if then. I do not think I need to quote the letter, which I have here.
It is true that there are other housing associations in the borough, although they are nowhere near the size of WHG. All those housing associations have long waiting lists. When constituents see me and I say, “Have you been to anywhere else apart from WHG?” the response is usually, “Yes, but we get the same answer. It is no good even going on the waiting list, because it is simply too long.” Ultimately, we are back to WHG, whether or not it can supply the necessary work.
One other interesting statistic is that, since its inception in March 2003, WHG has built 470 houses. The arithmetic is pretty clear: some 47 houses a year against a background of such huge demand. The demand may be much less than in various other places—obviously, London and Birmingham go without saying—but that is no consolation to my constituents who are waiting to be rehoused.
I would also like to know what is being done about the section 106 agreement. As I understand it, that agreement is to ensure that, when private development occurs, land is available for social housing. The reply I received from the local authority seems to show that, since April 2009—and there has been a good deal of private development both before and since—a total of 13 shared ownership units and 56 affordable rented units have been secured through section 106 agreements. That does not seem to add up to a great deal, so perhaps some information should be given about that.
A moment ago I came in at the end of a debate on food poverty and the plight of so many people in this country as we approach Christmas. Two things are absolutely basic to people. First, there is the ability to find work. People are not skivers—if there are a few, so be it, but the overwhelming majority, like us, want to earn their living.
Secondly, people want decent, secure accommodation. One of the reasons why those of us who can be are owner- occupiers is that we want such secure accommodation. If we are in a position to pay back over a period of time, we want accommodation under our complete ownership. Those who cannot do that require rented accommodation with the same security.
Those two basic issues, jobs and decent housing, should always be at the forefront of our minds—certainly the minds of Labour MPs. I hope the hon. Lady will be able to give us some explanation of the situation I have outlined and that, despite the decision taken by the agency in question, it will be possible to reverse the decision and make finance available. What steps are being taken to build much more accommodation along the lines I have suggested, rather than what has occurred over the past 20 years?
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I look forward to serving under you again.
I formally apologise on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who has been summoned to appear before the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government and has not yet worked out the trick of being in two places at once, but I am sure that will come with time.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) on securing this important debate. He speaks on the issue with great passion, concern and interest, which I assure him is welcomed by Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Housing supply, including affordable housing for both rent and ownership, is a priority for the Government, and it is clear from the hon. Gentleman’s speech that he is concerned about the supply of affordable housing in Walsall. The Government are committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing through a variety of mechanisms. Some 170,000 more affordable homes will be delivered between 2011 and 2015, with combined Government and private sector investment of £19.5 billion. Almost 58,000 affordable homes were delivered in 2011-12, which is a third more than the average delivery in the 10 years between 2000-01 and 2009-10.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned replacement, and under the new right-to-buy scheme one-for-one replacement has been introduced for the first time. When social housing is sold under the right to buy, it will have to be replaced, which I hope he welcomes.
Many of the new homes that are being delivered are in the Homes and Communities Agency’s new affordable homes programme, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The programme, which launched 18 months ago, offers a new delivery model and introduces affordable rents. It is important to stress that affordable rent is a form of social housing. The programme has delivered 63,000 completions in its first 18 months and homes are allocated in the same way as social rent properties. Existing letting arrangements operated by local authorities and registered providers continue to apply. Homes will be made available at a rent level of up to 80% of local market rents, inclusive of service charge.
Allocations for the affordable homes programme for 2011 to 2015 include a total of £31 million of funding for the black country, which of course includes Walsall. The funding will deliver 1,775 affordable homes. Walsall itself received £7.8 million of that funding, which is equivalent to 25.2%. In Walsall that will deliver 370 homes for affordable rent and a further 55 homes for affordable home ownership by 2015. Additionally, Walsall also received an allocation of £100,000 to bring empty homes back into use and almost £950,000 to fund provision of new pitches for Travellers.
As the hon. Gentleman said, in Walsall social housing is provided by 15 housing associations, including Walsall Housing Group, the council’s housing stock transfer partner, which owns and manages 19,000 properties across the borough. Walsall Housing Group houses 40,000 people, which represents one fifth of Walsall’s population. Walsall Housing Group lets its social housing vacancies through a choice-based letting scheme, which it operates on behalf of the council.
The hon. Gentleman has written specifically on whether Walsall Housing Group, as one of the many providers of social housing in Walsall, would be eligible for the new affordable homes programme, which was, as he knows, over-subscribed. The bidding process was very competitive and the Homes and Communities Agency assessed bids against key criteria, including value for money, deliverability within the programme, time frame and meeting local needs and priorities. Although the programme is now fully committed, I assure him that the agency has quarterly programme reviews with each provider to assess and challenge delivery plans. When a provider is judged not to be able to meet its contracted obligations, the Homes and Communities Agency can move funding to other providers to ensure delivery so that targets can be met. I also assure him that his persistence has been noted by Ministers, and Walsall Housing Group’s requests are, of course, well known to them.
Mr Winnick
I do not want other boroughs to suffer as a result of money that was due to them under the allocation going to us. I make that absolutely clear so that there is no misunderstanding. There are two aspects. First, is there not a better commitment so that the decision can be reversed? Secondly, will the hon. Lady take into account the number of people waiting? She mentioned what has been done, but it does not alter the fact that regardless of what has been done or remains to be accomplished, even if the units go ahead and the funding is made available, demand is great. It is even greater as a result of the economic situation. People who might have been able to obtain a mortgage are not in a position to do so because of job losses and so on. What she should have in mind—I hope that the Minister will have it in mind—is the actual demand for such accommodation, which is nowhere being met.
Karen Bradley
I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There is no quick fix to the problems that the Government inherited in terms of the supply of affordable social housing across the country. The Government are taking a variety of measures. I will come to them shortly. However, his points have been noted, and I will ensure that Ministers and others are well aware of his concerns and respond to him. If there are any points that I have not responded to, he will receive a letter.
Affordable rent is one key to increasing the volume of affordable homes, and this Government will provide it through smaller amounts of public sector investment than previously, allowing us to deliver more homes for every pound of Government investment. The average grant rate under the new programme is about £22,000, compared to an average of £60,000 under the former programme. Grant as a percentage of average scheme costs is now about 20%, compared with 45% formerly. That represents better value for money and should enable the Government to get more units of appropriate accommodation for the money invested.
That is just one example of the practical action that the Government are taking. However, as I said, it will inevitably take time to deal with the problem. The UK Statistics Authority has confirmed that 421,000 social rented homes were lost under the last Government. That loss cannot be reversed overnight, and it is seen in all our constituencies. I understand that last year in Walsall, for example, more than 14,000 households were on the housing waiting list, up from fewer than 6,000 in 1997.
Through the Localism Act 2011, we have given councils back the freedom to manage their own waiting lists. They can decide who qualifies for social housing in their area and develop solutions that make the best use of limited social housing stock. Our new statutory social housing allocation guidance gives councils more freedom to innovate. They can use social housing to encourage work and mobility, rather than leaving people stuck in dependency.
I am pleased to see that Walsall council is using those freedoms to good effect. Its social housing allocation scheme provides for priority to be given to working households, those otherwise contributing to the community and seriously injured former service personnel needing adapted social housing. I congratulate the council on taking those steps. It will certainly help Walsall to meet the hon. Gentleman’s request that people have appropriate homes. I sympathise. We want people living in homes that are the right size and appropriate for them and their families.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about section 106 delivery. I do not have the information to hand, but I assure him that the Department will write to him with it shortly.
Mr Winnick
I emphasise the need for the section 106 agreement to be looked into, for the reasons I stated. We will probably disagree about rent. I take the view that secure accommodation should be affordable. That is not an argument for today, but it will undoubtedly be debated in other places.
Karen Bradley
I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments. As I said, I do not have the specifics about section 106 with me, but I am sure that the information will be forthcoming and he will have it shortly.
The private rented sector is making a significant contribution to meeting housing need and can offer a number of advantages, including labour mobility. On 6 September, the Government announced plans to expand the private rented sector to give tenants more choice about where they live, following the recommendations in Sir Adrian Montague’s review of the potential for institutional investment in large-scale developments built specifically for long-term rent. The Government are setting up a new £200 million “build to rent” fund for developers in order to encourage construction for rent, and are providing up to £10 billion in debt guarantees covering both private rent and affordable housing for those investing in the long-term rental market.
Mr Winnick
The hon. Lady is being generous and courteous, and I appreciate it. I am sure that she heard my point that in all the years that I have had the privilege of being a Member of Parliament, no one has asked me if they could be rehoused by a private landlord. Has she as a Member of Parliament been asked that? Has she been approached at her surgery by anyone wanting help to find private rented accommodation?
Karen Bradley
I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I have, actually.
Karen Bradley
A number. Perhaps that is the difference in the make-up of affordable housing between Staffordshire Moorlands and Walsall.
There is support. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to work with Walsall Housing Group and other social housing providers in Walsall to consider other avenues that can be taken to help his constituents. I understand that when someone comes to a surgery, everybody wants to help and find the best solution for them. Anything that can be done to help is good.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. As housing supply, including affordable housing, is a priority for the Government, I welcome his interest in the issue and I hope that he will have the satisfaction in the near future of seeing an increase in affordable housing in Walsall.
Literacy and Drugs (Custodial Sentences)
(12 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
Prison works. It locks people up effectively so that they cannot then commit a specific crime. Yet for many years, prison has failed to change prisoners’ behaviour. Despite multiple new laws and increasingly tougher sentences laid down by ever more robust politicians, prisoners throughout the 1990s and the Blair and Brown Governments have still reoffended in the tens of thousands upon release. It cannot be a satisfactory Government investment when 70% of offenders reoffend on release.
Some 50% of prisoners have a drug problem, and 50% lack basic literacy and maths. Although we can bring much change within prisons to combat drug use and illiteracy rates—I support what the Government are trying to do, although we cannot discuss that today—we can and should start the reform process at the point of sentencing, before offenders even enter prison.
I argue that when passing sentence, a judge should be able to prescribe, as part of the sentence, compulsory completion of a literacy course when the offender is illiterate and of a drug testing and rehabilitation course when they have a drug problem. I would go further: I do not believe that we are sufficiently addressing the incentive to the prisoner. I seek a change to the process for release on licence and, possibly, a change whereby deductions are offered for specific success at passing either literacy or drug rehabilitation courses.
Before I get into the nuts and bolts of my speech, I should make a declaration that I have written a book on the issue, the worthy “Doing Time”, all proceeds from which go to charity. There is no personal benefit to myself. My ideas, which I talk about today, are more fully expressed in the book. I am a former criminal and legal aid barrister. I conducted nine murder trials on both sides of the fence and between 150 and 180 Crown court and magistrates court trials. As most criminal barristers will know, I am still owed money by the state, even though I have not practised at the bar for two years and seven months. I am grateful to all those who assisted me in the creation of the ideas in the book and to all the prisoners, governors and charities who helped and suggested the ideas that we are trying to expand on today.
The principle today is that we require prisoners to do something to qualify for the privilege of early release, thereby benefiting the wider community by being better able to cope with the outside world on release. At present, if a prisoner does not start a fire in the prison or does not commit some tremendous offence, release on licence is effectively automatic, the consequence being that the persons released are, by and large, ill equipped to deal with the outside world that they have to face. How do we know this? There is copious evidence from august bodies, such as the Centre for Social Justice, showing that 82% of all prisoners have writing abilities less than an 11-year-old’s, approximately 50% were excluded from school and have no qualifications and only one in five could complete a job application form. And we wonder why those people fail to become law-abiding members of society after release.
Prison numbers have doubled from 43,000 to 87,000 over the past 20 years and literacy and drug problems are often worse than before. In the prison in Durham, 300 out of 1,000 prisoners are on methadone or Subutex and 20% in most prisons will be taking illegal drugs. Many prisoners combine both. It is not surprising that we are struggling, if we are releasing people who are drug addicted into the community.
Many of the clients I represented as an advocate were incapable of giving meaningful written instructions or even reading the prosecution papers. Too often, they would say, for example, “My letters aren’t so good”, and they too frequently signed their names with an X. Reading and writing are the fundamental precursors to any job. Someone cannot even be a builder’s labourer in this day and age without the ability to read and write. There should be, where possible, a compulsory requirement for a prisoner to learn.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I declare an interest. I, too, was a barrister and prosecuted and defended. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and pay tribute to him for his excellent book, “Doing Time,” which contains a comment from Lord Justice Maurice Kay, saying what a wonderful book it is. It is a good book.
I agree with my hon. Friend about literacy: defendants often go into and come out of prison illiterate. Does he agree that when an individual goes into prison their skills should be assessed? For example, they may suffer from dyslexia or other issues. At the moment, everything else is assessed, but dyslexia is not. As my hon. Friend knows, dyslexia affects communication.
Guy Opperman
I endorse my hon. Friend’s point. One could go further on dyslexia. Dyslexia, like total illiteracy, is hidden by many prisoners in prison, because it is effectively a crime for them to admit that they cannot read or write or are dyslexic or dyspraxic. Unless that is tested for on arrival, there will be no awareness in the prisons of what kind of person they are dealing with.
Let us be in no doubt. No hon. Member in this Chamber, and no one in my party, has any difficulty sending people to prison, because they clearly should go there for the appropriate offence. That is not an issue. What is at issue is what we do with them when they are in prison, because that is when the redemption and rehabilitation should take place. Once the prisoner is captive, we need to teach them the basic skills that their parents, their school and their society have failed to provide them with.
There are many areas in which we can work to correct the issue. Notably, there could be a better approach from the Ministry of Justice, although doubtless we will hear many of the great things that it is trying to do. I am a massive supporter of peer mentoring, both outside prison—I welcome what the Secretary of State is doing—and inside. I will try to address that. Staff training needs to be improved. I welcome the improvements that I gather are taking place at prison officer training courses. There has to be a change in the attitude of, and constraints on, governors. It is scandalous that for too long, the 47 key performance indicators that determined how a prison governor was operating were all fundamentally to do with security and not about rehabilitation. That is patently wrong and I am glad that we are changing it.
Rehman Chishti
On rehabilitation, does my hon. Friend agree and understand that there is a problem in respect of prisoners on short sentences, because proper continuity of treatment cannot be provided if they are transferred between prisons?
Guy Opperman
There is no question but that the problem with short sentences is the most difficult task that the Minister who holds the portfolio at the present stage has to deal with. It is much easier dealing with a longer term prisoner, because there are all the benefits of time and, hopefully, security of tenure in a particular prison. I deprecate our moving prisoners around all the time and that there is no specific locality. I accept that it is difficult, but it is not impossible. The mentoring schemes and the work that we are trying to do must be the answer, and the basis on which we are trying to deal with the short sentence problem.
There is take-up, and we have discussed it briefly, and doubtless I will be told that there are programmes to teach basic literacy skills. However, participation in such programmes is highly limited. Prisoners are, without question, unenthusiastic to volunteer for such programmes, swallowing their pride about their failure in respect of literacy. There are also issues to do with whether they could earn more money doing work, rather than learning a skill. There is lack of incentive.
The National Audit Office recently summed up the current system with a damning statistic:
“Only one fifth of prisoners, with serious literacy or numeracy needs, enrol on a course that would help them.”
The consequence is that even if there were all the classes in the world and money was poured on to the problem, if there is only 20% take-up, the ability to transform such individuals will be seriously compromised.
I have no doubt that the Minister will tell me that the offenders’ learning and skills service phase 4 programme and the prisoner sentence plans are good ways forward, and to a degree they are; but prisoner sentence plans are, with no disrespect to the Opposition and the former Government, a classic, old-style Labour, tick-box Ministry of Justice approach, which, however worthy, has little positive effect. During the preparation of the book, I spoke to prisoners and I am clear that there is lack of incentive. The incentive is the key.
There is a solution from the courts. We can identify the problem at an early stage, on a relatively cost-neutral basis, and the judge can then pass a sentence imposing a literacy course as part of that sentence. Instead of the prison choosing to do that, the judge makes the order, which is part of the sentence. If it is left to a prison governor’s choice, depending on where an individual is sent, it will be a struggle. It would make the efficacy of prison so much better, because that prisoner could then be sent to a place that specifically deals with literacy or drugs courses, in the context of all our prisons.
Sentence deductions for completing such courses is the way forward. Such an approach is radical and, I accept, needs some piloting—it will not happen straightaway —but professionals at organisations such as the Shannon Trust, which I urge the Minister to hold close to him as the leader in this particular field, are enthusiastic about the idea. They make the point that unless the inmate is willingly engaged, we will struggle to deal with the problem. To make progress, therefore, we have to incentivise. The individual prisoner’s knowledge that the acquisition of literacy and other skills could secure him an early release date is a proper incentive, producing the manifest benefit of a cheaper prison system, which is of less cost to the taxpayer and allows us to spend our money on all the other things that we wish to spend it on. Furthermore, the people who emerge at the end of the process will be far better able to deal with their difficulties.
In short, at present the judges lack such a power; it is held only post-licence. In other words, the judge has the power to order those conditions for release on licence but, frankly, the horse has bolted and is gone. The moment that people are released on licence, their fundamental behaviour cannot be changed—we have to change it while they are captive. The power already exists on licence, so it is a short step for it to be acted on in prison. We need to teach prisoners to read and write, which is a proper part of their sentence, in addition to simple captivity.
To move on to the matter of drugs, the Government are doing good work following the CSJ, Huseyin Djemil and Blakely reports—all of which I endorse—to address progress in rehabilitation. The failure to test prisoners on entry to and release from prison, however, is bizarre. We end up with a form of Russian roulette. Fifty per cent of people in prison are drug addicted in some shape or form, but when they arrive they are only asked a voluntary question, “Are you drug addicted?” Patently, many lie. Some even bring drugs in with them when they enter prison, but we do not test them. Five in 10 going into prison are drug addicted, but we do not know who they are. How on earth can the governor properly deal with such matters and how on earth can the Government money that we are spending on such expensive institutions properly be targeted on those individuals? It is all very well teaching inmates to read and write—literacy—and all manner of skills, but if they are drug addicted when they emerge, whether to substitutes such as methadone or still to heroin, the drug of choice in prisons, it will be of no benefit.
I want compulsory testing, because it is surely better to know the problems before people enter the system. I stress the need to test at prison, although it might be considered for courthouses, because the problem is fundamentally obvious when one enters a Crown court. All Members present in the Chamber were lawyers in their former lives. In my time I represented a man who stole more than 150 times over 150 days, at £25 a pop, breaking into cars to get money for a heroin fix. The police would very much like the information that such a person was heroin addicted upon his release. We do not know what we are dealing with, but we can do something about it.
If a judge was able to order drug treatment and testing as part of a sentence, and it was properly enforced—there are plenty of schemes in prison, the best known and most successful being the Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust or RAPt programme—the prison, and the authorities on an inmate’s release, would know whether it had been successful. As well as simple incarceration, surely the object of the custody exercise is to change the behaviour of the individuals; if we are not detoxing them to become non-addicted to drugs, what on earth are we trying to do by sending people to prison? We should bear in mind, too, that 20% of all people who take drugs say that they tried them for the first time in prison. That is a sobering statistic.
I want incentives and deductions applied for automatic release, and release on licence must also be addressed in that way. If a prisoner is proposed for release on licence and has a drug condition as part of their sentence, but is not shown to be clean at its end, why on earth should we release that individual on licence? Release is a massive incentive for them. I would go further and ask the Ministry of Justice to consider whether, if we wish to incentivise, we should tie the two fundamental conditions that are key to changing prisoner behaviour to possible further sentence deductions. Hypothetically, on a two-year custodial sentence, one might be looking at a one to three-month deduction for successful completion of a literacy or drugs course. Surely that must be the way forward.
To conclude, if we simply ignore prisoners, lock them up and then discharge them with no skills, we will continue to have a repetition of the appalling statistics of 60% to 70% reoffending, in spite of all the best efforts of governors and Government. What I suggest is a potential way forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on securing it.
The debate is not only important but timely, because the Government will soon be publishing our plans to make a radical change in how we support the rehabilitation of offenders. My hon. Friend is rightly concerned with that new focus on rehabilitation both in this debate and in his excellent book “Doing Time: Prisons in the 21st Century”—no doubt available in all good booksellers and an excellent stocking filler. I congratulate him. He has eloquently set out today the issues that face us in tackling offenders’ problems with literacy and substance misuse. Both are significant causes of offending and reoffending.
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend suggests, but let me respond in detail to some of the specific issues that he and others have raised in this debate and elsewhere. Let me start with his suggestion that the courts should mandate participation in literacy programmes and drug treatment. The courts already play an important role in framing the content of community orders and suspended sentences. Informed by pre-sentence reports and medical evidence, the courts can use treatment requirements to address drug addiction. They can also impose programme or activity requirements that might involve literacy courses. My hon. Friend suggests that offenders sentenced to custody should be compelled into education, that early release could provide an incentive for completing courses and that offenders entering custody with drug problems should be compelled to receive treatment.
In his book, my hon. Friend acknowledges—I agree with him—that using sentencing in that way is “admittedly difficult”. It is important to remember that drug treatment ordered by a court would be lawful, or effective, only if it happened with the offender’s consent. That is how drug rehabilitation requirements work at present.
Equally, we need a release framework that operates fairly for all offenders, whether or not they are literate on arrival in prison. That said, I want to ensure that prisoners have incentives to engage in positive and constructive activity during their time in custody. For example, I am reviewing privileges in prison and the rules that currently apply to them. In this and other areas of policy, I want to ensure that we have a system that encourages offenders to engage with the support we offer, as my hon. Friend said.
On literacy, my hon. Friend mentioned his experience as a barrister dealing in criminal law—an experience I share, so I ought to declare my interest as everyone else in the debate has, although the last time I received any legal aid fees was even longer ago than he did. From my experience, I am aware, as he is, of the difficulties that many prisoners have with basic reading and writing. Many prisoners also experience a range of other barriers to learning, whether they be mental illness, poor thinking skills, communication difficulties, sight and hearing problems or previous negative experiences.
We are placing a strong focus on assessing prisoners’ learning needs and when a literacy need is identified, it will be addressed as a matter of priority. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) mentioned other learning difficulties, dyslexia among them, and was right to identify that as a significant issue among the prison population. We make every effort to identify that as early as possible, and learning providers in particular have a responsibility to do so.
Other things are being done to target prisoners with literacy problems, and to incentivise them to address those issues. We are working with education providers to develop engaging and motivating courses to target resistant learners particularly. Those courses will be marketed by prison staff as part of the prison induction process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham talked about the Shannon Trust, and he is right to recognise its significant contribution. I fully support its work, and have met its staff for discussions, and I am sure I will do so again. We are committed to the use of peer mentors to support reading schemes such as its Toe by Toe project, and my officials are looking at how prison staff can better support its work. My hon. Friend is right to identify peer mentors as a significant step forward in dealing with prisoners who do not, as he said, want to admit their literacy problems.
Guy Opperman
Does the Minister accept that there is a potential role for long-term prison inmates—prisoners in prison—to be peer mentors to other prisoners who have just arrived and need literacy or other courses? Clearly, the people prisoners trust most are other prisoners, and that is no disrespect to individual staff.
Jeremy Wright
Yes, I agree. That is absolutely right, and it is very much what happens now, although we would like it to happen a lot more. The Toe by Toe project particularly is a good example, but there is considerable scope for more peer mentoring, and for more established prisoners helping those who are newly arrived—not only with reading and literacy, but across a whole range of other things. I have seen very good examples of that, and I want to see more. Prisoners often find that working with carefully selected and trained peer mentors—they must be that—can be much less threatening than the classroom environment.
There is a problem, as my hon. Friend said, with shorter sentences, and the difficulty of addressing such problems over a short time frame. That is why we are piloting intensive maths and English courses in prisons, similar to those used by the Army, particularly to address the needs of prisoners serving short sentences.
We have also focused on vocational training and preparing prisoners for employment during their final year in prison. Those courses are closely linked to developing the skills needed by employers in the areas in which offenders will be released.
Guy Opperman
May I take the Minister back to consent? He said that it would be difficult to impose conditions on a judicial sentence attached to custody without consent. Indeterminate sentences for public protection were introduced in that way, and it is also the case with community orders, so there is no fundamental principle between a community sentence and a sentence on licence, both of which exist with a condition attached, and a sentence of custody with an imposition of a requirement to carry out these matters. Does he accept that?
Jeremy Wright
The issue is practical rather than legal. My hon. Friend will recognise that to get an offender to engage properly, whether they have a drug addiction or literacy problems, they must do so voluntarily, because a compulsory arrangement will not deliver the results that we all want. That is very much the message that I have heard from the Shannon Trust, as he has.
I recognise that there are always opportunities to impose restrictions on offenders, whether in the context of community sentences or licence conditions, but we must seek to incentivise prisoners to do what we know they need to do to minimise their risk of reoffending. That will be partly by persuasion, and partly by ensuring that they are prepared to engage with the provision so that they get out of it what they need. I understand my hon. Friend’s point.
Rehman Chishti
Does the Minister have an assessment of how many drug treatment and testing orders were given in the last two years, and how many were successfully completed?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I do not have the figures immediately to hand, but I am sure that we can get them to him. Inevitably with the regime for drug treatment, which I will come to in a moment, we need greater engagement and better results. We are working as hard as we can to achieve that.
I have talked a little about education. We are doing other things, which I do not have much time to go through, but I draw attention to the virtual campuses in 101 prisons, which provide an opportunity for prisoners to learn with carefully controlled access to a suite of web-based education and employment materials. We must recognise that we need greater scope to broaden the learning offer, to alert prisoners to job vacancies in their release area, to make the process of learning much more akin to that experienced in the outside world, and to give prisoners the experience of using IT.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham referred to drugs, and I agree that there are two priorities for the Government and the National Offender Management Service. First, we must stop drugs from entering prisons and secondly we must get offenders off drugs and keep them off drugs. He is right to highlight the fact that the demand for drugs in prisons is far greater and more concentrated than anywhere else in society. The high demand and limited supply of drugs creates prices five to six times higher than in the community and represents a lucrative market. That is why prisons are targeted by organised crime groups using sophisticated smuggling methods. Despite rigorous prison security measures, drugs can penetrate prison walls.
I acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend said, some prisoners will try a drug in prison that they have not used before, but they may have been using other drugs in the community—perhaps they have been taking crack cocaine or heavily abusing alcohol—that they substitute with that new drug.
I assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to improving the situation, and we are making progress. Particular initiatives have included an increase in drug-free prison wings where increased security measures prevent access to drugs. I am pleased that my hon. Friend, as he says in his book, supports these measures.
We are trialling drug detection technology and using technology to deny signals to illegal mobile phones in prisons, which are often associated with drug supply. We are also pursuing the roll-out of a networked prison intelligence system to help prisons to stay one step ahead of those seeking to breach prison security. As a result, fewer prisoners are testing positive for drugs than at any time since 1996. Around 7% of prisoners test positive for drug misuse when they are in custody, which is a considerable fall from the 64% who used drugs in the four weeks before custody.
My hon. Friend talked about the opportunity to test when someone goes into custody and comes out. Those are fixed points, and I understand their significance, but he will recognise that we must make sure that prisoners do not use drugs at any time throughout their sentence, and mandatory, random drug testing is useful in that.
As well as keeping drugs out of prison, we want to deliver a rehabilitation revolution that helps to transform the lives of offenders and ensures that they do not return to a life of crime after their sentence. Reshaping treatment services in prisons and the community is at the heart of the Government’s intention to get more people free of their dependence, ready for work, and with somewhere to live. Our objective is to move towards a fully integrated, recovery-orientated system that supports continuity of treatment within and between custody and community. That includes piloting 11 drug recovery wings focused on abstinence, and connecting offenders with community drug recovery services on release.
My hon. Friend will recognise the importance of ensuring that whatever is done with drug treatment in prison, it is important to have continuity through the gate to what goes on in the community. That is also the case for prisoner education. We want to ensure that all our plans recognise that through-the-gate facility.
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution not only to today’s debate, but to the more general discussions of these issues. I look forward to engaging further with him and others, and I hope that he will be encouraged by the plans we are developing and will shortly introduce.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on using not only his time, but the time left over from the previous debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
ECOFIN
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 12 December 2012. The following item will be on the agenda.
Banking Supervision Mechanism
Council will seek to agree a general approach for the Commission’s proposal for a single supervisory mechanism (SSM).
Open Data
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
I am today providing the first update on Her Majesty’s Government’s commitments to open data as set out in departmental Open Data Strategies and its performance against the Public Data Principles for the period between July and September 2012. The UK is seen as a global leader in the field of transparency and it is important that we monitor and report on progress achieved.
I am pleased to report that overall progress made shows that the open data agenda have become more established within individual Departments since the publication of the Open Data White Paper in June 2012. This first statement will act as a benchmark for progress on the Government’s commitment to open data. A detailed report elaborating on the figures, giving examples of progress made and the barriers to be overcome can be found on the data.gov.uk website and will be placed in the Library of the House.
Performance against the Public Data Principles
The Public Data Principles1 state that all data should be released in an open format, be reusable, machine-readable and linkable across sectors to allow for comparative “like-for-like” analysis. The openness of datasets is measured using Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s “Five Star Data Deployment Scheme” and our aspiration is to have all datasets released at the level of at least “Three Stars” which means that datasets released on data.gov.uk must be published now in a non-proprietary format. By adherence to these principles, Government can help to encourage greater use of published data and also help to reduce potential barriers to innovation based on the use of these data. Fifty-two per cent of datasets published on data.gov.uk by central Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies are of “Three Stars” and above quality.
Data.gov.uk provides a single portal for access to all Government datasets and its functionality has been greatly improved over the summer to enable the automatic validation of formats, a better publishing process, as well as the ability for users to monitor the frequency of publications. Data.gov.uk provides a forum for data users to discuss, request and comment on datasets. This has been supplemented with a service that directs requests for new unpublished datasets to the Open Data User Group to review and, if deemed worth pursuing, prepare business cases in support of their publication.
Completion of commitments undertaken by Departments
Of the 17 central Departments, nine are reported as having “Met” their commitments to make available data on central and local corporate spend, salaries, organograms and crime data as set out in the first of the Prime Minister’s letters to Government Departments on opening up data (May 2010) with the remainder reporting a delay.
Completion of the commitments to publishing key data on the national health service, schools, criminal courts and transport as set out in the second of the Prime Minister’s letters to Cabinet Ministers on transparency and open data (July 2011) is better. Eleven Departments are reporting their commitments are “Met” and only five reporting a delay. One Department is reporting it would be unlikely to meet its commitment due to security issues.
Compliance against departmental Open Data Strategies commitments sees 13 Departments reporting they have “Met” or are “On Track” and only four Departments reporting a delay.
A key commitment in the Open Data White Paper was for all transparency sector panels to establish privacy experts by September 2012. I can report that five out of seven of these panels have confirmed that they have privacy experts embedded within their membership. Two Departments have internal groups with no representation of external open data users although they do have a privacy expert as part of their membership.
Summary of the July to September Reporting Period
We are seeing the release of open data steadily becoming the norm within Government, despite the issues surrounding legacy infrastructures and business change. Infrastructure barriers will not be overcome until legacy systems are replaced or revised with more efficient and transparency-orientated systems or additions to allow for systematic publication of corporate data.
Further work must also be carried out to embed transparency as a culture and open data as a process within Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies. This can be achieved through further investment in stronger guidance, for example in how best to publish consistently to allow for better use of the datasets across sectors, and through good practice sharing among the policy and delivery community, with particular focus on arm’s length bodies. This will help ensure that these bodies comply with all their commitments and that the datasets they publish are done so in a format consistent with those published by central Departments.
The actions noted under each section of this report will be updated in future statements to Parliament.
1See http://www.data.gov.uk/library/public-data-principles.
2011 Referendums
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
Today we are publishing The UK Government’s response to reports on the 2011 referendums. It includes responses to the Electoral Commission’s report on “Referendum on the voting system for UK parliamentary elections: Report on the May 2011 referendum”. The response also includes comments on recommendations made by the Association of Electoral Administrators’ report “Administration of the referendums and elections across the UK in 2011”.
The Government have already brought forward legislation as part of their programme of constitutional reform which should assist the effective administration of future elections and referendums. We were grateful for the analysis and recommendations within the reports.
Copies of the Government’s response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Environment Agency and Natural England (Review)
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Government are committed to high levels of environmental protection and to the effectiveness of the bodies entrusted with those obligations. Today I am announcing the start of the review of the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England (NE). This review is part of the Government’s rolling programme of reviews of non-departmental public bodies.
The review will consider the functions and form of the EA and NE to ensure that delivery arrangements are sufficiently strong and resilient to deliver the Government’s environment and flood risk management priorities and statutory obligations in the short and longer term, while also achieving better quality outcomes for the environment, the economy and for people on a sustainable basis.
The review will also assess the opportunities for innovation, cost saving and improvements in service delivery for customers. It will have due regard to affordability and best value for money for the taxpayer.
I am committed to conducting the review through an open, inclusive and evidence-based approach, working closely with the EA and NE and their stakeholders to ensure they have the opportunity to contribute their views. I am issuing a discussion paper today, inviting responses by 4 February 2013.
I have established a challenge group, chaired by Dame Deirdre Hutton, to rigorously and robustly test the assumptions and conclusions of the review.
Terms of reference for the review, a copy of the discussion paper and the terms of reference for the challenge group have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
I expect to announce the findings of the review and recommendations in spring 2013.
Afghanistan (Monthly Report)
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 22nd progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
On 9 October the UN Security Council adopted resolution 2069 (2012) extending the authorisation of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF) by a further year. The resolution provided a 12-month roll-over of the chapter VII authorisation, with an unqualified “all necessary measures” provision. It also incorporated NATO Chicago summit commitments to support the training, equipping, financing and capability development of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) up to and beyond 2014.
The UK and Afghanistan held the first meeting of the Afghanistan-UK Joint Commission chaired by Afghanistan’s Deputy Foreign Minister Jawed Ludin and Baroness Warsi to review implementation of the “Enduring Strategic Partnership” document signed by President Karzai and the Prime Minister in January.
On 25 October the International Development Committee (IDC) published its “Afghanistan: Progress and Prospects after 2014” report. The Government welcome this report. The Department for International Development will shortly publish a formal response.
On 31 October the Afghan Independent Election Commission (IEC) publicly announced that 5 April 2014 would be the date for the next presidential election in Afghanistan. The provincial council elections, postponed from 2013, will also take place on 5 April. As part of this announcement, the IEC published an ambitious time line for the full electoral processes. Although the time line as it stands does not cover the parliamentary elections due in 2015, it effectively meets the Afghan commitment at the Tokyo development conference to produce a timeline by early 2013. An implementation plan is set to follow.
October typically marks the end of the so-called Afghan summer fighting season. This time is used by insurgents to recuperate and plan. Overall the levels of violence are likely to decline, and in accordance with seasonal norms, we can expect the character of operations to change during the winter.
Four members of UK armed forces lost their lives while deployed on operations in Afghanistan in October. The two separate incidents that caused these deaths were assessed to be the result of insider attacks. We take these attacks and their causes extremely seriously and we continue to work at the highest level to reduce the risk of insider attacks.
The Government of Afghanistan continued to progress plans for the privatisation of the New Kabul Bank. The first in a series of investor road shows took place in October. A road show in Dubai is planned for November. Tenders are being managed by the Afghan Ministry of Finance, Central Bank, and the Cabinet. The process aims to attract high-quality investors. The New Kabul Bank is a commercially viable bank, with US $550 million of deposits and over 100 branches across Afghanistan. As one of the largest banks in Afghanistan, its survival is important for economic development and jobs. The UK is supporting the Afghan Government with the sale of the bank, thus promoting a transparent and effective process.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).
International Piracy Ransoms Task Force
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I wish to inform the House that the International Piracy Ransoms Task Force, established by the Prime Minister at the London conference on Somalia in February, yesterday presented its conclusions to the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia.
The taskforce was constituted of 14 members: Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Liberia, Malaysia, Norway, Panama, Spain, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States. This broad-based membership included some of the world’s largest flag states, the countries at the forefront of the military response to piracy, and those nations whose seafarers are most commonly at risk from pirate attack.
Since the taskforce was launched, there has been a dramatic reduction in piracy activity: reported attacks have declined from 176 in 2011 to 35 as of November 2012. Successful attacks have fallen even more dramatically, with ransom payments in 2012 falling by more than 700% from their level in 2011. However, this positive trend is fragile and reversible, and the taskforce agreed that the international community needs to maintain its efforts across the board to drive down the threat to global security and prosperity. The ultimate goal for the international community must be to reach a position whereby pirates are no longer able to receive or profit from ransom payments.
The taskforce identified a range of options for reducing and avoiding ransom payments and bearing down on those who demand ransoms to ensure that they are not rewarded. It concluded that work should urgently be undertaken to:
develop a new strategic partnership between flag states, the private sector and law enforcement agencies that brings together those tackling piracy and those subjected to it in a united effort to break the piracy business model;
develop a more co-ordinated approach to information sharing to provide evidence to pursue and prosecute all involved in piracy;
strengthen co-ordination between flag states, the private sector and military responders to prepare for potential hostage situations; and
encourage implementation of anti-piracy measures, including greater compliance with best management practice.
The Government firmly support and endorse the conclusions of the international taskforce. They recognise that an internationally co-ordinated and implemented approach will be vital in achieving the goal of bringing an end to the role of ransoms in piracy. The Government will continue to work as a leading member of the contact group and with industry in taking forward the implementation of the taskforce’s recommendations.
Immigration Rules
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules. The main effect of these changes is twofold.
First, they will apply most of the changes to the immigration rules on family and private life contained in the statement of changes in immigration rules laid on 22 November 2012 (HC 760) to all applications decided on or after 13 December 2012, rather than only to applications made on or after that date. This will provide greater clarity for applicants and for the UK Border Agency as to the requirements in respect of family and private life applicable to all applications decided from 13 December 2012.
Secondly, they will apply a transitional concession to migrants under tier 1 (Investor) of the points-based system who entered the route, or applied to do so, before the clarifications in HC 760 regarding loans secured against investments and overseas custodisation of investments come into effect on 13 December 2012. This will ensure that such migrants are not adversely affected by these changes.
Civil Litigation Funding and Costs
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
In the context of his “An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press”, Lord Justice Leveson recommended that costs protection should be extended to defamation and privacy claims. This would mean that individuals of modest means should not be in the position of bringing or defending actions without some form of protection against having to pay the other side’s costs if the case is lost. The Government have accepted this recommendation and I am therefore today announcing that provisions relating to sections 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, which would remove the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums, will not come into force for defamation and privacy claims until costs protection has been introduced for these proceedings.
The Government have already asked the Civil Justice Council (CJC) for advice by the end of March 2013 on this issue. Given that the reforms in part 2 of the LASPO Act generally come into effect on 1 April 2013, this short delay in implementation will mean the protection which currently exists through recoverable insurance premiums will continue until a new regime of costs protection can be implemented through changes to the civil procedure rules.
Youth Contract Employer Wage
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Youth Contract, worth almost £1 billion, builds on existing support to provide young people with more intensive adviser support and work experience, as well as providing employers with wage incentives and apprenticeship grants to encourage them to recruit young people. This will create around 500,000 opportunities for young people and will ensure that every unemployed young person will receive the support that they need.
On 17 December 2012, the Government will extend the eligibility of the employer wage incentive element of the Youth Contract to include all young people, aged 18 to 24, who reach six months on benefit. This will make an incentive worth up to £2,275 available to businesses that employ these young people for six months or more, as it has been in 20 youth unemployment “hotspots” since July. This means that wage incentives will be available via Jobcentre Plus before most young people enter the Work programme.
Providing earlier access to wage incentives across Great Britain will simplify the offer for employers and will allow greater collaborative working between Jobcentre Plus and Work programme providers.
In order to maintain additional provision in the youth unemployment “hotspots”, extra Jobcentre Plus support will be made available for young people at the start of their claim in these areas. This is equivalent to an additional 80 minutes adviser time every fortnight from day one to month three of a young person’s claim. This will start to become available from January next year.
Grand Committee
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
(12 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Clause 20 : The Competition and Markets Authority
Amendment 24ZA
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, we now come to a part of the Bill which, at Second Reading, I said I regarded as in the “relatively good” category compared with some other parts of the Bill that we will be debating. Broadly speaking, that means that we approve of the objectives of this part of the Bill concerning the rationalisation of the competition structure. As we go on, I think we will find that the Government may well have overcomplicated some bits and missed out others, but in principle the merger between the CMA and the OFT will receive general support from this side—in particular, the prospect of it dealing with some of these issues more coherently, both within the new structure and in time, as well as with regard to the relationship between the new competition authority and the concurrent regulators, although we will have a number of queries on that.
Before we make the new organisation work, we need to know what it is there for. As with many Bills introduced by all Governments setting up new organisations, two or three years down the line it is not always easy to derive from the Bill or Act why the organisation was set up. We need an objective so that business knows how to relate to the organisation, so that there is some transparency for the public about its role and so that in particular—I emphasise this, as will my noble friend Lady Hayter—there is clarity about the role of consumers and the ultimate objective of the new organisation to provide choice, customer care and a generally consumer-friendly market in which to operate. The central means in achieving that market is enhancing competition. The organisation also has to be realistic about, and proactive in, responding to market failures.
However, there is one area where I think that the role of the body has been underestimated and that is in relation to explicitly referring to the benefit or detriment of consumers. The aim of the two amendments in this group which are in my name is to tell the public and the organisation what its role really is. Government really does need to set the objectives and scope of this new body, otherwise in 10 years’ time no one will know what is expected of it and we will no doubt be back here within that 10 years looking at whether the competition regime is working. In the mean time, Governments will have to assess its importance, its resourcing and its priorities for the coming few years, and therefore there will be reviews, which will need to go back to the objective of the organisation.
We have attempted to set out in Amendments 24ZA and 24ZC some of those objectives. The first one, in Amendment 24ZA, relates to the CMA’s role in establishing competition and examining market failure and market distortion. We often talk about monopolies in this situation, and mostly it is about monopoly, oligopoly and dominant positions in providing goods and services in particular markets. However, it is also necessary to refer to monopsony. The first competition or anti-trust Acts in this country in the 1940s were very insistent on that point, and there are situations where a potential distortion of the market or abuse of a dominant position relates to the buyer’s market as much as the seller’s market. The Government have indeed recognised this—somewhat belatedly, under both this and the previous Government—in the groceries code, for example, where the power of the oligopoly structure of the supermarkets has a tremendous effect on relatively small companies which are, directly or indirectly, suppliers to those sectors. Therefore, the issue of buying power, as well as of provision of goods and services, is important and that is what these two amendments address.
Amendment 24ZA spells that out briefly and Amendment 24ZC defines it in more detail. Mergers are obviously one distortion of a market, but there is a broader issue of dominant position in a market. We all know that there is no such thing as a perfect market, because all the players in that market are not equal, either in their resources, their skills or their knowledge. Therefore, an unusually dominant player in the market distorts the market as a whole and we need to provide for the new organisation to focus clearly on a dominant position which may not, strictly speaking, be a monopoly or create a monopoly through a new merger.
We need to broaden it a bit and if we look at the areas which are probably those of most frequent consumer complaint, they are dominated by relatively few players. Consumers may experience different effects of the abuse of that market power in different sectors. There are so many sectors now in which there are, effectively, between four and eight companies which dominate and which—if there is not, strictly speaking, any provable cartel—tend to move in unison rather more frequently than a proper market would allow. There is an obvious current example in the energy market; the banking sector is similar. I have mentioned the supermarkets, which work both ways for customers and suppliers. There are other markets, such as the mobile phone market, in which not that many players dominate the market and quite a lot of apparent choice actually limits the range and scope of consumers’ choice.
I think that we need to define this, as I say, so that future generations will understand why it was set up. We need to define it for the new governance of the organisation, and we need to define it for the Minister, successive Ministers—although I wish Ministers a long life in these responsibilities—and for Parliament and the public, so that the new body can be held to account. I am not saying that the form of words we have used here is the be-all and end-all, but I want the Government to consider putting in such a clause to define the role of the organisation. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I address my amendment in this group, Amendment 24ZCA. I am not sure that we really know how to deal with monopsonies, it has been so long since we had one that was truly powerful. I am not sure that the Bill gives us the ability to deal with them properly. My amendment will make sure that we can, because we can now observe one of these monopsonies in action and in the process of growing, and that is Amazon.
Amazon now has some 90% of the e-book market in the UK; it has something like 50% of the entire book market, e-books and physical books, in the US and close to that in the UK. However, when I have asked the OFT if it will look at some of the practices that Amazon employs in getting to where it is, it says, “No, because none of the major publishers has brought us any evidence”. The publishers will not even come into this House to have tea with me to discuss what is going on. They will not talk to the Guardian. They will not talk to anyone because Amazon is rough, hits hard, has its teeth into publishers’ necks and is sucking their lifeblood. There is no answer. If we are to do something as a nation, we need to equip ourselves with a system that is capable of going to the publishers and saying, “We think there might be something going on here. Please give us some evidence”. At the moment, the OFT is hamstrung and cannot do that. It has to wait until someone brings evidence to it. I would like to see a situation whereby this new body had the power to go out and look on its own account and not wait for evidence to be brought to it, because it is in the nature of monopsonies, particularly the powerful ones, to tie up the people who are involved in them and make it extremely difficult for any of those people to bring a complaint or evidence to the OFT, as it is, on their own accord.
Amazon is no friend to the UK. We may all think that it is a great place to buy—indeed it is, and I am having an interesting Christmas not buying from it. It treats us just as a distribution depot. It is not building a business here. It has no interest in the great history of British intellectual content. It is not like our publishers, who have a care for the nation and the part that the UK played in the world of books. We are just a source of a commodity to Amazon. It pays no tax, as is well known. It abuses VAT whenever it gets the opportunity. It has had a scam going on in Luxembourg for ages, which, thank goodness, the European Union is putting an end to, whereby it paid only 3% tax, rather than 20%. The company has been allowing sellers to hide their identities, so that they can operate VAT scams. It was an active participant in the abuse of low-value consignment relief. It is not a company with morality and it is not a nice organisation. As was said by the publisher who spoke anonymously to the Guardian, you dare not go against it because it would kill you.
Amazon’s terms on e-books are fascinating. As a publisher, you can get 35% of the price that it sells for, if you set the price. If you want more than that, Amazon gets to choose the price and you end up with less. If you are a big publisher, you may end up with only 10% of the price that Amazon is charging for an e-book. If you are selling through Amazon Marketplace, Amazon gets to know your customers, suppliers, prices and volumes; and if something is selling well, Amazon then does it itself. It goes straight to the manufacturer and undercuts you. That is all based on Amazon’s knowledge of your business. If you are selling on Amazon Marketplace, you are forbidden to sell anywhere else at a lower price or you are chucked off. Amazon is a very difficult company to live with.
What we are seeing is a monopsony in its growth phase. It is running on very low net margins in order to destroy the competition and increase its market power. If we act now, there are viable alternatives that will spring up to compete with it. If we leave it, we risk a situation where there is no competition, where there are no publishers any more because Amazon is the only place to publish direct, and where there is no ability to sell e-books other than through Kindles because Amazon controls them, and you cannot put outside software on them. We must give ourselves an opportunity to act, and act sensibly, and we cannot hamstring ourselves by sitting here and waiting for one of this company’s victims to complain before we act.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, this is a useful amendment for my noble friend Lord Whitty to move at the outset because it is broad and makes important points. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, brought an interesting matter before us. I do not think that it is necessary to make that amendment to the Bill because I have little doubt that the Bill as it stands gives the new amalgamated body, the Competition and Markets Authority, all the powers it needs to investigate the problems of which he has spoken.
With regard to my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment, it is useful for monopsonies to be included because it makes it clear that there can be a monopoly on the buyer’s side as well as the supplier’s side. Leaving aside a statute dealing with particular matters of Queen Elizabeth I, in Britain the first statute dealing with monopolies was in 1948. Under that Act, together with the legislation of the European Community, which came in when we joined the then Common Market, it was the abuse of monopoly that was regarded as undesirable and something that should be attacked.
Monopoly as such is not necessarily a bad thing. I do not see that it is any different now, in 2012, from what it was in 1948. You can have monopolies that justify themselves and prove themselves for various reasons; for example, it may be feasible to have only one supplier in a local or national area, and as long as the power is not abused, competition authorities do not need to worry about it. My only query to my noble friend Lord Whitty is that the wording of the amendment suggests that he wants action,
“to reduce cartels, monopolies and monopsonies”.
To investigate or inquire into whether the power is misused is one thing, but I very much doubt whether this should be inserted after the very proper requirement of promoting competition.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank noble Lords for their suggested amendments and I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, regarding this part of the Bill.
Beginning with the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, Amendments 24ZA and 24ZC seek to add specific references to some of the CMA’s competition functions and duties into its overarching duty, which is,
“to promote competition, both within and outside the United Kingdom, for the benefit of consumers”.
These include, for example, references to the CMA’s role in tackling mergers and abuse of dominant positions, and in reducing cartels and monopolies.
The CMA’s duty to promote competition reflects its unique position as the UK’s principal competition body, its leadership role in tackling anti-competitive behaviour as part of ensuring markets work well for consumers, and its domestic and international advocacy role. It does not seek to set out all the CMA’s functions. In addition to this overarching duty, the CMA will inherit the full range of the competition functions of the OFT and the Competition Commission, as well as additional consumer enforcement powers.
These functions and powers include: strengthened Competition Act enforcement powers to enable the CMA to tackle anti-competitive monopolies, monopsonies and cartels; strengthened merger controls to enable the new authority to address more effectively anti-competitive mergers that can lead to high prices and poor quality for consumers; a wide range of investigative and remedy-making powers to ensure that markets work well for consumers; and finally, the use of consumer enforcement powers to address business practices that distort competition or impact on consumer choice, even where markets are competitive. We are also providing more speed and rigour in market studies and investigations, and anti-trust cases, to give consumers faster and more robust decisions.
Given that the CMA will have a range of powers to ensure that competition and markets work well, it would not be appropriate to legislate for the CMA’s overarching duty to focus on one of these important competition and consumer tools over another. It is also important to preserve the independence of the CMA to choose the right tool to promote competition and tackle anti-competitive practices. We therefore do not consider that it is necessary or right to specify the particular kinds of anti-competitive features set out in these amendments.
There is also a particular concern over the way in which Amendment 24ZC seeks to gloss the meaning of a dominant position by specifying that it is normally to mean control over a quarter or more of a market. This would contradict European Union jurisprudence on dominance and therefore introduce, by way of a provision in the CMA’s overarching duty, a conflict with the CMA’s actual powers and responsibilities and with the European Union law which underlies them.
Determining whether an undertaking is dominant requires an economic analysis of the state of competition in a market as it is best defined. Market shares can be important indicators but may not be decisive—for example, where there is significant buyer power or low barriers to entry such that the undertaking’s exercise of its power is constrained by the threat of new entry. By introducing this more mechanistic approach to dominance, the amendment would conflict with the way dominance is assessed under European competition law. So it would be wrong for us to introduce this scope for inconsistency and uncertainty by way of an amendment to the CMA’s overarching duty. I hope that noble Lords will accept my explanation, which has taken a little time, for why the overarching duty is just that and why I do not believe that more specific additions are appropriate.
Amendment 24ZCA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, and bearing in mind his reference to and comments about Amazon and its great buying power, seeks to empower the CMA to investigate any company or arrangement to establish whether a cartel, monopoly or monopsony exists or is being abused without receiving prior complaint. The CMA will, as the OFT can now do, be able to make inquiries whether or not it has received a complaint and will be able to take action on its own initiative in markets where it observes a problem. Indeed, it will inherit the function of obtaining, compiling and keeping under review information about matters relating to the carrying out of its functions under Section 5 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
However, for the authority to use its far-reaching powers of investigation under the Competition Act 1998—such as powers to require the production of specified documentation or information and powers to enter business premises with or without a warrant—Section 25 of the Competition Act 1998 requires it to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that an anti-trust prohibition has been infringed. This strikes the right balance between giving competition authorities effective powers and protecting businesses from overzealous enforcement. If the amendment is intended to undermine this threshold, it would represent a significant weakening of a protection for businesses. As such, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned, I do not consider that the amendment is required. I understand the noble Lord’s concern that allegations of anti-competitive behaviour should be properly investigated and the facts established. Decisions on individual cases and priorities will be for the CMA, which will of course be independent of government.
At the end of the day, it will be for the management of the CMA to ensure that it is a highly effective competition authority, vigorous in the pursuit of anti-competitive behaviour, and the provisions of the Bill, including the creation of the CMA, will assist in this. They are designed to deliver greater coherence in competition policy and practice and a more streamlined approach to decision-making through stronger oversight of the end-to-end case management process, more flexibility in resource utilisation and better incentives and powers to apply the anti-trust and markets tools to deal efficiently with competition problems. In addition, this clause will give the CMA a duty to promote competition, something which neither the OFT nor the Competition Commission have. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will accept that these changes should go a long way to securing that the CMA will be the active champion of competition that we all wish to see.
In the light of my explanation, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because he gave an example that I should have thought of. It is clear that Amazon has a dominant position in a buying and selling market. It is exactly the kind of case that we need to be absolutely sure that the provisions of the Bill cover. My noble friend Lord Borrie and the Minister both said that it already does and I hope that is right, but we need to underline the Minister’s words for future use. In a situation such as that of Amazon, in relation to both the suppliers or subcontractors from whom it derives its products and the people to whom it sells, this is a growingly dominant force in all our lives. That is a good example and one we need to test against all the provisions of the Bill.
My thanks also to my noble friend Lord Borrie and to the Minister for rightly saying that monopolies and market dominance are not always a bad thing. That would usually be my line because the assumption that a free market will ultimately always deliver the best outcomes for consumers is not necessarily true. Nevertheless, I would argue that there is a tendency for the less competitive markets to give consumers a worse deal and that improving competition in almost all circumstances—not all, I agree—will give consumers a wider choice. There are situations where broadening competition in practice reduces choice, but in general the consumer benefits from more competition and choice and less market dominance. That means that we have to be quite subtle in defining the overarching role of the CMA. I was slightly puzzled by the Minister saying that we should not augment or unduly prescribe the overarching role. The problem with the way that the Bill is currently set out is that, whereas the OFT and the CMA had clearly defined major roles in the beginning of their respective statutes, this does not. All it says is:
“The CMA must seek to promote competition, both within and outside the United Kingdom, for the benefit of consumers”.
Nobody will argue with that. It is one and a half lines. It does not say what the CMA should look into and how it should judge it. I certainly agree that all market situations into which it looks should be judged as to whether they are an abuse of power to the detriment of consumers.
There are other issues involved in looking at market structures, including international competitiveness et cetera. There are wider issues as well but my amendments attempt to say what the subject matter of the new CMA would be. I do not think that we have yet got that situation. However, clearly my amendments as drafted do not meet universal acclaim. I hope that the Government will, before the Bill finishes, think about whether they need to be a bit more definitive in this area so that we in Parliament and the public in general know exactly what this new organisation is setting out to do.
On the threshold point, there are references in existing legislation to 25% so it is not a new thing. I accept that that should probably not be in the overarching aim. I suspect that we will return to the threshold as we move further into the Bill so I will not prolong that one. I have made the point. I hope the Government will at least give this some consideration and perhaps come up with a different drafting when we move to later stages of the Bill. For the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
“( ) The CMA shall have responsibility for the strategic direction of all statutory consumer support including—
(a) advocacy,(b) education,(c) advice,(d) enforcement of redress(e) guidance, and(f) consumer protection,as it relates to competition and fair trading, taking particular account of the interests of vulnerable consumers.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, this amendment puts the consumer interest at the centre of everything that we are doing. A number of organisations have, one way and another, had some changes proposed to them in the consumer field in recent years, since the advent of this Government, who call it the “consumer landscape”. They are changing the role of the OFT and slightly changing the role of the sector regulators; they have, somewhat to my distress, changed the role of Consumer Focus, the major consumer organisation, previously the National Consumer Council, of which I was chair and the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, was a distinguished chair at an early stage. They are not leaving a consumer voice in the same central way as was provided in the previous 37 years. Some of those functions will be done elsewhere, some will be inherited by different bodies and some will be in the public sector, but most will be in the third sector or somewhere in the ether.
That is not a satisfactory position. If the regulator and the industry are to deal with the consumer interest in the central way that the department continues to emphasise in all its publications—though its actions somewhat belie it—we have to be clear where the functions that used to exist now lie. In relation to this part of the Bill, the OFT already included a number of functions beyond the areas of market structure—in other words, beyond merger, monopoly and dominant position. It had general responsibilities to look after the consumer interest, consumer protection and duties and consumer law. Some of those duties are now to go out of the organisation; in fact, on the face of it, most of them are to go out of the organisation, and the new organisation will primarily be concerned with market structures. This could prove to be unsatisfactory. I appreciate that BIS is still issuing consultation papers, replies to consultation and new White Papers in the consumer area, but it would have been more appropriate if they had all been brought together in one Bill. Instead we have some of it in the Public Bodies Act, some of it in this Bill and some of it yet to come—so we do not get a very coherent position.
To be more specific, as the amendments are, the present duties of the OFT include responsibilities for general protection of consumers, including responsibilities for consumer education, information and advice. Section 6 of the Enterprise Act provides for information and advice and Section 8 for support for consumers in the market and the particular provisions in relation to consumer-facing codes of practice for different sectors. Those have been important roles for the OFT, and in addition it has developed other roles, such as the scam-busting role and other interventions in pursuit of consumer protection and acting against consumer detriment. Those roles, as far as I can see, are not to be part of the roles of the CMA.
Section 8 of the Enterprise Act is to be deleted entirely. Amendment 24F reverses that deletion, so that the OFT could continue to provide help to consumers in relation to their general protection and the codes of practice. Section 6 of the Enterprise Act, which deals with education, is still there. However, as I understand it, it will be devolved to Citizens Advice. Indeed, any of these powers can be devolved. However, whether or not the powers are devolved, the question is: which government organisation is responsible for ensuring that they are properly carried out and that consumer detriment is not increased but diminished as a result of the changes?
The amendments seek to deal with what I understand to be a situation that is not covered in the Bill. As I said, consumer education is now to be the responsibility of Citizens Advice. The codes are, vaguely, to be the responsibility of trading standards departments and a new body, the National Trading Standards Board, which is in the process of being established—however, it is not a statutory body or a body mentioned in statute—and another, rather shadowy, body to be established called the Strategic Intelligence, Prevention and Enforcement Partnership, which does not exactly trip off the tongue. Its acronym is SIPEP, which is a particularly apposite title.
It is to all these slightly shadowy bodies, based in part on trading standards and in part on the third sector organisations, that the powers which previously belonged to the OFT—and which were very important in establishing new benchmarks for the consumer interests—are to be devolved somewhere down the line. I am a great admirer of trading standards—indeed, I am a vice-president of the Trading Standards Institute—and have a great respect for it. However, it has for some time—not only under this Government, I am afraid—been deprived of resources and reduced in scope so that its ability to deal with major scams across the borders of local authorities is limited. Although the National Trading Standards Board may enhance that a little, it will not be able to do so without strong backing from the centre. However, that backing from the centre, which the OFT previously provided, is not in this Bill.
My amendments seek to provide a number of things. They seek to restore Section 8 and to ensure that these functions are robustly devolved—because these functions can be devolved; I am not necessarily objecting to that—and that it is made clear to Parliament that they are being devolved. Where they are devolved to public sector bodies such as trading standards departments at local authority level, or to third sector bodies such as Citizens Advice, Parliament should know and deliberately make those decisions.
It is also important that those decisions are reviewed and reversible, and these and later amendments provide for a review system. Much of this is new territory. Taking it away from the centre and pushing it down the line may be a dimension of localism, reducing the role of the state and increasing that of the third sector, but we need some means of judging whether it works or not. I therefore propose five-year reviews and an ability to reverse the devolution of responsibilities. However, we cannot reverse devolution if they are not referred back to either the Secretary of State to give the responsibilities to some other body or to the CMA. All this needs to be in the Bill.
If we do not do that, there is a real danger that we will dilute the achievements of the OFT. I know there have been criticisms—I have had criticisms—but the OFT has raised the standard of consumer protection in this country and is recognised by the consumer movement internationally and by other bodies as having done so. The danger is that the central regulator’s role will be diluted; that it will be differently effective in different parts of the country and in different sectors; and that the independent voice of the consumer will be less than it was previously. This all adds up to a serious diminution of the consumer influence on policy.
I hope we can ensure, even if we do not adopt my exact words, that the Bill makes clear where those responsibilities are going, how they are to be assessed and, if necessary, how they can be reversed and reallocated. I beg to move.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
I would like to make clear at this point that I agree with every single word that the noble Lord said. I hope to have similar support from him when the time comes.
Baroness Crawley
My Lords, as president of the Trading Standards Institute—excuse my cold—I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Whitty that there is a need at this point for precision when it comes to the role and functions of the CMA and the transfer of functions from the OFT. I especially agree when it comes to the funding of the transfer of those functions. There is a lot of uncertainty around that at present. There is a good will and hope but we need some answers from the Minister at this point about both national and local authority funding—the latter is under unprecedented pressure—to ensure that this devolution process operates as best it can and strengthens rather than weakens the role of the consumer. We must have some answers as far as funding of the transfer of functions from the OFT is concerned.
As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, some of the roles of the OFT will go to the National Trading Standards Board. However, as he said, that does not have a statutory underpinning. As far as I can see, it is a new animal in the process of being created. The Minister would help us all if he gave us some idea of the accountability within the creation of the National Trading Standards Board. There is a great deal of work being done, as noble Lords can imagine, to ensure that consumers will continue to be protected to the highest standard. I have nothing but admiration for the people trying to make that work, as far as both trading standards offices and the National Trading Standards Board are concerned, the latter made up of senior trading standards officers working across borders. However, we need some answers from the Minister on both funding and accountability within the board, and some idea of the way in which the Government believe that there can be a cohesive landscape at the end of this process.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, I very much agree with pretty well everything that has just been said by my noble friend Lady Crawley. She is the current president of the Trading Standards Institute, which has done a great deal of good over many years, not only in the individual local authorities which it represents but in getting together on a number of matters. That has reached a kind of culmination in the creation of the National Trading Standards Board, whereby it can get together and discuss matters, particularly a scam or whatever it is in the way of anti-consumer activity that is being indulged in. It gets together and ensures that the stronger of the trading standards offices takes up the cudgel and takes the enforcement action.
One of the most remarkable things about the provisions we are dealing with in the Bill is that we are on Clause 22. We know that Clauses 20 and 21 create the new authority and refer to the amalgamation of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. Yet whereas on competition matters the new authority clearly has the powers to deal with anti-competitive activity, the Bill does not deal with the considerable number of powers which the Office of Fair Trading has built up over the years. They are left in limbo. Therefore, there is a great deal of uncertainty, except on the basis of government statements—it is not in the Bill. Only in government statements have we got some idea of who is to do the advocacy for the consumer and who is to do the other matters that my noble friend Lord Whitty has referred to in Amendment 24ZB—consumer education, consumer advice, consumer advocacy and the enforcement of redress.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, these amendments recognise the fundamental importance of consumer support and consumer protection, whether it comes in the form of education, advocacy, advice or enforcement of legislation. I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
Competition is one of the pillars of a strong and vibrant economy. It makes businesses efficient and innovative, allowing the best to grow, innovate and enter new markets. It also drives investments in new and better processes, pushing prices down and quality up for consumers, but competition is only one side of the coin. To reap fully its benefits, consumers must be informed and have the confidence to exercise choice effectively. Unless consumers have the ability to make effective choices, vibrant competition will be inhibited and the businesses offering the best price or the best quality will not necessarily grow.
The current landscape provides consumers with a bewildering array of public, private and voluntary bodies with overlapping responsibilities. Each individual organisation does a very good job and is highly regarded but, taken together, they form a complex landscape that can be difficult for consumers to understand. The complexity and split of responsibility on enforcement cases has also led to a gap in enforcement. The National Audit Office’s 2011 report, Protecting Consumers, which reviewed consumer protection in the UK, found that consumer detriment occurs at national and regional level but the incentives are weighted towards tackling local issues. This contributes to an enforcement gap where large regional and some national cases may not necessarily be addressed.
The OFT estimated the cost to those affected and to the wider economy of activities such as unfair commercial practices and scams to be at least £6.6 billion annually. Any gap in enforcement is therefore significant to consumers and to the economy. The combined competition and consumer landscape reforms aim to deliver a better deal overall for consumers by setting out clearer responsibilities and better co-ordination between enforcers and the consumer advisory bodies.
Specifically, we will better equip trading standards departments to take greater responsibility for consumer law enforcement, and we have created a new National Trading Standards Board with responsibility for prioritising national and cross-local-authority boundary enforcement, tackling issues such as scams, illegal moneylending and rogue and incompetent traders, to provide a more coherent approach to trading standards enforcement.
The CMA will have primary expertise in unfair contract terms legislation and additional consumer enforcement powers to tackle business practices that distort competition or impact on consumer choice, even when markets are generally competitive. This could take the form of tricking consumers into tie-in contracts that might inhibit them from switching suppliers, subjecting consumers to unclear surcharges, or using misleading reference pricing. The CMA will also operate the combined OFT and Competition Commission’s markets regime to ensure that markets work well for consumers. As such, it will have powers to investigate markets such as payment protection insurance, which is a live issue. Business education will be shared between trading standards departments, which will deal with most business-facing initiatives, and the CMA, which will lead on competition advocacy and business education on unfair contract terms legislation.
In addition, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, we have created SIPEP, the Strategic Intelligence, Prevention and Enforcement Partnership, involving the CMA, the National Trading Standards Board, the new Financial Conduct Authority, Citizens Advice and representatives from Scotland and Northern Ireland collectively to identify issues causing consumer detriment and agree priorities for enforcement, information and education.
These landscape changes have been welcomed by a number of consumer experts. For example, Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, said that this reform, “is good news for consumers”. Ron Gainsford, chief executive of the Trading Standards Institute, said to the committee in the other place that the current proposals strike about the right balance on the relationship that the institute was seeking. Mike O’Connor, the chief executive of Consumer Focus, said of the new strategic partnership:
“Consumer Focus welcomes the creation of SIPEP and we believe that it can make an important contribution to promoting consumers’ interests”.
In order for this new landscape to work in practice, it is essential that there is clarity of responsibility and accountability. Requiring the CMA to provide strategic direction on consumer support functions for which other bodies will be responsible, as provided for by Amendment 24ZB, would undermine in this area and risk further confusion for consumers across the landscape.
I shall now address Amendments 24F, 24G, 24H and 24J collectively. They would widen the transfer scheme set out in Clause 22 to enable the transfer of the OFT and Competition Commission’s functions to bodies other than the CMA and a Minister of State. It would therefore be helpful for me to set out how we intend to enable the transfer. We will be relying on Clauses 20 and 22 and Schedules 4, 5 and 6 to create the CMA and transfer the functions, including those I set out earlier, from the OFT and Competition Commission to the new authority.
In addition, we will be using two orders under the Public Bodies Act to enact changes to the wider consumer landscape. The first order is being laid in draft before Parliament today and we hope that it will come into force in April 2013. This order will transfer the OFT’s function of supporting a public consumer advice scheme to Citizens Advice services in England, Wales and Scotland. We will then transfer the levy for this service. We are also making amendments to a range of consumer legislation to modify the enforcement functions of the OFT.
The second Public Bodies Act order will transfer Consumer Focus’s statutory functions and powers to the Citizens Advice service, and wind up Consumer Focus. It will also transfer the OFT’s estate agency functions to trading standards. We expect to lay this order late in 2013 for it to come into force in 2014.
Finally, Amendment 24 seeks to transfer the OFT’s function of “promoting good consumer practice” to the CMA. We do not consider that this function needs to be transferred to the CMA. In the current regime, Section 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 gives the OFT a general function of promoting good consumer practice, which recognises its leading role in providing consumer education and its function in relation to approving consumer codes. It is also the provision on which the OFT relies to conduct its international consumer advocacy work.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was concerned that Section 6 of the Enterprise Act 2002 would not be transferred to the CMA. Paragraph 61 of Schedule 5 to this Bill transfers to the CMA the OFT’s function for the provision of information to the public.
Lord Whitty
Either I mis-expressed myself or the noble Viscount has misunderstood. Section 6, which deals with education, is indeed being transferred and then devolved to Citizens Advice and, to some extent, trading standards offices, but Section 8 is being deleted in its entirety, as I understand it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I note the point that the noble Lord has made and I will come back to that technical issue shortly.
As I have mentioned, in the new consumer landscape, the Citizens Advice service will take on the lead role in providing consumer-facing education from the OFT, as well as taking over responsibility for consumer advocacy from Consumer Focus. The role of approving consumer codes will be transferred from the OFT to trading standards. The CMA will continue to have an international consumer role; for example, to represent the UK at the OECD’s Committee on Consumer Policy. A specific provision has been made for this in paragraph 19 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
I will pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, about how trading standards offices will provide a high standard of support against a backdrop of reduced funding. Local authorities make their own decisions about what proportion of their budget to invest in local trading standards services. This had led to variations in the costs and resources allocated to trading standards services. While we are unable to pre-empt local funding decisions, in 2011 the National Audit Office assessed that local trading standards services vary significantly in capacity and annual budgets range from around £240,000 to more than £6 million.
The Government recognise the impact of the current financial climate and our structural reforms, supported by central government funding, for national leadership and co-ordination of enforcement activity will help local services to target high-priority cases for maximum effect. We will continue to ensure that national expenditure complements the local authority contributions and offers as much leverage as possible to ensure overall efficiency.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, asked whether the Citizens Advice service would receive additional funding for taking on the consumer advocacy function. Citizens Advice will be allocated an additional £3.72 million to carry out general consumer advocacy work and consumer education and information, previously undertaken by Consumer Focus and the OFT.
I hope that noble Lords will accept my explanation of the relationship between the competition and consumer reforms as to why additions to the CMA’s role and widening of the transfer schemes in this way would not be appropriate. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister and other noble Lords who have spoken. I thank, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, for her support. I hope that I will be able to reciprocate but I shall have to wait to hear what she says.
My noble friend Lady Crawley has done a lot in relation to the trading standards organisation. It is important to recognise that the TSI and trading standards offices up and down the country have been engaged with the Government and others in considering what the new landscape looks like. There are two aspects to this. One is that the Minister referred to strengthening and better equipping trading standards bodies to perform the enforcement role, as well as the educational role, which will now also become part of their responsibilities. However, that cannot be done in an atmosphere of fewer resources. The Minister quite rightly said that we are starting from a position of hugely differential funding for trading standards bodies up and down the country, and the NAO also rightly pointed that out, but there is no clarity on how we will address that, let alone on increasing the aggregate amount of resources for the increased level of responsibility and some previously central functions which trading standards are about to take on.
The noble Lord accused my amendments of being likely to create greater confusion. However, at present there is no mention of most of what he went through in some detail. I need to read his words carefully but I think that it needs to be set out more carefully in the public document. There is no mention of the words “national trading standards”, SIPEP, Citizens Advice, or indeed Consumer Focus for that matter. To get clarity, we need a better understanding of where previously central statutory functions are now going. To go back to the money point, we also need to ensure that, when the transfers are made, at least commensurate resources are transferred with them. In the area of consumer advocacy, for example, I know that Citizens Advice has been asked to take on the role of Consumer Focus and, prior to that, activities that came under the NCC.
The Minister referred to £3.7 million. My recollection is that in the last year of the National Consumer Council and the first year of Consumer Focus, the budget for that role—the non-regulated industries part of Consumer Focus—was around £6 million. That was four years ago. Therefore, there is a serious cut and Citizens Advice is not being given a commensurate amount of money to perform the function previously carried out by Consumer Focus.
I fear that the same is likely to be applied to trading standards offices and that they will be asked to do more in a different way—in some cases, starting from scratch—without commensurate resources. At the very least, the Government ought to put in the Bill clarity about where all those responsibilities are going. They should be obliged to produce regulations at a later stage when the transfers are taking place and attach to the resources that they are handing over those that related to responsibilities which were previously central and are now to be carried out at local or third sector level.
I think that the last thing the Bill provides is clarity, and I will be coming back to that point in other contexts, as I am sure others will. The new consumer landscape, or new trading standards landscape, is not spelt out in the Bill. There is some support for some of the measures that the Government are introducing—there is no doubt about that—and there are those who would like to see them set out slightly differently. However, the point I am making is that that is not in the Bill—there is no clarity. Parliament has not been asked to approve or sanction the way in which these transfers are likely to take place and the way in which those responsibilities are in future likely to be delivered and effected. So I do not really accept much of what the Minister says about this part of the Bill. We will undoubtedly return to it.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Borrie, who asked about the fair trading dimension, I am all in favour of the fair trade label and what it does to improve the conditions of workers, particularly in the third world, and the conditions of the environment. That was not what I intended here, and perhaps some better wording would convey the fact that we are concerned not just about market structures but about how providers and buyers of services and goods treat their consumers and suppliers. We need a term that is probably no longer “fair trading”—that is confusing—that reflects the range of responsibilities relating to market abuse in this Bill.
I am sorry to say that the Minister did not entirely convince me. He has not really satisfied me that, under the new set-up, consumer protection—however much of an advantage it is in the market structure areas—will be carried out as effectively, efficiently and in as good a way as it was under the previous structure. Therefore, I am in no doubt that, while I am withdrawing the amendment now, we will return to something like these propositions at a later stage.
Viscount Eccles
I have found it pretty difficult to be sure that I understand exactly what the Bill is trying to do. You practically need a trolley for the papers. It is built on previous Bills, and is still extremely dependent on the 2002 and 1998 Acts. My position on the previous debate would be that if I cannot find it anywhere else it must still be in one of those Acts, and that must be the law of the land.
My interest is in Parts 3 and 4 doing different things. Part 3, in Clause 20, introduces institutional change, whereas Part 4 modifies the competition regime and, in doing so, has a very large number of schedules and is almost completely dependent on previous Acts. It does very little that is not an amendment to an existing Act. The question that I want to probe is why the Government have chosen this particular step of institutional change. There is to be a body corporate known as the Competition and Markets Authority. I thank the Bill team and the Minister very much for trying to settle some of my misunderstandings and doubts in a long correspondence, but I am not entirely reassured.
I go back to the Public Bodies Act, which is quite a recent Act—passed in 2011. Section 2 says:
“A Minister may by order merge any group of bodies or offices specified in Schedule 2 … In this section, to ‘merge’ a group means … to abolish all the bodies or offices in the group, create a new body corporate or office and transfer some or all of the functions of the abolished bodies or offices to the new one, or … to abolish all but one of the bodies or offices in the group and to transfer some or all of the functions of the abolished bodies or offices to the remaining one”.
My question is: why have the Government chosen subsection (2)(a) and not subsection (2)(b)? There does not seem to be a strong case for going any further than abolishing all but one of the bodies and transferring the functions to the remaining one. That is in effect what is happening. We are not getting a new body. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was welcoming the new body and trying to make sure that it has new things to do, but that is not the Government’s intention. This is simply the Office of Fair Trading with its name changed. Following the scheme of the Public Bodies Act, which the Government have done, even though they say they are not depending on it, they have at some stage to take account of the reason, purpose and conditions, as in Section 8. In the exercise of public functions, they must have regard to efficiency, effectiveness, economy—the familiar three Es—and accountability. At the moment, I do not think there has been any attempt to describe to Parliament why the creation of this new body would achieve the purpose and conditions of the Public Bodies Act.
Indeed, that seems quite strange at a time when we have to try to restrain expenditure. We would all agree with that: if we saw a reasonable opportunity for restraining expenditure, we would take it. It is a time when, if we can have minimum disruption and allow as many people as possible to carry on doing the things with which they are familiar without being told that they face great change, we should. It is also a time when it is probably better to have the maximum of reality. The reality is that we are being presented with a beefed-up OFT. I have no objection to that as an idea but do not see why it should be sold as a new body. That does not seem to be what it is. I have a piece of evidence that leads to a question. Am I right that under Part 4 of the Bill—which deals with the modification of the competition regime—if the draftsman was to substitute “OFT” in every instance for “CMA”, the modification would be perfectly installed by Parliament and there would be absolutely nothing wrong with it? That demonstrates that what is happening is a change of name and a beefing up of the powers of the OFT, and not the creation of a new body.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I obviously listened to what my noble friend Lord Eccles said at Second Reading when he made very similar points. I am not clear: does he accept the fundamental need to reform the structure and institutional nature of our competition regime? It is a very straightforward issue, with which—
Viscount Eccles
Perhaps I may just answer that question. I do not accept that, no.
Lord Razzall
Well, that seems to be the fundamental difference between my noble friend and other members of the coalition. I suspect, having heard the Second Reading remarks of a number of members of the Labour Party, that it is also their view that there is a need for such reform. I will not labour the point because it was made at Second Reading, but it is universally regarded throughout the world that our competition regime has all the attributes that every competition regime should have except for being the slowest. That is the real issue that this part of the Bill attempts to deal with. It does not matter if you call it a beefed-up OFT or a beefed-up Competition Commission. What is being reformed is the necessity for practitioners, companies and people involved in the whole competition process to go through two organisations to get the decision that they are likely to require. That is the purpose of the Bill. I am still puzzled as to whether my noble friend, Lord Eccles, who was a distinguished member of one of the bodies that is being abolished, wants to maintain the system as it was when he was that distinguished member.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Eccles for tabling this clause stand part debate. I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee—it will probably save time—if I combine my opposition to this clause with my opposition to a later clause
I did not have any friendly meetings with the Minister or anyone else—no 101s—and so I had to turn my attention to perhaps an even more appropriate body: one of the most distinguished past chairmen of the monopolies commission. He has authorised me to describe his objections to the CMA as it is proposed and says:
“The proposed corporate structure of the new Competition and Markets Authority points to a vast bureaucracy incorporating a range of vaguely linked but not cohesive elements, resembling a large government department. The result will be an enormous sprawling bureaucracy that over time is bound to swell and grow in size. It will be cumbersome to administer, and, inevitably, it will develop a large and costly administration”.
On the important distinction that exists under the present legislation between the OFT and the Competition Commission he said that,
“the distinction in the competition field between the investigatory and prosecutorial functions (OFT) and the judgmental functions of an economic tribunal (Competition Commission), that had been so carefully separated for over 70 years, since the Competition Commission … was formed, will become increasingly blurred within the new single organisation. This separation, which, in my view, is essential for the proper and fair functioning of an effective competition regime, has stood the test of time, and has been respected, and seen as a model, worldwide”.
He made it clear that, on ordinary references, the equivalent of the Competition Commission in the United States is not expected to report for at least two years, usually longer.
He makes an important point that the evidence of material failings in the present structure that could not be improved simply, without wholesale change, is not clear. What is the evidence of the material failings in the present structure that could not be improved?
There are certain important distinctions between the two offices at present. The OFT, a governmental agency like the prosecution services of the state, has a role in bringing proceedings before or referring matters to a body more expert in the conduct of hearings, collecting and reviewing evidence and making independent judgments. The Competition Commission, on the other hand, a body of independent members, is an independent tribunal which gathers and reviews evidence and makes rational and independent findings. The distinction between the two is very important and will be lost.
Over the years, I have had the greatest respect for the monopolies commission. Later, we will come to a clause which will sweep away and abolish the monopolies commission and the Office of Fair Trading after, as has already been said, the National Consumer Council, many other consumer bodies and others who have carried out very respected work over the years have been swept away. During the seven years in which I was responsible, in one way or another, for either the monopolies commission or the Office of Fair Trading, first in the shadow Cabinet in opposition and then in government, I was in touch with both. I found them all to be wonderfully run organisations, not least the Office of Fair Trading as it is now. Indeed, I was such a strong supporter of both that I still bear the scars of the blood I shed trying to get the implementation of their recommendation, in those days, to abolish the gas showrooms.
I fought it and fought it hard; it was a very painful situation. If noble Lords had been in the House of Commons when I announced it they would have some sympathy for me, but it was possible to do it in a different way, which was by denationalisation of the gas industry, and that was not down to me. The chairman and everybody I appointed to either body during that long period have performed their duties, they have not complained and they have done everything that was wanted of them, and today they are being offered a body—the CMA—a diagram of which we have been presented with. It looks to me like a diagram from a medical student’s textbook on some particularly nasty intestinal complaint.
These multipurpose, overlapping powers are said to be capable of providing quick and more flexible results than the regime which will be abolished. More worrying still to me is what seems to be coming in clauses further on. There is nothing in the Bill so far regarding the CMA’s responsibility to ensure that phase 1 and phase 2 of an investigation are both independent and secure. It absolutely should not be acceptable for the first result to be made known to the second investigatory department. There is no requirement for information about recommendations to be kept secret, which is a great omission. Even worse, staff members of a government department can become members of the board, which is a completely unacceptable situation. The board of the present Competition Commission was always completely independent and this is something that has to be preserved.
I turn to the very valuable services provided by the OFT in consumer affairs. So many things have already been swept away. We do not know yet what will happen in so many areas that we will be asked to vote on in the main debates as to be completely unacceptable. The National Consumer Council, as I have already said, has gone—a council that I was on, that I was chairman of, and which produced very carefully researched reports and recommendations. So good were these reports that I was invited—though I had nothing to do with them and I do not claim any praise for how good they were—by the Prime Minister of the day to ensure that I made my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House on the basis of one of its reports, on access to justice. I think that that says a lot for its value—and there were others, of course.
Under Clause 20, there are indications of the new regime that we might accept. In particular, there are lots of aspects of this that I welcome, such as the new role for trading standards bodies. I have always had the greatest respect for everything that they have done, and I cannot think of a better body to carry out such important statutory duties. I also note that NACAB will be expected not only to provide the service but to collate the information and report it where merited to the National Trading Standards Board. One should bear in mind that the members receiving the complaints are unpaid and voluntary, with different qualifications in different things, and they will not be the people who carry out a review and make decisions on what will be passed to the trading standards departments. So at the top they will have to have more people employed in the executive.
I noticed at Second Reading, which I was unfortunately not able to attend but watched in glorious technicolour from my sick bed, that my noble friend Lord Marland announced, to murmurs of joy, that he would increase the amount for Citizens Advice by £1.7 million. My short-term memory is not very good, but my long-term memory is extremely good. I answered a Question on financial assistance from my department for the citizens advice bureaux, in the other place, on 19 November 1979. My reply was:
“As I shall be announcing today, we shall be doubling the level of assistance in 1980–81, compared with this year. We shall provide £3 million next year”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/79; col. 13.]
Today, that would be about £25 million. It is very important to make the point that if the CABs are expected to carry out this new role—I am sure that they will carry it out well, as they have always given excellent service, and I see no reason why they should not continue to do so—I cannot see how £1.7 million, even if it is only a one-year increase, is to cover all the extra work, which is paid work rather than that done by volunteers, that will have to take place.
Finally, I must express one of my most serious concerns of all. That is on the hiatus caused by the abolition of Clause 21 and whatever is put in its place in Clause 20, which at the very earliest could not begin to take place before April 2013, until the Bill has been enacted, or the positions have been filled—and no appointments can be made until the whole Bill is enacted. In that particular perspective, there is the need to provide a timetable for the new system in the Consumer Credit Act, which will be more or less paralysed during this period of delay. I will be very interested to hear what other noble Lords have to say and to what extent they agree with my concerns. I will wait until the actual clause comes up before I go any further on Clause 21.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, before I start on the detail of what has just been discussed, I welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, to his Front Bench duties on the Bill. We have met on a number of other occasions across this space. I am pleased that he is now able to engage with us on this Bill, which we find of great importance. We look forward to working with him on this and other matters.
We had some doubts about whether we should join in on this clause stand part debate because we were not quite sure where it was coming from. Indeed, I am still not quite sure where the two halves conjoin. There seem to be two different discourses. We are obviously in a two-act drama. Maybe when we get to Clause 21 and hear the other part of the noble Baroness’s speech, we will be able to judge more closely how this comes together. In the debate we have had so far, as so often in clause stand part debates, we begin to distil some of the concerns that have bounced around in some earlier debates. It is worth just reflecting on what we have heard.
From the official Opposition’s point of view, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, we are not against what is being proposed in principle but have a number of reservations that we will want to feel have been properly tested before we finally sign off on it. We will have opportunities both on Report and possibly at Third Reading to do that. At the moment, having listened to the debate on the first two groups, the jury must still be considered to be out. We have had a lot of confusing signals about what exactly is happening, how the Government wish to approach this and the timing. Very importantly—and it has been the substance of a number of contributions we have heard on this group—what exactly is happening to the functions that are not explicitly stated within the front part of the Bill? Where do they go and with what timing? Most importantly, will the funding required to deliver the functions that are currently being properly delivered be available to support that?
I was very struck by some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, about the problems that will come from currently having two separate bodies. The OFT and the Competition Commission have their separate focuses and cultures, one investigative and one judgmental. That careful construction of two separate operations patrolling a common area but with very different functions and levels has been judged over time to be very successful. How will they be brought together and how in particular will the phase one and phase two elements and splits work out? Like the noble Baroness, I looked at the diagram. I did not quite bring out the medical textbook or the nasty intestinal disease analogies that she did, but I can understand where she was coming from in that. It is a rather odd structure. It does not seem to fit any of the management textbooks that I am familiar with in terms of clarity of exposition or additional information that would not be provided by a textual analysis. It is jolly colourful and we should be grateful for that.
We are creating something quite different. As I said, we are not against this but we need to be satisfied about why the Government have chosen this particular route and method of doing it. As was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, it includes the Public Bodies Bill but also ignores what that says about how to go about this, in creating a body which in a sense already exists. The chair of that body is available should he wish to speak. Perhaps he could share with us what he thinks of the colour diagram that we are talking about—but perhaps he will not. It would be helpful if we could get a little bit more from the Minister about some of the intertextual material that has been brought out in this discussion. I want a better feel for the timing, a sense of certainty about what is or is not being retained within the central core of the CMA and why stuff is being taken out and under what constraints that has been done. Particularly for trading standards and Citizens Advice, I want an absolute assertion from the Minister when he comes to respond that the funding will be available to deliver the sort of services to which we all aspire but which, I am afraid, will not be available in the time.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I say at the outset that I am very grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I am particularly grateful for the contributions from my noble friends Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and Lord Eccles, who bring a wealth of valuable experience to this debate. I also appreciate the useful meetings that they have had either with me or with officials, or indeed with both.
The UK has one of the best competition regimes in the world but in the current economic environment we need to strive for improvement and further embed conditions in which companies can operate freely in competitive markets that encourage innovation, investment and growth and in which consumers secure the benefits of competition.
Despite its world-class ranking, there are problems with the current regime. As my noble friend Lord Razzall recognises and as he said at Second Reading, the UK competition regime is among the slowest in the world. I am grateful that he has reiterated that point today. Data published in Global Competition Review show that we are one of the three slowest countries when it comes to conducting investigations into anti-competitive agreements, and in the bottom four for investigating abuse of dominance cases. The current regime has also led to problems in terms of the length of time that it takes to conduct market studies and market investigations, which prolongs consumer detriment and uncertainty in markets. For example, between 2002 and 2011, OFT market studies took between three and 21 months, and the end-to-end process of market investigation, including the time taken for the OFT to make a referral, as well as the appeals process, ranged between 33 and 67 months.
Another issue is the uneven nature of references made to the Competition Commission, making it difficult to manage resources. For much of 2006, the Competition Commission was working on five market investigations and in 2008 it was working on four, whereas no references were received in 2008 or 2009. The pattern of merger and regulatory references is also uneven, and that contributes to an overall work pattern of peaks and troughs.
This clause therefore establishes a new Competition and Markets Authority, which will bring together the Competition Commission and the competition and markets functions of the OFT into one body. Despite looking on paper like a medical student’s study sheet—a euphemism for what was mentioned by other noble Lords—the creation of the CMA will mean a single, strong voice for competition which can provide leadership for the sector regulators on competition enforcement. It will mean less duplication and greater consistency of information requests between phase 1 and phase 2, and more flexible deployment of resources and specialist expertise across all its competition tools. It will also mean prompter referrals to phase 2 where necessary, and greater certainty for business from faster and clearer timeframes and more robust decision-making. Finally, it will also mean a one-stop shop for businesses to help them to understand and comply with competition law.
The creation of the CMA has also been welcomed by business groups and practitioners, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the Forum of Private Business and the City of London Law Society, which all consider that it will provide efficiencies and boost business confidence. The CMA will be the UK’s premier competition authority and will have at its disposal a full range of approaches to tackle anti-competitive behaviour and make markets work better for consumers and businesses.
This clause therefore gives the CMA a duty to seek to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, both within the UK and internationally. It will be concerned with how firms interact with each other—that is, the supply side—and how firms interact with customers, which is the demand side.
In creating the CMA, we have drawn from the best of the OFT and the Competition Commission. The CMA will therefore retain the separation of decision-making between phase 1 and phase 2 in merger and markets cases, with independent expert panellists taking the phase 2 decisions. These features were highlighted as key strengths of the current regime by Sir John Vickers and some of the other witnesses to the Committee in the other place, and we shall protect those features. The provisions are set out in detail in Schedule 4.
I should like to bring up a matter raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He asked what the relationship or distinction was between this Bill and the Public Bodies Act. Section 5 of the Public Bodies Act provides for the modification of the functions of the Office of Fair Trading and the transfer of functions to other bodies. The PBA also allows for the OFT’s functions to be abolished. Further, Section 2 of the PBA provides that the OFT and the Competition Commission may be merged. However, we will not use the Public Bodies Act to enact reforms to the competition regime or to abolish the OFT or CC. Instead, we will be relying on Clause 21, which provides for the abolition of both the OFT and the CC. This is because while the Public Bodies Act allows us to abolish both bodies, and modify and transfer their functions, it does not allow us to create wholly new competition functions and powers for the successor body, the CMA.
I should also like to address a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, on the separation of decision-making in markets and mergers—a matter also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The independence of the phases will be preserved, in as much as paragraph 28 of Schedule 4 specifies that unless otherwise specified, functions of the CMA are exercisable by the CMA board. Similarly to the Competition Commission’s arrangements, paragraph 36 of Schedule 4 requires that where under any enactment—the Enterprise Act or sectoral legislation—the chair of the CMA is required to constitute a group to carry out an inquiry. He must appoint members of the CMA’s panel to an inquiry group in accordance with that enactment and Part 3 of Schedule 4. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring noble Lords.
Finally, I should like to address an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the funding of trading standards departments; this matter was brought up earlier. I covered in our previous debate the issue of where the funding will be. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked specifically about trading standards funding. Perhaps I may add that in 2011-12, we allocated a total of £10.6 million for national and cross-border enforcement in England, Wales and Scotland. However, looking ahead to 2012-13, we have allocated £12.1 million. This is in recognition of the additional responsibilities that trading standards will take on as functions are transitioned from the OFT. This funding is subject to budgets being agreed and the effects which any emerging central pressures may have on the proposed levels of funding. I hope that this goes a little way to answering the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I want to ensure that the record is correct. The previous figure of £10.6 million has now been superseded by £12.1 million. I think that was the sense of what the Minister said. I notice that he has not given us the comparable figures raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. What exactly is the Citizen Advice component of that? It would be helpful, if he does not have them, if he could write to us and make sure that we have the figures because several have been floated. It would be nice to have them on the record.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I note what the noble Lord said, and I will return to him in writing. I commend this clause to the Committee.
Viscount Eccles
Perhaps I may reply to the Minister. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. Although there is Clause 21, I was speaking only to Clause 20, which creates a certain difficulty because it is about the creation of the CMA. I asked a specific question: why did the Government choose to form the CMA instead of simply giving additional powers to the OFT? Does this new body amount to anything more than a change in the name of the OFT? With great respect to my noble friend, I did not get an answer to that question.
I quite understand that if you start to debate Clause 20, you are inevitably drawn into the things that are being done by Clause 21 and other parts of the Bill. On the question of whether I am against the structural change, I am here to be convinced—this is Committee. As my noble friend quite correctly said, at Second Reading I cast great doubt over whether this structural change was sensible; I am here to be convinced—or not—and we will see what happens.
One way in which my noble friend tried to convince me—indeed, so did my noble friend on the Front Bench—was through the “slowest” argument. There are plenty of time limits in the 2002 and 1998 Acts. It is not that the existing law does not provide time limits; it is just, it is said, that they have not been kept to. Nobody has explained why they have not been kept to. Understanding that is quite complicated. There are provisions for extensions and there are clever lawyers who are good at arguing for extensions. There is the European competition regime, which quite often can lead you into needing an extension. The regime of time limits is already in existence. I do not see why a statutory change to that regime is going to make any difference to what happens on the ground.
What happens on the ground depends upon the circumstances of each case, the behaviour of the participants in that case and the way in which the case is handled. It may well be that our regime should be quicker, and I would not dissent from that, but it does not need additional legislation. That is one argument that has been put forward as to why we need this institutional change, but I do not accept it. I quite accept that there may have to be competent discussions between professionals—round tables—in the light of the existing legislation and that things should be done in a more expeditious way. Indeed, in the 2002 Act there is a general duty to do everything as expeditiously as possible. I just think that it is another piece of make-believe to say that, if you write it into a law, it is going to happen.
Lord Razzall
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount’s flow. What is his answer to the argument that all the major business organisations and the Law Society are in favour of this recommendation?
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I have looked quite carefully at what has been said, and it has been quite qualified. In fact, I have had a bit of dialogue with the CBI over recent weeks, and it seems to have been in the same position as me when it started out: it did not understand the Bill. I am not overimpressed—I am never overimpressed—by what lobby groups are said to have said. One has to try to make up one’s own mind—that is possibly why we are here.
The other point made by my noble friend on the Front Bench concerned the varying workload on the Competition Commission. Of course, I completely take that point on board. It has been referred to that I was a member of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. At one time, I was on three days’ equivalent and I was there all five days; I was on five inquiries and I was chairing three of them. When we had a heavy load of work, we just worked harder. When we did not have such a heavy load of work, we did not work quite so hard. To be serious, that question comes down to what you do about the cost of the commission at times when it is not so busy.
I have not consulted the commission at all on this; I have done all my own research. It has reduced its costs by 23% since the onset of the crisis. I have no doubt that there are ways in which the costs of the commission, if it really does not have so much work, could be reduced further. It has a board and it tends to have more deputy chairmen than it did in my day, and they are rather better paid than we were in my day, even if you go into real terms. Therefore, there are ways in which the cost could be flexed by both the OFT and the Competition Commission. It does not necessarily follow that putting them under one roof and cutting some back-office expenses—and I do not remember that we had much of a back office in the monopolies commission—will do the trick. So I am not persuaded that the opportunity to reduce the cost of the Competition Commission from £17.7 million net to something else is adequate to match the risk being taken if this regime falls to pieces.
“Consumer Panel
(1) The CMA must make and maintain effective arrangements for consulting consumers on the extent to which its general policies and practices are consistent with its purposes under section 20.
(2) Arrangements under this section must include the establishment and maintenance of a panel of persons (to be known as “the Consumer Panel”) to represent the interests of consumers.
(3) The CMA must appoint one of the members of the Consumer Panel to be its chair.
(4) The CMA may appoint to the Consumer Panel such consumers, or persons representing the interests of consumers, as it considers appropriate.
(5) The CMA must secure that membership of the Consumer Panel is such as to give a fair degree of representation to those who are using, or are or may be contemplating using, services otherwise than in connection with businesses carried on by them.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, for the purpose of this amendment, perhaps we can accept that we are going to have a CMA, not prejudging what might happen later, because this amendment suggests that if we have one there should be a consumer panel attached to it.
One of the most effective ways of helping to ensure that regulation is always in the hands of consumers, whether they be clients of lawyers, customers of financial services, receivers of radio and TV programmes, or purchasers of food, is to ensure that the regulatory body always, and continuously, hears the voice of consumers. This is particularly important with any regulator seeking to promote competition, as consumers are key to the whole competition remit that we seek for our economy. They understand better than anyone how the market really does or does not work for them. They know about non-price barriers to shopping around; they understand about tie-in deals; and they are the best to judge whether providers, whether of goods or services, are part of a competitive, responsive market.
More than that, consumer panels, made up of people experienced in representing, researching or advocating for consumers, in complaint handling, or in policy development, bring to the regulatory table expertise in hearing the unmet needs of consumers and of measuring their experiences, both satisfactory and unsatisfactory. They are alert to likely future trends; they can assess how policy will impact on actual behaviours, whether of providers or users; and they can make a significant difference to the work plan and priorities of statutory regulators. We have seen this with the Financial Services Authority, where the panel will morph into the same role with the new Financial Conduct Authority, at the Food Standards Agency, and, as I know well from my former role as its chair, in the Legal Services Board’s consumer panel. The Civil Aviation Authority has established one, and the Office of Rail Regulation is looking to create one, having had an informal panel for a couple of years.
It is not merely consumer representatives who want an economy that is consumer and client focused. In his first blog, the new chief executive of the Investment Management Association, Daniel Godfrey, says that one of his two priorities for 2013 is to work in collaboration with regulators and Governments to create a framework which, in his words, protects clients.
There can be no better way to create such a framework than having consumers or their representatives embedded in the regulatory architecture—not simply from the outside, so that they must shout and scream, put out press releases and lobby and harry, in the way that we see and, often, welcome outside consumer bodies doing, but as part of evidence-based and thoughtful development of policy and practice to ensure that the regulator never forgets, in this case, that the whole point of regulation is to promote and protect consumers’ interests. Indeed, the embedded nature of consumer panels means that they can provide input at the earliest stages of policy formulation before the regulator consults—when, in truth, it has often made up its mind—influencing the culture of the organisation from the inside and helping colleagues to get things right the first time round.
A further advantage is the ability to share market-sensitive information and analysis, which regulators are unlikely to want to show even to consumer bodies, which they generally trust, as well as to test thinking. This can be useful in processes such as price controlling, and for the CMA could be particularly relevant in market investigations. A consumer panel provides expert advice on tap, whereas generalist, outside consumer bodies tend to move in and out of policy areas over time.
Consumer panels are also an important counterweight, especially in areas where industry is well placed to influence or lobby, which would certainly be the case for the CMA. Panels are also surprisingly cost-effective, as being embedded results in economies of scale. In the case of my former Legal Services Consumer Panel, its £44,000 a year budget was a mere pin-prick in the £25 billion of consumer spending in legal services.
Consumer panels also play a key role in accountability by scrutinising the regulator’s work in the name of those whose interests it is meant to pursue. It is very easy, once regulatory institutions have been established, to forget or become rather complacent about the underlying rationale for regulating an economic sector. Moreover, given the effective “outsourcing” of statutory consumer functions, as outlined earlier today by my noble friend Lord Whitty, to non-statutory bodies, with no organisation other than the CMA to oversee or lead these outside bodies, it will be essential that the CMA has clear consumer input to this part of its remit, and that would be a natural task for a consumer panel.
Placing a panel on a statutory footing also guarantees its independence. It can represent the interests of consumers without fear or favour, as the CMA could not terminate a consumer panel if it found it a trifle uncomfortable. Of course, any such panel would need some powers, such as the right to make representations to the CMA, alongside reciprocal duties on the CMA to give reasons when disagreeing with such advice. This would aid transparency but would also be vital to the panel’s ability to influence.
Given the need, in terms of concurrency, for the Secretary of State to consult consumer bodies before removing a regulator’s competitive powers, a CMA consumer panel could have a specific role to play here. Similarly, as is argued in other amendments before the Committee today, a CMA panel would be broader than individual purchasers of goods and services. In particular, the panel would need members who were able to consider the interests of micro-enterprises and small businesses, for example, which sometimes experience even greater detriment than domestic consumers.
The CMA, if it exists, will be a key player in ensuring that our economy is competitive and therefore flourishing, and that it serves the consumer interest well. The creation of a consumer panel would concentrate minds on the end user—the beneficiary of all this regulation. I know that when the noble Lord, Lord Currie—who is in his place today—was the head of Ofcom, he welcomed, and I believe valued, the role that the consumer panel played in that regulation. Therefore, I do not think that he would fear the creation of a consumer panel for the CMA. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, I think that the Committee should accept, as a matter of principle, the point that my noble friend has been enunciating. Indeed, the experience of other regulators, including Ofcom, is that an in-house consumer panel—not strangers to the organisation but working closely with the regulator—is a good idea. Unfortunately, it cannot be called a consumer panel tout court in this Bill because of course there is something called the consumer panel already; that is, the people who make the decisions, the part-timers who are allocated particular jobs and make the final decisions of the CMA. That is all set out in Schedule 4. Perhaps some other means of dealing with my noble friend’s proposition has already been thought of by Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, before the Minister responds, I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has tabled Amendment 24BA, which is obviously a second string to her bow in this matter. I am rather surprised that it has not been grouped with this amendment. Be that as it may, it seems to me that rather than having another panel under the CMA, it would be far preferable to have a consumer representative on the panel that already exists under the Bill.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for this amendment, which seeks to establish a CMA consumer panel, and I note her very considerable experience in chairing consumer panels over many years.
Close co-operation between the CMA and consumer organisations will be essential to ensure that the CMA is well informed on issues that cause consumer detriment, and that it takes action in the right areas. Competition authorities are well used to taking account of consumer welfare in their activities and this will be the case for the CMA in particular, given its objective to promote competition in the interest of consumers. This is why we have established SIPEP, a new strategic intelligence, prevention and enforcement partnership, which will bring together key consumer bodies, including Citizens Advice and representatives from Scotland and Northern Ireland, to work together to identify those issues that impact on consumers and collectively agree priorities for enforcement, information and education. These will assist in guiding the CMA’s policies and priorities.
In addition to this, the Bill already has extensive provisions on transparency and consultation with consumers and other bodies. The CMA must consult stakeholders, including consumer representative bodies and the general public, on a range of issues that guide its policy. For example, paragraph 12 of Schedule 4 to the Bill provides that as part of its annual plan, the CMA must consult on its main objectives for the year and the relative priorities of each of those objectives. The CMA must also consult on statutory and non-statutory guidance which sets out much of the CMA’s policy and processes. The super-complaint process, in which the OFT is required to provide a fast-track response to certain consumer bodies, will also be retained for the CMA.
Given the consultation requirements, the new approach to enhanced working between the CMA and bodies across the consumer landscape, and the super-complaint process, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that the arrangements for consulting consumers are already sufficient and will agree to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for that response and my noble friend Lord Borrie and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for their comments. As usual, my noble friend Lord Borrie goes straight to the point that the name is wrong. Maybe we can negotiate on “consumer forum” or “consumer round table”. However, right as he is on that, wrong are the Government in their response.
Before I turn to the Minister’s comments, perhaps I may say that the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was interesting. It is about whether one person on a board is sufficient to represent all consumers, an issue which the consumer movement has discussed a great deal. It is like being the only woman in a committee and people assuming that you can speak on behalf of all women. When the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, was first at meetings—I hope she does not take this badly—she was very often probably the only woman present. Even women of my age are still experiencing that situation now. As the one woman, it was somehow expected that you would speak for all women. It can be the same with consumers. However, as I found on panels, there were BME consumers, rural consumers, old consumers and young consumers, and you need a broad panel, if you like, to reach in, understand and get to a hearing in that way. A middle-class woman such as myself as a consumer rep does not do it, but a much broader-based panel does.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, understands that it makes it easier for one consumer representative on a board if there are mechanisms for a much broader consultation.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, if the noble Baroness has finished with her remarks on me, does that mean that she intends to withdraw Amendment 24BA—because, if not, she is speaking against herself?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am certainly not. I am suggesting that you need a person on the board with experience—I will come to that—but, on its own, this is not a sufficient condition for making the board work.
Let me now comment on what the Minister has said. If he expects the partnership to carry out the kind of role that consumer panels have carried out, he does not understand what consumer panels have done. A partnership that comes together once a month, once a quarter—I do not know how often it is going to meet; I think it has met only twice so far—simply would not be able to bring the right level of detail to the work of the CMA. Some of the matters the Minister mentioned are exactly those outside functions which will not be carried out by the CMA but by others.
I think I have touched on the problem of consultation. When it goes outside the family to Which? or Citizens Advice, it is put out in a pristine and finished way rather than at an earlier stage. It does not solve the problem.
We will need to think about this matter and possibly come back to it because it is vital to make this new authority work well.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment perhaps I may ask her a question arising from the statement made in advance by the Citizens Advice service, which is going to be the home of information, advice, education and advocacy on general consumer matters under the Regulated Industries Unit. This is one of the best pieces of news in the Bill because it will bring together the technical expertise, Consumer Focus and information gathered by the CABs and a unit to represent consumer interests in the regulated sectors—gas services, electrical services, postal services and so on.
This is very important because the regulatory authorities do not always appear to be sympathetic in areas in which they should be. It is not very gratifying or appeasing for consumers when one of the regulated bodies receives a multimillion pound fine for being in breach of their responsibilities because the consumers who have suffered do not receive a single penny of that. All they hear about is this very big sum and they do not know whether it has made any difference to the practices. Also, it has been a very long-standing argument of mine—and I hope that it will be solved by this—that Citizens Advice and Consumer Focus should be able to take up individual matters. That is important because the big regulators will not take up matters such as how the bill is presented. Very often bills are presented in a most confusing and frightening way. EDF sends out bills that look, at first, very frightening to the ordinary eye and certainly to an aged person—particularly when they see £1,000 appearing in big letters on the front, although it is not what they will in fact have to pay. It is an assumption of what they might have to pay if they used a certain amount of electricity, or whatever. This is an important provision and I hope that the noble Baroness will take account of that before she withdraws the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the noble Baroness for those comments. The Regulated Industries Unit will be extraordinarily important but, of course, it will cover only post and energy, which is very restrictive. It will not be allowed a role in the sort of areas that the CMA will be dealing with. She raised an interesting question about where the individual goes to. One of the important things about a consumer panel is that it can gather the intelligence, be that from an ombudsman or any other form of individual complaints, and even go into the annual reports of companies to see how they have handled complaints. The panel can then use the intelligence to come to the CMA and perhaps say, “Look, we have done that homework. We know where this market is not working”. My fear is that Citizens Advice, with the best will in the world, will simply be unable to do that. We will have people coming through the door with a lot of debt problems, or who are homeless, or who have just been sacked by their employer, suffered water leaks or whatever. That ability to take intelligence, translate it into policy and feed that into the regulator will be beyond that organisation. That is why we will have to come back to this. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Eccles
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, this is another attempt to be reassured and comforted. There has been a lot of talk about the continuity of the practice that has been followed by the combination of the OFT and the Competition Commission. It has been described as phase 1 and phase 2. Although these are not in the Bill, and I suspect that they will not find their way into it, there is no doubt that the duty to continue to see whether something should be referred is there, as is the duty to investigate the reference.
The first phase is investigative and the second is quasi-judicial, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. However, it is proposed that this should be done under one management, and that creates problems. It is not completely dissimilar to our arguments about clearing banking and investment banking. There is on occasion a need for a Chinese wall, but that is difficult if everyone is in one building. I should like to understand more clearly how we are going to keep that feature of the regime in such a way that the new regime is not challenged—or not constantly challenged.
We have a powerful legal profession in the UK. I am now thinking about business and the ease with which it is apparently being reassured that everything will go much more sweetly. We had some very bright QCs in front of the monopolies commission in my day. They were paid to represent the interests of their clients and they were very good at it. Therefore, I think that the Bill is in danger of knocking down a Chinese wall.
I know that my noble friend has already made some references to what I think he is going to tell me are the safeguards. There will not be the contamination of bias and there will not be conflicts of interest, but I am not at all certain about that and I need to be much more reassured than I am at present.
The effect of these two amendments would be to make a start in separating the board from the panel and not having an overlap between the two. They are perhaps just an effort to put one or two bricks in the bottom of the Chinese wall. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised some really important issues. Certainly we would like to hear from the Minister why the Government have chosen this particular set-up, which is an argument that we have just been having in relation to the Financial Services Bill. The question remains as to why any panels under this Bill are not hearing cases completely independently of the CMA board.
I am sorry that I went on earlier about my consumer panel experience but I also have to say that I was a member of the determinations panel of the Pensions Regulator. We were completely independent of the Pensions Regulator. We were appointed by it to ensure that we knew something about pensions but that was about it. Other than that, we were completely independent. We did not work there and we did not know the staff, other than bumping into them in the loo and so on, but we were very independent of them. It was therefore more than a Chinese wall—it amounted to a gap of a good few miles.
Similarly, in our discussions on the Financial Services Bill, we have been trying to ensure that the Regulatory Decisions Committee of the FSA is equally independent of and separate from the FSA. That is partly to do with independence but also because it seems that we should look at whether there is a difference between the two roles of serving on the CMA board and doing hearings and taking decisions. The role of serving on the board is really about setting strategy and policy, whereas the work of the panels is often quite different and calls on a slightly different skill set. Therefore, we are interested in knowing why the Government have not made sure that the investigators are separate from the decision-makers and that their roles are not blurred— I think that was the word used earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, in quoting a former chair of the monopolies commission.
I assume that we all want a strong firewall between investigations and decision-making, so perhaps it is better to make them absolutely separate from the start, rather than going through convoluted ways of achieving that end.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, these amendments affect the provisions that provide for a partial overlap of the CMA board, which is responsible for the CMA overall and phase 1 decisions in mergers and markets in particular, and the CMA panel, whose members are responsible for phase 2 decisions in mergers and markets and regulatory appeals. The governance and decision-making arrangements in Schedule 4 are designed to establish a single, coherent competition authority while retaining the separation of decision-making between phase 1 and phase 2; in particular, merger and markets cases.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 provides that at least one person be appointed to both the board and the panel. In the Government’s response to the competition reform consultation, we said that we intend to appoint two or three such people to the board and the panel. The membership provisions being debated here are designed to ensure that the board includes members with experience of the phase 2 processes, and so to address any reluctance of the board to have a matter referred to a group of independent panellists whose decisions are, under paragraph 49, to be taken independently of it and over which it will have no direct control. Ensuring that there is a steady flow of appropriate market investigation is one of the key intended benefits of the creation of the CMA, so the provisions will play an important role.
I believe that the provisions in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, will undermine the separation of decision-making by allowing board members to take phase 2 decisions. I assure her that the Government would also be concerned about the risks resulting from some of the same people involved in a decision to make a referral also being involved in final decisions at phase 2. It is for this reason that paragraph 33 prevents this from happening.
Paragraph 33 works prospectively, so that where the board will be considering whether a matter should be referred to the chair of the CMA for the constitution of a group of panellists who will be responsible for a phase 2 inquiry, the chair must first determine whether a member of the board might be expected to be appointed to a resulting group. In these circumstances, the person so identified must not participate in the board’s consideration of the referral.
Finally, because the Government intend to appoint two or three people who will be board members and panellists, even where one board member is excluded from considering a referral, other panellists—who will not be involved in the group taking on an inquiry if the matter is referred—will still be able to participate in the board discussion. This provision therefore protects independence of decision-making, while also ensuring that the board includes members with responsibilities across the CMA’s range of functions, and is therefore able to act, at a strategic level, as a coherent body. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I am afraid that I am not comforted by that description, least of all by the even flow of work. If that is going to be continually put forward as a serious reason for the structure we are going into, it is very regrettable.
All businesses have to be prepared to flex, to take on more work at some times and less at others. If things are still as they were, quite a lot of the staff of the Competition Commission are seconded; they can be taken back; there is the possibility of bringing in consultancy advice, or not bringing it in; there is a very considerable ability within the present system to flex the resources. If we are going to be told that this even flow is very important, we need to have something in support of the regulatory impact assessment as to how much money we are actually going to save.
We have dismissed the Public Bodies Act, which was about reducing the number of quangos when we could and saving money. That is where this thing started from—we should not forget that. All the rest of it has been tagged on, no doubt as a result of long-term planning inside BIS, which may indeed have seen the Public Bodies Bill as quite an interesting challenge—“Let us see what we can put forward”.
So I am not comforted, but it gets worse than that. I do not want to go through the whole string; I have drafted a series of amendments to try to reassure myself that it is possible to build a Chinese wall. I have not put them down yet and I am not going to talk about them today, but I am going to talk about the panel. It is becoming a technocratic panel under this Bill. It has 11 members; I expect that there may well be more. The composition of this panel and the way in which its prospective members are appointed is very different from the way in which panels have been appointed to the Competition Commission in the past.
This panel has no one in charge—it cannot have anyone in charge. As my noble friend has said, it cannot have the chairman of the CMA in charge because that would knock down the Chinese wall. So who is in charge? No one is in charge. If there was an away day for the panel, who would sit in the chair, for example, if it wanted to discuss how it is to operate as a Competition and Markets Authority group? The panel does not set any rules for that; the rules are set by the CMA. It does not have any staff, so how does it know that it will get the people that it wants?
I remember very well someone who was absolutely gripped by cost-benefit analyses and, when I was looking at a proposed merger between a Canadian whisky company and a Scottish whisky company, I said, “For goodness’ sake, do not send me that cost-benefit analysis”. He was a splendid fellow, but not on this merger inquiry. The way this is structured there will be no one on the panel who will be in a position to behave like that. The panel will have no management authority and no executive responsibility; those will be delivered to it by the CMA.
It may be that noble Lords are glad that I am not a lawyer representing someone coming in front of one of these panels, but I assure the Committee that I could make a seamless argument which said, “This panel is not independent”. At least I would get an adjournment, which would upset my noble friend Lord Razzall because the thing would take longer.
For now, I shall withdraw my amendment, as the Committee would expect. However, I shall revert to the subject and there are other amendments in front of the Committee that offer the opportunity to discuss these matters. At the moment, this phase 1/phase 2 is completely unconvincing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(1A) Appointment of a person as chair under sub-paragraph (1)(a) shall be subject to approval by a Select Committee of Parliament.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the first amendment in the group seeks simply to have the appointment of the chair approved by the relevant Select Committee in accordance with the coalition agreement which said:
“We will strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments”.
That built on the wording of the Conservative manifesto to,
“give Select Committees the right to hold confirmation hearings for major public appointments, including the heads of Quangos”,
and on the Liberal Democrat manifesto which said:
“We will increase Parliamentary scrutiny of Government appointments”.
It is hard to put it any better than that. However, even if the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the coalition had not supported this, it is still a good thing.
Parliamentary oversight of the performance of the CMA is vital. Our economy depends on a vibrant, competitive market and, given the powers and remit of the CMA, it is important that Parliament checks that it is doing its job. So this amendment is part of that trend of transparency.
Amendment 24AB concerns the key appointment in all of this—the chair of the CMA. We are more than content with the “shadow” chair, if I may call the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, who is in his place, a mere shadow. The amendment is about any successor of his in due course and the attributes that we would wish to see in any such appointment.
Competition law is not only for economists and lawyers. What economists choose to measure is not a neutral given but depends on what they judge to be important. A recent OFT review of the estate agency industry decided that we needed more of them—that is, more estate agents. Clearly the authors of the review had never walked up and down our high streets. However, that is what they thought rather than that we needed better regulated, more truthful and cheaper estate agents. There was something lacking in an over-economically driven approach which ignored the experience of home buyers. We would therefore look for someone who understood how markets really worked for consumers and had experience of retail or wholesale markets and, even more, who understood the particular needs of vulnerable consumers and how failing markets hit them particularly hard.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her amendments, which propose changes to Schedule 4. The Government are committed to increasing transparency and accountability in the public appointments process.
The amendment seeks to make it a statutory requirement for the appointment of the chair of the CMA to be approved by a Select Committee of Parliament. There is already a system in place, introduced by the previous Administration, for agreeing between Parliament and the Executive which of the Government’s public appointments will be subject to a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing. Under this system, the Secretary of State discusses and agrees with the chairman of the relevant Select Committee which appointments will have such a hearing. The Cabinet Office publishes a list of these appointments, most recently in August 2009.
The Government, in their response to the Liaison Committee’s report on Select Committees and public appointments, encouraged Ministers to engage with Select Committee chairs to ensure that the right appointments are receiving Select Committee scrutiny prior to appointment. The current system works well and the Government do not believe that there is any advantage in formalising this process in legislation in respect of individual roles such as that of the chair of the CMA. Indeed, under the current system, a pre-appointment hearing process is already in place for the chairs of the Competition Commission and the OFT.
Amendment 24AB seeks to make it a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State, in appointing the chair of the CMA, to be satisfied that that person has demonstrated an understanding of the impact on consumers of competition and its absence, particularly on vulnerable consumers, as well as of relevant experience in wholesale and retail markets. The appointment of the chair of the CMA is regulated by a code through the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which clearly states that ultimate responsibility for public appointments rests with Ministers. As such, the Secretary of State has been involved in the appointment process for the CMA chair-designate from the beginning and has agreed the selection process and criteria. The published person specification for the CMA chair-designate appointment made clear that knowledge of competition and consumer policy issues, and their implications, was a key requirement.
As noble Lords are aware, at the conclusion of the appointment process, the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, was appointed as the chair-designate to the CMA. I am pleased to note that he is in his place. His formal appointment, assuming that the present Bill receives Royal Assent, will entail a pre-appointment hearing by the BIS parliamentary Select Committee. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that since his appointment as CMA chair-designate, the noble Lord has amply demonstrated his knowledge and understanding of the impact of competition and the effects of its absence on consumers.
I agree that it is important that any candidate for the CMA chair role demonstrates their knowledge of competition and consumer policy, as well as relevant experience in wholesale retail markets. However, formalising in legislation that the Secretary of State must be satisfied as to a candidate’s understanding of these issues is unnecessary in practice. It would also give unbalanced prominence in statute to these, albeit important, areas at the expense of other, equally important areas of understanding or qualities that any candidate for the CMA chair role should be able to demonstrate. For this reason, we do not think it necessary or appropriate for there to be such a statutory requirement.
Finally, Amendment 24BB concerns the pay structures of the CMA. Fair pay in the public sector is evidently more essential than ever in the current climate, as is openness of public bodies in their mandates and resource allocation. In light of this, the Government have implemented a number of measures to support recommendations made in Will Hutton’s report on fair pay in the public sector. For example, public bodies are required to publish in the remuneration reports of their annual resource accounts the pay multiple or ratio between the total remuneration of the highest-paid director and the median total remuneration of the staff excluding the highest-paid director. Public bodies, including the OFT and the Competition Commission, are also required to publish pay details, including names, of their most senior civil servants with a salary of more than £150,000. We do not, however, agree with placing a ban on managers earning more than 20 times the pay of the lowest-paid full-time employee in their organisation, as suggested in proposed new sub-paragraph (4) of this amendment. This was rejected by the Hutton review of fair pay in the public sector.
In light of this, we do not consider that a specific statutory requirement is needed for the CMA to ensure fair pay. We also disagree with the part of the amendment that apparently seeks to require that all CMA members appointed for more than three months be in the direct employment of the CMA. It is quite right that the staff of the CMA who are in full-time employment should not be employed through personal service companies, or similar, and therefore be able to avoid paying full national insurance contributions. However, the membership of the CMA will include both non-executive directors and independent panel members. Both of these types of member are needed to bring external expertise to the management of the CMA or particular inquiries. It is an accepted principle of good corporate governance that non-executive directors should scrutinise the performance of the executive management while providing them with external advice, support and scrutiny. I therefore ask the noble Lords to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for that. The words “not necessary in the Bill” must be in the word processor for the team behind him, because whatever we ask, the answer is, “Don’t worry, we are doing it. It is not necessary to have it in the Bill”. I am not sure that this is always the best way of writing legislation. There are some things that are very important to have in the Bill as signals and they are also important for accountability.
It is interesting that the Minister, if I heard him correctly, said that the list of appointments which it has been agreed should go to a Select Committee was last published in August 2009. That was in the glorious days, of course, of a Labour Government, happy that they were. Given all the work that this Government have done in changing quangos and changing appointments, the idea that it has not been updated since then leaves me a bit surprised and perhaps reinforces the fact that, sometimes, having this in the Bill is really important.
We have no grounds even for raising the first appointment, as I made clear. We are delighted with the first appointment; we could not have done it better ourselves. If you would like to put us in government, we will do it ourselves. However, we are talking about the future and making sure that the commitment to consumers and their interests is there.
The final thing I will say is that I thought our wording “in the direct employment” covered the chief executive. If I did not word the amendment correctly, that was what it was meant to be. Whether that should be an undertaking in a side letter or something, that point remains. I am sorry that the Minister, who I believe speaks on behalf of a coalition Government with a commitment not just to continuing but to strengthening the powers of Select Committees in major public appointments, feels that that does not allow him to do so in this case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(8) Of the persons appointed to membership of the CMA Board under sub-paragraph (1)(b), at least one must have expertise as a representative of consumers.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the good news for the Committee is that this is the last it will hear from me for a bit. I will hand over to my noble friend Lord Mitchell, whose great success in the Financial Services Bill will, I hope, make the Minister quake as he receives my noble friend’s amendments.
The first of the two amendments in this group, which I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitty and me, concerns the make up of the CMA board, and ensures that, as has already been mentioned, at least one of its members has expertise in representing the interests of consumers. There is a large pool on which to draw for this. For example, they may be former employees or board members of ombudsman schemes or consumer bodies or panels, or else active in the wider consumer movement. I know from the testimony of the financial industry and not just the consumer movement how well received Mick McAteer’s appointment has been, in his work at both the Financial Reporting Council and now the Financial Services Authority. He was formerly with Which?, has been a consumer advocate with long experience of representing consumers at both UK and EU levels, and has brought realism grounded in consumer experience, expertise and a clear consumer focus to the FSA for the past three years—to widespread acclaim. Earlier, a former chair of the National Consumer Council—not one of the two with us today—proved herself to be so invaluable to the FSA that it promoted her to become its vice-chair. Other examples abound.
Our proposal is modest. It is for just one such person, but having that in the Bill also reinforces the fact that the CMA is all about consumer interests and that consumers’ voices must be heard at the highest level. As I said previously in response to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, this is not instead of a consumer panel. No one person can represent all consumer interests. What is interesting is that that person can be a channel and focus, albeit that they take the full corporate responsibility for the whole board.
The second amendment in the group, Amendment 24BK, is based on the assumption, which we do not necessarily share, about the proposed panels and the tiers mechanism in the new architecture. We have argued that that might not be for the best. For the moment, accepting that that structure is there, our proposal is again to emphasise the need for consumer and competition experts on CMA panels to avoid the risk of making their deliberations insufficiently consumer focused. That would make sure that the CMA and its decision-making panels represented the interests of consumers throughout their work. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, Amendment 24BA adds a requirement to appoint at least one person with consumer representative expertise to the CMA board. A similar amendment was proposed by the Opposition in Committee in another place. We share the concern of noble Lords opposite that the reforms promote consumer interests, as mentioned in an earlier debate today. Consumer interests will be at the heart of the CMA. Given this, the amendment is not necessary. It could also undermine the perceived fairness of the CMA. We agree with the point made in the previous Government’s 2001 White Paper on a world-class competition regime that decisions should be made independently on the basis of sound economic analysis of the effects on competition. Independence of government and between the phases enables better decisions, greater certainty for business and more clarity in the regime.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for that. How interesting it is that we can have sector specialists such as lawyers and accountants, and they are not conflicted, but you can talk about someone coming from a consumer background and it is immediately assumed that they will be conflicted. Everyone in this Room is a consumer, and consumer representatives speak on our behalf, whether to individual providers, regulators or anyone else. Just because they have done that and built up that expertise, they may be conflicted, but a sector specialist such as an accountant who no doubt has worked with some of these companies is not—I find that very interesting.
It has been very clear that having people from a consumer background on the Legal Services Board and the FSA is valued by people from the industry. To write that into the requirement seems the least that we can do. I see that most of the words that the Minister read were actually written before I had spoken, so perhaps when he looks again at what we have actually said, he may be able to be a little more responsive should we need to bring this back. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mitchell
“11A (1) The CMA shall have a unit dedicated to matters affecting relating to competition issues amongst affecting small and medium-sized enterprises.
(2) Such a unit will pay particular focus to the availability of finance to small and medium-sized enterprises.”
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, despite the prompting of my noble friend Lady Hayter, this will not be a quake-making day. We are much more concerned with doing some serious probing and finding out where the Government stand on certain issues.
One thing that came out of the payday loans amendments, to which my noble friend Lady Hayter referred, was that that issue was not highlighted and made clear in that Bill. The subject that I should like to deal with today is SMEs and how they are addressed in this Bill. We are concerned to make sure that SMEs get prominence and that they are not lost in the fine print of the legislation.
I always have a problem with the expression “SME”. I do not know what it means. A small company can be a one-man band. Then there are medium-sized companies and large companies. Sometimes I feel that medium-sized companies have more in common with large companies than they do with small companies. One definition of a small company is that it has up to 50 employees, a turnover of up to £6.5 million and a balance sheet of up to £3.25 million. For medium-sized companies, the figures are between 50 and 250 employees, a turnover of up to £26 million and a balance sheet of up to £13 million. There are several companies with a turnover well in excess of £26 million but I have never considered them as being large companies; in fact, I have always thought of them as being at the lower end of medium-sized companies. Therefore, I am afraid that some of these definitions are probably very out of date.
However, what is not out of date, as I am sure everyone will agree, is that this business sector—let us call it the SMEs—is very keen to lead the economic recovery of our country. All sorts of reports, including one carried out by GE Capital in conjunction with the Warwick Business School, have come to the conclusion that growth, employment and exports are going to come from this sector and that this is going to be the propellant for any recovery. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in his magnificent tome, No Stone Unturned, which I thought was very good and very refreshing, said that if one in 10 of the firms that are sole traders hired their first employee or an extra employee, that would increase employment by 480,000. Therefore, recovery comes from even a small business of three people taking on one extra person.
The first part of the amendment suggests that there is a need to dedicate a unit to matters relating to competition affecting SMEs. Small firms are often faced with problems that big firms also face but, of course, small firms do not have the resources, facilities or expertise to deal with them, and recruiting or hiring a legal team is prohibitively expensive. They do not have the time to read the regulatory judgments; it is just a fact of life. Therefore, we feel that such a unit could be one way of helping small firms to grow. The first part of the amendment would provide SMEs with a specific and direct point of contact within the CMA.
The second part of the amendment proposes that the unit in the CMA will focus particularly on the availability of finance for SMEs. Noble Lords will probably have heard me speak on this issue on several occasions but it is something that concerns me all the time. At the moment, many government financing plans are being announced but most of them are not working and, frankly, I do not understand most of them myself. I wonder how people in small businesses who are not involved with them on a day-to-day basis get to grips with some of these programmes.
My constant mantra is that businesses will not grow unless there is a strategy for growth. What business needs is confidence, certainty and clarity. Not surprisingly, 85% of SMEs bank with the big four high-street banks, but this increases the cost of lending and decreases its availability. That hampers growth because SMEs collectively produce more than half of Britain’s GDP. SMEs are too dependent on the banks. I hear so many stories of the proprietors of an SME or its directors going in to see a bank when they need to finance a good project. The bank manager says “no”, and they walk out as if that is the end of the matter. To many it is the end of the matter, but it should not be. There are many other sources of finance out there, and it would be great to me if the banks had less dominance and influence.
I also feel in my heart of hearts that the high street banking sector is not particularly interested in SMEs. They have had their heads turned and, no matter what happens in the other directions that they have gone into, such as investment banking, I cannot see them ever returning to supporting SMEs as they used to. The Federation of Small Businesses has persistently pointed to this as preventing growth in SMEs, which collectively produce more than half of Britain’s GDP. We think that there should be research on this by the CMA on an ongoing basis, which will be dealt with by my noble friend Lady Hayter in a later group.
A couple of weeks ago, a few Members from the Houses of Parliament went to Germany to see the Sparkasse in Berlin. We have all heard about these organisations, but they really were very impressive. They are small savings banks that are responsible for 40% of German lending, just to the SMEs sector. Because they, by culture, have a long-term investment in their clients, they are able to defer and assess credit risks to a much greater extent than we do with our banking organisations, which seem to assess any lending possibility on a computer model that comes out with a yes or no.
There is a real opportunity for new types of financing banks in this country that would help growth. There is a new business bank called Aldermore. Yesterday, much to the Government’s credit, they announced a £100 million facility for peer-to-peer lending. That is a very interesting new development whereby individuals can lend to businesses. It works on a bidding basis, almost like the reverse of eBay. It is a very exciting area, involving companies such as Funding Circle, Zopa, Boost Capital and Credit Asset Management, which I doubt that any of your Lordships have heard of—and to be frank, neither had I. However, it is a fast-growing area of new funding for small businesses. To summarise this part of the amendment, a unit within the CMA that looks to address this problem on an ongoing basis would be of great benefit to initiating and sustaining economic recovery.
Amendment 25G deals with super-complainants. I am going to say barely anything on it, except that we want groups to be super-complainants, if they want to be, and represent SMEs and want to apply for the status. That leads into Amendment 26E, which would mean that “consumers” includes small businesses with up to 50 employees. That change to the definition of consumer would mean that organisations representing SMEs can apply for super-complainant status. Currently, the OFT has to publish a response to any complaint from a super-complainant in 90 days or refer it to the Competition Commission for further investigation. The CMA will now have those responsibilities. The competition issues that SMEs face, such as those previously concerning the concentrated banking sector and any other problems, could then be quickly highlighted. There is often very little difference between a consumer and a small business. Mr Mike Cherry, the chairman of national policy at the Federation of Small Businesses said, in front of the House of Commons Committee,
“our key message would be that, in very many cases, small businesses are, in fact, no different from consumers.”––[Official Report, Commons, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19/6/2012; Q49.]
The Federation of Small Businesses has also said that, while it is not in a position to become super-complainants at this stage, it would welcome the possibility that organisations representing small businesses would be able to apply in future. This amendment therefore seeks to recognise that by changing the definition of consumer to include SMEs, thus opening up the possibility that at some point in future it will be able to register as super-complainants. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I am grateful for these amendments, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, which highlight the importance of competitive markets to small and medium-sized enterprises. I welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box and I hope that I can do a little better, in his eyes, in addressing his issues and concerns than perhaps I did before.
I agree that Britain’s small businesses are absolutely vital in leading the economic recovery, and the Government take its role in this area very seriously. This Bill contains a number of measures that will deliver real benefits to SMEs by strengthening and streamlining the competition regime; for example, it will make entry into markets easier, deter anti-competitive practices and speed up competition cases. While I support the overarching intention behind Amendment 24BC—to support SMEs—I do not believe that a dedicated SME unit within the CMA is necessary.
First, the competition authorities already undertake a range of work that directly benefits SMEs. For example, following an OFT market study into the retail pharmacy sector, a number of administrative restrictions on entry were removed, which enabled more competitors, including SMEs, to enter the market. Another example is in banking, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, is particularly focused on. OFT interventions in markets such as personal current accounts, small and medium-sized enterprise banking and cash ISAs have found long-standing problems, such as high concentration, low transparency of fees, low levels of switching and high barriers to entry, which hamper effective competition.
The OFT has launched a programme of work designed to achieve a more competitive and customer-focused retail banking sector, and this will consider both personal and SME banking. The OFT also works actively with bodies representing SMEs, such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce, to identify competition problems faced by SMEs. The Government expect this engagement to continue when the CMA is established.
I urge caution against restricting the CMA’s ability to allocate its resource independently, according to the priorities of the day. There is also a risk that a dedicated SME unit would be inundated with complaints about competitors, rather than competition issues. This would take vital resources away from competition enforcement itself.
The new clause inserted by Amendment 25G would have the effect of bringing small businesses within the definition of “consumer” in Part 4 of the Enterprise Act, which deals with market investigations. This means that super-complaints could also be brought to the CMA about potential competition issues affecting small businesses.
We need to take care when thinking about small businesses within competitive markets, so that the line between consumers and competitors is very clear. The Government consulted on whether to extend the super-complaint system to SME bodies, as the noble Lord’s amendment proposes. The consultation asked for evidence of the type of issues that may be brought to the CMA as a potential super-complaint by small business organisations, but we did not receive any. Furthermore, the majority of responses to the consultation on this question actually opposed the proposal. Respondents felt strongly that SMEs should not be given special status, which could allow them to challenge business practices that might be pro-competition and efficiency-enhancing.
Amendment 26E would have the effect of bringing small businesses within the definition of “consumers” for the purpose of Part 4 of the Bill, which deals with competition reform. This would have the effect of enabling the CMA to launch a market study into a market which seemed not to be working well for small businesses.
I agree with the sentiment behind this amendment, that the CMA should be able to look at markets that are not working well either for consumers or small businesses. I do not believe that it is necessary because the existing legislation has not to date constrained the OFT from considering business-to-business markets. If there are competition issues in these markets, they will usually ultimately affect end consumers as well.
For example, the OFT’s current review of retail banking will look at SME banking as well as personal consumer banking. The OFT’s aggregates market study, which has now been considered in more detail by the Competition Commission for a market investigation, considered how easy it was for small ready-mixed concrete businesses to source cement and aggregates competitively. I hope that noble Lords will see that the competition authorities already carefully consider competition issues that affect SMEs in the existing regime and that legislating to assign resources to a particular area may prevent the CMA from focusing where enforcement is most needed. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mitchell
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. There is a need for a dedicated unit; small and medium-sized enterprises need a particular focus point to which they can refer. Our amendments are a “may”, not a “must”. The Minister gave an example of banking and the OFT. That may be, but here we are today, with high street banks still dominating and other types of banking organisations only just coming through.
In summary, we are trying to set up a mechanism that will enable the CMA as it progresses to take actions in favour of the SME sector—to enable it specifically in that area. I ask the Minister to think about what I have said. We will think about what we have said, and with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(c) set out the consumer benefit which will be achieved as a result of the objectives and priorities as set out in paragraph (a)”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, these amendments speak for themselves, so I hope that I can be brief. They are to remind the CMA, and to be certain that it includes in its reports, that it must set out the consumer benefit to be achieved and then monitor and evaluate it in its objectives and priorities. That will make its accountability for achieving this easier to ensure and will enable Parliament, the public, consumer groups and others to have clear evidence on which to assess progress.
Amendment 24BE means checking that the staff are up to the task set for them and that the resources are properly allocated to meet key objectives. Amendment 24BF is to allow Parliament and others to evaluate the cost of this merger into a single body, not just in money, important though that is, but on whether competition is healthier and that cases are being heard more quickly. We all, I assume, support post-legislative scrutiny. This amendment would produce the evidence on which to base that work. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am grateful once again to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the suggested amendments. Amendment 24BD would impose a requirement on the CMA that its annual plan for a forthcoming financial year should contain the consumer benefit that will be achieved as a result of the CMA’s main objectives for the year, and the prioritisation of those objectives.
Under the OFT spending review settlement, the OFT is currently required to provide an estimate of direct savings to consumers from its activities and to assess the associated benefit cost ratio against the current target of 5:1. In 2011 this figure was exceeded to deliver a benefit to cost ratio of 7:1. For the OFT, such a requirement serves to encourage it to maximise benefits to consumers in deciding what work to take forward. By comparison, however, a requirement for the CMA to assess the impact of its future work would be considerably less precise. As well as difficulties in assessing the future benefits of particular cases, the CMA’s caseload itself is not predictable. This amendment could therefore incentivise the CMA to underestimate and underachieve and could also potentially leave the CMA at risk of judicial review if forecasted consumer benefits were not realised.
Amendment 24BE seeks to provide a statutory requirement for the CMA to report in its annual performance report on the skills of its staff and to estimate the resources needed to perform its functions in the following two financial years. As drafted, the Bill provides a statutory requirement for the CMA to produce an annual plan and performance report in which it must set out its objectives for the coming year and the relative priorities, and how it has delivered against these. In addition, both the OFT and the Competition Commission already publish information relating to their staff, such as the development, diversity and engagement of their staff. We expect the same of the CMA. While it is imperative that the CMA has a skilled workforce to carry out its functions, to report on the skills of its workforce on an annual basis will be unnecessarily burdensome to the CMA, we believe.
Finally, Amendment 24BF proposes that the CMA’s first performance report provides an assessment of the transition costs and the impact of reforms on the speed of referrals. Evaluating whether the policy delivers the objectives is essential to ensuring that the CMA is getting it right, as is an assessment of the transitional costs against benefits. However, such an evaluation must provide an assessment of the costs against benefits over an appropriate time period: to do otherwise would not provide an accurate picture of the impact of the policy. A requirement to assess the costs and benefits to the competition regime within the first financial year of the reforms would be far too soon for a realistic assessment of the transition costs and benefits in either financial or competition terms. The Government’s impact assessment of the proposed reforms to the UK competition regime, which includes the transition to the CMA, commits government to a review of the policy in 2018. That is an appropriate point at which to consider the impact of the transition to the CMA in both financial and competition terms. For this reason, we do not consider that it is right for there to be a statutory requirement for the CMA to include within its first annual performance report an assessment of transition costs in both financial and competition terms.
While I welcome the intention behind these amendments, their practical impact could serve to hinder the efficient and smooth working of the CMA as a high-performance organisation. I therefore request that the noble Baroness withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for that. I assume from what he just said that the requirement on the OFT to measure the balance of its saving to consumers will continue into the CMA.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
In case Hansard did not record that, the answer was a very welcome “yes”, for which I thank him.
The Minister talked about the requirement for reporting on diversity of staff. Needless to say, we welcome that, but it seems to me that if you set up an organisation to do a job, making sure that it has the appropriate staff is central. Its human resources department will know if it is not got enough IT people, it will know if it is short of various staff. All we are asking is that it should share that knowledge with us. For those who say that this is extra work, I believe that a well run organisation knows about staff turnover, who it is recruiting and who it cannot recruit.
Finally, I welcome the fact that there will be a review in 2018. Of course, it is a bit late by then to do anything about it if the Government have made a mistake in doing this. I suppose that it is better late than never, but I hope that the Ministers at the time will at least be asking those questions, even if it is not a statutory requirement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, we now come to what may prove next week to be an interesting area: the relationship between the CMA and the sector regulators. This is the first point where it arises in the Bill, and it relates to the list of sector regulators. It is not a substantive point in terms of the nature of that relationship, but because the Government seem to think that that relationship is not entirely right at the moment and we know that we will be getting a hefty amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marland, next week on the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to the sector regulators and the CMA, it is important that the list of designated sector regulators is in fact the right list.
This amendment and a later one on the more substantive issues attempt to alter the list as set out in the Bill in two ways. The first is to remove Monitor from the list. The second, which I will deal with first, is the issue of how we will deal with the Financial Services Bill, which has yet to receive Royal Assent, and the establishment of the Financial Conduct Authority, because that will be the equivalent sector regulator for financial services and its powers will not be quite the same in some respects as those of the sector regulators that regulate the one-time nationalised industries such as water and gas. Nevertheless, it is the equivalent body and should therefore have an equivalent relationship with the CMA. There is no reference to any financial regulator in any of these lists. That may simply be for the technical and probably constitutional reason that the Financial Services Bill is not yet in law but, if that is the case, then presumably the FSA should appear there. I would like to know the Government’s intentions on that.
There is another complication regarding that Bill: in some respects, the prudential regulator could have an effect on the structure of markets as well. There is therefore a crossover there with the role of the CMA. We will come back to the substance of that, but it would be interesting to know the Government’s intention in that respect.
The other point relates to Monitor. Monitor is the economic regulator, and various other things, under the new National Health Service regime. The issue of competition in the health service was one of enormous complexity during the passage of the NHS reform Bill. It was one over which the Government gave substantial reassurances that the role of competition would not cut across the primary concern of NHS patients, which was that they would be treated effectively, resources would be deployed effectively for them and there would be seamless integration of the health service regarding their treatment. That will cut across the competition criteria that apply to the other sectors covered by the other regulators. Indeed, Monitor itself in its own objectives set out that integration and co-operation are its main priorities.
I think I am right in saying that at least once during the course of the NHS Bill the noble Earl, Lord Howe, indicated that in issues where there was conflict between competition and co-operation in providing a seamless service to the patient, then co-operation would trump competition. I am not arguing that the role of Monitor in increasing competition in the health service should be reopened, but I am saying that it is an entirely different situation from that which applies, for example, to Ofgem or the railways, where there are clear criteria, either continuously or at the point of franchise, about competition. Here, though, it is not the main aim of the health service to maximise choice; choice can be a contributor to patient comfort and outcomes but the main purpose is actually to provide an effective service for the treatment of that patient. The interaction between the CMA and Monitor in the health service, therefore, would be entirely different from the interaction between it and the other sector regulators. That is why I wish to remove Monitor from the list. There may be a separate reason for a relationship, but it is not the same as the rules being proposed for the overall relationship between the CMA and the sector regulators.
I advise the Government, gently, not to reopen this matter—health service reform was difficult enough for them. People are settling down now to make it work but the idea that another authority might come in under this Bill and overrule a health service body trying to square off competition and co-operation would reopen huge anxieties among health service professionals, patient groups and the new commissioning body. The Government would be wise to take it out. They can do it at this point without too much attention but if what they are proposing gets out there, they will be in serious trouble. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling Amendments 24BFA and 24BG.
Amendment 24BFA would remove Monitor from the list of sector regulators covered by the CMA’s duty to publish an annual concurrency report. The concurrency arrangements to be reported on are the arrangements for co-operation between the CMA and sector regulators in relation to their functions under the Competition Act 1998, in other words anti-trust cases, and under Part 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002, in other words market investigation references.
The concurrency report is part of a wider package of concurrency reforms designed to give the CMA stronger powers to co-ordinate competition work. The Bill will also give the regulators more explicit duties to consider using their general competition powers instead of sector-specific powers. The concurrency report ensures that there is transparency about how the CMA and sector regulators have worked together and how concurrent powers have been used in the regulated sectors. Monitor, whose role is to protect and promote the interests of patients, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has mentioned, will have both regulatory powers—for example, the provider licence—and concurrent powers to address anti-competitive behaviour that is against the interests of patients.
The regulatory powers will reflect the Government’s commitment to retain sector-specific rules for health, building on those put in place by the previous Administration. Monitor will be subject to the new arrangements on the co-ordination of concurrent powers provided for in Clause 45, subject to one exception. The Government have been clear in response to the consultation on competition reform that Monitor’s new explicit duty to consider Competition Act enforcement before taking enforcement action through the provider licence provided under Schedule 14 to the Enterprise Bill will not be commenced until a future date, reflecting the unique characteristics of the health sector.
Subject to this, Monitor will become part of the same concurrency regime as the other sector regulators. So it is right that the concurrency arrangements between the CMA and Monitor and the use of concurrent powers in the health sector should be covered by the concurrency report. This will provide greater transparency and assurance that concurrent competition powers are being used effectively and in the interests of users of health care services.
Turning now to Amendment 24BG, I believe the amendment is intended to ensure that the CMA will have to report on how concurrency arrangements and co-operation and scrutiny of financial services more generally have worked with the FCA and the PRA. However, neither the FCA nor the PRA will have concurrent powers, so the amendment will in practice have no effect.
I know that noble Lords have questioned whether the FCA should have concurrent competition powers. However, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Treasury Select Committee that the case for market investigation reference powers had not yet been made and that the issue should be reviewed when the FCA had bedded into its new role. The Financial Services Bill instead gives the FCA a new competition remit which provides the mandate for the FCA to use its powers to promote effective competition and it will be able to carry out reviews of financial markets. The Financial Conduct Authority will have a tailored power to refer matters to the CMA, which may conduct market investigation or bring Competition Act enforcement proceedings. This mechanism was widely supported by consumer groups and industry and by the Treasury Select Committee.
In addition, the Financial Services Bill includes provision for the competition authorities independently to scrutinise the impact of both the FCA’s and the PRA’s actions on competition. It will of course be important that the FCA and OFT co-ordinate. The FSA and OFT already have an MoU in place and a new one will be put in place between the FCA and the CMA. The CMA, FCA and PRA will be required to report on their performance in their annual reports. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am afraid I do not really accept either of those two propositions. On the financial side, it is true that the FCA does not have the whole range of concurrent powers that all the other regulators do, or in the same form, but it has a substantial number of powers in relation to its treatment of market abuse and consumers and its ability to conduct market studies. I hoped the Minister would say, “We will wait until the Financial Services Bill has passed and then at a later stage in this Bill we will produce a clause that deals with the relationship between the CMA and the FSA as will be, and possibly other parts of the financial regulation side”. I fear that what he actually said is that the abyss has been rolled over by the Treasury.
Quite often in consumer law, we find that general consumer propositions are deemed by the Treasury and the Bank of England not to apply to them. That may indeed be part of the reason why the previous system of regulation of the banking system fell flat on its face. The Minister and his colleagues in this need to be a bit braver in facing up to the Treasury and ensuring that it is subject to the same possibilities of market and consumer abuse as other sectors and therefore should be covered by the same propositions, even though there would be some slight variation in the range of powers. I hope that at some stage in the Bill there will be a point where we take on board the final version of the Financial Services Bill and put that back in.
On Monitor, I fear the Minister is making a serious political misjudgment. It is true that during the course of the NHS Bill the House eventually accepted that there should be a significant increase in competition within the health service structure, but when you look at the actual decisions that will have to be taken by the individual bodies within the health service, their prime concern is that patients and patient groups get the best integrated service for their condition. Therefore, for example, commissioning bodies will need to ensure that, where they commission services from one particular trust or specialist service, that will continue without competitive challenge through the course of treatment for those patients for a number of years. Otherwise, the specialisms within the health service will be destroyed and the seamless journey that is part of Monitor’s objectives for the individual patient will be interrupted by somebody saying, “Actually, you have not observed competition rules in this respect”.
That is not to say that there are not some aspects where there is an overlap. I am saying that the relationship between the CMA and Monitor is different from that for the other sector regulators. I would take it out of that list and the other lists that appear here. If there needs to be a separate memorandum of understanding, let us provide for that, but it will not be the same. If the Government hint that it is the same, I am afraid that there will be a reaction out there that they will find difficult to contain. That will be at best an embarrassment and at worst a threat to the other changes they are trying to make within the health service. I plead with them on this. It is in the interests of Monitor to devise its own structures and relationships and not to assume that it will operate in the same way as a competition authority in other markets. I hope that the Government will change their attitude on this in the course of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Consumer research16A (1) The CMA must make arrangements for ascertaining information with regards to—
(a) the state of public opinion about the manner in which financial services are provided to consumers;(b) consumer experiences of consumers in relation to the provision of financial services, including—(i) handling of complaints by financial institutions, and(ii) resolution of disputes with financial institutions.(2) The CMA shall consult concurrent regulators where necessary.
(3) The CMA shall publish the conclusions from research carried out under sub-paragraph (1) every two years.
(4) The CMA shall report to the Secretary of State its conclusions and any recommendations arising from research carried out under sub-paragraph (1) every 2 years.
(5) The Secretary of State shall publish a response to any such report within 60 days and lay a copy of that response before Parliament.
(6) This section does not restrict the CMA’s power to make any arrangements that it considers to be incidental or conducive to the carrying out of any of its functions.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, despite the financial sector nominally being competitive—in that there is a choice of banks—we have seen a real lack of satisfaction with banks among consumers.
We do not need to rehearse the mis-selling scandals, with unwitting customers, including small businesses, being sold—as a nice little earner—products that they do not need. We have a reminder of the banks’ record in the newspapers today. Furthermore, we know how hard it has been for people to switch bank accounts— a case made very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, who is not in his place now, during the discussions on the Financial Services Bill. We know that banks have been unbelievably slow to react to complaints about bank charges—in fact, without the OFT a number of malpractices would still be going on—and that they remain resistant to transparency on fees and charges. Indeed, what I find odd is that no other supplier of a service can simply remove money from one’s bank account without first submitting an invoice or agreeing the amount with the customer.
Banks are slow to deal with complaints, they are resistant to the ombudsman’s activity, and it sometimes feels as though they exist for their staff and their bonuses, rather than to serve the consumer. This smacks of a failing market. Therefore, Amendment 24BH seeks to test that allegation by asking the CMA not to rely on a collection of anecdotes—which does not evidence make—but to undertake some serious consumer research into this market, and to present that, together with any recommendations flowing from it, to the Secretary of State, who should then report back to Parliament.
The other evidence of the lack of a functioning competitive market is the virtual seizing up of finance for small and medium-sized enterprises, and indeed for high-growth businesses, as set out earlier by my noble friend Lord Mitchell. Yet we know that our economic regeneration, and our future, rest on their shoulders. Something is amiss.
This does not feel like a competitive industry when customers cannot get what they want: money for investment. Thus Amendment 24BJ seeks to force the CMA to undertake some serious research on competition in the financial services sector. When we discussed these issues during our debates on the Financial Services Bill, we were told that the CMA would be the lead regulator on competition—the FCA’s role being to promote competition, it seems, rather than deal with its absence—so now we ask the CMA to do just that. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for these amendments.
To be effective, the CMA needs to be able to independently determine its own priorities, but its ability to do this would be undermined by the obligation under Amendment 24BH to undertake regular reviews of one particular sector. As we have discussed, the Government are of course determined to improve financial regulation. Markets and market regulation evolve and, by requiring the CMA to carry out studies every two years, this amendment might have the effect of limiting the ability of the CMA to carry out higher-priority work.
The CMA also needs to be able to choose which tool to deploy. During the course of a targeted investigation, Amendment 24BH could require the CMA to produce a general report on the financial sector. In these circumstances, the reporting requirement could waste resources, interfere with an investigation or even act as a disincentive to initiate a separate investigation in the first place.
Finally, while the CMA will be the central competition authority, the FCA will be the lead regulator in the financial services sector, funded by an industry levy. It would be duplicative for the CMA to be required to carry out detailed scrutiny of conduct in the financial services sector at taxpayers’ expense, as required by Amendment 24BH. The OFT and the Competition Commission’s scrutiny powers will be transferred to the CMA by order, under this Bill. New arrangements for co-operation between the CMA and the Financial Conduct Authority will ensure that the two bodies work well together. They will both, of course, have the power to carry out research and publish reports, as envisaged by these amendments. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for that. There is one bit of that which I can accept—that it may not be necessary to do this every two years. But there is a major problem in this sector of financial services, and it is time that the Government accepted that. In the Financial Services Bill they are rejigging the architecture, a bit like this, taking the FSA and splitting it in two, sending one bit to Threadneedle Street and letting the other bit stay in Canary Wharf. None of that will seize the problem of the banking industry. I wonder whether the Government are ever going to do it. This was another way to say that this is an industry, and a market, that needs looking at. If it is not going to be done by the FCA, which is not going to have the same powers, surely it should be done by the CMA—if not every two years, even as a one-off now—to see whether we can sort this industry.
This is something that we will certainly need to come back to. The Minister referred to arrangements between the CMA and FCA, but so far the Government have absolutely refused even to accept the obligation to have an MoU between those two. We will come back to that in this Bill. There is something fundamentally wrong in this enormously important sector, which is failing to serve consumers and industry, small companies in particular, and no one seems willing to do anything about it. We will come back to this, maybe without the reference to “two years”. For the moment, I withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, this is a draconian clause. It follows a scheme of the Public Bodies Act in abolishing the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading. It is not an even-handed abolition, because, as I have argued previously, the Office of Fair Trading really continues. It is changing its name to the Competition and Markets Authority, but it is in effect the OFT. I asked about Part 4 and did not get an answer to it. I asked why the Government had made the choice of creating a new body as opposed to continuing with the OFT, and did not get an answer to that either.
At the moment, I am yet to be convinced that these dramatic changes to the structure of the competition regime are justified. That needs to be seen against a background in which the annual cost of the OFT is somewhat over £70 million and the cost of the Competition Commission is somewhat over £15 million. So in the actual money figures, it is 80% the OFT and 20% the Competition Commission. I cannot accept that any argument has been made about money. It is not really claimed in the impact assessment—“ultimately” is the word that is used. I simply do not see that this is an important consideration in the change in structure, and I am conscious of the need to restrain public expenditure. It is said in several places in the Bill that all that this provision is intended to do is to make it somewhat more straightforward for the two organisations to reduce their costs in line with the existing government public spending targets.
We are left with a situation whereby the OFT is taking over the Competition Commission. The commission is disappearing as an executive body and will have no management role—it will not manage itself. It is being turned into panel of mostly, if not all, part-time members—we have not been told—who are part of the Office of Fair Trading. The risk that this will go wrong greatly outweighs any benefits. We have already talked about the need to do things in a more timely fashion. How could I disagree with that? I remember carrying out investigations and coming up with an answer pretty quickly, and it can of course be done under the existing regime. There is nothing wrong with the law.
The money and the timeliness have gone. What else is left? Something is said about the duplication of the provision of information but, unfortunately, I do not see how that holds because if you make a reference, surely the people who will come to some form of judicial judgment have to start from a zero base. They simply cannot rely on what has been done before. Of course they will gather as much information as they can, but that will not stop them needing to obtain self-standing information of their own, in order to come to a semi-judicial decision.
I ask my noble friend: has the department taken legal advice? Has it been to the Attorney-General? The risk that this regime will be challenged is real. I am not just making it up. I cannot see where the benefits outweigh the risk. It seems to me that the risk outweighs the benefits by many times in terms of both time and money. I urge my noble friend to go back and give this another thought because, quite honestly, the game is not worth the candle, the risk is far too great, and the benefits do not exist—and if they do, I have not been told about them. I cannot even imagine what they will be when I am told about them, but I should like to hear them.
I remain unconvinced, as my noble friend Lord Razzall, who is no longer in his place, said. I conclude by saying that I am not in any way casting the smallest of aspersions on the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone. How could I do that? I was born in the borough of Marylebone. What he has done was done in good faith—being taken on as chairman-designate of something that, at the moment, I believe to be a greatly mistaken structure.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
My Lords, the Committee will be delighted to hear that because I have already made a number of points regarding Clause 20, which obviously related to Clause 21 also, I will not repeat them. However, I must continue to express the concern that was not answered, although I made the point, about the period of hiatus between enactment and the appointment of the new board. None of that can take place. I do not know what the housekeeping requirements are regarding new buildings or offices, but the fact remains that it will be a very damaging hiatus. In particular, as I mentioned at the time, is the effect that the Bill will have on the Consumer Credit Act. Appeals that are brought under the Consumer Credit Act will be in some sort of abeyance. Nothing will happen until the new legislation is enacted and all parts of the various appointments to the two bodies that we have been discussing this afternoon have been made. A lot of concern has been expressed by those in the financial sector about this and we deserve some sort of answer at this stage.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the House of Lords register of interests. This gives me a good opportunity to ask one question of the Minister: has he noticed that this Part of the Bill refers to many things which were in the Financial Services Bill and that both are entirely different from everything else the Government are doing? In every other part of the Government’s actions we are reducing the amount of regulation. Much of the Bill is about that, but when we get on to the financial services arrangements, we are laying more and more emphasis upon more and more regulation and there is no indication, in my view, that it is going to be any better. It is really beginning to bug me that much of what has gone wrong was, of course, the fault of the financial services—I am not for one moment denying that—and certainly the fault of the banks, but I cannot honestly say that the regulator has come out of it with a great deal of praise. Indeed, a number of the things that went wrong can be laid directly at the door of the regulator. So the regulator then comes back and says, “Well, the only way to solve these problems is to have more regulation and more powers, so we can get it more wrong.”
My worry is simply that everywhere else in the Government’s programme, the Government have made the argument that if we have too heavy regulation, we do not have innovation, we do not have new things, we do not have new ideas and new mechanisms to meet the new circumstances of Britain, which after all is in competition with the rest of the world. That is the logic, that is the argument; an argument I buy into. The one area in which that is evidently not true is this one. So now we have had two Bills which interrelate and in this Part of the Bill, which is otherwise an admirable Bill, it has merely gone on doing what the Financial Services Bill had so wrongly done elsewhere. So we have an attitude to regulation which is entirely inconsistent.
We have just had two Bills going through the House of Lords and noble Lords may have noticed that the passage of the Civil Aviation Bill was entirely filled with speeches by Ministers about how wonderful it was that the public was now going to have a great deal more say and more appeal, and the regulators were not going to be able to ride roughshod over customers, businesses and the like. At exactly the same time, we introduced another Bill saying there are going to be no appeals, the public are not going to have a say, businesses are not going to have a say but instead we will have tougher and tougher regulations. I find this incomprehensible and as I have tried on several occasions to raise it in detail it would help me a great deal if the Minister would explain the rather curious mismatch.
Of course, the party opposite has not raised this very much because it wants more regulation in every circumstance: we know that. I raise it at this opportunity because I cannot do it on the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, but I think that in 10 years’ time—probably in five years’ time—people will look back at this period in Parliament and say, “What the blazes were they doing making the British financial industry less able to compete and less able to innovate, when they were doing so much good stuff in the whole of the rest of British industry?”.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I shall try to resist temptation. As to spectacles, of course it was the consumers who most wanted opticians not to be regulated. It has benefited us all because we have been able to buy much cheaper glasses than we used to.
I would like to ask the Minister, in the complete secrecy of this room, with only a few Hansard writers and television watchers present, that if his Government had not wanted a bonfire of the quangos, would this merger ever have gone ahead? Was it just another number in the bonfire of the quangos or did BIS always want this?
Viscount Eccles
Before the Minister replies, I would like to thank the noble Baroness for her comment. There may well be another, very general, explanation. I have worked in the public sector in a number of different bodies. I once received a letter saying that the Minister understood that I did not wish to be reappointed to this body because I was too busy—it was a Department of Trade and Industry body—but that was not the reason. The reason was that I had attended a meeting and voted against a grant to a company because I thought it was not a sound company. However, the grant was passed and paid out and the business went bust. I was too clever because I had got it right and so I had to be removed.
There are few of us here but this important general explanation will be reported in Hansard. There is a strong wish in departments—this is a general comment—to reduce the independence of public bodies, to centralise their activities and to get them back as close to the Ministry as they can. The Competition Commission has been an independent body for 60-something years, so how did it get into the Public Bodies Act that these two organisations would be merged? It cannot have got in as a result of the Cabinet Office saying, “Have you got any good ideas?” There must have been somewhere in the purlieus of BIS a document saying, “Would it not be a good idea to reform the competition regime?”
I believe that this merger has not ever been given the proper consideration by the Government that it needs to assess the risk in what is proposed, and to offset that risk against the apparently negligible benefits.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
To add to what my noble friend has said—we are fortunate to have him here today—I would like to know whether the Bill ever went through Cabinet. I find it difficult to believe that some of these points would not have been raised at that time, and properly so.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the CMA will be equipped with a wide range of tools to remedy anti-competitive practices and to promote effective competition in markets across the UK economy. It has been somewhat of a challenge today to answer the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Eccles, but I am prepared to have another go.
At the beginning and at the end of the day, my noble friend raised the question: why reform the current institutional structure; why make the change? I reiterate that bringing the Competition Commission and the competition functions of the Office of Fair Trading together in a single body provides the opportunity for greater coherence in competition policy and practice, a more streamlined approach to decision making, a stronger oversight of the end-to-end case management process, as I mentioned earlier, more flexibility in resource utilisation and better incentives to use anti-trust and markets tools to deal efficiently with competition problems.
Furthermore, it provides a single powerful advocate to speak for competition across the economy in Europe and globally. While it is not a central driver for the creation of the new CMA, there will be scope for some long-term savings, in particular in corporate governance, back-office functions and accommodation costs. I reiterate that this process is not solely about saving on costs. Some costs will be saved, and it is fully expected that some synergies will be made, but a vast number of skills will be transferred over to the new CMA. I hope that that helps somewhat to allay my noble friend’s fears.
My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes also raised some questions about the fundamental concept of setting up the CMA. Ministers consider competitive markets to be vital to the economy. That has been said many times in recent weeks and months. BIS Ministers have consistently made it clear that the main purpose of the exercise is to strengthen the competition regime and to support growth rather than to cut costs. The new CMA will be sufficiently resourced to deliver its functions but will not be immune from wider pressures to help deal with the UK’s massive deficit. Savings delivered by the creation of the CMA will mainly be from streamlining, which I mentioned earlier, and eliminating overlaps between phase 1 and phase 2 of investigations. These savings will help to deliver the Government’s existing spending review targets.
The Government are committed to ensuring a smooth transition process and will work closely with the OFT and the Competition Commission to minimise disruption to the organisations while they continue to carry out their important roles and services. I wish to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that this whole process was looked at most carefully in Cabinet.
In response to a question raised by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes on the transition, as we are aware, the Government have appointed the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, as chair designate of the new CMA and is in the process of recruiting the chief executive designate. Together they will lead the transition to the new CMA. During our Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Currie, said that in addition to creating a high-performance organisation he was committed, in transition terms, to ensuring,
“that the casework of both the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission continues unimpeded and that the transition of work in progress to the new authority is entirely seamless”.
He assured noble Lords:
“We will safeguard business as usual.’—[Official Report, 14/11/12; col. 1561.]
Finally, I shall answer a question raised by my noble friend Lord Deben about what will happen to the Financial Services and Markets Act in relation to the OFT oversight of the regulatory regime, if I read him correctly. Consideration of competition must be a central feature of the new financial services regulatory regime so we will therefore retain a regime for scrutiny of the regulation of financial services by the CMA. This will apply to both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.
Clause 21 and Schedules 5 and 6 provide for the transfer of relevant tools and functions of the OFT and the functions of the Competition Commission to the CMA. The new authority will operate the anti-trust mergers and markets regimes and will determine regulatory appeals and references made to it in the major regulated sectors. It will carry out various ancillary competition scrutiny functions and provide businesses with advice and guidance to help them to understand and comply with competition law. Schedule 5 also provides that certain functions under the Enterprise Act, in particular phase 2 of the mergers and markets processes, will be the responsibility of groups of independent panellists. I commend Clause 21 to the Committee.
Viscount Eccles
Before my noble friend sits down, could I ask that my questions that have not been answered are dealt with in writing? I would appreciate that. As far as I am concerned, this is definitely not the end of the matter. I will review my very real worries about what is being done here and no doubt come back to them at the next stage of the Bill.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I did not necessarily expect to answer all my noble friend’s questions. However, I have attempted to address on many occasions the question that he has put in terms of the fundamentals of setting up the CMA. I hoped that I had answered him. Clearly I have not and I will certainly write to my noble friend to address the questions that he feels are unanswered.
Viscount Eccles
For the last time, the fundamental question is: are the Government sure that the supposed benefits outweigh the risks? We have not really coped with that at all today. There is a real risk. When the thing is not broken, why try to mend it? The competition regime has been very good over many years. In my opinion, the Government are taking a quite unjustifiable risk of running that regime into a brick wall. That is the question and that is why I am not satisfied that the Government have really thought this through if they cannot tell me that they have taken proper legal advice about the risk they are running. For a very long time, the whole of business and industry has understood that this was done in two places. There was a reference from here and an investigation and determination over there. Change that and—believe you me—a lot of people, when they find out that that is what has happened, are not going to like it. If their lawyers come with them, there could be real trouble. I feel very strongly that the matter of risk needs to be dealt with. It is not a matter of efficiency or effectiveness—you can imagine all sorts of efficiencies, effectiveness and even economies—but a matter of risk.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday next week at 3.30 pm.
House of Lords
Driving: Blood Alcohol Limit
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider introducing a 50 milligram blood alcohol limit for drivers aged under 21.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce a lower blood alcohol limit. The North review did not support a lower limit for drivers under 21 and the Government endorsed this. The Department for Transport is considering several options to ensure that newly qualified drivers drive safely.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
As the Minister will be aware, I have shifted my position considerably in the spirit of Christmas. I have moved away from a demand for zero tolerance to what seems to be a reasonable compromise to move forward. I am sorry that in his first response he said that the Government will not move, but at least they are prepared to consider some movement for younger drivers. All the evidence indicates that this is required. Will the Minister confirm to the House that the number of drink-driving deaths went up last year for the first time in a number of years, and that we need to take action in the near future?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I confirm that there was some unwelcome news on the number of casualties. However, if one looks at the graph, there continues to be a welcome downward trajectory. None the less, across the House, we all need to work hard to continue that downward trajectory.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how many fatalities per year the department believe to have any connection with drink-driving among people under 21?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am not sure regarding those under 21. The key figure is 280 drink-related fatalities per year.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, will the Minister explain what the measures are to improve the safety of young drivers which he alluded to in his first response?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we are considering all possible options at the moment to continue the downward trend.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
Will the Minister comment on the increasing and worrying trend of people driving under the influence of drugs? Will he tell the House when it is likely that a device will be approved for roadside testing in this regard?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, during the passage of the Crime and Courts Bill this afternoon we will be taking the drug-driving provisions through. There are two pieces of equipment to be approved: the station-based drug testing equipment, which is on track to be approved by the Home Office shortly, and the roadside drug testing equipment, which is a little more difficult; we need to wait for the outcome of the expert panel which is looking at the appropriate levels before we can set its specification.
Lord Swinfen
My Lords, how long does it take for the blood alcohol level to return to zero from 80 milligrams when the alcohol disperses naturally?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I do not know, but the key point is that there is no safe limit of alcohol in the blood when driving a vehicle. Therefore, we advise that the best option is not to drink at all.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I note that the noble Earl told us that there was a downward trajectory. Will he give us the figures for the number of fatalities in the past year and for the year before that to demonstrate that? What stance are the Government taking on the BMA’s recommendations on this matter?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the casualty figures were distorted slightly by the number of casualties in 2010, which were slightly lower; we believe that that was due to the bad weather. The key point is that the figures for 2011 were still better than those for 2009.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, will the Minister tell us how the United Kingdom’s blood alcohol limit compares with those of the rest of Europe?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, many European countries have a 50 milligram blood alcohol limit. However, they also have lower penalties at that level. Our policy is to have an 80 milligram limit but very severe penalties if you exceed the limit. This seems to have the right effect because our safety record is better than that on the continent.
Viscount Simon
My Lords, if the noble Earl is saying that 80 milligrams is the correct level for us, what about Scotland and Wales? Presumably they will decrease their level to 50 milligrams.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite right; Scotland has the power to set a lower limit. However, it cannot change the penalties. If it does change its limit, it will be very interesting to see what the effect will be on casualties.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, in France it is now compulsory by law to carry a breathalyser kit in one’s car. Is the UK considering anything like that?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, absolutely not. The difficulty with that idea is that it would enable drivers to drink more while believing that they were below the limit. Our policy is that there is no safe level of alcohol in the blood when driving. Therefore, we do not support the compulsory carrying of breathalysers by drivers.
Baroness Hayman
My Lords, when the Minister gave the figures for the number of fatalities involving drink, did all of those incidents involve blood alcohol levels above the current limit? My recollection is that one problem with the issue was that no statistics were kept for accidents involving drinkers who were below the 80 milligram limit but above the 50 milligram limit. Is that information now available?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it may well be available but I am not aware of it. However, my point is that there is no safe blood alcohol level when one is driving a vehicle.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, my noble friend referred to options and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked him if he could specify some of the options. Can he give us at least two of them?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, one option—and it is only an option—would be to deal with the problem of tragic accidents where several youngsters are killed in one vehicle. These are very distressing accidents and we need to consider whether we should allow a young driver to carry several youngsters. However, there is a contrary argument, which noble Lords opposite articulated when they were Ministers, that that could have an economic effect. It could mean that the system of one sober driver might not work. So we need to consider carefully what the options are to make sure that there are no unintended consequences.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House which drugs will be detected if the detection equipment is found to be reliable?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we are shortly going to be publishing the review of the expert panel which will tell us which drugs and what levels for each drug will be detected, based on scientific evidence, and the risk associated with them.
Lobbyists: Register
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will bring forward proposals for a register of lobbyists.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The consultation document Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists was published earlier this year to gather evidence from experts in the field and members of the public. It asked a number of specific questions, the multiple answers to which are informing policy developments in this area.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Well, my Lords, it does not sound like much action has been taken. Given that the coalition promised to regulate lobbying through a statutory register—in case the noble Lord needs reminding—can he tell us whether it is going to move on this or is it going to wait for the next big scandal before it does so?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are certainly intending to move on this but as the noble Baroness will appreciate if she has looked through the replies to the consultation document and the companion report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place, there is a quite remarkable dissensus among respondents. The Government’s summary of replies to the consultation document remarks at one point, in effect, that a lot of those consulted regard themselves as a legitimate part of the political process but regard everyone else as lobbyists. That is part of the problem. The paid lobbyists are a small part of those with whom we are talking, and they wish charities, think tanks, trade unionists and others also to be included on any register of lobbyists.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the overriding objective must surely be greater transparency? In that regard, while we must obviously avoid excessive complexity because the information has to be accessible and digestible, does he agree that all we really need to know is who is lobbying who about what? The register only goes so far in that respect.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Government have moved some way towards greater transparency in terms of who members of the Government meet. I am amazed by the detail in which I have to account quarterly for who I have met over the previous three months, so at one end we are already being more transparent. Part of the origin of the proposals for a lobbying register during the previous Government was the question of how much money was being paid to these specialist lobbying companies to influence Government. That was the origin of the inquiry. For the first time in my life, I sympathised enormously with the evidence given by the TaxPayers’ Alliance to the inquiry in which it said a narrower definition would be rather better.
Lord Campbell-Savours
When the noble Lord fills in the form that he talks about within the department, does he draw a distinction between official and unofficial engagements and does he register them both?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Yes, and we have discussed whether I should put down everyone I meet at a party conference. There comes a point where almost the entire political process becomes lobbying. For example, the secretariats of most all-party groups are supported by outside bodies. Are those lobbyists? Is that proper? Should we do away with them? One gets into very deep water quite early on in this field.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, would journalists in the press gallery, who are therefore registered journalists, be allowed also to be registered lobbyists? In other words, could they hold two occupations?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I have to admit that I do not know the answer to that question and will have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does my noble friend agree that if we restricted the activities of lobbyists and it resulted in fewer all-party groups, that would be a very good idea?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
There might be no more cakes and wine, I am afraid. Let us be clear: lobbying is an entirely legitimate part of the political process, which would be poorer if we did not have lobbying. The problem is that we have lobbying from professional companies, advocacy groups—many of which are also charities—the CBI, trade unions and others. It is a very complicated area to try to pin down to a single statutory register.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, when you get a company lobbying, would it be helpful if it were to register on whose behalf it was lobbying, so that when it writes to us, we know who it is lobbying for?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that is the narrowest definition and where the Government started. The replies to the consultation have taken us much wider than many of us originally intended to be taken. Certainly, the concern—and I am very struck by this in the documents that I am looking at—and perception that there is undue lobbying is very much about large sums of money being paid to professional companies, very often by foreign Governments.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, on the question of all-party groups, does the Minister agree that if professional lobbyists insinuate themselves into all-party groups, that is a breach of the standards that we ought to expect, both as regards this House and the wider public? Although we have had several goes at cleaning this up, there is a lot still to be done.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I agree that we have to be very careful about all-party groups. It is a matter for both Houses as much as anything else. However, one might not want to say that Universities UK for example, which happens to assist the All-Party Group for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, is a lobbying company and should not be allowed to support that group. There is a gradation here; one has to think about what is proper and what is not.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, when the Minister writes to the noble Lord, Lord Martin, will he also place a copy in the Library?
Lord Swinfen
My Lords, when we have a register of lobbyists, will it be illegal for those not on the register to lobby?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
There is a voluntary register of public relations companies, which was established in the wake of an earlier inquiry in 2009. However, one of the three bodies that joined that register has now left it. Even within the public relations industry, they disagree among themselves as to who exactly one should be regulating.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is nothing wrong whatever with people and organisations lobbying Members of Parliament and, indeed, lobbying Members of your Lordships’ House, much as though many Members of this House might prefer it not to happen? The important thing is absolute transparency and clear rules about the use of money.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I agree very strongly. We all need to defend the usefulness of representational groups, advocacy groups, think tanks and others in contributing to our information. We all get lots of e-mails from those groups as we approach legislation and other things. That is a desperately important part of the open, democratic political process—so long as we are sure that we know what is going on and that it is transparent.
Charities
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will take steps to encourage giving to the United Kingdom charitable sector in the light of the recent report UK Giving 2012 that reported a drop in donations of 20 per cent in real terms.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my charitable interests as listed in the register.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the report does suggest a worrying drop in giving. However, this is yet to be confirmed as a trend, and there is some debate within the sector about whether this is what charities are experiencing on the ground. The Government remain committed to taking action to ensure that Britain continues to be a generous country, in giving both money and time.
Baroness Pitkeathley
The Minister is right that there is some dispute about the figures, but I wonder whether he is familiar with the latest report by the Charities Aid Foundation that one in six charities think that they will have to close over the next year and that half are already using their reserves because of a fall in donations, cuts in public spending and much increased demand for their services. How do the Government think that this will impact on their vision of the voluntary sector and charities being a vital part of the delivery of public services and, indeed, on the Prime Minister’s hopes for the big society?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I have also seen that report and looked at it in some detail. It is interesting, incidentally, that as of September this year there were 2,000 more charities registered than there had been three years before so the trend has not, so far, been downwards, but it is worrying. From my experience of the charities sector, and I have visited a large number of additional charities since I took over this post, I am shaken by some that I meet in Yorkshire that are almost entirely dependent on public funds. That seems unwise. I strongly approve of those that raise some of their money through their own activities. The social enterprise model is very much part of what charities should be doing. The Government are doing a whole range of things to encourage the new generation to give more of their time and money. The National Citizen Service is one of them.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, given that the number of donations being given online and by text is increasing, does the Minister agree that charities are losing out, because gift aid is not yet fully digitised? Does he agree that it is imperative that the Government help charities to achieve a universal declaration of gift aid so that online giving can be much more beneficial than it is now?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Baroness. We are also looking at the difficulties of payroll giving. The Government want to encourage it. A small number of, by and large, large companies make that easy for their employees. We would like to see an expansion of payroll giving. The figures suggest that older people are now much more generous than the younger generation, and we do not entirely know the reasons. Again, that is not entirely fitting. I trust that all Members of this House are giving at least 10% of their income to charity.
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, I spent some years living in the United States. I was always struck there by the efficacy of the system that they have, in which where contributions to charities are fully deductible. The US Treasury seems to have worked out that the more that is given by individuals, the less the eventual burden on the taxpayers because they are taking up a lot of the strain from the taxpayers. This is not rocket science. Successive Governments here never seem to look at this as a serious proposition. Why not?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I have a relative in the United States who managed, by making donations of various sorts to his university library, to avoid paying almost any tax the previous year. One wants to encourage people to be generous. The Small Charitable Donations Bill, which we will be dealing with next week, is part of that. We need to consider how one asks for larger donations and makes them tax-beneficial. I remind people that legacies are also important, but a charity which I was talking to last week said that the problem with legacies is that people offer them to you, then stick around for many years.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, have the Government assessed whether the decline in charitable giving is connected to an increasing rise in the practice of charity mugging, commonly called chugging, where members of the public are approached by representatives, who may be working for agencies, to sign a direct debit? In particular why is it that if they are holding a cash tin they need a licence from the local authority, but if they make an approach for a direct debit they do not?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, dealt with chugging in his review of the Charities Act. We wish to encourage a broader base for giving among small donors. Chugging has been with us for some time. It is not a new phenomenon.
Lord Best
My Lords, in terms of the giving of time through volunteering, as well as the giving of money, it is good news that the Government are supporting more volunteering for sports as part of the legacy from those wonderful games makers at the Olympics. Will that same support for volunteering be extended beyond just sporting activity to other kinds of volunteering, such as the work that the WRVS is currently doing in sending volunteers in to help people who are living alone and suffering from loneliness?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Government’s join in scheme is very much intended to take on the spirit of the Olympics and extend it to a whole range of other activities. I visited a National Citizen Service course this summer. I had been relatively sceptical about National Citizen Service until then, but I was completely bowled over by the young people who were taking the course who were learning how to go out, raise money, help people and develop schemes. I would like to see many more people have the opportunity to learn how they can contribute more actively to society. It was a bunch of people from one of the poorer areas of Bradford, and it was delightful to see that they were learning to give their time and were managing to raise money.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, during the noble Lord’s wide-ranging visits to different areas and charitable organisations, what assessment has he made of the impact of the current economic crisis, particularly on BME women’s organisations, given the Government’s commitment to empowering women and those dealing with domestic violence and increased reports of forced marriages and honour-based violence?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, what happens to different charities depends partly on how heavily they depend on public funds and what their donor or social enterprise base is. I am aware of several charities in Yorkshire that deal particularly with women. Their current trajectory is very different depending on their funding base.
NHS: Clinical Networks
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will address any shortfall in the funding of clinical networks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, national funding for clinical networks has been maintained at £33.6 million since 2009. Forty-two million pounds has been allocated by the NHS Commissioning Board to support strategic clinical networks and clinical senates in 2013-14. It is for local health communities and the board to determine the number and size of networks, based on patient flows and clinical relationships, and to deploy their resources appropriately.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that Answer. His boss, the Secretary of State, is on the record as saying that clinical networks funding is increasing and will continue, yet on Monday a freedom of information survey revealed severe cuts to budgets and staff in clinical networks, so I wonder who is right. Cancer networks are cut by 26% and stroke and cardiac by 12% in the same period—2009-13—with the loss of hundreds of experienced and motivated staff. Do the figures that the Minister has given to me also cover clinical senates? Will those cuts be restored? What incentives are the Government putting in place to ensure that local health organisations contribute to the additional funding of cancer networks? Indeed, how will the local diabetes networks be supported in the new commissioning regime? We know that these networks work.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness’s last comment. These networks are extremely valuable. I confirm that the figure I gave her in my Answer of £42 million covers clinical senates as well. It is perfectly correct that the share of the pot which cancer networks will be able to avail of is likely to be smaller next year than it is this year. However, I can categorically confirm that, as I said in my Answer, national funding has not been cut to date and is going up next year very considerably. Furthermore, we should recognise that the Commissioning Board’s announcement amounts to a ringing endorsement of the value of networks in improving patient outcomes. Not only will funding be increased but for the first time there will be nationally supported networks for mental health, dementia and neurological conditions as well as maternity and children’s services. I say to the noble Baroness that recruitment to the networks is proceeding very smoothly and encouragingly.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I declare an interest as a lay member of a cancer network lung cancer group. I know the Minister is aware that our survival scores for lung cancer need improvement and that early diagnosis is the key to that improvement. In the light of that, what steps are being taken to make absolutely certain that any reduction in the number, staff or funding of cancer networks does not damage the efforts to improve early diagnosis?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. As regards cancer, it is important to look at what the Government are doing across the piece. As the noble Lord may recall, the cancer strategy that we published a while ago is backed by more than £450 million of investment. This is specifically to target earlier diagnosis of cancer; to give GPs increased access to diagnostic tests; to allow for the increased testing and treatment costs in secondary care; to support campaigns; and so on. That is a large sum of money and it is committed.
Lord Kakkar
Does the Minister envisage a role for the to-be-designated academic health science networks in delivering clinical networks in the future? I declare my interest as chair for quality, University College London Partners academic health science partnership.
Earl Howe
My Lords, yes. National guidance is being produced by the NHS Commissioning Board, setting out the different areas of focus for academic health science networks, health and well-being boards, local education and training bodies and clinical senates. The defined geographies of the 12 network support teams have been developed precisely to gain close alignment and therefore promote close relationships and co-operation with the other structures in the new system—including academic health science networks.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, how are clinical network members recruited? Are they advertised?
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, the people with CFSME were greatly heartened in 2008 when the Chief Medical Officer ring-fenced £8 million to set up clinical networks on their behalf. They have become disillusioned as the funding of these networks has gradually been cut. There is also no provision for children in the clinical networks. What priority is given to CFSME?
Earl Howe
My Lords, strategic clinical networks are only one category of network in the new system. There is nothing to stop professional groups coming together to share best practice and support professional development. In addition, clinical commissioning groups may well wish to establish networks to support local priorities and ways of working; and providers may use a network model to enable the joint delivery of a service, such as pathology. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly referred to the extent to which local providers and commissioners already support strategic clinical networks. So there is a variety of ways of doing this.
Lord Patel
Does the Minister recognise that reducing funding for cancer networks will lead to a reduction in staff and therefore a reduction in the effectiveness of cancer networks?
Earl Howe
My Lords, Professor Sir Mike Richards, the national cancer director, said the other day:
“Although cancer networks will have a smaller proportion of the budget in the future, there are still backroom efficiencies that can be made to make things work more effectively. Increasing the footprint of each network will make them more cost-efficient”.
I have spoken to him personally and he is confident that the available budget can still be used to ensure that there is at least equal cost-effectiveness of networks.
North Korea
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact on regional and world security of North Korea’s recent missile launch.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as the chairman of the All-Party Group on North Korea.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, we condemn North Korea’s satellite launch. This test of its ballistic missile technology is in clear violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874. This provocative act will only serve to increase regional tensions and undermine prospects for peace in the peninsula. The UK is urgently consulting with the UN Security Council and we have urged North Korea to return to constructive international negotiations.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. Is not this highly provocative act, coming a week before South Korea’s elections, an attempt to undermine any attempts at peaceful moves for reconciliation and progress? It is also a wicked waste of resources, estimated at some $800 million. That is enough to feed the entire population of North Korea for a year, in a country where malnutrition and starvation are commonplace. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have called in the North Korean ambassador and, if so, what will they say to him? Does she welcome China’s statement this morning, in advance of the Security Council meeting, that,
“Pyongyang should … abide by relevant UN Security Council resolutions … which demands the DPRK not to conduct ‘any launch using ballistic missile technology’ and urges it to ‘suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme’”?
Baroness Warsi
I agree with the noble Lord. I think that the timing of this testing is indeed important and relevant, so soon after the US elections and the transfer of power in China and just before the elections in Japan and South Korea. We are looking at the timing of this matter in some detail. I also agree with the noble Lord that for a country with extreme poverty to be using resources on developing what we feel to be further nuclear missile technology is not an appropriate use of funds.
I can confirm that the North Korean ambassador to the UK was called to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office today—indeed, possibly as we speak, he is in a meeting with the Permanent Under-Secretary.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, does the Minister agree that in a country where there is so much human suffering, it would behove North Korea rather more to make a priority of alleviating suffering, as well as seeking dialogue and reconciliation, and that this provocative act, as she described it, damages both those targets? Will she ensure that we do not lose sight of the human rights violations in a country where the United Nations estimates that 200,000 people are held in prison camps?
Baroness Warsi
The right reverend Prelate is right. In a country where both resource and energy could be spent on so much, whether on alleviating poverty or on human rights, this does not appear to be an act which is in the interests of its own people.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the Question today, because we share the concern that this missile test will be destabilising regionally and for the world, and may well provide the grounds for a regional arms race and proliferation.
There have been reports today that part of the missile project has been conducted jointly with Iran. Have the Government any further information on that? Will the process that we will go through on the Security Council resolutions have the same characteristics as were announced about an hour and a quarter ago by the United States: that there should be a full head of steam behind the approach to the United Nations, potentially calling for similar sanctions to those in force on Iran?
Baroness Warsi
I can confirm, my Lords, that discussions are ongoing as to how the United Nations Security Council proceeds in this matter: whether it is by way of a further resolution or a presidential statement; whether further sanctions could be applied; and the nature of those sanctions. On the noble Lord’s question about Iran, I do not have any further information at this stage, but if it is something that I can write to him about, I will.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, there is plenty of time. Perhaps we could hear from my noble friend and then the noble and gallant Lord.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, this has been the third serious provocation in less than four years by North Korea. The noble Baroness referred to the potential of the UN Security Council meeting. Will she assure the House that in the conversations that will be had with China with respect to potential Security Council sanctions against North Korea, the energy dependence of North Korea on China will be discussed, and that China will be pressed not to continue to provide oil to North Korea?
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank
My Lords, having been to North Korea reasonably recently and had less than satisfactory conversations with politicians and the military there, I think that we ought to realise that the one thing that unites North Korea is hatred of the United States. We should do everything that we possibly can to try to get the United States to have a better dialogue with North Korea. Wherever you go in North Korea they remember the Korean War—the monuments are all around the country. It is taught to children from the very first year they go to school. I hope that we can try to influence the Americans to understand this, and they could make a big difference. The Korean War was 60 years ago.
Baroness Warsi
The noble and gallant Lord clearly speaks from experience in relation to his own visit and his own dialogue. I can only speak on behalf of our Government. Even in very difficult circumstances we felt it was appropriate to continue our dialogue and our discussions in whatever opportunities present through our embassy in North Korea.
Lord Soley
Can the Minister tell us a little more about the way we are trying to draw China into a longer and deeper discussion about how we deal with North Korea? China has an enormous problem on its own border, not just because of the military side but also because of starving refugees trying to get across that border. Surely a large part of this must be our attempt to get China more fully engaged in a longer-term proposal as this regime is one of the most awful and most dangerous in the world.
Baroness Warsi
I agree with the noble Lord that China has to be part of the solution in relation to North Korea. The noble Lord will be aware that it is part of the six-nation discussions, which of course also include the United States, Russia and Japan.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the only long-term solution to the untold misery of the people of North Korea, and the ending of the serious menace that that state poses to regional and indeed world peace, is its absorption into South Korea? Does she agree that the Chinese would not necessarily be averse to that solution?
Baroness Warsi
I think that the future of North Korea goes beyond the remit of this immediate Question.
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, it is good news that the ambassador of North Korea has been called in. I have not heard many people mentioning South Korea—the Republic of Korea—in this exchange. Are Her Majesty’s Government speaking to the South Koreans to urge them not to try to take any kind of unilateral action and that whatever they do, it should be done through the United Nations?
Baroness Warsi
As the noble Lord will appreciate, this was a Private Notice Question. I am not sure if any discussions have taken place immediately, certainly within the past 24 hours, on the specific point that the noble Lord raises. We are, however, in general discussions with the South Koreans on this matter and, as I said earlier, they form part of the six-nation dialogue.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
Is it not the wish of the Government now to consult with America and China on how to deal with this situation? We cannot deal with it single-handed.
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend is right. This is not a matter which the UK would seek to deal with in any way single-handedly.
Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [HL]
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Patrick Finucane
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I would now like to repeat a Statement that was made by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon in the House of Commons on the murder of Patrick Finucane.
“The murder of Patrick Finucane in his home in North Belfast on Sunday 12 February 1989 was an appalling crime. He was shot 14 times as he sat down for dinner with his wife and three children. His wife was injured, and Patrick Finucane died in front of his family.
In the period since the murder, there have been three full criminal investigations carried out by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Stevens. Taken together, they amount to the biggest criminal investigation in British history, led by the most senior police officer, and consisting of more than 1 million pages of documents and 12,000 witness statements obtained with full police powers. As a result of the third Stevens investigation, one of those responsible, Ken Barrett, was tried and convicted in 2004 for the murder of Patrick Finucane.
There was a further report by Judge Cory. Both Lord Stevens and Judge Cory made it clear that there was state collusion in the murder. This itself was a shocking conclusion, and I apologised to the family on behalf of the British Government when I met them last year. But despite these reports, some 23 years after the murder, there has still been only limited information put into the public domain. The whole country, and beyond, is entitled to know the extent and nature of the collusion, and the extent of the failure of our state and Government. That is why, last October, this Government asked Sir Desmond de Silva to conduct an independent review of the evidence to expose the truth as quickly as possible.
Sir Desmond has had full and unrestricted access to the Lord Stevens archive and to all government papers. These include highly sensitive intelligence files and new and significant information that was not available to either Lord Stevens or Justice Cory, including Cabinet papers, minutes of meetings with Ministers and senior officials, and papers and guidance on agent handling. He has declassified key documents, including original intelligence material, and he has published them in volume 2 of his report today. The decision over what to publish was entirely his own—it was entirely a matter for Sir Desmond de Silva. Sir Desmond’s report has now given us the fullest possible account of the murder of Patrick Finucane and the truth about state collusion. The extent of disclosure in today’s report is without precedent.
Nobody has more pride than me in the work of our Armed Forces, our police service and our security forces. I see at close hand the work they do to keep us safe. As Sir Desmond makes clear, he is looking at,
“an extremely dark and violent time”,
in Northern Ireland’s history. I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to the police and security forces that served in Northern Ireland, but we should be in no doubt that this report makes extremely difficult reading. It sets out the extent of collusion in areas such as identifying, targeting and murdering Mr Finucane; supplying a weapon and facilitating its later disappearance; and deliberately obstructing subsequent investigations. The report also answers questions about how high up the collusion went, including the role of Ministers at the time. Sir Desmond is satisfied that there was not,
“an over-arching State conspiracy to murder Patrick Finucane”,
but while he rejects any state conspiracy, he does find quite frankly shocking levels of state collusion. Most importantly, Sir Desmond says he is,
“left in significant doubt as to whether Patrick Finucane would have been murdered by the UDA”—
the Ulster Defence Association—
“in February 1989 had it not been for the different strands of involvement by elements of the State”.
He finds that,
“a series of positive actions by employees of the State actively furthered and facilitated his murder”,
and he cites five specific areas of collusion.
First,
“there were extensive ‘leaks’ of security force information to the UDA and other loyalist paramilitary groups”.
Sir Desmond finds that,
“in 1985 the Security Service assessed that 85% of the UDA’s ‘intelligence’ originated from sources within the security forces”.
He is,
“satisfied that this proportion would have remained largely unchanged by … the time of Patrick Finucane's murder”.
Secondly, there was a failure by the authorities to act on threat intelligence. Sir Desmond describes,
“an extraordinary state of affairs ... in which both the Army and the RUC SB”—
Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch—
“had prior notice of a series of planned UDA assassinations, yet nothing was done by the RUC to seek to prevent these attacks”.
When you read some of the specific cases in the report —page after page in chapter 7—it is really shocking that this happened in our country. In the case of Patrick Finucane, he says that,
“it should have been clear to the RUC SB from the threat intelligence that ... the UDA were about to mount an imminent attack”,
but,
“it is clear that they took no action whatsoever to act on the threat intelligence”.
Thirdly, Sir Desmond confirms that employees of the state and state agents played “key roles” in the murder. He finds that,
“two agents who were at the time in the pay of … the State were involved”—
Brian Nelson and William Stobie—
“together with another who was to become an agent of the State after his involvement in that murder”.
It cannot be argued that these were rogue agents. Indeed, Sir Desmond concludes that Army informer Brian Nelson should,
“properly be considered to be acting in a position equivalent to an employee of the Ministry of Defence”.
Although Nelson is found to have withheld information from his Army handlers,
“the Army must bear a degree of responsibility for Brian Nelson's targeting activity during 1987-89, including that of Patrick Finucane”.
Most shockingly of all, Sir Desmond says that,
“on the balance of probabilities … an RUC officer or officers did propose Patrick Finucane … as a UDA target when speaking to a loyalist paramilitary”.
Fourthly, there was a failure to investigate and arrest key members of the West Belfast UDA over a long period of time. As I said earlier, Ken Barrett was eventually convicted of the murder, but what is extraordinary is that back in 1991, instead of prosecuting him for murder, as the RUC CID wanted to, the RUC Special Branch decided instead to recruit him as an agent.
Fifthly, this was all part of what Sir Desmond calls a wider,
“relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice”,
after the murder had taken place. Sir Desmond finds that,
“senior Army officers deliberately lied to criminal investigators”.
The RUC Special Branch, too,
“were responsible for seriously obstructing the investigation”.
On the separate question of how certain Ministers were briefed, while Sir Desmond finds no political conspiracy, he is clear that Ministers were misled. He finds that,
“the Army and Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials provided the Secretary of State for Defence with highly misleading and, in parts, factually inaccurate advice about the … handling of … Nelson”.
On the comments made by Douglas Hogg, Sir Desmond agrees with Lord Stevens that the briefing he received from the RUC meant he was “compromised”. But he goes on to say that there is,
“no basis for any claim that he intended his comments to provide a form of political encouragement for an attack on any solicitor”.
More broadly on the role of Ministers, Sir Desmond says that there is,
“no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any Government Minister had foreknowledge of Patrick Finucane's murder, nor that they were subsequently informed of any intelligence that any agency of the State had received about the threat to his life”.
He says that the then Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Mayhew deserves,
“significant credit for withstanding considerable political pressure designed to ensure that Brian Nelson was not prosecuted”.
As a result, of course, Nelson was prosecuted in 1992, following the first investigation from Lord Stevens.
The collusion demonstrated beyond any doubt by Sir Desmond, which included the involvement of state agents in murder, is totally unacceptable. We do not defend our security forces, or the many who have served in them with great distinction, by trying to claim otherwise. Collusion should never, ever happen. So on behalf of the Government, and the whole country, let me say again to the Finucane family, I am deeply sorry.
It is vital that we learn the lessons of what went wrong, and for Government in particular to address Sir Desmond's criticisms of,
“a wilful and abject failure by successive Governments to provide the clear policy and legal framework necessary for agent-handling operations to take place effectively and within the law”.
Since 1989, many steps have been taken to improve the rules, procedures and oversight of intelligence work. There is now a proper legal basis for the security services, and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has established a framework for the authorisation of the use and conduct of agents. In addition, the activities of individual agents are now clearly recorded, along with the parameters within which they must work. The Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Office of Surveillance Commissioners now regulate the use of agents and report publicly to this House. Taken together, these changes are designed to ensure that the failures of 1989 could not be made today.
Policing and security in Northern Ireland have been transformed, reflecting the progress that has been made in recent years. The Force Research Unit and the Special Branch of the RUC have both gone, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland is today one of the most scrutinised police forces anywhere in the world. It is accountable to local Ministers and a local policing board and it commands widespread support across the whole community.
Through all these measures, both this Government and their predecessors have shown a determination to do everything possible to ensure that no such collusion ever happens again. We will study Sir Desmond’s report in detail to see what further lessons can be learnt, and I have asked the Secretaries of State for Defence and Northern Ireland and the Cabinet Secretary to report back to me on all the issues that arise from this report. I will publish their responses. Other organisations that are properly independent of Government—police and prosecuting authorities—will want to read the report and consider their own responses.
Sir Desmond says that his conclusion,
“should not be taken to impugn the reputation of the majority of RUC and UDR officers who served with distinction during what was an extraordinarily violent period”.
He goes on to say that,
“it would be a serious mistake for this Report to be used to promote or reinforce a particular narrative of any of the groups involved in the Troubles in Northern Ireland”.
I am sure that those statements will have wide support in this House. We should never forget that over 3,500 people lost their lives and there were many terrible atrocities. Sir Desmond reminds us that the Provisional IRA,
“was the single greatest source of violence during this period”,
and that a full account of the events of the late 1980s,
“would reveal the full calculating brutality of that terrorist group”.
During the Troubles, over 300 RUC officers and 700 British military personnel were killed, with over 13,000 police and military injured. I pay tribute to them and to all those who defended democracy and the rule of law and who have created the conditions for the progress we have seen. We must not take that progress for granted, as we have seen this week, and I pay tribute again to those in the PSNI who are once again in the front line today. We must not and we will not allow Northern Ireland to slip back to its bitter and bloody past.
The Finucane family suffered the most grievous loss and they suffered it in the most appalling way imaginable. I know they oppose this review process and I respect their views. However, I respectfully disagree with them that a public inquiry would produce a fuller picture of what has happened and what went wrong. Indeed, the history of public inquiries in Northern Ireland would suggest that had we gone down that route, we would not know now what we know today.
Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years and there is still more to do to build a genuinely shared future. One of the things this Government can do to help is to face up honestly when things have gone wrong in the past. If we as a country want to uphold democracy and the rule of law, we must be prepared to be judged by the highest standards, and we must also face up fully when we fall short. In showing once again that we are not afraid to do that, I hope that today’s report can contribute to moving Northern Ireland forward. In that spirit, I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on Patrick Finucane given by the Prime Minister earlier in the other place. In addition, from the Opposition Benches in this House, I also thank Sir Desmond de Silva for his work and how he went about his task. He has produced a serious report within the terms of reference that he was set. It will take time to absorb its full details. I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology, which was set out in the Statement repeated by the Leader, to the Finucane family. It is the right thing to do.
We should begin by remembering the unimaginable horror of Pat Finucane’s murder. This was a husband, a father, a brother who was murdered in his own home as he sat with his family on a Sunday evening. Some 23 years after this appalling crime, his family still searches for the truth with courage and dignity.
This report provides disturbing and uncomfortable reading for all of us. It makes clear that there was collusion in the murder and a cover-up. Furthermore, it states that,
“agents of the State were involved in carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder”.
Of course, this should not diminish the service of thousands of police officers, soldiers and Security Service personnel who were dedicated to protecting and serving people in Northern Ireland, and who have my admiration and that of all of us in this House today. They will be as appalled as we all are by the findings.
As we examine and assess the findings of this report and whether it is adequate, it is essential that we remember the background. An investigation into the murder of Pat Finucane in which the public had confidence was an important part of the peace process, a process which is held in trust from Government to Government, which began under Sir John Major and has continued since.
In 2001, at Weston Park, the Irish and British Governments agreed to appoint a judge of international standing to examine six cases in which there were serious allegations of collusion by the security forces. This applied in both jurisdictions: the UK and Ireland. It was agreed that in the event that a public inquiry was recommended in any of the cases, the relevant Government would implement that recommendation.
Judge Peter Cory was appointed and recommended that public inquiries were necessary in five cases. Three of those on the UK side have been completed and the one inquiry recommended on the Irish side is expected to report next year. The only outstanding case in which a public inquiry was recommended but has not taken place is that of Pat Finucane.
The previous Government could not reach consensus with the Finucane family on arrangements for an inquiry but, towards the end of our time in office, the Finucane family indicated that they would support a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 and had begun to discuss a way forward. We on this side continue to believe that we should abide by our obligations under the Weston Park agreement.
First, do the Government recognise the concern that the failure to hold a public inquiry is in breach of agreements that were an essential part of the peace process? Secondly, Sir Desmond has accepted the assurances of the state that he has been given all relevant material. But this is the same state the agents of which were involved in what the report describes at paragraph 116 as,
“carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder”,
and the same state whose previous criminal investigations into this matter were the subject of “serious obstruction”.
Do the Government therefore recognise the concern about the limits to what the de Silva inquiry could do? Will the Leader of the House explain why the Prime Minister believes that a public inquiry would not have produced a fuller picture in which the public could have had confidence, as Mr Justice Cory recommended, not least because of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses? In his Statement repeated by the Leader, the Prime Minister said he disagreed with the Finucane family that,
“a public inquiry would produce a fuller picture of what happened and what went wrong”.
I respectfully disagree with him.
Thirdly, the de Silva report concludes that,
“a series of positive actions by employees of the State actively furthered and facilitated his murder and that, in the aftermath of the murder, there was a relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice”.
What do the Government propose to do in response to these serious findings?
Fourthly, the British and Irish Governments have been as one on this issue. Will the Leader of the House say what discussions the Government have had with the Irish Government about the de Silva review, and what the position of the latter is today?
That takes me to the final issue: public confidence. That we continue to build trust and confidence among the communities of Northern Ireland remains crucial. The appalling violence we have seen on the streets of Northern Ireland in recent days should remind us of that. Judge Cory said that a public inquiry was needed into the murder of Pat Finucane because,
“without public scrutiny doubts based solely on myth and suspicion will linger long, fester and spread their malignant infection throughout the Northern Ireland community”.
Can the Government really say with confidence that the whole truth has been established in the case of Pat Finucane? How can we say that when the report is dismissed by his family and many others in Northern Ireland?
We, as the United Kingdom, must accept that sometimes our state did not meet the high standards we set ourselves during the Northern Ireland conflict. The past is painful and often difficult. We believe that we must establish the full and tested truth about Pat Finucane’s murder. We therefore continue to believe that a public inquiry is necessary for his family and for Northern Ireland.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for her response to the Statement. She is right that it is essential that we should remember the background against which we operated at that time and, following on from that, she is right to note the enormous changes that have taken place during the course of the past 25 years, most of all during the peace process in the past 20 years. The noble Baroness asked a number of questions, to which I shall try to reply.
Perhaps I can deal with one question relatively quickly, on the Irish Government and their likely position. I can confirm that the Prime Minister spoke this morning to the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny. The position of the Irish Government, that they have been in favour of a public inquiry, has been widely known for a long time. However, they understand why we have taken the decision that we have taken, and they respect that we have been entirely open and frank. I hope that they, like everybody else who has an interest in this issue, will find some comfort in the integrity of the process once they have considered Sir Desmond’s report. The position of the Irish Government is, of course, one for them to determine.
I am well aware that the decision not to hold a public inquiry was controversial. However, our ambition and motivation as a Government was to frame a real question: what is the fastest way to get to the truth and to lay out what happened? We know what has happened in the past with public inquiries; some of them took five or six years, or even longer, cost tens of millions of pounds and perhaps did not even get closer to the truth than de Silva has got in his report today. We therefore very much support our decision to have this inquiry led by Sir Desmond de Silva.
At the time of the general election, this went to the core of the point made by the noble Baroness about confidence in Northern Ireland and in the process that we have conducted. In answer to whether we can say with full confidence that the whole truth has been uncovered, this is a very long report and individual noble Lords will want to review and read with care what has been said. However, it is clear that Sir Desmond de Silva has done the whole nation a tremendous service in trying to get to the heart of the matter and uncover the truth, building on the work that had been done by previous individuals. This was a fast way to find the truth. That is a good thing for Northern Ireland.
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, her Government had nine years between Weston Park and the general election to decide to go ahead with a public inquiry. It is not a decision that they took, possibly because they understood as much as we have done the problems of time and expense. The key thing is to get to the truth. I venture to suggest that very few countries would have set it out in so much detail or laid out what went wrong as comprehensively as we have done today. We should all take some pride in a country that is willing to do that. It is an agony in many respects to read what has been said, but it is right to publish and to ensure that people who have been affected can see the work that Desmond de Silva has done. That is very much the basis of the decision that we took and we stand by it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions for my noble friend the Leader of the House, so that he can answer as many as possible.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I thank the Prime Minister for instituting the de Silva inquiry and for his apologetic and sympathetic response to the Finucane family.
No Member of this House could listen to the Leader of the House reading out the Statement without being deeply shocked and dismayed at its horrifying content. This cannot be other than a source of national shame. One of our citizens was murdered in his own home with the collusion of state agents, and subsequently, for 23 years, there has been obstruction of the proper authorities in the investigation of these matters, including by senior officials in the Ministry of Defence, the police and security services, to the point, according to this report, that Ministers were lied to and misled, and they then misled Parliament. How is it possible to hold our own authorities to account if they are being so grossly misled in this way? This is a time for deep national shame and self reflection because it begs real questions.
It does no credit to our House to refuse to accept the clear reality of what went on. Authorities here must learn that you do not defend democracy by undermining the very principles of democracy, decency, honesty and of abiding by the proper law. I trust, although I frankly do not believe it, that some elements of government in Northern Ireland understand that playing footsie with paramilitaries and colluding with them, including in threats to some of my own friends recently, is no way to promote democracy. It is a travesty of democracy. How can we assure ourselves that these things will not happen in the future? We will not do so merely by responding to this Statement; I trust that there will be a full debate in your Lordships’ House and that we will properly learn the lessons, not by more inquiries but by more decisions as to how we hold these matters to account in the future.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I understand exactly what my noble friend is saying and the force with which he says it, with all the experience and knowledge that he has in his personal background and the part that he has played in Northern Ireland. He is right in saying that none of us could hear the Statement made by the Prime Minister without being deeply shocked and dismayed by what has happened—the level of collusion and the cover up that took place thereafter.
He said that it was a national shame and he is right, but part of dealing with that is to confront it by having the review that we have taken, publicising it and apologising for what happened. There is also the second point, which I think my noble friend was referring to, about what has changed and how to ensure that these things do not happen again. The background within which the security services operate is so entirely different from that existing in the late 1980s when there was no legal framework against which they operated.
RIPA 2000 created a proper legal and policy framework within which to gather intelligence. There is now therefore an unambiguous framework which puts all work relating to agents on a statutory footing and is designed to prevent the same mistakes and abuses being made today. RIPA is also underpinned by a range of non-statutory frameworks and codes of practice which set out clear processes for the day-to-day management of agents by relevant agencies. Managers, the PSNI and the security services are required to ensure that staff comply with this legislation. The Statement referred to the PSNI now being the police force with more scrutiny that any other in the world. I think that that is right.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
My Lords, as somebody who has been fortunate to survive 10 murder attempts by the Provisional IRA, I find this isolated apology quite ridiculous. The reality is that the Finucane family were an IRA family. I illustrate this by saying that when I made that allegation publicly and was being sued for libel, the family retracted and paid my legal expenses. Let us not therefore fool ourselves about the “Godfather” Finucane who was killed. If there was connivance, let me say that all of us who served through the heart of the Troubles in Northern Ireland served in such a way that it was impossible to have a secret. Why were there 10 attempts on my life? Why was the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, shot? It was because there was conspiracy.
I point out that less than 1% of all terrorist suspects involved in proactive security force operations were killed by the security forces, and that 99% of cases ended in arrest. There were no incidents of unlawful killing in a Special Branch-led operation in Northern Ireland, and the security-force response was totally human-rights compliant. Let us not forget all those years of terrorism and become compelled by a single incident which may in fact—and I will not deny it—have involved conspiracy. If one sought justification—and I do not justify it—it was not without a godfather. Godfathers were responsible for so many murders in Northern Ireland, it should not be forgotten.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, brings his own particular view of these issues. Indeed, Sir Desmond looked at the accusation that Patrick Finucane was a member of PIRA, and on the basis of the evidence that he saw he concluded that he was not. I know that that was not the entire point that the noble Lord was making, but the Government have nothing to add to Sir Desmond’s conclusions on this point.
I am bound to say that the question of PIRA membership is not in this case particularly relevant. The point that was made in the Statement and as a result of the review is that the state should not have been involved in Patrick Finucane’s murder. It is on that basis that the state has made the apology.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I declare an interest. I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Patrick Finucane was murdered and I was Secretary of State for Defence when the possible prosecution of Brian Nelson arose. I join my noble friend in recognising —as he did in repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement, and as we all must—that this was an appalling crime of which we should all be ashamed. It should not have happened and it is particularly appalling because there is clear evidence of significant collusion. It was an appalling crime at what the Statement calls a dark and violent time in Northern Ireland. I was not surprised at the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Alderdice. The House has had the opportunity to sense some of the tensions that so rapidly rise to the surface, and which one can now see on the streets of Belfast.
That is in no sense an excuse for what happened. One of the things that I most resent about this is that the appalling things that happened in this case sully the reputation of very brave security forces who, over all those years and with huge personal suffering to them and their families, stood to protect the Province of Ulster, Northern Ireland, against the risk of total disaster. We should recognise that.
I take exception to one element of the Statement repeated by my noble friend: namely, the phrase “state involvement”, which is now current. I understand why it has arisen. It gives the impression that somehow the Government planned the murder of Patrick Finucane. It is an appalling concept that I as Secretary of State somehow authorised it. Of course, that is totally untrue. In my time I committed myself to trying to save every life that I possibly could on both sides of the community, however people were involved.
What is also clear is that there were incidents in which people were in clear breach of their orders or instructions. The Statement claims that there was no co-ordinated legal basis for the employment of agents. I draw the attention of the House to something in Sir Desmond de Silva’s report which states that agents were being handled at that time under the strict instruction of the Commander Land Forces Northern Ireland, Tony Jeapes, that it was unlawful for any person to authorise any illegal act, and that if there was any possibility of an agent becoming involved in criminality, the assistant chief of staff was to be informed through the commanding officer of the FRU so that preventive measures could be taken. Mr Nelson’s handler was acting in total breach of that instruction at the time. I should say that some of the agents, informers or touts—they go under different names in Northern Ireland—were incredibly brave people who saved an enormous number of lives. The difficulty of handling them should not be underestimated.
This is an impressive report. One or two people have already passed judgment on it. Nobody can have read it yet except the Prime Minister, who obviously was briefed on it. I have only managed to read the executive summary. There is an enormous amount in the report. It needs further study and I will not pay great attention to any comments until people have had a chance to read the report through and then address the issue of whether there should be a further public inquiry. I have great respect for the noble Baroness and understand why she said that a public inquiry might ensure that we would get to the truth. There are no grounds for saying that until we have seen how close we think Sir Desmond de Silva has got to the total truth of the matter, and considered what could be achieved by going for a further public inquiry. This is what challenged the previous Government and why, nine years on, there has been no progress. This is what they were wrestling with. It is difficult to see what the benefit of a public inquiry would be, and I can see some real disadvantages, not least because there should be prosecutions arising from some of the things in the report. If we go for public inquiry, it would probably prevent that being possible.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I very much agree with what my noble friend said about the public inquiry. He has heard what the Prime Minister and I said on that question. My noble friend started by saying that this was an appalling crime. He is right. The key thing for us to remember—this is another thing he said—is that the accusation of state collusion sullies the memory of all those individuals who fought to defend democracy without having to go down this route. That is what makes this so appalling.
Of course I entirely agree with my noble friend that this is a lengthy report that has taken many months to compile. It builds on the work of previous investigations, including that of a distinguished Member of this House. There were a million pages of documents. This is the most comprehensive of comprehensive reports and it requires time to look at it.
On the question of Ministers’ knowledge, de Silva is very clear. He says there is:
“no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any Government Minister had foreknowledge of Patrick Finucane's murder ... nor that they were subsequently informed of any intelligence that any agency of the State had received about the threat to his life”.
There is no evidence at all that any Ministers had any knowledge at the time of Nelson’s targeting activity, or that they were encouraged or directed in any collusive activity with the UDA. That is a very strong statement.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, the de Silva report is profoundly disturbing with its statement that Sir Desmond is satisfied that Patrick Finucane was identified by a police officer for targeting, that he was targeted, that he was not warned of the risks to him—risks which existed in 1981, 1985 and 1989—despite the extent of the knowledge of the activities of these UDA men, and that the investigation into his murder was repeatedly obstructed—all examples of state collusion. The Prime Minister has rightly apologised yet again to his family for what the Prime Minister described as,
“shocking levels of state collusion”.
Mr Finucane was not involved in IRA activity. He was a lawyer carrying out his professional duties in profoundly difficult and dangerous circumstances. I am sure that Members of this House will again wish to express their sympathy to the Finucane family, just as I am sure that all those upright officers with integrity in the army, the police and the security services will wish to share their sympathy at the pain that the Finucane family must be experiencing again today.
But this was not an isolated situation. Investigation has shown that this pattern of activity was not unique to the UDA in west Belfast. The Prime Minister has stated, and the noble Lord has repeated, that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has established a framework for the authorisation and conduct of agents. However, as Police Ombudsman I found as recently as 2003 that the Surveillance Commissioner was not being properly informed about UVF agents who were engaged in murders, attempted murders and other very serious crimes. Given the very small office of the Surveillance Commissioner, the pattern and nature of the investigations and inspections which are carried out by the Surveillance Commissioner, and particularly the resources available to the Surveillance Commissioner, is the Minister satisfied that there is adequate funding to enable the identification of any police failures in the handling and management of state agents?
This remains a profoundly important question. We have in Northern Ireland ongoing activities of republican paramilitaries, including the recent bomb in Derry. We have ongoing loyalist paramilitary activity. We have the current loyalist disturbances, which have caused huge distress and damage in Northern Ireland. And most recently we have had threats, not least death threats to a Member of the other place, Naomi Long, who serves constituents in East Belfast. This is a profoundly important matter for the future security of the United Kingdom. I thank the Government for what has been achieved thus far. Having read some of the report this morning, I will consider it further.
Lord Strathclyde
I am very grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. Again it demonstrates what my noble friend Lord King said about the very real tensions that brought about what happened during that dark and miserable period in Ulster. We are all part of a process of moving on from that. Let me deal with the nub of what the noble Baroness said about other cases. If there was collusion here, what else was going on? The Government will carefully consider the conclusions of the report to assess whether it impacts on any other cases. There have been public inquiries, as the noble Baroness knows, into a number of other cases where collusion was alleged. What we have tried to do here is demonstrate that we are prepared to leave no stone unturned in examining these cases and that, where there has been wrongdoing, the Government are prepared to apologise.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, the Leader of the House was slightly unclear when talking about the attitude of the Irish Government. Given that there was a firm agreement between the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park, what is the attitude of the Irish Government to this issue?
Lord Strathclyde
I think what I said was that the position of the Irish Government has been well understood, and that they were in favour of a public inquiry. My right honourable friend spoke to the Taoiseach this morning. They will want to read the report as well and come to their own conclusions, but those conclusions are a matter for the Irish Government.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I have been reading the report since 8.30 am. I do not understand how the Official Opposition can come to the conclusion that another inquiry is needed when there are over 500 pages to be gone through. The inquiries into the six cases that flowed from Weston Park have required very substantial amounts of expenditure and effort put into finding the truth. Is the Leader of the House aware that if there is to be another inquiry into this case—and I am seeking his assurance now that that will not happen—I have a list of at least 13 other cases involving multiple deaths over a very long time that have just been completely airbrushed out of history? Can the Minister give an assurance that we are going to stop this process of ongoing and never-ending inquiries and concentrate on building a genuinely shared future, where we move forward instead of raking over the coals of the past for ever?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely correct in what he says. I understand the way that he says it and the reasons for it. We can spend a great deal of time, energy and money raking over the coals of the past. What we sought to do in setting up this review was to find a distinguished individual with the greatest possible reputation to conduct it. Sir Desmond’s report has now given us the fullest possible account of the murder of Patrick Finucane and the truth about state collusion.
I confirm to the noble Lord that we would not expect any further report to yield more information—it is fully in the public domain. Of course, I recognise that, on all sides, dealing with the past is still a live issue in Northern Ireland. However, there are other opportunities for families who lost loved ones to find out more, beyond inquiries, such as through the work of the historical inquiries team and the coronial inquests. I repeat again what I said a few moments ago: there is a time for us to deal with the past but it is even more important for us to deal with the problems of the future and to engage more and more in maintaining a level of peace for the people for Northern Ireland—all the people of Northern Ireland—so that they can prosper.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:57 - Division on Amendment 119 - Ayes: 150 / Noes: 54 - Amendment 119 agreed.
Lord Beecham
“( ) The Code shall not come into effect until it has been laid before Parliament, and debated by both Houses.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I cannot claim the prophetic prescience of my biblical near-namesake, so it is entirely fortuitous that the three amendments to which I speak will be debated the day after the announcement of what the media have described as a $1.9 billion, or £1.2 billion, fine imposed by the US authorities on HSBC in relation to charges of money laundering and sanctions busting. I observe in parenthesis that the financial penalty on the company, like those imposed on other banks, is in reality a penalty inflicted on its shareholders and, arguably, its customers. Be that as it may, the relevance of yesterday’s news is that the fine was imposed by way of a deferred prosecution agreement, which embodied other terms, including greater scrutiny of the bank’s affairs—and the involvement of a monitor to be appointed to that effect—and restrictions on bonuses for its top executives.
All three amendments touch on issues that relate to how such matters might be dealt with in the UK once this Bill is enacted. I referred before to the need to carry public opinion with us as we embark on this significant change to the legal system and the way that we deal with corporations whose activities attract breaches of the law and the possibility of substantial proceedings. Amendments 116DA and 116DB facilitate that by requiring a code of practice for prosecutors and any amended code, drawn up, as they will be, by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office, to be laid before Parliament and debated by both Houses. Again I stress that I am not proposing, as I did in Committee, that the code should be subject to the affirmative procedure, merely that it should be debated. I agree with the Minister’s assertion in his letter to me of 7 November that:
“The fundamental principle of prosecutorial independence means that it is appropriate for the code to be issued by the DPP and DSFO rather than it being put on a statutory footing in regulations by a government Minister”.
My concern is that Parliament should be able to contribute to the consultation that the directors have undertaken to conduct rather than that the code should be included after the event in the DPP’s annual report to the Attorney-General. Given the scale of the wrongdoing in the HSBC case and the amount of the financial penalty, this seems to be a sensible way forward, since the public will obviously draw comparisons between what is likely to happen in this country and what happened in America. It reinforces the similar suggestion that I made, but did not press to a vote, in relation to the Sentencing Council’s guidelines on financial penalties. It will be interesting to learn in due course whether the approach adopted under this measure is likely to leave open the possibilities of penalties approaching the scale recorded in the HSBC case. Perhaps the Minister will indicate, without pre-empting the role of the Sentencing Council, what his view is. I do not intend to seek a vote on these amendments, but I hope that the Government will give further consideration to this issue, especially in the light of these recent developments.
The third amendment stems directly from the American experience and legal system. I am indebted to my honourable friend Emily Thornberry, the shadow Attorney-General, for the information that she supplied before and after a recent visit about the practice of the US Justice Department. I spent 35 years briefing counsel, and it has been a unique and pleasant experience to have undergone this role reversal.
Amendment 119A seeks to adopt the practice and wording set out in the United States Attorneys’ Manual. It is a probing amendment. The US law on corporate criminal liability enhances the prospects of successful prosecutions for fraud because corporations are deemed to be vicariously liable for offences committed by their employees during the course of their duties. Here, by contrast, the prosecution must prove that, to quote the legal phrase, the “directing mind and will” of the company was guilty of the offence, and the concept of the directing mind would imply that a board member or senior manager was involved in the illegality.
I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Green, in his former role as chairman and chief executive of HSBC would, of course, have never countenanced, let alone been involved in, the activities that were the subject of the deferred prosecution agreement in America. I assume that the same will be true of other directors of the company and its managers. In this country, a criminal prosecution of the company would have been much more difficult to mount and the incentive to reach a DPA correspondingly reduced if that principle of the directing mind had been applied.
For this reason, Jonathan Fisher QC of Policy Exchange stated in an article in the Times following the publication of the Government’s consultation paper that:
“it is crucial that the proposed legislation provides that a company is vicariously liable for the acts of employees where a prosecutor can show there was fault or dishonesty by the employees concerned. Unless the Government addresses this critical point, the DPA initiative will be a damp squib”.
There is a precedent for making exceptions to the directing mind principle in the analogous field of bribery law. The Bribery Act 2010 establishes strict liability on a company whose employees or associated persons commit an offence in order to obtain business or a commercial advantage for the company. The company can plead by way of a defence that it has adequate systems and controls to prevent the bribery. There are, of course, other examples where companies could be held liable for breaches of statutory duty.
I should perhaps add that the American experience reinforces the view propounded by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, who is not in his place this afternoon, that the deferred prosecution agreement procedure should apply to individuals, although I would remain reluctant to see such an extension initially, otherwise than in cases where this might facilitate the application of DPAs to cases of economic crime and fraud.
The outcome of the HSBC case throws into stark relief the difference between the US system and what the Bill in its present form envisages, let alone the current state of the law. In particular, of course, there is every incentive in the US system for a corporation to come to terms on a deferred prosecution agreement because there is the ultimate sanction of a criminal prosecution on the basis of vicarious liability if it does not take that course. Since we all wish to see a sufficient incentive to facilitate the introduction of this new system, I hope that that will appeal to Ministers.
It is asking too much of the Minister to come back with a considered response either today or in the very limited time available before Third Reading, but I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to review and, if need be, to consult further on this issue during proceedings in the House of Commons. The proposal would extend beyond the realm of economic fraud but, as has been demonstrated in America, it can contribute to the success of the innovation which the Bill seeks to create. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I support the change in position made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, between Committee and today regarding allowing Parliament to discuss the prosecution code without it being incorporated in a statutory instrument. It might help the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the prosecuting authorities generally to have the views of Parliament expressed in a debate in Parliament before the code is finally adopted.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, Amendments 116DA and 116DB revisit an issue that we considered in Committee: namely, parliamentary scrutiny of a code of practice for prosecutors to support the DPA scheme. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, the issue has changed somewhat. In providing for a code of practice for prosecutors in relation to DPAs, the Government have been clear that the intention is to ensure consistency with other statutory provisions relating to guidance for prosecutors on operational matters. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to HSBC and the related US experience. As has been said previously, the DPA is a new addition to the UK system, and we will be looking to apply it at a future point. However, for now the Government’s position has been made clear.
The code of practice for DPAs, in the same way as the code for Crown prosecutors, will provide guidance on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in making decisions and on key procedural and operational matters concerning DPAs. The independence of prosecutors is fundamental to the effective operation of DPAs. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for the code for DPAs to be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office. The Government have absolute confidence in the directors.
I hear what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay mentioned in support of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. However, the Government do not consider it necessary to make the code subject to parliamentary scrutiny. As DPAs become enshrined in UK law, I am sure that we will return to these issues. Indeed, the opportunity remains for any noble Lord to raise this issue through appropriate parliamentary procedures, be they QSDs or any other.
The approach to publication of the code provided in the schedule is wholly consistent with that under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in respect of the code for Crown prosecutors. The code of practice for DPAs, both the first and any future versions, will be provided to the Attorney-General by way of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ annual report, and he will in turn lay it before Parliament. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any concerns about this proposed approach for the code of practice. The code is an operational document that needs to be responsive to the context in which it operates. The proposed amendments would, in particular, restrict the directors’ ability to amend or update the code as necessary to reflect timely changes in the law or lessons learnt having utilised the DPA process. The key elements of a DPA are clearly set out in the Bill. The code of practice will support the operation of the process, and the directors have committed to consult on its contents.
Amendment 119A would introduce a new and very broad basis for corporate criminal liability. Currently, there is a statutory basis for dealing with specific offending on the part of corporate bodies, for example, statutory provisions exist for dealing with corporate manslaughter, bribery and regulatory offending, such as health and safety rules. There is, however, no legislation which expressly creates general criminal liability for companies. Wider corporate liability is founded upon common law rules which attribute liability to a corporate body where the conduct is on the part of the directors, officers and those who occupy roles at the corporate centre. However, reliance is often placed on individual liability where there are many punishments and sanctions available to deal with economic or financial wrongdoing. This is, to a degree, due to the fact that corporate prosecutions are much more difficult and complicated than individual prosecutions and furthermore cases often involve lengthy and costly investigations.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also referred to this point in relation to the Bribery Act 2010. The extent to which the current law of corporate criminal liability can be improved upon by employing the new “failure to prevent” formulation incorporated in the Bribery Act 2010—which the noble Lord’s amendment seeks loosely to emulate—is a matter for long-term examination. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, appreciates, the Bribery Act has been in force for less than 18 months. It is appropriate to allow the provision in the Act to bed down before we examine the extent to which the formulation could be usefully rolled out into other areas. However, I assure the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that investigators, prosecutors and the courts have the right tools to address financial and economic crime effectively, as is evidenced by Schedule 17.
DPAs have been specifically designed to ensure that corporate bodies are held responsible for alleged financial or economic wrongdoing on their part by providing an alternative means of disposal and a broader scope of sanctions. We remain satisfied that it is correct for the Government to focus on offering an additional route for holding to account organisations that are willing to engage in the process or otherwise face prosecution rather than on the basis of the liability itself. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also asked me to speculate on any level about the Sentencing Council and what it may arrive at. I am sure he appreciates that it would be totally inappropriate for me to speculate in that regard. In light of my explanations, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I find that slightly disappointing. The Minister did not address the issue of incentivising the DPA process, which is precisely what Amendment 119A would achieve. However, as I indicated, this is a probing amendment. The probe does not seem to have gone in very far, but in the circumstances, I prefer to withdraw both it and the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“Immigration cases: appeal rights; and facilitating combined appeals
(1) In section 84(1)(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (grounds of appeal: decision unlawful because of race discrimination etc by Northern Ireland public authority) after “1997” insert “or by virtue of section 29 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination in the exercise of public functions etc) so far as relating to race as defined by section 9(1) of that Act”.
(2) In section 99 of that Act (pending appeals lapse on issue of certificates)—
(a) in subsection (1) (list of provisions under which certificates may be issued) omit “96(1) or (2),”, and(b) in the title, for “96 to” substitute “97 and”.(3) For section 47(1) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (decision that person is to be removed from the United Kingdom may be made while person can bring appeal) substitute—
“(1) Where the Secretary of State gives written notice of a pre-removal decision to the person affected, the Secretary of State may—
(a) in the document containing that notice,(b) in a document enclosed in the same envelope as that document,(c) otherwise on the occasion when that notice is given to the person, or(d) at any time after that occasion but before an appeal against the pre-removal decision is brought under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,also give the person written notice that the person is to be removed from the United Kingdom under this section in accordance with directions given by an immigration officer if and when the person’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom expires.(1A) In subsection (1) “pre-removal decision” means—
(a) a decision on an application—(i) for variation of limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, and(ii) made before the leave expires,(b) a decision to revoke a person’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or (c) a decision to vary a person’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom where the variation will result in the person having no leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.””
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 124, which is in the group.
The new clause to be inserted by Amendment 118 makes three separate changes to the legislation governing immigration appeals. The first two respond to amendments tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Avebury.
Subsection (1) of the new clause will reinstate a ground of appeal against an immigration decision on race relations grounds. Such a ground of appeal existed prior to the commencement of the Equality Act 2010, but was removed by the consequential amendments made under that Act. The Government’s stated policy remains that there should be a ground of appeal on race relations grounds and we have therefore brought forward this amendment to reinstate a ground of appeal on those grounds.
Subsection (2) of the new clause corrects an anomaly in Section 99 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 identified by my noble friend Lord Avebury in Committee. Sections 96 and 99 of that Act are designed to stop repeated appeals being used to frustrate the immigration system. Where the Secretary of State makes an immigration decision that carries a right of appeal, she may also certify that decision on the basis that the application relies on issues that were, or could have been, raised earlier or dealt with at a previous appeal. The effect of certification is to prevent an appeal being brought. However, there is a lack of clarity within the 2002 Act about the effect of certification on appeals that are already under way.
Section 96(7) of the 2002 Act states that a certificate has no effect in relation to an appeal that is already under way, but Section 99, which makes provision for the interaction between certification and appeals in progress, states that a certificate would cause the appeal to lapse. It is government policy that a decision to certify should not cause an appeal that is already under way to lapse, and the contradiction needs to be resolved so that the effect of the legislation is clear. This technical amendment to Section 99 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 therefore seeks to clarify that certifying a decision under Section 96 of that Act does not cause a pending appeal to lapse. I thank my noble friend Lord Avebury for bringing that issue to the attention of the House.
Subsection (3) of the new clause will clarify when a decision to remove a person from the United Kingdom can be given in relation to a decision to refuse to vary leave, to curtail leave or to revoke leave. As noble Lords will be aware, this House has considered this issue before. In 2006, the House supported an amendment which then became Section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. It provided a power to make immigration removal decisions where a person has statutorily extended leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Statutorily extended leave is leave which continues where an appeal can be brought against a decision to refuse to vary, to curtail or to revoke leave.
The intention behind Section 47 was that decisions should be made simultaneously, thereby allowing any appeal against removal to be heard at the same time as the appeal against the variation or curtailment decisions.
However, the Upper Tribunal in the recent case of Ahmadi concluded that secondary legislation prevents the simultaneous service of these two decisions. It concluded that the removal decision cannot be made until written notice of the decision to refuse to vary a person’s leave to remain has been given to that person. The impact of this decision is that Section 47 no longer works as it was intended, with the consequence that a removal decision can only be made after the initial appeal against a refusal to vary leave, or a decision to curtail leave or revoke leave, had been heard. The removal decision itself would then generate a second right of appeal. The effect will be to add in unnecessary, and indeed unacceptable, delays and costs into the appeals and removal process.
We are challenging the Upper Tribunal’s decision before the Court of Appeal but we have concluded that we should act swiftly to put the effect of Section 47 beyond doubt and restore the construction of that section which Parliament intended when enacting the 2006 Act. The consequential amendment to Clause 33 ensures that the provisions made by the new clause can be extended to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man by Order in Council. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for considering the matters raised in my Amendments 148B and 148D in Committee, and for coming up with this new clause which addresses them—as the Minister has explained—in subsections (1) and (2). It appears that subsection (3) of the new clause deals with the problems identified by the Upper Tribunal in the case of Ahmadi, as my noble friend the Minister said, and also that of Adamally and Jaferi. In Ahmadi, Upper Tribunal judge Mr Lane said:
“It would clearly be possible for Parliament to amend s.47 of the 2006 Act, so as to enable the respondent to make simultaneous decisions ... Unless and until that is done ... In practice ... the present usefulness of s.47 is highly questionable”.
This is, I suggest, a good example of the complexity of our immigration law, and the risks incurred by getting the language wrong. If the original Section 47(1) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is being amended, it has taken senior judges and Parliament six years to remedy the flaws that made this particular section unworkable so that it was impossible to remove the persons concerned who had no right to remain in the UK.
We do not even know whether it is indeed the original Section 47(1) that we are amending because the website that is intended to provide your Lordships with the text of Acts as amended carries the warning message:
“There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006”.
This is an unsatisfactory situation, which does not apply only in this instance, and I hope that my noble friend might say something about the steps being taken to ensure that legislation.gov.uk is brought up to date, so that your Lordships and another place know what they are being asked to amend.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, perhaps I may add to what my noble friend has just said. My wife is an immigration and asylum judge and from time to time she and her colleagues are sent for training in order to try to understand what the Home Office is producing. I hope that she does not mind my mentioning this, but she and her colleagues find themselves in a quite terrible situation in trying to understand the Kafkaesque material that flows out of the Home Office. There are two people in the Chamber who will understand these amendments—one is the Minister and the other is my noble friend Lord Avebury. I do not understand them. For me to understand them I would have to read the three different Acts of Parliament, all of which are put in play in these amendments, and I would have to listen to and read again what has been said by the Minister. The net result would be that we will continue to have a network of regulations that it is quite impossible for ordinary men and women, including Members of this House, to understand unless and until the Home Office does what we have repeatedly asked it to do for the past many years—to consolidate the legislation into a single measure that can be understood by users, whether they be would-be immigrants, refugees or asylum seekers, or lawyers, NGOs or the public. At the moment it is almost incomprehensible and lacks, therefore, legal clarity. I very much hope that, when I do understand these amendments, what I have just said may be listened to by the Home Secretary and other Ministers who will instruct their officials, please, to come up with consolidating legislation that we can understand.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I would like to comment on that because one of my responsibilities within the Home Office is regulatory reform. I agree with my noble friend that no area is more complex than the whole business of the Immigration Rules and the procedures surrounding them. The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, is aware of my involvement in this—indeed, the Better Regulation Executive is seeking to support the Home Office in this endeavour. I will bear in mind the comments of my noble friends because I am a great believer in the law being as simple and as clear as possible so that people can understand and operate it in the most effective way. I note very much what my noble friend has said. I hope he will understand that these amendments are designed to achieve the purpose of clarifying the law in areas of ambiguity.
“(6A) After section 50(2)(c) of the 2006 Act (procedure), insert—
“(2A) In respect of any application or claim in connection with immigration (whether or not under the rules referred to in subsection (1) or any other enactment) the Secretary of State may make provision for the communication of an immigration officer with the applicant before a decision is taken in respect of that application or claim.
(2B) Provisions under subsection (2A) may include communication with the individual so as to obtain additional information relevant to their application or claim.”
(6B) Before the coming into force of this section, the Secretary of State must make provision for communication between an immigration officer and the applicant for the purposes of obtaining further necessary information not included in the original application, as provided for under section 50(2A) and (2B) of the 2006 Act.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, perhaps this is a timely amendment in the context of the debate that we have just had and the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, about having some sort of common-sense approach so legislation could be easily understood. I have called Amendment 118ZA the common-sense amendment, which I hope encourages noble Lords to support it. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, says, there is sometimes precious little common sense in how we look at legislation.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set in place a procedure to allow for entry clearance officers to communicate—I know that that is a radical step—with applicants during the application process, particularly if the applicant has not provided all the information needed in applying or if there is a need to clarify what may be a minor technical detail. The amendment was inspired by the details of the many cases of visa applications that have been sent to me by individuals over the past few months following debates we have had in this House, and indeed in Committee, on immigration issues.
Many of those who have contacted or written to me have been exasperated by their experience with the UK Border Agency. Whether or not their case has merit, and whether or not their case has been or will be successful, the bureaucracy that should be in place to create logic and order to the process can have the opposite effect. Ministers have said that one of the reasons for the changes they are proposing to the legislation is that applicants do not provide all the information that they should be aware of. However, the fact is that, for the vast majority of people who make such applications, there is confusion and a lack of clarity around the rules. This means that applicants can be refused on the most minor of technicalities or simply because they have not included a single document.
The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, John Vine, raised this very point in his review last year. His report, Entry Clearance Decision-making, noted that in 16% of the cases won on appeal that he reviewed, applicants had been refused on the basis of failure,
“to provide information which they could not have been aware”,
was required at the time of making their application. Even though Ministers consider that they should have been aware, clearly they were not aware. That is a definite example of the lack of clarity about what is required. For further evidence as to why clarity is required, in 33% of the successful appeals that John Vine reviewed, the entry clearance officer had not properly considered the evidence that had been submitted.
Family members of British citizens who want to come over for a visit—perhaps for a wedding or to visit a sick or ailing relative—are being refused entry because of poor decision-making and a lack of clarity over the application process. The Government’s proposal to scrap the right of appeal leaves applicants without any indication of how they should amend their application the second time around, or even whether the same errors of omission or mistakes will continue to be made. That will do nothing to address the problems that the Government have identified. It is also difficult to see how it will reduce costs.
The Government have also conceded this argument. The former Minister for Immigration, now the Minister for Crime and Policing, the right honourable Damian Green, based the argument for scrapping appeals for family visas on the fact that 63% of appeals,
“are lost entirely because of new evidence introduced at the appeal stage”.
Obviously, if the applicant had been clear in the first place as to what was required, he or she would have submitted that information or evidence the first time round. Applicants do not want their application delayed or the uncertainty increased; they want to provide the accurate information. They have not provided it only because of a lack of clarity about what is required.
This problem has got worse. The success rate of appeals against family visit refusals has risen from 19% in 2004 to 37% in 2010. The latest report from the independent chief inspector about the backlog of 147,000 immigration and asylum claims at the UK Border Agency shows that at one point there were 100,000 items of unopened post, including 14,800 recorded delivery letters. This is a shocking state of affairs. It shows that the information being sent on is not being examined adequately.
I stress that I am not laying the blame on entry clearance or immigration officers. I have enormous sympathy with them; they are under huge strain. The Government have cut 5,000 staff from the UK Border Agency, so the workload of individual officers is increasing. The increasing backlog is putting on additional pressure. However, instead of seeking to deal with the chronic problems in the decision-making process, the Government have chosen to scrap appeals entirely. It could be argued that this is an easy option, rather than an effective one. One of the things that I was most struck by in the letters and e-mails I have received—and there have been a very large number of them—is that so many of those errors could have been sorted out relatively easily and more straightforwardly through better communication between the UK Border Agency and the applicant.
I have permission to give an example from one man who has contacted me. I will call him Mr H. However, I can give the Minister the details—he has had information from this gentleman previously. He is an intelligent and articulate British citizen, married to a lady from overseas. They could not understand why their application had been rejected, because they had passed the many hurdles that had been set for them, including the language test. They are now desperate to be living together as man and wife. It was only after I passed the information to the Minister’s office—for which I am grateful; he passed it on to the Minister for Immigration, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also took up this particular case—that Mr H was told what information he had not included. He has since submitted that. However, the lack of clarity about what exactly was required meant that before he received that clarification—and he sent numerous e-mails to the UKBA asking for clarification of what was required—he scanned and sent hundreds of pages because he was so nervous about not including the correct information. He wanted to ensure that the right information was received but he could get no guidance from the UK Border Agency. He then wrote to me that the border agency had lost the appeal. I am pleased to say that it has now been found and he is hoping for a decision before 22 December, when he is returning home to the UK. He hopes that his wife will be able to return with him. Not only has that whole process involved a great deal of stress and worry for him and his wife, but think of the pressure on the overworked immigration officers who have had to consider his first application, deal with his inquiries about what was required for the appeal, and then consider the appeal, which apparently included hundreds of pages of unnecessary information because no one told him what information was required, and he was anxious so he included far too much. His frustration about the whole process is very clear.
Would it not have been easier and cheaper for all concerned if the entry clearance officer had been in a position to contact Mr H originally to let him know what information was missing and give him a certain number of days in which to supply it? That is why we call this a common-sense amendment—it would save time, money and stress.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. A great many of the refusals of applications for leave to enter have been due to misunderstandings about what information is required, and there ought to be a simple procedure for rectifying elementary omissions. I think that I recognise the particular case that she mentioned, because that person has already been in touch with me as well. He made every effort by sending numerous e-mails to the people dealing with the case to try to find out exactly what omission he was guilty of, but was never successful in establishing what further information he needed to provide.
Clause 26 removes the right of appeal against the refusal of a visa to visit family members, except where the appeal is brought on racial discrimination or human rights grounds. I had hoped that in the five months since we considered this matter in Committee, and in the light of the arguments that we advanced then, the Government would have had second thoughts about this clause. It is disappointing to see no sign of that on the Marshalled List.
I shall explain why we felt the need to return to this matter. The Government’s hostility to the right to family life is exemplified by the making of new Immigration Rules making it far more difficult and expensive for spouses and elderly dependent relatives to join heads of households in the UK, reducing the number by an expected 35%, over which the Immigration Minister is already crowing. Clause 26 turns the screw further by preventing appeals that would have been successful under the law as it now stands. I pointed out in Committee that if the argument for Clause 26 was that the number of appeals had risen to far greater levels than were expected when the right of appeal was restored in 2000, as was argued before the Home Affairs Select Committee, the obvious remedy was to get UKBA’s decisions right in the first place. Almost one-third of them are overturned, according to my noble kinsman Lord Henley in Committee, involving the taxpayer in a great deal of unnecessary expense. My noble kinsman said that taking away the right of appeal would lift the burden of processing 50,000 appeals from visa staff, but that was based on the assumption that officials would continue to reject bona fide applications at the same rate as they have in the past. We are told constantly that UKBA is undergoing processes of reform, which will enable them to be more accurate in the first decisions that they make.
After the case of Alvi, which your Lordships have discussed, the information required to be submitted with the visa application is now set out in detail in the rules themselves, so that in theory, there should be fewer cases where an applicant has omitted a particular document. However, considering the volume and complexity of the rules, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lester on the previous amendment, it is inevitable that some applications will be refused for that reason. The Government suggest that persons who have omitted a document should put in a new application rectifying the omission at a cost of £78. That may be a trivial sum to my noble friends on the Front Bench, but it is a lot of money to a poor farmer in Gujarat or Sylhet.
I take the point that a new application is less expensive and faster than an appeal; but where the decision-makers have made an obvious mistake, I do not accept that a genuine family visitor should have to pay twice, and suffer the complications affecting future travel, because the refusal has to be declared not only in the UK but to any other intended destinations to which the applicant may travel. Therefore, it is a blot on the person’s copybook that he will want and need to remove if he is to go anywhere without hindrance.
If a person wins the appeal, it is likely that the tribunal will make a costs order against the Secretary of State, so that the appeal will be free in the end. Moreover, if the refusal was due to disbelief that the applicant would return home at the end of the visit, it is only too probable that a fresh application would yield the same result. Only by appealing can the person attack the errors that led to the original refusal, and it was for that reason that I advised Mrs N from Beirut—whom I think was the person that the noble Baroness was talking about a few minutes ago and whose case I mentioned in Committee—to appeal as well as to ask for the original decision to be reviewed.
Therefore, I am afraid that the reasons that were given by my noble kinsman for thinking that an appeal may not be the best remedy for an unjustified refusal do not hold water. I hope that in the light of that consideration, there should be a simple process that would enable the applicant to lodge supplementary evidence supporting the validity of any document or statement which is challenged, rather than having to start again from scratch.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, many years ago, in 1967, I did the first case in Strasbourg against the United Kingdom: a case called Mohamed Alam & Mohamed Khan. Sir Roy Wilson had produced his report advocating an appeal system. It was as a result of the Strasbourg case and Sir Roy Wilson’s report that the immigration appeals system was first introduced —a system which has gone on until now. I strongly support the explanations and powerful speeches given by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Avebury.
What is the situation at the moment? Instead of there being a proper process at first instance before there is an appeal—a process of proper decision-taking based upon the kind of common-sense approach that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is advocating—mistakes are made quite frequently. When the appeal comes to someone who is an immigration and asylum judge, often no presenting officer is produced by the Home Office to present the government case or there is no one to represent the applicant. My wife will come home at the end of the day and say, “I have now for the first time to take a proper decision myself as though I were doing it at first instance because I have nobody to help me on either side and I find that the initial decision is defective. I now, on appeal at great public expense, have to correct mistakes which should not have been made in the first place at first instance. The only way in which those mistakes can be corrected is by having an appeal system. It is the only safeguard”.
The system now resembles the fairy story, The Little Prince, which noble Lords may remember, in which the boa constrictor swallows a sheep. One sees the lump of the sheep passing along the boa constrictor. The sheep is the process of taking decisions in this area. Instead of the process being properly determined at first instance and making the need for appeals rare, a great lump, the creature, passes along the snake, which leads to a first-instance appeal, an upper-tier appeal and judicial review.
The remedy is simply the common-sense one. One has at first level as much information as possible for a well informed decision. The advantage of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is that it would at least enable proper communication between the officer and the applicant or the applicant’s representative. I can see no argument against that, especially if we were to abolish appeals, which I very much hope will not be the case.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I will address Amendment 118ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Before I do so, perhaps I may say that I understand that the contributions made by the noble Baroness and my noble friends Lord Avebury and Lord Lester are designed to build a more efficient system. In my response, I hope that I can demonstrate that that also is the Government’s intention.
The UK Border Agency publishes supporting documents guidance specifically for family visitors. It provides extensive guidance in several languages on the type of documents that customers should consider submitting. Perhaps I may elaborate on that. The UKBA provides guidance on how to fill in the visa application form. It is translated into six languages—Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Russian, Thai and Turkish. Improvements are also being made to the online visa application process, which will be completed in May 2013. All that is available on UKBA’s website for those wishing to make applications. I should also tell noble Lords that if a refused application is received, the UKBA writes to the refusee to tell them what is missing from their documentation. I believe that this is a valuable way to make sure that the process is as user friendly as possible.
If the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was successful it would put a significant resource burden on entry clearance officers to make inquiries with the minority of applicants—it is a minority of applicants—who do not provide sufficient information with their application. The Government have not been persuaded by the noble Baroness that this is right. Of course there is work to do on continuing to improve the application process. However, the onus must be on applicants to satisfy visa officers that they meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules and to ensure that they have prepared the application properly before submitting it.
Lord Avebury
Will my noble friend deal with the point I made? The exercise of the right of appeal is not only for the purpose of getting the decision reversed but to prevent there being a blot on a person’s record, which may seriously hinder their future ability to travel anywhere?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not accept that at all. If someone’s application to visit this country is refused, then I regret to say that it must be because either they have failed to fill in the application correctly or there are substantial reasons why they should not be allowed to make that visit. I cannot accept the premise of my noble friend’s argument.
The Government are not persuaded by the case for my noble friend’s Amendment 118A. To accept it would introduce a right of appeal for people who have, for example, practised criminal or other dishonest behaviour, while those who have acted honestly would not have an appeal. It cannot be right that that type of behaviour is rewarded.
Regardless of whether an application is refused, relying on a general ground of refusal, the applicant is free to re-apply setting out why the previous refusal was unjustified. All refusals on general grounds are authorised or reviewed by entry clearance managers before being served. If refused under general grounds, it is also open for an applicant to make a fresh application by providing new evidence which an entry clearance officer will take into account. A refusal under paragraph 320 of the Immigration Rules may also be challenged by a judicial review. Prior to making decisions, all entry clearance officers have to pass a three-week training course, part of which focuses on making decisions using paragraph 320 of the Immigration Rules. There is also an e-learning package specifically relating to the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 320 that may lead to an applicant’s future applications being automatically banned. This package is completed by entry clearance officers during their induction training on arrival at their decision-making post.
I think I have demonstrated that the process is thorough and that there will be considerable advantage to the efficiency of the system and, indeed, to applicants themselves if the Government’s proposals are approved. I trust that I have been able to satisfy my noble friend.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the Minister has always been generous with his time and courteous in his response, but I am sad that he is also disappointing. He seems to have relied on existing guidance being adequate and user-friendly. I thought that my comments that the genuine mistakes that are made could be more easily rectified than they are under the current process or the process proposed by the Government indicated that it is not quite user-friendly. No matter how many languages are used, if people do not understand what is required of them they cannot provide it. Perhaps the Minister thinks the guidance is adequate. If it were adequate, applicants would submit all the information required. There is no interest for applicants to make a mistake or not to supply something that they should.
It beggars belief and is against natural justice that the appeal process can be scrapped and that the Government are not taking steps to improve the original decision-making when the figures show that 37% of appeals are successful.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The allegation that we are not taking steps to improve the original decision-making has been refuted by what I said in my response to the amendments. I do not want to make an argument out of this issue, but the Government are very much focused on trying to ensure that the decision-making process is efficient and fair to applicants, as well as to taxpayers.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I do not doubt that that is the Minister’s intention, but when we hear that the success rate of appeals against family visit visa refusals has risen from 19% in 2004 to 37% in 2010, that does not sound as if the system is getting more efficient, rather that the system is less efficient.
The point I am making is about removing the appeal process at that time. We heard from Sir John Vine about the huge backlog of cases that are currently in the system. There are 100,000 envelopes unopened, including 14,000 containing recorded delivery information. I think that our amendment is a common-sense approach. Remarkably, even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who takes a legal approach to these things, agrees with me on this point. I am seeking to be helpful to the Minister and the Government. He may think there are times when I am not, but on this occasion I am seeking to be helpful.
The Minister spoke of the letter which is sent to applicants on reasons for refusal. That reason for refusal may be one very minor, technical matter that can easily be resolved via a phone call. I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response. I hope he will take this away and consider further the points that I have made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury
“(4) This section does not apply if—
(a) the person concerned is stateless,(b) the person concerned has previously made an asylum claim or a human rights claim and been granted leave on that basis, or(c) the person concerned asserts in his or her grounds of appeal an asylum claim or a human rights claim.”
Lord Avebury
My Lords, leaving out this clause would ensure that a person who is outside the country when his or her leave is cut short by the Secretary of State retains the right to return to the UK within the time limit for appeal and thus the right to exercise an appeal in country. At issue are cases where a person’s leave is cut short by the Secretary of State under Section 82(2)(e) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 when he is outside of the UK at the time of the refusal.
It happens frequently and not by accident that the Secretary of State takes advantage of a person’s absence to issue the notice, knowing that that person will not be able to return to the UK to exercise the right of appeal. At the moment, that person has an in-country right of appeal against refusal. The courts have had to consider what happens when an individual is outside the UK at the time of the refusal. As I say, these circumstances will not arise by chance. The Secretary of State will have waited until the person is outside the country to serve the notice cancelling their leave. The courts have held that the person has the right to return to the UK and to lodge an appeal within the time limit for appealing if he had been within his previous leave to remain.
Clause 27 provides that such a person will be given no opportunity to return to the UK, reversing the decision of the court in the case of MK. I referred to this case in Committee so there is no reason to repeat the details now. I simply remind your Lordships that MK was a Tunisian refugee in the UK, but was in Italy when his status was revoked by the Home Secretary. His right to contest that decision in the UK was upheld by the court. It is that decision which is reversed by Clause 27.
The clause has been amended to restrict the Secretary of State’s power to exclude an in-country right of appeal to those cases where she exercises the power before the person brings his or her appeal. However, this does not address the fundamental injustice in the clause. In Committee, my noble kinsman said that it was,
“wholly reasonable that judicial scrutiny of the decision should be carried out while the individual remains outside the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. 719.]
He ignored the fact that a person stranded abroad without access to legal advice and unable to consult face-to-face with his lawyers or to approach witnesses who might testify on his behalf is generally going to be at an overwhelming disadvantage in challenging the Home Secretary’s decision. My noble kinsman said that legal aid would remain available for most applications for judicial review of immigration decisions, and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it will be available in these cases as well.
I mentioned also the Court of Appeal’s finding in the case of MK that the right to an in-country appeal was “valuable” and the fact that pursuing an appeal that turns on character may depend critically on how the litigant appears in court. I submit that it is wholly unreasonable for persons who may have resided in the UK for many years to be put in this position. We are not seeking to undermine what my noble kinsman referred to as,
“the operational integrity of the Home Secretary’s power to exclude an individual from the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, 4/7/12; col. 721.]
We simply seek to ensure that in exercising this power to change someone’s life drastically for the worse, the Home Secretary must abide by the rule of law.
If the repercussions of Clause 27 are serious for those to whom it applies in general, they would be exceptionally so for stateless persons, refugees and persons granted humanitarian protection. Therefore, retaining for these persons the right to return to the UK within the time limit for appeal and to exercise an appeal in country is only fair. They will find themselves, and possibly their families also, stranded outside the UK and with no other country to which they can legally resort in safety if this clause goes through.
My noble kinsman said in Committee in response to this amendment that it could provide every individual refused under the provision with an in-country right of appeal, as they would merely need to raise human rights or asylum grounds in their appeal. Proposed new subsection (4)(c) would have this consequence, but of course the appeal would succeed only if the asylum or human rights claim was found on appeal to be justified.
The Government are proposing a hugely oppressive measure of stripping a person of their leave to remain while they are outside the UK and leaving them in limbo. They must accept the need to put in place safeguards. It may not be possible to ensure that no one other than those in genuine need of the safeguards benefit, but if that is the only objection to the amendment, my noble friend should say so and we can preserve at least proposed new subsections (4)(a) and (4)(b) on Third Reading. Those who are already stateless or who have been granted leave to remain on the basis of an asylum or human rights claim are surely not to be deprived of a meaningful right of appeal against a decision that will ruin their lives for ever. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As he said, it is very difficult effectively to pursue an appeal from abroad. As I understand the clause that the noble Lord seeks to amend, the Secretary of State may take advantage of the temporary absence abroad of an individual. He or she may wait for the individual to go abroad, and may act even though the individual may be abroad—as often happens—for compassionate reasons such as the ill health of a child or an aged relative. The clause is very unjust and very arbitrary.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised this issue in Committee, I raised with the Minister some questions about the process that the Government were seeking to introduce. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I was not entirely satisfied with the replies I received. In fact, I did not receive responses to some of the questions that I raised. I hope that in the time that has expired since 4 July this year the Home Office has been able to provide some answers to those questions.
The point was raised about someone’s leave to remain being cancelled while they were out of the country. I am still unclear—because I have not had a satisfactory response—about the criteria for cancelling someone’s leave to remain while they are out of the country. Is it a purely administrative decision because the decision-making time has come up for that person—they were going to be denied leave to remain and they happened to be out of the country—or is it the case, as the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Avebury, suggested, that the Home Secretary will lie in wait for somebody to leave the country, possibly on compassionate grounds, whereupon their leave to remain will be cancelled? It would be helpful to know what the criteria will be and how the decision will be made.
It would also be useful to have information on what proportion of cancelled leave to remain is cancelled when the subject is outside the country as opposed to when the subject is in the country. I asked that in July in Committee and did not receive an answer. There has been some time since July to get that information; I hope that the noble Lord will have it available.
Another issue is the definition of “public good”. The legislation refers to a decision on removing the right to remain as being taken,
“wholly or partly on the ground that it is no longer conducive to the public good for the person to have leave to … remain”.
Is there a definition of when the public good is no longer there, or when it should be decided that there is no public good and that leave to remain should be withdrawn? The Government need to answer questions on this. I was disappointed not to get responses from the previous Minister—I am not suggesting that the present Minister did not answer me in July—and I hope to get some responses today.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, the noble Baroness described me as “noble and learned”. I should not be described in that way because I am not a former law officer or Law Lord—and I am not sure about being noble. However, it is true that I look at matters as a lawyer. I cannot help that; it is a problem that comes with 40 years of doing it.
I am interested to know what the Minister’s response would be to the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, when he described this as “arbitrary”. That seems to be a correct way of describing it. Can the Minister explain why, if the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, were rejected, the Government would not be highly vulnerable to a legal challenge in our courts or, I dare say, the European Court of Human Rights?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, we set out in Committee the reasons for Clause 27. It demonstrates a current anomaly in legislation that allows high-harm individuals to return here to appeal the decision to cancel leave, despite being excluded from the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State.
Exclusion from the United Kingdom is a key tool in tackling those who seek to cause harm to the United Kingdom. Exclusion is used to tackle a range of conduct including terrorist-related activity, serious criminality and engagement in unacceptable behaviours. The exclusion power is used sparingly and is reserved for those who are considered to be the highest-harm cases. It is therefore crucial that once the Secretary of State makes such a decision, it is given full and immediate effect. It should not be undermined by a separate immigration decision, taken only to give effect to the exclusion, and the accompanying rights of appeal.
Of course any such decision by the Secretary of State should be open to challenge and review by the courts. No one is denying that. However, the Government believe that, given the nature of these cases, it is wholly reasonable that judicial scrutiny of the facts should be carried out while the individual remains outside the United Kingdom. When noble Lords consider the type of conduct that has led to these decisions by the Secretary of State, it seems to be an entirely reasonable and proportionate proposition.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
The point has already been made in this debate that if such an appeal is made, the appellant is put at a very grave disadvantage as a result of difficulty in communicating with counsel and in speaking to witnesses who may have something to say that is relevant. The rule of law cannot be properly discharged if the Minister cannot find more support for the absence of the appellant.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I tend to disagree with the noble Lord. I cannot see why it should be possible to allow somebody whom the Secretary of State for the Home Department has decided to exclude to return to this country purely to pursue an appeal against that decision. I do not accept that that is reasonable and that is why we have included this clause in the Bill.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Is not the point that however reprehensible the allegations against the individual, if they are present in this country then they are entitled to remain and pursue an appeal? The question is whether, because of the accident that they may be abroad for a day or two for entirely understandable compassionate reasons and because the Secretary of State takes advantage of that absence to make a decision, they should then be unable to pursue an appeal while within the United Kingdom.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think we disagree on that. Noble Lords will understand the premise on which the Government are basing their decision. It cannot be right to allow someone to return to this country when the decision has already been made by the Secretary of State that that person is considered to be undesirable to admit to this country and that is the reason for their exclusion. I should perhaps help the debate by giving some figures. Since 2005, 426 individuals have been excluded on the grounds of national security, unacceptable behaviour, serious criminality or war crimes. Annual figures have varied over the years from 111 in 2007 to 40 last year. Incidences of the decision to exclude an individual with an accompanying decision to cancel leave have totalled 30 over that period. The most was seven in one year and the fewest was two. This year to date: nil. I hope that helps noble Lords to put this matter in perspective. The Government have a responsibility for the security of the country and I hope that will carry some weight with noble Lords in this argument.
I will now carry on with what I was intending to say. Clause 27 seeks to provide the Secretary of State with a certification power where she decides that the decision to cancel leave under Section 82(2)(e) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was taken on the grounds that the individual’s presence in the United Kingdom would not be conducive to the public good. The individual must be outside the United Kingdom at the time of the decision for the Clause 27 provision to have effect, the effect being that on certification the in-country right of appeal under Section 92 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 no longer applies to such a decision, which means that the person has an appeal from outside the United Kingdom. To be clear, the individual will still have a full merits appeal but that will be exercisable from outside the United Kingdom instead of from within the United Kingdom. We accept that the power to remove appeal rights from the United Kingdom to abroad must be reserved for highest-harm cases. This is why we have restricted the application of the certification power to individuals where the decision to cancel their leave is based on the Secretary of State’s assessment that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good. We have also expressly stated that this applies only to individuals outside the United Kingdom at the time of that decision.
Such cases have been, and will remain, the exception rather than the norm. Clause 27 seeks to maintain the operational integrity of the Secretary of State’s power to exclude an individual from the United Kingdom. Such decisions are not taken lightly and are reserved for the highest-harm individuals. It is therefore imperative that such a decision remains operationally effective, pending judicial scrutiny. For these reasons I cannot support Amendment 118D, which seeks to remove Clause 27 from the Bill. Similarly, Amendment 118C could seriously undermine the Government’s ability to secure our borders against individuals who pose a threat to the United Kingdom. The amendment would exclude from Clause 27 those individuals who are stateless, those who have previously been granted leave to enter, those who remain based on a successful asylum or human rights claim, and those who raise human rights or asylum issues in their grounds for appeal. As previously stated, it is right that we provide protection to those in need and the Government remain committed to their international obligations to such individuals. However, the Government also have an important obligation to protect the public from high-harm individuals whose actions pose a threat to national security or the rule of law.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I am now genuinely bemused. We know from the Chahal case that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission was set up so that appeals could be dealt with through closed material proceedings, protecting national security and the interests of justice. I welcomed that because I care about national security as well as justice, and that scheme had to be introduced because the European court said so. Now we are in a position where the Government concede that, if the high-harm person is within this country, they should have the necessary right of appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made the point that if the high-harm person happens to be abroad for compassionate reasons, it is arbitrary and irrational that that person should not be in as good a position as if he were in this country. Simply using the Home Secretary’s power to say that someone’s presence is not conducive to the public good, which is what happened in Chahal, is arbitrary. That is what is bewildering us. We cannot understand why the interests of national security should not, at this point, understand the needs of the rule of law.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am not a lawyer but I am, I hope, filled with common sense. It strikes me as being quite nonsensical to allow an individual back into this country to pursue an appeal against exclusion. The exclusion decision, if I may say so, is taken on grounds that the noble Lord has admitted may well include protecting national security. Indeed, criminality and protecting national security are the only grounds on which high-harm individuals may be pursued. Their right of appeal is not removed. The question is whether they should be readmitted to this country to pursue that appeal. I suggest that is nonsensical and I cannot accept the noble Lord’s position on the matter.
I was explaining that for many of these cases the primary objective is to protect the public from individuals where credible evidence suggests involvement in terrorist-related activity or serious criminality. In other cases, it is to protect the public from individuals intent on inciting others to commit crime or on creating divisions between communities. Therefore, the legislative proposal is designed to target the highest-harm cases, and it is proportionate, for the protection of the public, to ensure that any appeal for which a full-merits appeal right still exists is from outside the United Kingdom.
Amendment 118C would potentially provide every individual refused under this provision with an in-country right of appeal as they would simply need to raise human rights or asylum grounds in their appeal. That cannot be right and for that reason we are unable to support the amendment. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, my noble friend Lord Avebury will understand the drivers behind this clause and why the Government have to ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I have been listening to this debate without any particularly strong views either way. However, perhaps the Minister can assist with this question. On the assumption that a stateless person, for instance, or indeed anyone else who has been refused a return, is outside the country somewhere, how on earth does he or she actually continue an appeal?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the process of appeal is open to anybody and the circumstances in which they have found themselves is a matter for them. This country and its Government have decided that their presence in this country is not conducive to the public good, which I think is a reasonable decision for the Government to make. It is open to challenge through the judicial process and that individual still has a right of appeal. It is not for me to suggest the details of ways in which that appeal should be processed.
Lord Gilbert
I, too, have been listening very closely to this debate, with no expertise whatever. However, I take on board the concerns of various noble Lords. Could not the matter be satisfactorily resolved by placing on the person making a decision the requirement to let the individual under suspicion know when a decision is going to be taken?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that would be counterproductive. If the noble Lord thinks through the circumstances of that question, he will understand that.
Lord Woolf
Am I right in thinking that this form of appeal from outside the country has been part of the immigration process for a substantial period? In addition, is it not the case that it can be a written process and that forms can be used for the purposes of the appeal?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble and learned Lord is perfectly correct in that regard.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, just before my noble friend sits down, I would like to understand the position. Somebody is outside the country having had leave to remain in it previously; the Secretary of State gets information to suggest that that person would be dangerous to the country if he or she returns; and the Secretary of State decides, on that information, that that is so. Is the position then that, in order to comply with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the Secretary of State would have to allow that person, whom he or she believes to be a dangerous person to the security of the country, back to lodge an appeal? Why should that be? Why should the Secretary of State allow somebody, whom he or she thinks to be a danger to the country, to come back into the country solely for the purpose of appealing against that judgment? If he does come back into the country, there is at least a risk that his activities will not be confined to appealing but may include doing what the Home Secretary has considered constitutes the possibility of danger to the country.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, the crux of the matter is that the Minister suggests that credible evidence exists for the Home Secretary to have made this decision that the person has been involved in serious criminality, terrorism and so on. The Secretary of State waits until the person goes abroad for some reason, whether it be for compassionate reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has suggested, or for any other reason, and then pounces—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I realise we are on Report, but I will just say to the noble Lord that it may be that the conduct that leads to the Home Secretary making this decision takes place while this individual is abroad. I think the notion that this is a premeditated trap is false. It is more to do with the possibility that the individual, while abroad, makes contact with someone, or evidence comes to light as to their true intent, or what they might do when they return to this country becomes apparent, and the Home Secretary wishes to deal with the problem.
Lord Avebury
I do not know. The noble Lord has raised this for the first time. It has often been suggested that the Home Secretary does pounce when somebody is abroad for personal reasons. In the case of MK, which I quoted in Committee and mentioned again briefly during this debate, those acting on behalf of MK certainly believed that the Home Secretary deliberately waited until he was abroad before exercising this power.
The Minister was relying on the Home Secretary having credible evidence of this person’s activities being in the nature of serious criminality, terrorism and so on. One has to take that on trust. In nine cases out of 10, this individual is not going to be able to appeal. The individual will be stateless, as the noble and learned Baroness has just suggested, and that was the case with MK. He was a recognised refugee in this country when he went to Italy, I think. He was in Italy when the Home Secretary made the order against him, making it virtually impossible for him to exercise a worthwhile right of appeal.
I know of cases where it has been alleged that somebody’s presence in the United Kingdom is non-conducive to the public good. I had long correspondence with successive Secretaries of State trying to discover the issue in a particular case—that of the leader of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, who was formally a refugee in this country and was declared by the Home Secretary to be non-conducive to the public good after he had been arrested on charges of terrorism and acquitted. Nevertheless, he was sent packing and has not been readmitted to the United Kingdom since then. I made great efforts to persuade Secretaries of State that he is no danger to the public in this country and that his activities as the leader of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front have been peaceful, but I have never been able to get behind the decision. The decision that somebody’s presence is non-conducive to the public good is one that the Secretary of State exercises by his or her absolute authority, and it is difficult to challenge.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Lester for the support that they have given to this amendment. I was thinking of testing the opinion of the House. I have decided at this stage not to, but to think further about what my noble friend has said in reply and to consider what methods we have for dealing with this situation. It is a serious flaw in our procedures to force somebody, who is in exile and has no access to lawyers or to witnesses, as my noble friend has just said, to attempt to refute allegations of which he may be only dimly aware. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Meacher
Baroness Meacher
I shall speak also to Amendment 118GA and shall not speak to Amendment 118G. I also wish to register my support for Amendment 118J, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
The aim of Amendment 118E is to clarify in law that Clause 29 is seeking to improve road safety and that whether a drug is controlled is irrelevant in this context. The Government aim to treat driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol on the same basis is to be applauded, but if it is irrelevant to road safety that alcohol is uncontrolled, why should it be relevant whether a stimulant or other drug is controlled? Surely the important point is whether the stimulant is affecting the driver’s safety behind the wheel.
I can illustrate the irrationality of the clause as it stands with an example. We know that when a controlled drug, such as ecstasy, is heavily contaminated, young people will switch to a similar, but uncontrolled drug, a powder, bought over the internet, probably from China. If there are two drivers, one driving dangerously because of the level of ecstasy in their body and the other driving dangerously because of the same level of the legal stimulant in their body, there is no difference in terms of traffic safety between the two drivers. Both are equally dangerous and surely should be charged, presumably for dangerous driving. I ask the Minister either to accept the amendment or to explain to the House why an intoxicated driver on a psychoactive substance, which the authorities simply have not yet had the time to ban—or perhaps they will never get around to it, as it takes them many years—should be treated more leniently than his friend on the same quantity of a controlled but no more intoxicating drug.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, semaphore signals made across the Chamber are always excessively polite. I do not want to take too much of your Lordships’ time on these amendments, but that is not to say that I do not think they are important. However, I am aware that some noble Lords may be hoping to get on to another amendment soon.
The letter which some noble Lords have received from the noble Earl, copying us in and updating us—if I can put it that way—on the findings of the expert panel was extremely helpful. However, it confirms not only some of the points to which the noble Baroness referred but that this is very much still a work in progress. At the previous stage, the Minister referred to the vast array of drugs which needed to be considered. That is certainly the case given the existence of controlled, uncontrolled, traditional and designer drugs. Drugs are not as easy to deal with—if that is the right word —as alcohol. The Department for Transport has not yet published the expert panel’s report, which may be more relevant to the next group of amendments, but it has provided some reassurances, albeit they are not yet in the public domain in the normal sense of the word.
I support what the noble Baroness said about looking at the effect of drugs rather than assessing whether they are classed as controlled drugs. Dr Wolff’s very helpful presentation, which some of us were able to attend, explained that the panel’s work is based on an assessment of risk. That, it seems to me, is absolutely at the heart of what the noble Baroness has said. We are all aware that, as regards psychoactive drugs which are not yet controlled and may never be, chemists around the world are looking at old pharmacopoeia and designing new drugs. They will always be ahead of the rest of us in terms of the proper control of these substances.
I support Amendment 118K. I am impressed that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has managed to incorporate “knowingly” in the amendment by drafting another paragraph. I struggled to find a way of incorporating “knowingly”. My approach was not as ambitious as hers. My Amendment 118J would insert “substantially” to make paragraph (b) read:
“D took the drug substantially in accordance with any directions given”.
This provision refers to prescribed medicines. I am aware that it is very easy to forget to take a prescription medicine at precisely the right time. I have done that, and I am sure that most other noble Lords have done it. The medicine may state that it should be taken with a meal, but you might have missed the meal. Patients are human, and they forget. They do what they think is best in catching up with the daily dose. The panel said that it was important to strengthen medical information but warned individuals about the risks of consuming the relevant drug and driving, particularly if alcohol is also consumed. It recommended that healthcare practitioners should be better informed about these risks. I am sure that that is right and admirable, but I do not think that it wholly meets the point. As has been said, road safety is involved in this matter. The balance between protection and having the flexibility required to take account of human imperfections is difficult to strike. Again, we are talking about inappropriate risk.
Amendment 118M was suggested by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and concerns spiked drinks. Its report refers to the,
“apparent increase in recent years of incidents of spiking drinks in public places, in particular with so-called ‘date-rape drugs’ … We are also anxious about the impact of strict liability criminal convictions on individuals’ CRB checks, even where disqualification from driving may have been avoided through a special reasons hearing”.
The committee states earlier in its report that the point may have been made that a drink has been spiked. It is not impressed by the Government’s objection to permitting a “spiked drinks” defence. The committee states that,
“the Government’s objection does not hold good if such a defence imposed the legal burden of proof, as opposed to the evidential burden of proof, on the defendant: that is, if the Bill provided for a defence only if the defendant can prove that the drug was present in their body due to the intervention of a third party without the defendant’s knowledge or consent. We are concerned that the new strict liability offence as presently drafted is incompatible with the presumption of innocence in the absence of a spiked drinks defence which casts the legal burden of proof on the defendant”.
Therefore, the committee recommended this amendment to your Lordships and, indeed, to Parliament.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in relation to this group of amendments and Clause 29, largely in order, I hope, to receive reassurance from the Minister.
A number of medical bodies and a pharmaceutical company have drawn to my attention the possibility that this legislation and the testing systems could mean that patients taking legal medication for chronic pain might well face prosecution. Patients with chronic pain well established on a stable dose of prescription or over-the-counter opioid analgesics may have levels of metabolites in their system well above any threshold used for roadside or police station testing, even though such levels of these metabolites would not in any sense impair their ability to drive. Patients driving while taking these remedies might then be subjected to the threat of criminal prosecution or, at the very least, might face stressful allegations and the onerous burden of proving that they were not impaired and that there was no other reason why they should not be driving.
The defence included in the legislation is welcome. Subsection (3) of proposed new Section 5A states:
“the specified controlled drug had been prescribed or supplied to D for medical or dental purposes”,
and that,
“D took the drug in accordance with any directions given by the person by whom the drug was prescribed or supplied”.
That is very helpful, but the concern that has been drawn to my attention is that, although that defence sounds absolutely solid, it would be available only once a case has progressed. It might therefore not protect innocent patients from the stress and inconvenience of arrest, further testing and potential prosecution. The wording of the defence does not put the burden of proof on the prosecution; the onus is on patients to show that they took the prescribed medication in accordance with instructions. This might well prove to be a difficult task, and it would be unjust to criminalise an innocent patient as a result of a technicality. Will the Minister reassure me that this particular clause is strong and solid enough to avoid that problem?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 118H, 118K and 118L. I say to the Minister at the outset that we totally support what the Government seek to achieve here. We appreciate that this is not a drugs amendment, it is a road safety measure, but the Minister will have heard from the comments already made that there is support for the Government’s intention but also some concerns about how it would operate in practice against those who are not the legislation’s targets. Drug-driving is a problem that we are all incredibly keen to see addressed. I refer to a case that the Minister will know well, of 14 year-old Lillian Groves, who was run over and killed by a driver who had taken drugs. This illustrates the importance of ensuring that the police have every tool available to tackle those who take illegal drugs and then drive, creating a danger to themselves and others. My concerns are not about the principle of what the Government seek to achieve, but—as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the other noble Baronesses have said—its implementation. We need to ensure that the legislation hits the right target and does not affect the innocent on prescribed medication. We have to get it right.
I thank the Minister for the briefings that he has provided and for the opportunity to meet him and his officials. I hope he can say enough today to satisfy us that the drafting of these clauses will not unnecessarily impact on those whom it is not intended to affect. The amendments I have put forward largely replicate those tabled in Committee and seek to strengthen the defence for individuals on prescription drugs who, through a simple error and no fault of their own, have been found above a certain limit. Amendment 118H would delete the existing new Section 5A(3)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, which requires individuals on prescription medication to “show that” they took the prescribed drug in accordance with any and all instructions, both from the doctor and manufacturer. There are serious concerns that requiring positive proof that the individual complied with all advice is pretty onerous. Instead we propose Amendment 118K, which would mean that individuals could not use their prescription as a defence if it was proved that they had taken the dosage knowingly —the point made by the noble Baroness—contrary to any advice given by a doctor or supplier. That additional wording in brackets picks up on the points about manufacturer’s instructions being required to be considered as part of the prescriber’s or supplier’s advice, rather than placing the burden on the patient to read and understand all and any such instructions. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made the same point. We share his concern about how fair it is for patients on long-term pain medication to find themselves in such a situation and having to show that they have complied with absolutely every medical requirement.
We are worried that we risk criminalising individuals on medication on the basis of a technicality, simply for failing to correctly interpret an element of the patient information leaflet. It could be a slight, insignificant deviation from the instructions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made the point about the timing of when a medication could be taken. What if the advice from a doctor differs from that on the manufacturer’s small print? Under the proposed new subsection (4)(a), patients would have to have done something positive, contrary to the instructions they had received, rather than have to positively prove that they acted in accordance with advice. It changes the emphasis of the proof.
New subsection (4) also focuses on what is probably the main medical aspect of the period when the body is getting used to the prescribed drug in the system. This has been mentioned by other noble Lords. Deleting new subsection (3)(b) and the use solely of the caveat in new subsection (4) then fits more appropriately with the evidential requirements of new subsection (5). Patients would be able to show that they have a prescription. They could take a copy of it or carry a letter from the prescriber. Evidence could be produced at a police station. However, the evidential burden of new subsection (3)(b) on patients if they had to “show that” they followed any and all instructions would be considerable. Clearly we are not seeking to protect anyone who is unfit to drive, but although the Government intend this new offence to mirror drink-driving limit offences, taking prescription medication that would otherwise be illegal does not automatically make someone unfit to drive; I am thinking specifically about pain medication.
As an example of why I am concerned, and to take what could happen to somebody sequentially, if an individual on medication has perhaps been rear-ended through no fault of their own, the police would arrive and, currently, breathalyse both drivers. Under the new legislation, they would “drugalyse”, or drug test, both drivers. The test might indicate that they are over the limit, but it does not tell the officer undertaking the test how far over the limit they are. So what would happen next to that individual? If they say that they have a prescription for the medication they are taking but do not have the prescription with them, how can they prove that they have taken medication in accordance with medical advice and not taken illegal drugs? Would they be taken to the police station, where obviously at some point they would be able to prove that they have a prescription? That would clearly be an inconvenience and could be particularly distressing. We do not want to reach a situation where individuals are deterred from taking their medication—again I am thinking specifically about long-term pain relief—because some individuals would be more of a hazard without their pain-relief medication than if they were on it.
The Home Office has been developing roadside “drugalyser” tests for the past 10 years. Without these, the individual would have to be taken to a police station for testing. When do the Government expect roadside drug tests to be available to the police? Do the Government intend to implement the new offence before roadside drug tests are available? How often would they expect the test to be used? Considering their high cost, I presume that the police would undertake a breathalyser test first. How often would the Government expect roadside drug tests to be used in the same cases as a breathalyser? Also, looking through the information that has been supplied, any assessment of the proportion of cases in which the Government expect to find individuals below the alcohol limit but above the limit for a certain concentration of controlled substance was missing.
Despite the good intentions—which we support—what concerns me is that the details of how it will work in practice have not been worked through for those on prescription medication. I am grateful to the Minister for sending me the letter from the chair of the drug-driving panel, Dr Kim Wolff, which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has also referred to. However, I am extremely disappointed that the expert panel has not been able to publish its interim report before this stage of the Bill, though I think Ministers indicated we would be able to get it. Clearly, the levels that the panel is likely to recommend—particularly in the case of prescribed drugs—and the rationale behind the recommendations would have been a huge help in our deliberations today. They may have clarified a number of the issues that I and other noble Lords have raised. What is encouraging is Dr Wolff’s assurance in her letter that:
“In considering what limits should be set for common prescription medication, the Panel has looked at normal therapeutic ranges used in prescriptions, compared to those found in addicts misusing medicines”.
In relation to morphine, she said that the panel,
“are considering a limit that is significantly above the average concentrations of morphine in blood found in cancer patients receiving long-term steady-state doses of morphine”.
However, Dr Wolff also states that the panel’s primary consideration is,
“clear scientific evidence of risk of road traffic accidents”,
and that in the case of, for instance, prescribed benzodiazepine drugs:
“risk is especially high during the first four weeks of treatment and is particularly increased when benzodiazepines are consumed in combination with alcohol”.
Here, Dr Wolff outlines the inherent difficulties in setting a blanket limit in the case of medicated drugs, because tolerance can change over time and is subject to variation by other factors. I suspect that the Minister will be unable to answer at this stage whether the panel, on the evidence so far, will set a limit for benzodiazepine much lower than the average level for someone on long-term drug use, because of the increased risk in the first four weeks of medication. However, that is an important consideration in the implementation of these clauses.
Much of how this will be implemented will hang on the recommendations that the panel makes, which we do not have available. How will it factor in the effects of mixing drugs with alcohol? Will it feel compelled to set the limit a lot lower than the average dosage because of the risk of increased road safety problems when the drug is mixed with alcohol—even a quantity of alcohol below the legal limit? Someone could be below the legal limit on drugs and below the legal limit of alcohol but still be a danger to themselves and other road users, because the Government’s offence does not provide—understandably, because we have not yet had the report of the panel—for a combined alcohol and drug limit for certain controlled substances.
We all want all drug drivers who are a danger taken off the roads. We totally support the Government’s aims. However, we need to ensure that we are going after the right people. I hope that the Minister can give some assurances that he will look again to reassure himself and this House about the defence in this group of clauses for people on prescription medication, to ensure that it is appropriate and fair; that he will not shut the door on ensuring that the legislation hits the right note; and that he will take away the comments made today.
I hope that the Minister can answer my final question clearly. Can he confirm that the Government would not consider it appropriate for any action to be taken against those on prescribed medication, unless it is clear that their driving is impaired?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I recognise that the amendments relate to concerns about the Government’s approach to drug-driving and, in particular, how the new offence will affect drivers who take prescription or over-the-counter medicines. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her recognition of the problem. I will try as hard as I can to reassure the House that your Lordships’ fears will not materialise.
First, I emphasise that any passengers would not be screened for drugs following a vehicle being stopped by the police and the driver being tested for drugs. The noble Baroness asked me a number of very good questions, and I will answer them first, before going into detail. She asked, in effect, how much discretion a policeman has to arrest for drug-driving. Whether an officer decides to arrest and continue an investigation, including carrying out an evidential blood test, once someone has proved positive in a drug screening test, will depend on the facts of a particular case. Officers will be aware of the statutory defence of taking a specified controlled drug in accordance with medical advice and prescription.
As for the CPS, in reaching a decision as to which cases to prosecute, Crown prosecutors must take into account the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The code includes a requirement that prosecutors should swiftly stop cases where the public interest clearly does not require prosecution. I will return to that in a moment.
The noble Baroness also asked me about publication of the expert panel report. The expert panel is independent of government. It is important that it takes the time that it needs. Advising on which drugs the new offence should cover and on limits to set for driving purposes are complicated issues which require careful consideration. The expert panel has considered a wide range of drugs and has needed to reconcile the available evidence from the UK and abroad. This means that it has taken longer than we anticipated for the panel to report. The Government intend to publish a copy of the report of the expert panel on drug-driving as soon as we are able after the report is finalised. Of course, we will not proceed further with the secondary legislation until we have the expert panel’s report.
The noble Baroness also asked me about roadside drug tests. The Government expect roadside drug test equipment to be available in 2014, when we anticipate bringing the new offence into force. We would expect breath tests to be conducted first, as they are quicker and easier. We cannot speculate on how many tests would be taken, as that is an operational matter for the police.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but I just want the noble Earl to clarify the point about the instructions. Proposed new Section 5A(3)(b) says that D, the person who has been arrested,
“took the drug in accordance with any directions given by the person by whom the drug was prescribed or supplied, and with any accompanying instructions (so far as consistent with any such directions) given by the manufacturer or distributor of the drug”.
Is the Minister absolutely clear in his comments today that the doctor’s instructions with the drugs would always override any manufacturer’s instructions and that that would be a defence in law?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, as I understand it, the doctor’s instructions will trump the leaflet. If I am wrong on that I will write. Also, the leaflet normally refers to the doctor’s advice so the leaflet would give the trumping authority to the doctor.
The medical defence places what is known as an “evidential” burden on a person accused of committing the offence. This means that the accused person must simply put forward enough evidence to “raise an issue” regarding the defence that is worth consideration by the court, following which it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defence cannot be relied on.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee are concerned that a patient who inadvertently deviates slightly from the recommended dosage might be unable to rely on the medical defence. I want to reassure the House that the Government and the independent panel will take into account the normal therapeutic ranges for medication when considering what limits should be set for drugs. This will reduce the risk of patients who take medical drugs correctly being affected by this legislation. The panel will be well aware of the risks pointed out by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I would also like to point out that in the terms of reference, term 6 is:
“To establish the likelihood of whether these concentrations would be exceeded through prescribed or otherwise legally obtained drugs (as distinct from illicit drugs)”.
A small minority of individuals taking long-term medication at elevated concentrations could be in excess of the specified limit for a particular drug, as was so well explained to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. In most cases such users would only come to notice if their driving is impaired—when they can be dealt with under the existing offence in Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988—or for some other reason requiring police action. Another point to note is that the Code for Crown Prosecutors specifically states that prosecutors “should swiftly stop cases”, as I have already mentioned.
Furthermore, the Government expect that the courts will take a sensible approach to the operation of the new offence. For example, a defendant seeking to rely on the medical defence may be afforded more or less leeway depending on the facts of a particular case, such as the nature of the medical advice provided, including the wording of any leaflet accompanying the medicine.
Finally, in Amendment 118GA the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has also proposed that primary legislation should include requirements for testing to be reliable and for the Government to set limits that are linked to road safety. We do not consider it necessary to set these requirements in legislation. First, the preliminary testing devices currently being developed would undergo a rigorous type approval process before being used for enforcement purposes. This type approval process is so rigorous that it is taking some time to secure approval and I have raised this issue with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State because we need this equipment in operation. However, it is vital to the integrity of our system of justice that the courts can rely on the evidence of the new equipment. Furthermore, evidentially testing using blood or urine specimens is already carried out for the enforcement of the existing drink and drug-driving offences without any express requirement for the testing to be reliable.
Secondly, we are clear that the purpose of the new offence is to improve road safety, as I have already stressed, so careful consideration will be given to the advice received from the expert panel and to the responses to the public consultation before setting any specified limits and regulations. The regulations would then need to be specifically approved by Parliament using the affirmative procedure. The new offence is intended to enable more effective law enforcement and to improve road safety by deterring drug-impaired driving and bringing more drug-impaired drivers to justice. In light of the points I have raised I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will agree to withdraw her amendment and that my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will not press their amendments. I have been asked many detailed questions. Where I have not answered them I will write, and no doubt another place will look very carefully at these provisions.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister for his response. I remain completely unconvinced that there is any logic at all in differentiating between controlled and uncontrolled drugs. I would submit that the North committee, to which the Minister referred, had no awareness of the incredible flood of new substances coming into this country. It is a vast number. There were 65 new substances this year, 49 last year and 41 the year before. That changes the entire environment within which we work and Ministers may come to regret the idea that this legislation should also fail to take account of those changes.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we asked the expert panel to consider the drugs that we thought were causing a road safety problem but the last thing we said was that it should consider any other drugs that it thinks necessary.
Baroness Meacher
I know that noble Lords do not want me to take any more time because people need to move on. My only other small point is that the Minister referred to risk as being the main indicator of the need for action rather than impairment. I would suggest that the two are incredibly closely related. The importance of impairment is to avoid discrimination against certain groups and the stopping of drivers in particular communities when there may be no indication of an impairment of driving. It is those matters which we should be aware of. That said, at this stage anyway, I will withdraw the amendment although I may come back at Third Reading because we still await the outcome of the expert panel’s deliberations.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Before regulations under subsection (8) are laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State shall publish a report regarding the controlled drug proposed to be specified and the limit proposed to be specified.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I hope to be very brief on this amendment and on Amendment 118P. These amendments deal with the regulations which, as the noble Earl has assured the House, will not be proceeded with until a good deal more work is done. My first amendment would provide for a report from the Secretary of State about the,
“drug proposed to be specified and the limit proposed to be specified”,
before laying regulations. Like all other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this, I am very keen that the decision should be made on the basis of evidence. This amendment is to suggest that the evidence base should be in the public domain and easily accessed before we are asked to deal with regulations.
I said a few minutes ago that there is a huge array of drugs. I was quoting the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when I said that but, having seen that remark in Hansard, it struck me that it may be difficult to decide whether to support regulations that cover more than one drug or where there is concern about the limit applying to a particular drug. It would be very helpful to have regulations made a drug at a time so that the vote can be very clear when the matter comes before both Houses of Parliament. Following the points that have been made about the importance of controlling drug-driving, I hope that the House would be able to vote for the inclusion of a particular drug without jeopardising the inclusion of another if there is concern about one which is on a list or the limit for one which is on the list. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I would point out first that these are very important clauses and it is right that the House looks carefully at them. I know that these amendments relate to concerns around how the Government will implement the new offence. Amendment 118N proposes that the Government should be required to publish a report regarding the controlled drugs and limits to be specified in regulations before such regulations are laid before Parliament. The Government do not consider that such a requirement is needed. Clause 29 already requires the Government to consult before specifying in regulations the drugs and limits for the new offence. The Government also intend to publish a copy of the report of the expert panel on drug driving shortly. I have already provided an explanation to the House on the reasons for its delay. The consultation will set out the evidence base for specifying particular controlled drugs and limits in regulations.
Amendment 118P proposes that individual sets of regulations should be drafted for each controlled drug to be covered by the new offence. I recognise the importance of considering carefully the specified limits for each controlled drug. That is why we will consult on the drugs to be included in the offence and the limits which should be specified. It will be open to anyone to respond to that consultation and their response will be considered carefully. Drafting a new set of regulations for each controlled drug would be time-consuming for the Government to prepare and for Parliament to consider, and would be likely to involve much unnecessary repetition. It could also make it more difficult for those seeking to use the legislation since there would be multiple sets of regulations to refer to, making the relevant law unnecessarily complex.
The Government therefore believe that it would be better for all concerned for a single set of regulations to be produced following consultation. In the event that the regulations were not approved by Parliament due to the inclusion of a particular specified drug or limit, the Government would amend the regulations and lay a further draft before Parliament for approval. In the light of the points I have raised, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, for speed, I will not comment on that other than to thank the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Public orderPublic order offences
(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 5(1) (harassment, alarm or distress) for “, abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs substitute “or abusive”.
(3) In section 6(4) (mental element: miscellaneous) for “, abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs substitute “or abusive”.”
Lord Dear
My Lords, in introducing Amendment 119 I have in the front of my mind the words attributed to Voltaire as far back as 1759:
“I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
That is what it is all about tonight. The amendment seeks to curb what I believe is an increasing misuse of the criminal law so as to curb or prevent the proper exercise of free speech. The amendment intends that the word “insulting” should be taken out of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and that Section 6 of that Act should be similarly amended to take account of the earlier change.
It might help your Lordships if I examine the history of the inclusion of the word “insulting” in legislation to illustrate how and why we have arrived at the current state of affairs—a state of affairs that, I would venture to suggest, is wholly unacceptable. In the mid-1930s, there was a progressive increase in severe public disorder on the streets of east London and in other great cities of this country, when supporters of Mosley’s black-shirted fascists were clashing with both moderate left-wing and extreme left-wing opponents. The law then was proving inadequate to deal with the problem and, as a result, the Public Order Act 1936 was enacted. It did a number of things. It introduced a number of very serious new measures: for example, to authorise or ban public marches and demonstrations; to ban quasi-military organisations; to outlaw the wearing of political uniforms in public; and so on.
At a much less serious level, Section 5 of that Act introduced the now familiar words whereby it became a criminal offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting” words or behaviour in a public place or at a public meeting whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned or likely to be occasioned. I would ask your Lordships to fasten on to the important words there: “threatening, abusive or insulting” and “breach of the peace”. That legislation stood the test of time, and the police regularly resorted to arrests for breaches of Section 5 in what might loosely be described as disorderly or hooligan behaviour on a typical Friday or Saturday night.
Fifty years later, as part of a general tidying-up of the law that deals with public disorder, the Public Order Act 1986 reflected much of the thinking that lay behind the old Section 5. It re-enacted the legislation that made it a criminal offence to use,
“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”,
and extended it to circumstances covering displays of any writing or sign in a public or private place within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. It removed the reference to breach of the peace and it did not require any intent to cause harassment. Clearly, the intention of the new Act was to require a greater degree of particularity in the statute so as to increase protection for vulnerable individuals.
So far, so good, and the new Section 5 also appeared to work well for a time; but not for very long. With the wisdom of hindsight, it is clear that there has been a steady increase of cases where the words “insulting words or behaviour causing distress” were being misapplied in circumstances where individuals or organisations disagreed with comments made about their own sexual orientation, general beliefs or objectives, and where the criminal sanction offered by Section 5 was used by them deliberately to curb or suppress the proper exercise of free speech, either by prosecution, or by utilising the undoubted chilling effect of a threat of prosecution.
There are numerous examples, and some of them are enshrined in the folklore that has grown up round this subject. For example, the student arrested in a demonstration for suggesting that a police horse was “gay”; the street preacher arrested for saying that he regarded homosexuality as “sinful”; the 16 year-old boy arrested for holding up a placard that read “Scientology is a dangerous cult”; the pensioner threatened by police with arrest for putting a sign in his window that read “Religions are fairy stories for adults”; and the man arrested and charged after he growled at a dog, even though the dog owner did not wish to prosecute. There was no mention of what the dog wanted. There were the animal rights activists who were threatened with police action useless they removed little models of seals from public view; seals that had been red-painted to represent blood. The list goes on and on, and I will not weary your Lordships with more examples.
Whose fault is it? Who should we blame? Obviously, on occasions the police are to blame. They have not exercised always the degree of common sense and discretion that would properly have resulted in a blind eye being turned to the conduct in question. Often, however, the police have been manipulated by those whose tactic has been to complain to the police on the spot and insist on police intervention, with the express or implied threat of a complaint against them unless action is taken. A now often risk-averse police service, and sometimes risk-averse prosecutors as well, have found it safer to mount a prosecution and leave the courts to adjudicate.
If change is in the air—the change that is projected into Amendment 119—how much support is there for it? I remember the Committee stage of the Counter-Terrorism Bill in 2008 when I tabled the amendment to prevent the then Government from extending the limit on pre-charge detention of terror suspects from 28 days to 42 days. As with this debate about freedom of speech, that issue was concerned with a major constitutional freedom. As with this issue today, there was a long run into the debate. But in 2008, opinions were divided. I was confronted then with all the alternative arguments: in person, in your Lordships’ House and outside, by letter and e-mail. There were debates on the radio, on television and in the press. There were arguments for and against, before the amendment was carried with a majority of 191.
But what a contrast that was with the current situation. With only one exception—I will refer to that later—I have not heard a word in argument for the retention of “insulting” in Section 5. There have been no personal approaches to me, either here or outside; no letters or e-mails; no telephone calls. Every comment in the media is supportive. I understand from colleagues in the House that they have been the recipients of a flood—or is it a blizzard?—of letters from people outside in all walks of life supporting the amendment. There appears on that basis to be little or no opposition. I wait with interest to see what is voiced tonight.
And look at the support. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, until recently the Director of Public Prosecutions, has signed the amendment and written a detailed opinion that I have circulated individually to Members of your Lordships’ House. It gives a brilliant resumé of the substantial legal arguments supporting this change. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, an eminent QC and chairman of Justice, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, one of the most respected Lord Chancellors of recent years, have also signed the amendment. I am very grateful to all three for their interest and support.
But there is much more, and from individuals or organisations that do not always work harmoniously one with the other. The National Secular Society and the Christian Institute are often at odds, but here they stand shoulder to shoulder supporting the amendment. I should like to record my warm thanks to the staff of the Christian Institute for the administrative help that they have given me prior to this debate. There are also the Peter Tatchell Foundation; the Bow Group; the Freedom Association; the Equality and Human Rights Commission; and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which reported as recently as 20 November, saying:
“We understand the sensitivities with certain communities on this issue, but nonetheless we support an amendment to the Bill which reduces the scope of s. 5 Public Order Act … on the basis that criminalising insulting words or behaviour constitutes a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression”.
Justice fully supports the amendment, writing:
“It is essential for the progress of society that we do not ossify public views by censoring debate on matters of current public controversy”.
Liberty would scrap the whole of Section 5, not just one word; but it has pledged wholehearted support, saying:
“The amendment would herald a very significant victory for freedom of expression”.
I will not go on; there are other organisations, and perhaps they will forgive me for not adding to this very long list and taking time tonight.
Where do the police stand in all of this—for it is front-line officers who are so often caught up in the practical application of these laws? The Association of Chief Police Officers has declared that it is not opposed to the change. Only the Police Federation expressed reservations; it is the one organisation that I know has doubts about this. The Police Federation fears that the amendment would reduce the powers of police in dealing with disturbances on the street that were low- level but nevertheless troublesome. I suggest that those fears are misplaced. Most of us know that the federation is feeling bruised at the moment. Change is not at the top of its agenda. But it might well take heart from the letter that the current DPP, Keir Starmer QC, wrote to me only last week, in which he said:
“The issue has been the subject of consultations by the Home Office in both 2009 and 2011. On both occasions, the CPS responded confirming that we are not in favour of a legislative amendment to remove the word ‘insulting’ from section 5. However, having now considered the case law in greater depth, we are unable to identify a case in which the alleged behaviour leading to a conviction could not properly have been characterised as ‘abusive’ as well as ‘insulting’. I therefore agree that the word ‘insulting’ could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions”.
That is a very significant message indeed, and from a very significant player. As noble Lords will readily appreciate, we now have the current DPP and his predecessor both saying that the amendment can and should be carried.
This amendment, if carried, would not leave a hole in the law. Section 5 in its curtailed form would still allow prosecution for “threatening or abusive behaviour”, and there are tougher and more targeted laws, such as incitement to racial hatred, and a range of aggravated offences where hostility to the group to which the individual belongs is taken into account. Along with general laws, such as public nuisance and breach of the peace, these give the police all the powers they need to protect minority groups. It is minority groups that the law needs to look at particularly, and they would not be left out. The “abusive” limb of Section 5 covers most, if not all, genuine cases of public disorder. I will not go into the judgment in Southard v DPP, but one could find that explored there in some detail. Any repeated harassment of an individual is caught by the Protection from Harassment Act while those who, for example, burn poppies on Remembrance Sunday would be caught by Section 4A of the Public Order Act, which outlaws intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
Having tried to deal with a brief resumé of how we are where we are, looked at the abuse of Section 5 and examined some of the relevant legal provisions, I have to ask: is there any reason why this amendment should not have a clear run up the final straight to the finishing tape? Almost inevitably, as happens in life, one problem remains—a fly of fairly considerable proportions in this particular jar of ointment—and I have to say that it concerns the Home Office. The Home Office launched a public consultation on 13 October last year that sought views on three issues. Two of those are of no interest in this debate today, but one examined the possibility of removing “insulting” from Section 5. I think, though without proof, that that is the consultation that the DPP referred to before he changed his view. That consultation closed on 13 January this year. As noble Lords will know, the guidance is that the Government should respond to a public consultation within three months—that is to say, in this case, some time in April this year. To date, we have not heard a word.
At Second Reading of the Protection of Freedoms Bill in November 2011, and again on the fourth day of the debate on the Queen’s Speech in May this year, I declared that, but for the consultation period, I would have tabled an amendment to delete “insulting” from Section 5. In winding-up that latter debate, the Minister asked for patience. On 4 July this year, when the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, raised the issue again, the Minister again requested that we remain patient. Still there is silence. It is now over 14 months since the consultation was launched, over 10 months since it closed and over five months since the Minister asked for a little more time to consider the matter. What is going on? Is it procrastination, prevarication or bureaucratic incompetence? I do not know but, whatever the answer, I suggest very strongly that we should not and cannot wait any longer.
I opened this debate with a quotation, and I finish with another. Echoing the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v UK, Lord Justice Sedley, when he allowed the appeal of a street preacher for an offence under Section 5 in Redmond-Bate v DPP, said:
“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having”.
In short, the removal of “insulting” from Section 5 will ensure that where words are not abusive and, importantly, where there does not exist any evidence of intent to harass, alarm or cause distress, nor any likelihood of fear of violence or actual violence, then those words will not be illegal, even though they may insult. You do not have to agree with the sentiments expressed—only with the right of the proposer to voice them in benign circumstances. You can be reassured that the remainder of the criminal law in this area will continue to protect all groups and individuals who are intentionally insulted.
I put it one last way. To oppose this amendment is to support and to play into the hands of those whose sole aim is to suppress views with which they do not agree, come what may. I ask this House to recognise the current abuse of the criminal process, to reflect on the need to protect basic freedoms under the law, to remember that freedom of speech is one of the most important civil liberties—some would argue, the most important civil liberty—and to support the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I support the amendment. I will not take long because I hope that we will move to a vote very quickly. I am the chair of Justice, the legal organisation, and I can say with confidence that that organisation, which represents the legal profession up and down the country, is wholehearted in its support of this amendment. The stories that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has told of ridiculous cases being brought before the courts could be replicated in robing rooms and courtrooms throughout the land, and I am afraid that it really is time that we put a stop to this.
A very famous American judge once spoke about the importance of the marketplace of ideas, which means listening to views that sometimes one does not like, sometimes, as Lord Justice Sedley said, are irritating, sometimes are provocative, sometimes are heretical and sometimes might upset us. However, that is what democracy is all about, and we should take pride in it.
I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in this amendment, and I hope that all noble Lords who are here will see the importance of this. Unfortunately, the thin-skinned are not serving our democracy well by seeking to have these cases brought. I pity the police who are put into this difficult position, and I am glad to see that both the former Director of Public Prosecutions and the current one recognise that the law is there to deal with truly offensive behaviour or that would lead to further crime and disorder. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, as the third string, it seems to me that freedom of expression is an extremely important part of our democratic heritage, and it has not been won without quite important sacrifices by many people who have gone before us. It is a criterion for seeing whether democracy is supported that freedom of speech is supported strongly.
Some matters connected with freedom of speech are very topical at present with regard to the public press, but the notion that freedom of speech can be tampered with without serious consequences to our democracy is a considerable mistake. The amendment would be an important step in clearing our situation regarding freedom of speech. There is no menace in an insult. Abusive or threatening language is different. It is menacing to people and, rightly, is subject to criminal law. An insult, though, is in no way threatening, except as a challenge to what I am saying. Surely we have all had one or two challenges to what we say, and we are usually the better for it, sometimes by strengthening our argument in favour of what we are saying and sometimes leading to wise reconsideration and withdrawal. I suppose that all of us have had such experiences.
I support very strongly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and I hope that if the Government are going to finish their consultation, they will do so in the right direction. It seems to me that they have taken a long time. Often that is necessary in order to clear up some issues, but I am sure my noble friend will explain tonight exactly what the position is in relation to this consultation. Why has the result not been given within the timescale that the Government themselves set?
Lord Morris of Aberavon
I rise briefly in support of the masterly way in which the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has introduced and covered every aspect of this amendment. I just want to say three things. First, freedom of speech is essential. There is always a tendency for there to be well intended restrictions, and then there are unintended consequences. This is what has happened in this particular sphere.
Secondly, it is crucial that the Director of Public Prosecutions has changed his mind. I have a great respect —having been the Attorney-General and responsible for the Director of Public Prosecutions—for the experience and wisdom of the director, whoever he happens to be. In this case, he has said—and I repeat what has already been said,
“we are unable to identify a case in which the alleged behaviour leading to conviction could not properly be characterised as ‘abusive’ as well as ‘insulting’”.
He said the word “insulting” could “safely be removed”. I think we should pay regard to that opinion. The correspondence we have heard of and received describes excess of zeal by a particular officer, which has led to the distress of those who have been prosecuted. The last example given by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, concerned the causing of distress to a pair of Labradors by saying “woof woof” in the hearing of a policeman. That is true; it happened, it was prosecuted and the person was convicted and fined £50. Fortunately, that conviction was quashed on appeal. I will not go on; I think the case is proved.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, like many other people, I received a large number of e-mails and letters all going one way in support of the noble Lord’s amendment. I would just like to tell the House about one letter I received. In my very untidy desk, I have lost it, but it was about a lay preacher who preaches on the street and preaches on Sundays in church. He happens to subscribe to a literal form of the Old Testament with which I do not agree, but he was preaching on his literal interpretation in the street. Someone complained to the police, and he was arrested and spent seven hours in the police station. He was placed on police bail on the order that he was not allowed to preach. If that is not an abuse of the freedom of speech, I do not know what is. I cannot understand why the Minister and the Government are not supporting this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I was hoping that my noble friend Lord Macdonald would be in his place as he was a little earlier. I hope he is not stuck in a lift or something. I want to put on record on his behalf, on my behalf and on behalf a number of people who are becoming quite vocal, my wholehearted support for this amendment, and I speak for a number of colleagues. I put my name to the equivalent amendment at the previous stage and, as I recall it, the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, said, “For heaven’s sake, even the Liberal Democrats have this as party policy”. Well, we do; we would have gone further, but we are happy to go as far as is before us tonight.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, as we have heard, it is nearly a year since the Government launched their consultation on public order policing and whether the word “insulting” should be removed from Section 5 of the Public Order Act. In the Committee on this Bill—a good five months after the close of the consultation—the Minister said that he hoped that at Report stage, the Government,
“will be able to put forward the Government’s considered view to the House”.—[Official Report, 4/7/2012; col. 781.]
Since then, the Government had a further five months to come to a decision, and yet—unless the Minister is going to make an announcement this evening—even at this stage, we still have not had a public announcement from the Government about their position, or about the findings and evidence from the consultation which your Lordships’ House has asked for.
I say to the Minister that this is typical of this Bill. From the National Crime Agency framework document, the debate we had earlier and the panel report on drug driving, evidence that would have assisted this House in consideration of the Bill and been welcomed by noble Lords for scrutiny has not been available to your Lordships’ House. It does this House, and those proposing the amendment today, a grave disservice that the Government are so tardy bringing forward information that is crucial to this debate. I share the frustration of the proposers at the Government’s failure to provide this information for the debate today. Are the Government finally able to state their considered position now or will we have more evasion and more waiting for a consultation that closed many months ago?
I understand some of the difficulty for Ministers; it lies in the nature of coalition Government. The Liberal Democrats, at their spring conference this year, passed a motion to repeal this part of the legislation. We also know from names on the amendment that a number on the Conservative Benches—as we heard this evening—also support removal. The campaign is led in the other place by David Davis MP. If there is so much interest in this issue, why have the Government not brought forward the results of the consultation in order to have a proper, informed debate on the merits of the issue, rather than leaving it to campaigners?
I am not suggesting for one moment that the law as it stands is perfect in its application; we have heard numerous examples why it is not. I appreciate that there are grave concerns that there are cases where its use by the police and the CPS has been disproportionate and, indeed, ridiculous at times. There is a very strong argument for better guidance on the application of this clause to ensure that its use is always appropriate and effective.
However, we are concerned that the evidence of the need for its removal has not been presented to your Lordships’ House. We do not want to risk removing a useful tool which currently enables the police to address homophobic and religiously offensive issues. There is still a huge grey area when it comes to these issues.
Many of your Lordships have said that they received no correspondence in favour of “insulting” remaining; I did receive such correspondence. I tried to look at it in balance with the other correspondence I had. YouGov polling estimates that over 400,000 lesbian, gay and bisexual people a year experience homophobic insults, abuse and harassment. Furthermore, 77% of victims of homophobic crimes and incidents do not report them to the police because they have no confidence that the police will or can do anything. I question whether it is right to take tools away from the police which they could use properly to address these sorts of hate crimes and what message that will send. We need a proper debate on whether the existing law is the right approach. It has to be done on an evidential basis, which is why I find it totally unacceptable that the Government apparently have evidence which they are not bringing forward.
We have heard examples of disproportionate and ridiculous use of the legislation, but there are also examples of its proportionate use. I have been sent these by Stonewall. I am not normally shy and retiring or very modest in my approach, but I am loath to read out the insults and the behaviour that was hurled at a Mr Braithewaite, when he intervened for a fellow passenger on his train, Heather Williams, who had been accosted by a third passenger—the defendant—for being transsexual. The language that was used and the behaviour towards them led to a prosecution and a successful conviction under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I do not believe anybody in this House would want to tolerate or allow that kind of behaviour to go unpunished.
If there are to be changes in the law, there should be a full examination of the evidence. We want to ensure that people like that are properly punished for their crimes. The letter today from the Director of Public Prosecutions should be fully considered in the light of what he has to say, and the Government’s response to their consultation.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether the word “abusive” would deal with that. The law is there to deal with it. The example that my noble friend has just given could be met with the law in the way being proposed by this amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, it may well be. The answer is that I do not know. There has to be a proper examination of the evidence. If I was absolutely clear, and if we could be absolutely confident that this poor woman, Miss Williams, who was abused on a train, would be covered without the word “insulting”, I would move forward on this. I think that we could accept that. Until we have evidence from the Government that allows us to be absolutely clear that we are protecting people who are subject to abuse and insult—
Lord Morris of Aberavon
If my noble friend wants evidence, would she not take into account the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions who is in charge of all prosecutions and has reached the view that without this word there are sufficient grounds to prosecute in this kind of instance?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I would absolutely take that view on information from the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, that also has to be seen in line with the consultation that the Government have undertaken. A letter produced today does not give me confidence that we would protect those people. I do not know whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has looked at the case of Mr Braithewaite and Heather Williams, if that is what he has in mind. If the DPP could give an assurance on that case and other successful prosecutions, it would give me a lot of reassurance that we are not removing protection.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My noble friend must have regard to the fact that the director is the head of the prosecution service. He is in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is the CPS which takes the decision on whether a prosecution should take place. From his long experience at the Bar and in the law, I am sure that he has taken into account the views of all his colleagues in the service. Is that to be disregarded?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am not disputing that. I am disputing that that should be taken in context with the other information. We have been waiting for almost a year for the Government’s consultation response. It is a disgrace that it has not been made available to the House. It is for the Government to justify that and not me.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
We would not sully our ears with the expressions used in the instance that the noble Baroness has given. Was it not abusive? Was it not threatening? Was it merely insulting?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My understanding of the case concerning Mr Braithewaite and Miss Williams is that the defendant was charged and convicted of a Section 5 Public Order Act offence for the homophobic insults. There were other offences as well, but homophobic insults were a significant part of that prosecution. It is for the Government to bring forward what they intend to do. I am not against change or further discussion on this but, on the evidence today, I want to see the evidence from the Government in much greater detail and to know exactly what the outcomes and the consequences would be for those who the law currently protects.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I understand the interest that has been shown in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for at least demonstrating that the issues that the House has to consider are perhaps a little more complicated than some of the speeches have implied. It is important to stress that there was a further sentence to the letter of which the noble Lord, Lord Dear, kindly sent me a copy. After the comments about the ability to prosecute, the letter continued:
“However, I appreciate there are other policy considerations involved”.
He is right that the Government have to consider the full implications of this amendment.
Let us make it clear: the Government are not seeking to change the law. It is this debate and this amendment that are seeking to change the law. The law has existed and has protected free speech, and incidents have been demonstrated. But we need to be properly considerate before we change the law in this area.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry, but I am not prepared to give way. I want the House to hear the argument that has gone through the Government.
We have considered this matter at great length—for too long, as the noble Baroness has suggested—and we have reached the firm view that Section 5 should not be reformed. There is insufficient evidence that the removal of the word “insulting” would be beneficial overall. I regret that this decision will not be welcomed by everyone, but I assure the House that it has been given careful consideration. I regret to say that should the noble Lord, Lord Dear, seek to test the opinion of the House, I will urge noble Lords—
Lord Morris of Aberavon
Would the noble Lord like to comment on the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has changed his mind? How do the Government respond to and answer that change of decision?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The letter is available, no doubt, from the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in full. I suggest that noble Lords read the full text of the letter, not just selective quotations.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
In so far as I understand the term “abusive”—most noble Lords will understand that term—can the Minister define in legal terms the word “insulting”? I have not heard in anything that he said tonight a proper definition of “insulting”. I have heard it defined by the Opposition Front Bench. I shall leave my question at that. Can the Minister define “insulting”?
Lord Dear
My Lords, I shall respond to one thing. Lest there should be any doubt that I might have been concealing something in the letter from Keir Starmer QC, the DPP, having safely said that you can take “insulting” out of the section, in the last line he says:
“However, I also appreciate there are other policy considerations involved”.
I am bemused. I think that he probably knew something that I did not: that the Government are confused.
I hope that noble Lords on both Front Benches will allow me to say that I am totally confused by their attitude. We have a picture on the one hand that everything is well, despite the fact that the current DPP, the ex-DPP and the ex-Lord Chancellor—a plethora of legal minds in this House—have said that “insulting” can and should come out. The law is not leaving a hole in its place; “abusive” will cover it. There is the safety net of Section 4A, what is left of Section 5 and other legislation. I am deeply disappointed. I had hoped that the Government would support this, with the wide-ranging, voluminous support that there is on all sides of the House, from people who have much better experience than me.
The signals that have been sent tonight—indeed, that have been sent to all of us in the preceding few days—show that many noble Lords have put themselves about very considerably to hear this debate, travelling from the far corners of this country; I do not use those words lightly. We have waited far too long for this. Although I regret to have to say so, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“( ) an order under paragraph 76E of Schedule 12;”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Pannick
Baroness Deech
“( ) section (Appeals relating to regulation of the Bar);”
Lord Pannick
“( ) section (Abolition of scandalising the judiciary as form of contempt of court);”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“( ) Subsection (11) applies to section (Use of force in self-defence at place of residence) only so far as the provisions amended extend to England and Wales or apply in relation to service offences.”
Public Services
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Boateng
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to enable the voluntary sector to participate in the delivery of public services.
Lord Boateng
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to ask this Question. I am even more grateful to the numerous noble Lords on all sides of the House who have indicated a willingness to speak in this short debate. The numbers themselves indicate the extent of enthusiasm and interest in the House in the voluntary sector. That comes as no surprise, because noble Lords of this House, on all sides, will have cut their teeth in public service in the course of engagement with and membership of voluntary organisations of all sorts. We are enthusiasts for the role of the voluntary sector and its capacity to contribute to the civic life of our country. We owe it a debt of gratitude.
This is a time of risk and opportunity for the sector. The opportunity lies in the undoubted commitment of this Government and indeed the appetite of peoples of all political persuasions and none for public service reform. We want to see the delivery of our public services improved and made more efficient. We believe— overwhelmingly, in my experience—that the voluntary sector has a role to play in enabling that to happen. It is a source of innovation; it permits a greater degree of connection with our citizens because it operates close to the ground; and it is a source of passion, enthusiasm and activism within communities up and down the country.
The opportunity is there for the public sector to take to its heart the voluntary sector, to embrace it and to enable it to contribute to the reform process. Many of us hope and believe that that was the impulse that lay behind the Prime Minister’s promotion of the big society. I have never been one of those who decried that term and ambition. I believe quite unabashedly in the big society where that means the active involvement of the citizen and their enablement and empowerment to take responsibility for the improvement of the community as a whole. It is summed up in the South African principle of “ubuntu”: we are what we are because of others, and our relationship with others shapes not only ourselves but also our society for the better.
That is why I was glad—along with a number of noble Lords in this House and honourable Members in the other—to accept the invitation of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations to join the Commission on Big Society. It produced a report which was widely welcomed by the voluntary sector and received by Government. We would benefit from a considered and detailed response from the Government. I hope that that will be forthcoming, and I look forward very much to the Minister’s response to the debate this evening, in view of his wealth of experience in the not-for-profit sector.
Central to the report’s findings was the call for a better partnership between central and local government and the voluntary sector. It made a number of practical proposals, which I will come to, as to how that partnership might be enhanced. The opportunity is there, if the Government will but take it, to find a partner for change and improvement in the voluntary sector. However, there is also risk. Only this week we saw published by the Charities Aid Foundation and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations a report on UK giving in 2012 that found that donations to charity had fallen by 20% in real terms in the past year. This means that £1.7 billion less is being given to charity. In addition, fewer people are donating to charity, and the average amount given by donors also fell. This undoubtedly reflects the period of austerity and the challenging economic times in which we live.
Even more worrying was the concern highlighted by a trawl of some 252 senior workers in charities by the Charities Aid Foundation. The results, also published this week, highlighted the severe threat facing many of our nations’ charities. The survey found that 17% of those asked said that is was likely that their charity would face closure in the next 12 months; 40% worry that their charity may have to close if the economic situation does not improve; nearly half—49%—of charities asked had been forced to use their reserves to cover income shortfalls over the last year; and more than one-quarter—some 26%—have cut front-line services.
This is not a plea for more resources for charities in these straitened times. Of course, one always hopes for more resources and greater giving to charities. I hope that the Minister will pass on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary that there is more that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs could do in reviewing the gift aid system and to promote giving; I hope it will do so. However, the main purpose of this debate is to ask what we can do and we should be doing to promote the partnership between the voluntary sector on the one hand and central and local government on the other. I argue that this partnership is at the heart of the reform of public services and the better delivery of services to the public.
That partnership was enshrined in the compact between the voluntary sector and government which was initiated by the previous Government and which has been carried on by the current Government—and to their credit. It sets out the key principles of the approach which needs to be taken to improve the relationship to the mutual advantage of both. The compact is itself subject to stresses and strains at this time. The recent Compact Voice report on local authorities and the voluntary and community sector found that up to 50% of local authorities are in fact cutting the voluntary and community sector disproportionately. What will the Government do to ensure that local authorities are sticking to best value guidance? One year on from the publication of the NAO report into compact implementation, what demonstrable progress has been made in the implementation of its recommendations?
I also raise with the Government the issue of commissioning. If there is to be an effective partnership between the voluntary and statutory sectors at a time of public service reform, we need effective public service commissioning. We need to see that the Public Services (Social Value) Act is effectively implemented. We need flexible commissioning approaches which allow potential providers to deliver in consortia and partnerships and to assist that progress. We also need to invest in the capacity of the provider base, particularly those smaller organisations which are working with vulnerable or hard-to-reach groups. Very often it is those hard-to-reach groups that can be adversely affected by the payment by results approach adopted by government. I do not deny that there is value in the approach, but I fear that bad practices such as cherry picking and going for low-hanging fruit, the targets that are easiest to achieve, may lead to a situation in which we will fail to serve those most in need—the most difficult to reach of those suffering from a disability, and the most hardened of those being served by the excellent charities working in the field of rehabilitation, crime prevention and with the homeless—if we adopt a payment by results approach.
What are the Government doing to ensure that emerging payment by results methods have effective tariff systems? They can make a huge difference to ensuring that government and the voluntary sector are working effectively together to address the needs of the most vulnerable. What are the Government doing to support the voluntary sector in the transition to payment by results models?
I will end there. This is an important debate. I will welcome the Minister’s response to these questions and to the many others that no doubt we will hear from other noble Lords.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and congratulate him on securing this debate. I declare an interest as the chief executive of Tomorrow’s People and a trustee of New Philanthropy Capital.
The subject matter is important to our country, our communities and our Government. We need professional, effective and robust public services delivered by whoever can best do the job. Noble Lords will need no confirmation that I am completely committed to the voluntary sector and the role that it plays. That it has a role to play in the delivery of public services I have no doubt. However, there are real challenges for both government and the sector if this is to happen and if we are all to step up to the mark.
I hope that my contribution to this debate will be seen as challenging but helpful, ambitious but realistic. It is not a case simply of assuming that the sector can step up to the challenge; it will have to consider some significant issues. I have no desire to set the hares running, but while I know that the Work Programme is new and in its early stages, there are significant lessons that we can all learn from the process of becoming involved in it. That applies to the sector and to government. The sooner we learn those lessons for the benefit of the people we are all in business to serve, the better.
I will address my first remarks to the sector; I am talking to myself now, in the nicest possible way. There needs to be a maturity in measuring impact in a consistent way. This is crucial. It is not what we as a sector believe that we can do, it is what we know we can do, with evidence to back up what we know we can achieve. My second point concerns financial capacity and capability. The issue of working capital needs to be understood. The payment by results point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, is critical. Nobody I have spoken to has a problem with being judged on their results, but it is no good going into these things believing you can achieve something if you cannot prove it. If the voluntary sector is going to come into public service in a serious way, we must face the issue of scaling up. Sometimes in scaling up, organisations lose the magic of what they can do. Sometimes in becoming too big, we lose something. We must not compromise mission for volume and vanity. Coco Chanel said: “Turnover is vanity, profit is reality and cash flow is sanity”. That applies also to the voluntary sector.
I turn now to the Government and say to the Minister that there needs to be maturity in the commissioning process. Progress has been made. This has been demonstrated by the DWP innovation fund. I am grateful to the Government for that, but some people have said to me: “If only the Government would commission what works rather than what can be traded at the lowest fiscal cost”. We may get value into that. I am the first to understand that we are in very difficult times and that cost is a major factor. However, sometimes we spoil the ship for a ha’porth of tar.
It never does any harm to remember the people we are in business to serve. We have to hold them at the heart of what we do. Can the sector step up to the mark? Of course it can—but with changes. I am sure that with government procurement changes we can all do a much better job.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for introducing this debate. I declare an interest; I have a consultancy called Third Sector Business.
Three years after the financial crisis in the City, the shock waves are making their way out to local government and to charities. The noble Lord mentioned the survey results that came out this week from the Charities Aid Foundation. They should have come as no surprise. The survey showed that there are approximately 10,000 charities that are very vulnerable because they derive a large percentage of their income from delivering services through contracts with local authorities. Probably some of the charities have lost sight of the purpose for which they were set up. Some of them may deserve to move over and make way for more innovative and interesting social enterprises that are very tech-savvy and cost-effective; but some of them for years have been subsidising local authority service provision, and some of them are very important to the communities that they serve and to which they bring additional benefits. Therefore, some of the organisations deserve help to survive.
The Government recognised that in April this year when the Cabinet Office launched the £10 million Investment and Contract Readiness Fund, run by Social Investment Business. That is a three-year programme, but it is urgent that learning from the programme should be got out quickly to charities that clearly need to develop new business models and the sort of skills that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, talked about, such as measuring their impact, knowing their cost base and, above all, being able to demonstrate that they are the best organisations to serve the people who need public services.
In 2007-08, the Public Administration Committee published Public Services and the Third Sector: Rhetoric to Reality, in which it asked: “Does size matter?”. It is a hugely important question. In future, public services that will be delivered by the third sector will primarily be those where it can be demonstrated that money is being saved elsewhere in the public expenditure budget. The problem with that is that often the people who deliver the services have real difficulty demonstrating the savings and the value to other parts of the public service system. Under the previous Government, Total Place budgeting began to address that issue. Under this Government, community budgeting is going to continue—but it has a long way to go before it will be possible for one public service commissioner to say, hand on heart, that giving money to a particular voluntary organisation has definitely saved money.
It is particularly important for models of preventive services—in other words, services that apply across whole communities that are at risk rather than to individuals. Will the Government put greater effort into developing the community budgeting skills of local authorities and of the voluntary sector? Community budgeting will only work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, said, if we have a commissioning process which is sufficiently flexible to deal with the major problems which we have. There is a question about how we configure large and small voluntary organisations in future to deliver public services on the scale which we know is going to be necessary. We know that in social care, in order to relieve the pressure on NHS budgets, the voluntary sector is going to have to deliver a lot of high-quality services. In conclusion, this is going to be a very turbulent but quite exciting time if the Government can assist the voluntary sector with two or three specific targeted things which I have mentioned. I hope the Minister will say that they can.
Lord Adebowale
My Lords, I will start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for his foresight in leading this debate. It is a very important issue which goes to the heart of what we might call a civilised society and the future of social services generally. In particular, it is a privilege to hear my good friends and colleagues, the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Barker, speak. Their comments were appropriate and timely. I was particularly keen to hear the philosophical reference to the ubuntu—something we should remember not just in the not-for-profit sector but in business generally. I declare an interest as the chief executive of Turning Point. I do not know whether Turning Point is too big or not. I am often amused by this reference to too big or too small in the not-for-profit business but not necessarily in any other business. Ours is an organisation that employs nearly 3,000 people and has services in 250 locations with a turnover of 80 million quid. That is not vanity; it is just a fact, and we will, I hope, make a surplus. The fact that we are not for profit does not mean that we are for deficit. This is an important point.
I want to refer to the not-for-profit sector’s and the voluntary sector’s contributions to health and social care, because that is my interest at the moment, and to the impact of spending cuts. In reference to health and social care, it is important to note that voluntary sector and, although I do not particularly like the word, not-for-profit sector organisations contribute a huge amount across a wide range of public services. I want to restrict my contribution to the health and social care sector, which is the focus of my day job. It is estimated that 57% of the not-for-profit sector workforce is employed in health and social care, which amounts to around 437,000 people. Over £4 billion-worth of health and social care services are provided by charities and social enterprises. Turning Point is a social enterprise. These services provide vital support to people at the sharp end of the inverse care law. It has been an ongoing theme of my existence as a Peer constantly to refer to the fact that those most in need of health and social care services tend to get them least. I could make reference to employment and other services that fit within that law. Often these people are at their most vulnerable and unwell. Not-for-profit organisations have specialist skills when it comes to delivering services to those with complex needs and the ability to innovate and offer tailored services that people can have confidence in was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng.
The sheer size of the not-for-profit sector and what it offers means that its contribution to health and social care in particular is invaluable. However, both the public and not-for-profit sectors are facing very difficult times. The cuts are biting and we are all feeling the effects of reduced budgets. Many smaller charities are at risk of closing entirely. I think it is worth repeating the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, to the Charities Aid Foundation which showed that one in six charities believe they face closure in the coming year amid public spending cutbacks and falling donations. Not-for-profit organisations are having to think long and hard about how they can remain sustainable when faced with local authority and health budget cuts while maintaining the quality of services and support that they provide to the people that need it. My own organisation, as has been reported and as some of your Lordships will be aware, is having to make some very difficult decisions in order to continue to provide high-quality services to support the most vulnerable people in society. The proposals that we are currently discussing with our staff and union were borne out of economic necessity and the decision to announce them was not taken lightly. The very tough economic climate means that we and other providers are facing the prospect of dwindling local budgets and the changing demands of commissioners who have less funds at their disposal.
I acknowledge that local authorities are working very hard to protect frontline social care services but it is a fact that they are facing a 28% reduction to their government grants. According to the Autumn Statement austerity is now also set to last for longer than expected—at least until 2017-18 if we are lucky—and the IFS has warned that more cuts will be needed in the future to plug the black hole in spending that it has identified of up to £27 billion. Given the vulnerability and lack of ring-fencing around much local government funding, the prospect of further cuts and their potential impact is deeply concerning. Everyone in the sector will have seen Barnet Council’s graph of doom which illustrates the acute social care funding pressure that local authorities are already facing as well as giving a warning for the future. The Government need to ensure that there is adequate local funding in the future so that fundamental social care needs can be met. Local authorities, care providers and the voluntary sector must be able to maintain and protect the quality of services and care that they provide. This is not just about the Government’s enthusiasm for the sector; it is about the Government’s ability actually to acknowledge the challenge facing public services at this time and to work in partnership with the not-for-profit sector, the private sector and the public sector to reverse the inverse care law.
Lord Judd
My Lords, as one who, like many others in this House, has spent a great deal of my life in voluntary agencies, I very much welcome the way in which my noble friend introduced this debate. It is absolutely undeniable that, with their integrity, experience, ethos and principles, voluntary agencies have a great deal to contribute to effective public service. They are free of the pressures of shareholders and profit. They are there to serve.
However, if this is to be the success that we all want it to be, we have to watch some issues very carefully. One is that this is genuine partnership and not simply voluntary agencies being contracted to provide a service defined by government. There must be an interplay between the agencies and the Government as to what the right services are and how they should be delivered. I was very worried once when I visited a young offender institution where there were dedicated workers on a contract to get those within the institution into jobs. As they did their work, they became convinced that there were quite a number of youngsters who were quite unfit to go straight into jobs and needed a lot more support, help and counselling before they would be ready to go into the employment sector. They got absolutely no credit for spending time on this; in fact, as they put it to me, they were endangering the contract because their job was to deliver people into jobs. That seems to be something we must look at very carefully, because it is a real danger, which could turn a good adventure into a sad story.
The other danger that we must take seriously is financial dependency. If voluntary agencies are working increasingly on government contracts, will their existence as agencies become dependent on that kind of income? I raise this because if I became convinced of anything in my time as director of Oxfam, it was that responsible advocacy could be one of the greatest services to those with whom we were working. By building real relationships of solidarity and real experience at the ground level, we were able to speak to government and society about the real underlying challenges we faced. I think it would be very unfortunate if, by the way that the scheme developed, agencies started self-censorship or dumbing down their advocacy role. That would be to betray their unique contribution.
As a member of the party I am in, I am in politics because I care about public services—I want the highest quality services. However, having worked in the voluntary sector, both as a volunteer and a staffer, I must say that the essence of the voluntary sector at its best is that it is a catalyst or challenge to society; it uses its experience to widen society’s outlook and to increase the sense of responsibly in society and, indeed, in government. As we take this opportunity forward, we must guard that principle as fiercely as we possibly can.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, on securing this very timely debate and start by declaring my interest as president of the National Children’s Bureau and vice-president of the charity Relate. I want to focus briefly on the importance of the voluntary sector in delivering vital services to vulnerable children and young people, as well as to older people, and to stress the importance of collaboration between sectors.
The children’s voluntary sector represents a quarter of the voluntary sector—34,000 organisations, the vast majority of which are small, local and with a low budget. It currently relies more on public funding than the voluntary sector overall, so is particularly vulnerable to austerity. Research so far suggests that it is also struggling to access new funding streams such as private sector funding and the newly emerging social investment market. In 2012, the NCB and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimated that children’s charities face cuts nearing £405 million between 2010-11 and 2015-16.
Despite austerity and despite these cutbacks, the children’s voluntary sector is doing invaluable work to identify and address social inequalities that, if unaddressed, can last a lifetime. I will give one quick example, of a project called Making it REAL—Raising Early Achievement in Literacy. It is a great project, with the NCB working in collaboration with eight children’s centres. The programme so far has touched nearly 500 carers, parents and grandparents, nearly 400 child participants and nearly 150 younger siblings through home visits and events in Sheffield and Oldham. Parents have improved their knowledge and confidence to support their children’s learning and children have progressed to the stage where nearly 90% can name a favourite book, compared to less than a quarter at the start, and more than 70% enjoy books most days compared to a mere 13% at the outset. I say that to try to bring this debate to life.
There are many other examples that I would love to give noble Lords but I have not got the time to show how the voluntary sector can really add value to the way the statutory sector delivers its statutory services. There are so many excellent examples of co-operation, and a very good report—which I commend to the House—called the Ripple Effect has set out some very good case studies in this area.
The services delivered range from cradle to grave. I have talked about children’s services but will very briefly talk about the work of the WRVS, which has 43,000 volunteers giving practical and emotional support to 100,000 older people monthly. It co-ordinates public services, and the home from hospital services provide support to older people after hospital discharge. By carrying out very simple tasks, shopping or making sure the right foods are available, they make a huge contribution to older people’s reablement. As my noble friend Lady Barker pointed, out the NHS is spared hospital costs to a very large degree. It is a real win-win.
This debate allows us an opportunity to ponder the way forward. The voluntary sector offers great potential for help in joining up services and making the best use of limited funds. I know that the children and families voluntary sector is eager to work with the Government to create a strategy which will enable it to become more sustainable and resilient during these difficult times. It will need a two-pronged approach. The voluntary sector needs to do all that it can to manage reduced resources and cut costs, including pursuing different business models and mergers, investing in its voluntary workforce and reinvigorating its fundraising strategies in all the ways that it can.
The Government have a clear role in engaging with the sector to develop the sort of transformation strategy that will help small and local charities to become much more resilient. This is likely to work better if it brings together representatives of the voluntary sector, service commissioners and potential investors. Will the Government be prepared to enter into these discussions with the sector to try to develop this sort of transformation strategy?
Lord Mawson
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for this timely debate. I have spent the past 35 years demonstrating in practice how the voluntary sector can play a crucial role in innovation and in delivering public services in new ways that focus on the customer. How can it use its position, sitting between the often large bureaucracies of the public and private sectors, to bring much needed innovation in the delivery of public services?
The Health and Social Care Act eloquently mentions this. Integration, innovation, and enterprise are found in the legislation that encourages us to go local. These are important words, but words alone will not make this happen. New thinking and hard work are required. So how do we enable more voluntary sector organisations to win and deliver more public service contracts in a way that is a game changer?
First, you should start small and learn how to innovate and deliver public services well in one place before you exercise that overused phrase, “Roll it out”. The micro and the macro are connected. The Government should choose six projects located in specifically identified areas in the inner city, suburbia, the countryside and the north and south of England, and get it right in a few places and really understand what the blockages are, and not roll out a national programme before this has been done.
Steve Jobs obsessed about creating his first Apple store. He hid away for nine months in a warehouse and was fanatical about the small details. Apple is now one of the most valuable companies in the world. If the voluntary sector has a role, it must be in innovation, creating integrated customer-focused services and lifting the game. I worry that the Government have become very adept at talking and simply putting old men in new clothes.
My second point focuses on how best to get the voluntary sector to deliver. Simply encouraging it to play a role in delivering public services will achieve little. The rules, specifying to the nth degree how a contract is to be delivered rather than enabling the supplier to propose different solutions, possibly by integrating different services, constrict much needed flexibility and creativity. The VCS plays this bureaucratic game as well or badly as the public and business sectors. You are not good at delivery just because you are under the banner of “voluntary sector”. Flexibility is desperately needed, and I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, makes this point in his important report.
If you want innovation, you need to create space for it to happen and reward it. It is amazing how the new academy infrastructure for schools, for example, is quickly starting to look exactly like local authority education departments by another name. This happened 30 years ago when the Government got hold of housing associations and dumbed down their entrepreneurial flair. The business community moving into the health sector is starting to look like a public sector response with a few more bells and whistles. Working relationships with social entrepreneurs are not cementing fast enough because the Government are not commissioning services to create new, lean, innovative relationships. Bureaucracy speaks to bureaucracy. It does not understand any other language. The procurement systems of this country are broken. I have tried to raise these concerns with the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I have talked about this, but no one seems to follow through on the practical detail. We have tried, but I have received no practical response that is interested in getting hold of this detail.
Generally, the gap in expertise and imagination is in the statutory and public sectors. While there is a procurement college now for large contracts, will the Minister tell us where is the support for innovation in the £20,000 contracts and for the hundreds of thousands of statutory and quango staff? Real change in public service must involve senior leadership. Otherwise it will quickly be regressive. In relative terms, contracts to the VCS are small and so the senior staff—the CEOs—do not often get involved themselves. What would happen if the procurement processes encouraged this engagement?
The Prime Minister once talked about the big society but, like the third way, it seems to have lost its way. I am interested in small societies and those teams of local players who can make all the difference. In order to see results, we need to understand the practice of what people on the ground do, and we need to help them to grow and up their skills in an organic way. They must be encouraged by us to innovate and deliver more, but we must not put elephants on their backs. We should incentivise this joined-up leadership, encourage these relationships between business and social entrepreneurs and build them into the procurement contracts. This is how we will create social value and innovation and move it to scale. It is all about relationships.
Lord Best
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for initiating this excellent debate.
I want to use my few minutes to make a practical point about the engagement of smaller charities and community-based organisations which currently find it very hard to win contracts to provide local services. Local authorities and health trusts, as well as central government, are often reluctant to entrust public money to these smaller bodies because they are unlikely to have capital to invest or assets to borrow against and they are inherently insecure financially, so there is a risk to public funds should they fail. Thus, despite the emphasis on localism and the fact that smaller bodies may well have the all-important trust of local communities, knowledge of neighbourhood issues, access to volunteers and real commitment at the grass-roots level, they lose out to major, national, often profit-making, organisations.
Sometimes the small charity or the community-based social enterprise finds itself used as “bid candy” to help the major players—the prime contractors—win contracts for public services, but then sees very little of the action thereafter. My proposal is that these smaller local bodies team up with the major housing associations operating in their area. Today’s housing associations are an enormously significant part of the voluntary sector. They are non-profit social businesses embedded in specific places with a full range of managerial skills that can provide the financial security and longevity which service funders desire. Together, the housing associations hold assets worth, at the last estimate, more than £109 billion. I declare my interest as chair of the Hanover Housing Association.
There is a large and growing number of examples of how this partnership between a quite small community-based organisation and a well resourced housing association can deliver a local service with an implicit guarantee against bankruptcy or failure because of the strength of the housing association’s balance sheet. A report out last week from the think tank ResPublica demonstrates how lots of housing associations are now delivering on the localism agenda by acting as vehicles, enablers, capacity builders and brokers for community activities of many kinds. I have time to give only one example. I visited a brilliant project in September supported by Aspire Housing, a housing association with homes in north Staffordshire and south Cheshire. The association has teamed up with a number of local social enterprises, of which this project was one, to provide employment and training for well over 1,000 young people each year by successfully organising apprenticeships and the skills that get them into work.
I accept that my proposal for more of these partnerships to enable the voluntary sector to deliver more and better public services could be undermined by welfare reform changes that impoverish housing association tenants and thereby jeopardise the finances of the housing associations, but that is a story for another day. Tonight, I would greatly welcome hearing the Minister’s response to this way of squaring the circle and enabling funders to work with a financially secure, well grounded, safe social business in the form of a strong housing association in partnership with really local voluntary sector, non-profit, charitable and social enterprises.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boeteng for enabling this debate. It is especially important when all services are under immense and increasing pressure, due to a combination of cuts and increased demand. As noble Lords have said, this is a crucial time for decisions about the future of public services. I have always strongly believed in partnerships between local and national government and the private and voluntary sectors. For too long and for too many people, the goal was to move away from public services, notwithstanding their quality. What might be called the G4 moment at the Olympics removed ideological blinkers, so that once again quality and value are to the forefront. Quality and value—not just for money—must be the key. The Public Services (Social Value) Act is a significant step forward and should ensure that the additional social, environmental and economic benefits that an organisation provides will be taken into consideration when a contract is being awarded.
There are superb voluntary services in our country, which are innovative catalysts and add value, on which millions of often the most vulnerable depend and without which society would crumble. They are often community based, with real knowledge of, and a stake in, the community that they serve. However, the systems are complex and commissioning needs improvement, as so many noble Lords have said. I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to ensure voluntary sector involvement in the commissioning process. While it is right that charities should be enabled to deliver public services, they should not have to fill in the gaping holes which are left up and down the country as councils withdraw from certain services because of budgetary pressure. Many councils do a brilliant job and, with vision and innovation, provide or commission new ways of delivering services. However most have now made all the cuts that are possible without severely impacting on the citizens they serve. It is the voluntary sector that has to pick up the pieces when their own income is being cut.
Too often charities have to shoulder burdens caused by a shrinking state. As Sir Stuart Etherington, the NCVO’s chief executive, has said:
“Often it is charities, that are best placed to provide this specialist support and we are urging the Government to make a number of changes that would enable charities to play a fuller role. We know from our own research that charities are working extremely hard to service even the hardest to help, often by having to dip into their own reserves”.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend, mentioned the Compact Voice report, which found that up to 50% of local authorities are cutting grant funding to the voluntary sector disproportionately. I hope that the Minister will not say that it is not a matter for the Government but for local authorities to choose how to spend their money. That simply would not do. Devolution of responsibility must not be dereliction of duty. Partnership working is crucial and one of the things we are trying to do in the Forest of Dean is to provide a comprehensive and seamless system of social care with our local NHS community services and community hospitals, working with Crossroads Care and other charities which are delivering services but wish to do more. However, as noble Lords have said, it is difficult for small charities such as the ones with which I am involved, like Forest Sensory Services, to get involved. The system is so complex and is devised for bigger charities.
The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, spoke of the social care sector. Many public services currently delivered by the voluntary sector relate to vulnerable, marginalised and disadvantaged groups. The work is often not valued and salaries have historically been lower than they should be. We live in difficult economic times, when organisations and individuals are hurting, but I trust that the Government will do all they can to promote the living wage. Apart from being the right thing to do, it is a means of cutting back the budget for working tax credits. I am proud that 19 Labour councils now pay the living wage and many also ensure that those with whom they have contracts also pay the living wage. A living wage brings dignity and we have to raise the esteem we have for those who work in caring and other community services. Of course, many people in the voluntary sector are volunteers and we could not exist without them. A recent WRVS study showed that older people who volunteer are less depressed, have a better quality of life and are happier.
I close by celebrating the fantastic contribution that the voluntary sector and volunteers make to our society. As we look at the future of public services there is so much more to be done and we must do it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and I look forward to many more on this theme. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, enormously for the way he introduced this debate. This is a cross-party and cross-government issue in which we are attempting to go through a major cultural change in the way in which the state, centrally and locally, delivers services in partnership with the voluntary sector, rather than simply as a contractor of it, as a number of noble Lords have said.
I am interested that no noble Lord has cited the new report from Social Enterprise UK, which contains some sharp language which I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, would welcome, on the dangers of ending up, through outsourcing, with a private oligopoly of firms that are too big to fail and have a stranglehold on the outsourcing sector. The Government are aware of that, and a great deal of what we are now attempting to do is to make it easier for smaller enterprises and those which do not have the financial reserves and the skills to prepare complex contracts successfully to achieve a relationship with government. The Commissioning Academy is now getting under way, training central officials to simplify the contracting process between government and the voluntary sector, thus advertising small contracts available on government websites to make it easier to find out what is going on.
This is, of course, a long-term development and, in some ways, a revolutionary development. We are now admitting that we have a limited government and that we cannot provide for our society everything that is needed through the state itself.
At a meeting in Paris, I sat between one of my party colleagues in government and a senior French Minister. He was saying, “We share a similar set of problems. We in Britain are spending nearly 45% of our GDP on public services; but you are spending 55% of your GDP on public services”. I thought, “That is a very important gap”. Part of the problem that we all have—the previous Labour Government faced this—is that we have a public who resist paying higher taxes but want better services. That is a problem that is going to get worse in the next 10 to 20 years because our older population is growing. The possibilities of what one can provide in social care and healthcare are rising, so the pressures are intense. We have to find ways of providing a mix of state and voluntary services which can provide the quality that we need.
We hope that we are moving toward real partnership. Even there, I have to say that, as we are accounting for public money, and we are having to contract out public money, the question is how one achieves a balanced partnership where the state is paying and the Daily Mail is looking over the state’s shoulder to see whether it is spending the money properly. That is a relationship that we will have to learn about as we go on.
As we all know—I certainly remember from when I was a politician in Manchester—there is deep suspicion among large local authorities of the volunteer and the amateur. Only the full-time council employee could be trusted to do things. That is part of what we need to change. We also recognise that there is a deep problem in London. A lot of people in London—politicians, journalists and officials—do not really believe that people in Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds can be trusted to do things on their own. Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds are very large local authorities and, in their turn, do not trust some local enterprises which really understand what is happening in parts of Leeds or Bradford to begin to deliver the sort of public services which are needed.
As has been said by several participants in this debate, the voluntary sector is often best when it is small and local. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, spoke about those teams of local players, and I think that he meant personal relationships. That is fine, but it does not fit the model of state provision of services. We have to find ways around that. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and others talked about giving instructions to local government. If we believe in pursuing the localism agenda, we have to encourage local government rather than sending the sort of mass packs of instructions that Governments have tended to do over the past 25 years or more. We have to encourage them to go in for community budgeting—double devolution, which the previous Government and this one have also talked about. We have to recognise that our city local authorities —Birmingham is larger than several European Union member states—have to be encouraged to push things down from the local authority level to the communities below them.
This is a set of challenges for the voluntary sector as well. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and others have said, a lot of social enterprises and charities do not have the skills needed to get into these large procurement exercises. The charities I have been involved in lacked accounting and legal skills. We have had to learn by packing the trustees and getting accountants and lawyers to provide their services pro bono. If you are going to be getting into contracting with the Government you need a certain level of contracting skills and that, again, is something which the Government are experimenting with as we try to simplify the contracting process.
Working relations with social entrepreneurs, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, knows well, are never going to be easy. The way in which states have to operate does not easily absorb the individualist—the entrepreneur—who wants to do things in an entirely different way. We have to live with that tension and we have to do our best to make it work. Although I recall with some amusement being told that various government departments have wanted to replicate in other cities in England what the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has achieved in east London. They have worked on this but not quite found the right non-conformist Ministers to lead it. It is again part of the problem with the voluntary sector which requires determined individual leadership.
The Government are pursuing a partnership with the voluntary sector. We are learning as we go forward. We are experimenting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, with new forms of financial assistance and support. We are very conscious, for example, that in one or two cases social enterprises have failed in bidding for government contracts because they could not demonstrate that they had the financial reserves to guarantee that they would be able to carry out the contract through a particularly difficult period.
We all hope that the Public Services (Social Value) Act, which is just about to come into operation, will help a great deal although estimating and calculating social value and standing up to the Public Accounts Committee asking you whether your department did deliver social value may not entirely be an easy thing to do. I am also engaged through the Cabinet Office in Civil Service reform. Getting officials out of their offices and changing the ways they think about the sort of services they are delivering again is part of this whole process. The voluntary sector, in turn, also has to adjust.
I was fascinated to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, talk about a period of turbulence. In political science there is the phrase “creative destruction”. I fear that what she is suggesting is that some charities will fail to make the grade and others will come into greater prominence. However, when one looks at the figures of turnover in the number of charities registered with the Charities Commission one realises that this is a continuing process. Charities die; other charities come into effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, said something extremely interesting about housing associations. A couple of weeks ago a good friend of mine who has just retired from a big housing association was making almost exactly those points. Housing associations have the funds, the presence and the weight to be able to do a lot of things that smaller and more fragile bodies cannot. I think that is a model we all need to take on board. Housing associations can actually do broader things within the local communities of which they of course form a part.
We are learning as we go along. The Government and the voluntary sector know that this is a long journey. We will be publishing tomorrow a new document about making it easier for civil society organisations to do business with the state. I think it will address some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, raised in her speech. This is of course part of a process whereby we hope to be building a better and easier relationship with the voluntary sector. It would be much easier if the economy were growing at 2% to 3% a year but, in the circumstances where the economy is not growing, we all hope that in two or three years’ time that will be the case. Our aim should be a plurality of social enterprises, charities and others working with local government and with agencies of national government to deliver the quality of services which we need in an increasingly difficult environment, with an older and more diverse society. That society will be coping with a very large range of different challenges.