House of Commons

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

Thursday 10 January 2013

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State for Culture Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

1. Whether she plans to reintroduce the gambling prevalence survey; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

I welcome the recent announcement by the Responsible Gambling Trust of a major research project into gaming machines. A new approach to collecting data on gambling prevalence and trends in problem gambling has been adopted by the Gambling Commission; this will be cost-effective and has the potential to provide more frequent information than the old gambling prevalence survey.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Compulsive gambling ruins lives and destroys families. The most addictive form of gambling is on fixed-odds betting terminals, or gambling machines, which are described as the crack cocaine of gambling. Are the Government seriously concerned about gambling addiction, and what are they going to do to address the problem?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, the Government are seriously concerned about problem gambling. This is one of those quite tricky areas where common sense suggests that it is a major problem but there is a lack of evidence to back that up. I very much hope that the major research project that is being undertaken will give us the necessary evidence and, absolutely, once the problem is proved to exist, the Government will act.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there is currently not much evidence to prove that fixed-odds betting terminals are the most addictive form of gambling? Although I applaud his concern for the problems caused by problem gambling, will he reassure the House that he will proceed only on the basis of firm evidence when that is available?

[Hugh Robertson]

Absolutely, in accordance with the answer that I gave earlier. It is recognised that there is an issue in this area, but there is a lack of authoritative evidence to back that up, and that is precisely what we are looking for.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I completely agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). Concern is shared across the House, so we want to see the Government doing something about it. We all know—there is bags of evidence—that gambling is blighting people’s lives, and blighting our high streets too, given the prevalence of betting shops. We need only look down our own high streets; we do not need a research project to see what is going on. The Government say that they want localism and that they are in favour of local people having a say, so will they change the planning laws so that local people have the power to prevent any more betting shops from opening up on their high streets if they do not want them?

[Hugh Robertson]

The answer to the right hon. and learned Lady is yes, if the evidence supports that, but no Government of any colour have ever produced a policy without the backing of real evidence to support it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was of course a Minister in the previous Government, so if she wishes to laugh that probably tells us rather a lot. She might wish she had kept her mouth shut. As I said, once we have the evidence we will proceed.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

2. If she will take steps to encourage use of public libraries and to discourage local authorities from closing or reducing the usage of such libraries.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We are doing a lot to support libraries. We have given Arts Council England responsibility for libraries and it has set up a £6 million fund to support culture in libraries. We have just appointed a specialist adviser. We have regular communications with councils. We have announced our e-learning review. Only at the end of last year we published our comparative reports on library performance.

[Bob Blackman]

Libraries provide a centre for deprived children to be able to study when there are no facilities at home. I highlight a case where Brent council closed six of its libraries last year. Since then, library visitor numbers have fallen by 130,000. The council attempted to save nearly £1 million by closing the branch libraries, but it has had to mothball them, which has cost it £500,000. Equally, £120,000 has been spent on legal fees. At the same time, it is negotiating—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. The question is simply too long, and it is not clear what it is.

[Bob Blackman]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, the hon. Gentleman has taken far too long, and he has enough experience that he ought to be able to be more succinct. Let us have a brief response from the Front Bench.

[Mr Vaizey]

Briefly, libraries are run and paid for by local authorities. I hear what my hon. Friend says. Perhaps it is best to point to good examples of Tory councils, such as Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon, which have kept their libraries open and are reducing or freezing their council tax at the same time.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Minister has had time to reflect on passing the responsibilities for library development to the Arts Council and whether he now regrets not using the money instead to create a perfectly formed, small library development agency.

[Mr Vaizey]

In times of economic austerity one has to be careful with public funds, but in any event I think it is long overdue for the Arts Council to have responsibility for libraries, in order to join up responsibility for local libraries with local culture.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

In my constituency, Sefton is proposing to close all the branch libraries, radically reducing access. Does the Minister think that that is the only or best way to deal with the budgetary squeeze and will he look into that particular case?

[Mr Vaizey]

We always keep an eye on proposals by local authorities to reorganise their library services and we will certainly keep an eye on those proposals.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment she has made of safety within football stadiums.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

Current policy on safety at football stadiums in England and Wales has developed as a result of the Taylor report, following the Hillsborough tragedy. Thankfully, there have been no major incidents resulting from safety failures at those stadiums since then.

[John Mann]

Unfortunately, safety is configured on what has happened previously, not on what could happen in future. Is it the case that all football stadiums in this country have been tested for mass evacuation on nothing other than a computer model that presumes perfect behaviour by all in the stadium?

[Hugh Robertson]

Guidance is issued by the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, which produces “The Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds”, commonly known as the green guide. That includes guidance on the importance of inspections and testing of contingency plans, including full evacuation procedures. The guidance is there. If that is not happening, that should not be the case.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Given the impossible task that clubs face to keep some fans seated at football matches, is it not time to carry out an assessment of whether it would in fact be safer for grounds to introduce safe standing areas rather than people continuing to stand in areas that are not designed for standing?

[Hugh Robertson]

The requirement to have all-seater stadiums was, as the hon. Gentleman will know, one of the recommendations of the Taylor report. I undertook to look at this area when the coalition came to power in 2010. All the advice I received from the football authorities, the police and everybody involved in public safety was to make no change. For any Minister to make a change ignoring the prevailing safety advice would be extremely unwise.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

4. What progress her Department has made in securing an Olympic legacy for the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

We are already seeing the positive impact of the Olympics and Paralympics across our legacy programme, clear benefits to our international reputation, shifts in the perception of disability, both at home and abroad, and, importantly, more people, particularly women, playing sport. Investment in grass-roots and elite sport is designed to maintain that important momentum.

[Charlotte Leslie]

I thank the Secretary of State and commend the Government’s work. The sad truth is that, in difficult economic times, with council bills rising, some community clubs, particularly boxing clubs, which are proven to do so much good work in the community, are struggling to stay open. Will she confirm that she will continue to support those clubs so that they can maintain our legacy and, indeed, furnish us with future Olympians?

[Maria Miller]

Grass-roots clubs such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend are vital if even more people are to participate in sport. That is why we have given great priority to investing in local sports venues. This Government have also introduced the Places People Play programme, which is giving £150 million to upgrade 1,000 local sports venues. That is just the sort of action that I am sure my hon. Friend would see as positive.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister pledge this morning to analyse how the legacy cascades to all the regions of Britain? She will know of the threatened imminent closure of the Sheffield stadium, which was built for the student games in a past era. The fact is that regions such as Yorkshire are not getting the benefits of the legacy of the Olympics seen in places such as the south of England.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Although the games were called London 2012, they were Olympic and Paralympic games for the whole country and it is important that those benefits come through at a regional level. I believe that we will enable that through all our programmes, including Places People Play, which I have mentioned, as well as many others. We will continue to look at regional benefits.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Team GB achieved great success on the water at the Olympics, not just in rowing, but through Bradford-on-Avon’s Olympic gold medallist Ed McKeever in the kayaking. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that sculler schools and canoeing clubs have enough access to rivers, and will she consider having discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about a possible right to roam?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that people who are involved in those water sports have access to water. We have to balance that with the requirements of other sporting groups, such as anglers, but we will continue to monitor the access to important water facilities because I, like other right hon. and hon. Members, want to see further success at the Rio games.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

An Olympic legacy must begin in our schools, yet this Government have cut school sport partnerships, the school sport survey and outdoor play spaces in our schools, and abolished minimum targets for school sport. We are still waiting for their announcement on school sport, which we all expected before Christmas. It is no wonder that less time is being spent doing sport in our schools. When will her Department get to grips with the Secretary of State for Education and lay the foundations that we need for a true sporting legacy?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the importance of sport in the earliest years. I am sure that he will join me in applauding what the Government have done through the school games and the £1 billion youth strategy, and the role of people such as Ellie Simmonds and Jess Ennis at the Olympic games in inspiring the next generation. Perhaps he should focus on that positive record and applaud the work of the Government.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

5. What progress her Department has made in rolling out rural broadband.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We are making very good progress. Nine local projects have agreed contracts, and I switched on the first street cabinet supported by the rural broadband programme at Ainderby Steeple in North Yorkshire on 13 December.

[John Glen]

I thank the Minister for that answer. It is excellent news that Wiltshire council is now able to roll out superfast broadband. However, the Minister has to agree that a small percentage of households—typically 2% to 3%—will not be affected by the roll-out. What does he have to say about the small number of rural communities that will not take advantage of the roll-out of broadband across the county and across England?

[Mr Vaizey]

Our ambition is to get 90% of premises connected to superfast broadband, but to get all premises connected to broadband speeds of 2 megabits per second. There should be a broadband service for almost all households and that will be technologically neutral, so it should be the right technology solution for them.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Government were wrong to drop the previous Government’s commitment to deliver a universal broadband service of 2 megabits per second by last year. Has the Minister seen this week’s report by Policy Exchange, which re-emphasises the importance of finally delivering the universal availability of broadband of 2 megabits per second, particularly in rural areas, where businesses are so dependent on it?

[Mr Vaizey]

The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished former telecoms Minister, so I take what he says very seriously. I was at the launch of the Policy Exchange pamphlet, but I do not agree with him. I think that it is right that we have a superfast broadband commitment of 90% by 2015, which is realistic and achievable.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

A considerable amount of money is being released from the sale of spectrum for reinvestment in broadband. Superfast broadband is important to business, but surely rural areas should also benefit. Is 2 megabits really too much to ask?

[Mr Vaizey]

No, 2 megabits is not too much to ask, which is why we will deliver 2 megabits to the last 10%.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said, Policy Exchange produced an important report yesterday, which I thought the Minister had welcomed. It said that the Government should stop

“pursuing speed as a proxy for progress”

and focus

“explicitly on economic and social outcomes”.

The report pointed out that 16 million people lack basic IT skills and that that is one of the major reasons that people give for not getting online. What specific action will the Minister take to help those people?

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. It is good to hear her endorsing the work of Policy Exchange, a distinguished centre-right think-tank. I hope that she will continue to support its policy proposals. As I said at the launch of the Policy Exchange pamphlet, Go On UK is doing extraordinarily good work to encourage people to go online. Along with all the councils that are procuring superfast broadband, we have a strategy to encourage people to take up broadband.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to improve access to sport for disabled people.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

For the first time, access to sport for disabled people is at the heart of Sport England’s £1 billion youth and community sports strategy. UK Sport recently announced more than £70 million of funding for our elite Paralympic athletes, which is 43% more than the investment they received for London 2012. Last month alone, we invested more than £10 million in 44 community sports projects for people with disabilities.

[Stuart Andrew]

Voluntary sports groups in my constituency have worked for a number of years with local special schools to provide coaching for disabled children. They are now working with sports colleges, developers and councillors to create a new sports park to increase and improve access for all. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is excellent work and will she commend those groups? Can her Department help us to make the dream a reality?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such innovative working can make a real difference for disabled children, and help disabled adults get access to sporting facilities. I want the Department to do everything it can to support such work, and I point my hon. Friend towards the funding that the Government have already made available for such community sport projects, which I hope will help him.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It was great to see so many Paralympians recognised in the new year’s honours list, but does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that disabled sportsmen and women appear to have to do so much more than others to achieve similar recognition?

[Maria Miller]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this time around there has been much more recognition for our Paralympic athletes, and rightly so. We must continue to strive to do even better, but I hope he will agree with me that the sort of investment that the Government are putting into Paralympic sports will ensure that Paralympic athletes have better support in the future to achieve their very best.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to ensure that participants in club-level sport have access to suitable and sustainable facilities.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

Sport England’s Places People Play programme has already helped to upgrade and improve 732 local sports facilities as part of the London 2012 sports legacy, including three projects in my hon. Friend’s constituency. In addition, it has invested more than £20 million in 12 new large scale multi-sport facilities.

[Mr Stuart]

Does the Minister agree that local councillors have a big part to play, and will he join me in congratulating Councillor David Elvidge and other Conservative councillors in Beverley who are working hard to find additional football pitch availability in that area? Mike Bryan and other councillors in the Hedon area are supporting Eastside Community Sports, and many clubs are doing much good work, making a real difference and building on the Olympic legacy.

[Hugh Robertson]

I absolutely agree, and the two important points are, first, that local councils prioritise that issue—we all know that the economic climate is tough, but they have had a fantastic launch pad through London 2012 and it is now up to them to make it work. Secondly, councils will need the support of local volunteers. I am delighted to add my congratulations to the people mentioned by my hon. Friend.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I listened closely to what the Minister said about local authorities, but in Liverpool, which has seen a £252 cut per head, it is challenging for the local authority to make such decisions to prioritise sport and to have that investment available. What will the Government do to help councils that have seen such drastic cuts to ensure that sporting facilities, particularly local clubs, are supported?

[Hugh Robertson]

Nobody would pretend that this issue is easy and we all know the economic conditions. As I said, London 2012 has given sport in this country a fantastic launch pad, and a city such a Liverpool—which the hon. Lady represents—is synonymous with sport. My advice would be that the most successful projects I have seen are a combination of local authority funding, private funding and grants from Sport England. If the hon. Lady has projects that she wishes to promote, she should look to Sport England and the Places People Play initiative and see what she can do. I wish her every good fortune in doing that.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

8. When the Government plan to announce what further steps they will take in response to the report of the Leveson inquiry.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

Lord Justice Leveson’s report, which was welcomed by the Government, set out the need for independent self-regulation of the press. I believe the press will be setting out their new self-regulatory approach in line with Leveson later today. As all parties agree, the report did not provide a fully formed blueprint but rather an outline that requires further work and consideration. The Government are working on a cross-party basis and with interested groups, and I believe we are making progress.

[Simon Hughes]

I thank the Secretary of State for that positive reply. May I encourage her to ensure that the cross-party talks reach a conclusion before the end of this Session of Parliament, so that if we need to legislate not just on the difficult issue of statutory underpinning of press regulation but on clearing up the relationship between the police and the press, we can do so in the next Session?

[Maria Miller]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Making progress and ensuring we have momentum is vital for two reasons. First, we need to ensure that we do not see the unacceptable treatment of victims again in future. Secondly, all who have watched this lengthy process want it to come to a speedy conclusion. I can give him a clear undertaking today that that is exactly where we are.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Hon. Members have heard the clichés about no more drinking at the last-chance saloon for the press, but can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government’s engagement with the press on this matter has not simply been a lock-in at the Long Grass Arms, where the Government’s order is, “Whatever you’re having yourself”?

[Maria Miller]

The Leveson report clearly gives us a framework to ensure we make progress on the important issues that will make a difference to press regulation, and to ensure that we do not have the problems we have had and the same treatment of victims in future. It is not possible for us to do anything other than make progress if we are to implement Leveson, and that is what we are looking to do.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

9. What her policy is on promoting young people’s participation in boxing.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

In the recent UK Sport and Sport England funding announcement, our elite boxers receive £13.8 million to help them prepare for Rio 2016, a 44% increase on the amount available at the last Olympics, which reflects their success. Under the whole sport plan, the Amateur Boxing Association of England will receive £5.8 million to drive up participation, an increase of 22% on the previous funding period. Boxing is a part of the school games, and schools are free to provide their pupils with non-contact boxing opportunities should they choose to do so.

[Paul Flynn]

As boxing is unique in rewarding participants for landing blows to the head and causing damage to that most vulnerable of human organs, the brain—damage that is serious, cumulative and irreversible—should the Government not encourage sports that measure athleticism without inflicting brain damage?

[Hugh Robertson]

No is the simple answer to that question. Many sports contain an element of risk—riding and cycling, both of which have much higher injury tallies than boxing, come to mind. At London 2012, the majority of injuries were not from boxing, but from other sports. Most young people like an element of risk, and boxing has a really important role to play in encouraging young people to take up sport, particularly in deprived and inner-city areas. I am keen to encourage them to do so.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is clear that new ways to fund sports and the arts must be found, particularly for local and regional projects. In Darlington, Project Vane involves exciting private sector partners who want to invest in bringing an old arts centre back to life, which may well hold boxing too—

[Mr Speaker]

Is this a question about boxing?

[Jenny Chapman]

Yes, indeed, Mr Speaker. May I invite the Minister to look at our bid to the Arts Council for capital investment—there are no ongoing revenue needs requiring public sector investment—to help us to bring that project along?

[Hugh Robertson]

The best thing to say is that I wish the hon. Lady every good fortune. I am not responsible for the Arts Council—I suspect that a submission from the Minister with responsibility for sports would get a fairly dusty response—but I wish her every good fortune.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

10. Whether her Department has commissioned research into the effect of fixed-odds betting terminals on the prevalence of problem gambling; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

The Government are aware of the concerns that have been raised about these types of gaming machines and are committed to looking at the evidence around B2 machines and problem gambling. In addition, the Responsible Gambling Trust has recently announced the largest programme of academic research into gaming machines ever undertaken in Britain, which should provide a much better understanding of problem gambling behaviour.

[Mr Lammy]

I welcome what the Minister has said. We need an independent look at the seriousness of fixed-odds betting terminals in our country and their prevalence in independent bookmakers. May I ask him to look at the matter with urgency, and not to move forward quickly with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which would create an open season for fixed-odds betting terminals across the country?

[Hugh Robertson]

I entirely acknowledge the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman puts so well. A response to the Committee’s report is due shortly—clearly, once we have that, I will be in a position to say more—but I acknowledge his concerns and the need for proper evidence to underpin our response.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I share some of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and I urge those who have heard reports about what the Select Committee said to look at the report itself. The report did not say that there should be widespread liberalisation; it said that in specific areas local authorities that had concerns about the number of betting shops could consider whether they might be met by some flexibility in the numbers. I specifically agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the desperate need for more empirical evidence and research in this area. That must be addressed as a priority before we start taking decisions.

[Hugh Robertson]

I agree entirely.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

11. How many households receive 2 megabit broadband.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

As I have already said, our aim is to have universal 2 megabit broadband available to everyone by 2014. Already, 89.9%—approximately 90%—of people have 2 megabit broadband.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I think it was Ofcom that reported recently that approximately 10% of broadband connections —about 2.6 million households—do not have access to 2 megabit broadband. Further to the answer the hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), given that access to broadband is vital to building a sustainable, modern economy, why will he not think about introducing a universal service obligation?

[Mr Vaizey]

I do not think that a universal service obligation would be appropriate for broadband, but, as I have said, we have an ambitious programme, with £500 million going to ensuring that everyone has access to 2 megabit broadband by the end of this Parliament.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

12. If she will commission an inquiry into the media coverage of women’s sport.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

I am absolutely committed to seeing more coverage of women’s sport, and I support the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation’s call for more action in this area. The Olympics and Paralympics showed clearly that there is an appetite for women’s sport, for which the BBC and Channel 4 secured strong audiences. Rather than have an inquiry, I am bringing together broadcasters, journalists and women leaders in sport to ensure more coverage of all our sporting achievements by both men and women.

[Julie Hilling]

The Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation says that the media devote about 5% of their sports coverage to women’s sport. However, about 20% of the BBC’s coverage is of women’s sport, which raises questions for other outlets. Some 36% of the medals won at the Olympics were won by women, but women’s sport receives only 0.5% of sport sponsorship. What will the Secretary of State do to tackle this unacceptable situation?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady has shown that this is not about asking what the problem is—she has clearly articulated it. There is an appetite to watch women’s sport and we need to ensure that it is followed up by more broadcasting and coverage in the press. I was pleased to hear the BBC announce in December that it will broadcast all of England’s UEFA European women’s championship games when the team heads to Sweden in July, and the semi-finals and finals, across BBC 2 and BBC 3. In addition, all other peak-time matches will be broadcast on BBC 3. That is the sort of action we want to see, and it will set a bar for the other channels and media to follow.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The coverage and reporting of women’s sport is incredibly important, but the issue should not be seen in isolation. Will the Secretary of State explain how we can encourage better commercial opportunities in women’s sport, as that will encourage girls and women to participate more?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I know she takes a deep interest in this matter. The sports marketing bureau, which will be launched shortly, will do exactly what she is talking about: highlight marketing opportunities in women’s sport and across the board. We want to see companies capitalising on the clear interest and appetite for women’s sport to ensure that it grows.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

13. If she will request UK Sport to reconsider its decision to withdraw elite funding for basketball.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

UK Sport is investing record levels into Olympic and Paralympic sport for the 2016 games. This includes more than £5 million for the wheelchair basketball team. Sadly, the elite Olympic basketball team did not meet the UK Sport investment criteria for this cycle. England Basketball has, however, received £6.75 million from Sport England, including £1.5 million of talent development funding.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am sure the Minister is aware, first, that Team GB came within two points of beating Spain, who went on to win the silver medal, and actually beat China, who are top-10 seeded in the world, and secondly that it took hockey more than 20 years of elite-level funding before it received a bronze medal at this year’s Olympics. In the light of that and of my letter to him on 20 December, will he agree to meet me and other members of the all-party group on basketball to discuss this important matter?

[Hugh Robertson]

I would make two points on that. First, hockey is a good example of what basketball needs to do. It had great success in 1988, with its gold medal, but then went bust and had its funding cut completely for lack of performance. It built itself back up, however, and got itself to the stage where it was medalling again, as it did in London. Secondly, I am aware that basketball has made an appeal to UK Sport. Once we know the result of that, I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

UK Sport funding is handed out in a four-year Olympic cycle. Does the Minister believe that that is the right way forward, or does he think there needs to be change?

[Hugh Robertson]

I am sorry to say it to my hon. Friend, but that is not actually correct. The funding for the Rio cycle includes considerable funding for developing athletes that will take them through to the 2020 games.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

I am pleased that we have started the new year with such a positive set of announcements about the support in the honours system for Olympic and Paralympic athletes. I hope that all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, will join me in congratulating individuals who have received such honours.

[Simon Hart]

Given that Government funding might not extend rural broadband to really isolated areas, what plans do they have to assist communities in putting in their own piping infrastructure and compelling successful bidders to make use of that?

[Maria Miller]

In addition to the £56.9 million allocated to Wales as part of the rural broadband programme, a top-up of £4 million is available as part of the rural community broadband fund, which is designed for just the purposes that my hon. Friend has described.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The creative industries and tourism are hugely important sectors, contributing £88 billion each year, or 7% of the UK economy. It was astonishing, therefore, that the coalition’s mid-term review pledges for the remainder of this Parliament made no mention of either of those crucial industries. Which Minister—I do not mind which one—will tell the House why they have dropped the C from DCMS?

[Maria Miller]

I think the hon. Gentleman needs to be a little more cautious in his comments. He knows absolutely our commitment to the creative industries and to having the infrastructure necessary to ensure that they thrive. The facts speak for themselves, given the progress being made in industries such as the film industry and the gaming industry. I would draw his attention to those facts when he considers this matter further.

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

T2. Earlier this week, a group of respected ex-journalists in Scotland expressed concern that the 120 jobs being cut at BBC Scotland would cause “real damage” to the quality of news and current affairs it is able to produce. Does the Secretary of State agree that this could not happen at a worse time, when the people of Scotland need a fair and well informed debate leading up to the referendum, and will she raise this matter with the BBC Trust?

[Maria Miller]

It is important—I am sure the hon. Lady will agree—that the BBC is independent of government in these matters, and it is for it to make these decisions. I hear what she says though—it is important that we have a strong BBC in Scotland—and I am sure that her comments will have been noted.

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

T3. I am pleased that the creative industries Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), is planning to visit silicon spa in Leamington, which is one of our country’s leading centres for the video games industry. Video games contributed £1.4 billion in exports to the UK economy in 2010, but we often do not promote the sector in the same way as we do our country’s successful film industry. Will he inform the House of what steps the Government are taking to better support this growing sector?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am delighted to reiterate this Government’s commitment to the creative industries, with the establishment of the creative industries council, the video games tax credit—as well as for high-end television and animation—and the visit of the Minister for creative industries to Leamington Spa in the near future.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

T5. How does the Secretary of State expect to inspire the sporting habit for a lifetime in our young people if we are cutting back on spaces where children can play sport in our schools?

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

The fact is that, for the very first time, under this Government PE is a compulsory element of the curriculum. We could not do any better.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

T4. May I thank the Minister, who has responsibility for broadband, for meeting me yesterday and for understanding the true complexities in the provision of broadband in Northumberland? Surely the true broadband nirvana for all rural MPs will be when we have the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, BDUK—Broadband Delivery UK—BT and county councils working as one, in joined-up government.

[Mr Vaizey]

I had a very enjoyable meeting with my hon. Friend yesterday to discuss the roll-out of broadband for his constituents in Northumberland. I assure him that I will work closely with my DEFRA colleagues to deliver nirvana.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

T6. Given increased concerns about the safety and security of betting shops, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Association of British Bookmakers about how it can improve its guidance to shop workers, many of whom are women and many of whom work alone?

[Hugh Robertson]

I entirely acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises. I have met the Association of British Bookmakers on two occasions. I have to say that on neither occasion has it raised that as a concern—[Hon. Members: “You need to raise it!”]—but once the cheap seats have piped down, I might finish by saying—[Interruption.] Actually, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) is extremely expensive—that St Paul’s education cost a fortune, didn’t it?

If the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) would like to write me a letter, I will take the matter up with the Association of British Bookmakers.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T7. The blue plaque scheme in London is greatly loved. I remember serving on the historic buildings committee of the Greater London council 35 years ago with Sir John Betjeman. When it was abolished, we were given an absolutely firm commitment, by a Conservative Government, that the blue plaque scheme would carry on. Now that it is in danger, will the Minister intervene to stop the silly games between the chief executive officer and the chair of English Heritage and tell them to get a move on and carry on with this much loved scheme?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Minister answers, I say to the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) that, for the avoidance of doubt, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) is neither cheap nor expensive; she is simply priceless.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the important role of the blue plaque scheme. The chairman of English Heritage made it clear yesterday that the scheme is continuing, but I am sure that my hon. Friend, in his many roles in the House, would want us to look carefully at how it is run in future, because at the moment we are spending some £250,000 a year, employing four people putting up six plaques a year. I am sure there are different ways that we could run the scheme; and I am sure that consideration will be given in the future to him having his own plaque.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Hackney there are more than 70 betting shops and last year £167 million was spent gambling on fixed-odds betting machines. What further evidence does the Minister need to take action on reducing either the number of machines or the frequency of bets that can be laid, which are taking money from my poorest constituents?

[Hugh Robertson]

As I have said on a number of occasions today, I recognise the issue that the hon. Lady raises. I assure her that once we have sufficient evidence, if action needs to be taken, it will be, but it has to be taken on the basis of national evidence, not just evidence from individual constituencies.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

T8. Given that the grand départ of the Tour de France is coming to God’s own county—namely Yorkshire—in 2014, may I ask the Minister to say what pressure the Government are bringing to bear on UK Sport to support fully Yorkshire’s successful bid to host the start of the world’s biggest annual sporting event?

[Hugh Robertson]

The Government have to be careful about this, because the money used to support such bids is national lottery funding and so is not open to the Government to direct. My hon. Friend will also be aware that despite the excellence of Yorkshire’s bid, it chose not to be in a position to share the commercial details of the bid with UK Sport before it made it. Now that Yorkshire has won, it is meeting UK Sport. I very much hope that a way will be found to achieve precisely the end that he is advocating.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

To discourage the closure of libraries such as Aintree library in my constituency, the Government need to ensure that the money is available to keep them open. Will the Secretary of State speak to her colleagues across Government to ensure that the necessary funding is in place to safeguard library services such as those in my constituency that are under threat from cuts to council funding?

[Mr Vaizey]

This is a time when everyone is having to tighten their belt, and we are clearly having to make savings. If Labour wants to make it clear which cuts it would reverse, it should by all means do so, but these crocodile tears are pointless. The council needs to run its library service; it is responsible for doing that. It should look at Hammersmith and Fulham council, which has closed no libraries and is reducing its council tax.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

T9. Returning to the question of broadband roll-out, the Minister has reaffirmed the 2015 deadline, and the Policy Exchange report that he commended states that no public money should be made available after that date. Is he aware, however, that there are real practical considerations as to whether it will be possible to complete the programme by 2015, owing to a lack of capacity on the part of BT, even though the funding has been allocated?

[Mr Vaizey]

We have set aside more than £15 million for broadband roll-out in the hon. Gentleman’s area, and we are confident that we are still working towards our target of 2015. Of course, we have money allocated for broadband after 2015. We have not decided specifically how that money will be used, but we will make a decision on that in the fullness of time.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

What representations has the Secretary of State made to the Football Association to request that it issues clear guidance to support players at local and national level who are the subject of homophobic, sexist and racist abuse?

[Hugh Robertson]

Let me join the hon. Lady in saying that everyone who follows football, and indeed many of those who do not, have been extremely concerned by the increase in the prevalence of racist incidents over the past six months or so. The Football Association has just produced a comprehensive 92-point plan, which has been welcomed by many of those involved in the game, and I very much hope that it will play a significant role in bringing this unfortunate chapter to a close and improving the situation rapidly.

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

1. What discussions she had with the Church of England prior to her oral statement of 11 December 2012 on the equal marriage consultation.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

Full discussions have been held with the Church of England over the past year, first by my predecessor as part of the public consultations, and by officials, in confidence, as the proposals were being finalised, before my statement to the House. We continue to work with a range of religious bodies, including the Church of England, as the legislation is finalised.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Will the Minister consider what opportunities an examination of civil marriage and partnerships might bring to those who are not in such a relationship but who share their lives, such as siblings who live together or widows who share a home?

[Maria Miller]

I understand the importance of the question that my hon. Friend asks, but I would say that the legislation that we are working on is about how we can ensure that marriage is broadened, in terms of the number of people who can participate in it, rather than about broadening civil partnerships.

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

In those discussions, will the Minister be able to raise the issue of the vote in Synod on not allowing women bishops? I am sure that she would like to assist the Church in making progress on that issue.

[Maria Miller]

We have already had debates in the House on the role of women in the Church, and I note that there are now more women than men being ordained in the Church, which is very important. It is a matter for the Church of England to put forward proposals in this area, to ensure that its role is as relevant to our society today as it always has been.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

On the subject of the equal marriage consultation, I call James Duddridge.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

In the course of her discussions on equal marriage, did the Minister discuss with the Church of England the fact that it would continue to bless marriages, whether of same-sex or opposite-sex couples, that have taken place elsewhere?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that many churches already offer the opportunity for couples who are in same-sex relationships to have their marriages blessed in church. These are matters for the Church to deal with, whether they relate to the performance of marriages in church or to blessings. The Church must deal with these issues itself.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Is it not unfortunate that the Minister has said that same-sex marriage will be “illegal” in the Church of England and the Church in Wales, when the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he will carefully consider his stance on the issue and the archbishop of the Church in Wales has said that there is no single Christian opinion on the matter? Will she ensure that, should those Churches wish to marry same-sex couples at some time in the future, she will have legislation prepared to enable them to do so without the need for further primary legislation?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of the role of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. Our stance throughout has been to protect those organisations to enable them to make their own decisions. We are talking to them on an ongoing basis about the best way to do that. As to her question about whether they would be able to undertake these duties in the future if they decide to do so, the answer is absolutely yes.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

2. What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies on women of recent tax and benefit changes.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

Departments always take full account of the impact on women of their policies, and the Government are supporting women and their families, for example by extending child care through universal credit and by lifting 2 million of the lowest paid workers—of whom six out of 10 are women—out of income tax altogether.

[Mrs Glindon]

Research from the House of Commons Library shows that women will be hit four times harder by incoming direct tax, tax credit and benefit changes. Will the Minister tell us why she allowed the Chancellor to get away with treating women so unfairly in his autumn statement?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady needs to look at the total package of measures brought forward in the autumn statement. We are absolutely mindful of the need to make sure that we support those who find it most difficult in today’s society. That is why 1 million women have been taken out of tax altogether and why we are putting £200 million more into child care for people who are working the shortest hours. Those things have never happened before, and I hope the hon. Lady will applaud and welcome those measures.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

On 5 January last Saturday, BBC Radio 6 Music made history when three consecutive daytime programmes were presented by female DJs for the first time in the BBC’s 45 years of music radio. While less than 20% of the BBC’s music radio programmes were presented by women in 2012, will the Secretary of State please continue her discussions with the BBC to correct that imbalance?

[Maria Miller]

I am wondering how that question relates to tax and benefit changes, but I will of course always encourage the BBC to make sure that women have a full role in the work they do.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Minister will agree that it is really important for pregnant women to be able to afford to eat healthily and to take their full maternity leave when the baby is born, so why is she cutting £180 from maternity pay, cutting more than £1,000 in tax credits and, according to the House of Commons Library, even including the tax allowances that she mentioned, cutting a total of £1,300 from new mums on low income, yet giving a £13,000 tax cut to someone—usually a man—who is earning over £400,000 a year? In her role as the Minister for Women and Equalities, did she even try to stop the Chancellor hitting women, especially new mothers, so hard?

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Lady will have heard my response to her colleague earlier—the Treasury is looking at the detail of how its policies impact on various groups and has made it an absolute priority to give support to those who need it most, ensuring that more families are able to get into work and that work pays for more people. Above all else, it is making sure that our children do not have to deal in the future with the record levels of deficit left by the right hon. Lady’s Government.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that Opposition Members always want to emphasise the plight of women? Is she as delighted as I am about the growing numbers of health visitors, the growing numbers of nursery places for disadvantaged two-year-olds and the tax-free allowances that directly affect so many women and make their lives so much better under this Government?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to target support effectively in our communities, and I think that, whether we look at the role of Sure Start centres or the role of health visitors, the changes that have been made are plain to see.

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

7. According to the impact assessment relating to the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, 2 million lone parents, 90% of them women, will be affected by this measure. Why does the Minister think it fair for millionaires to be given a tax cut of more than £2,000 a week while 1.8 million women bringing up children lose an average of £5 a week?

[Maria Miller]

An impact assessment relating to a benefit that is predominantly claimed by women will, of course, predict the impact that the hon. Gentleman has described. We need to ensure that families across the board receive the support that will enable them to get into work that pays, and the support that they require for the future.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

3. What her policy is on women’s incomes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Jo Swinson)]

The Government are committed to reducing the pay gap and guaranteeing equal pay for women. The latest figure, based on median earnings, shows that the pay gap continues to narrow and currently stands at 19.7% for all employees, but there is, of course, much more to be done, because the existence of a pay gap is unacceptable.

We are making good progress with “Think, Act, Report”, which promotes gender equality and transparency. More than 60 major companies have signed up to it, representing more than 1.2 million people and more than 11% of the target work force.

[Sandra Osborne]

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the retirement incomes of low-paid women of excluding all those who earn less than £9,440 a year from the new workplace pensions? Does she realise that 1 million people who could be saving for the future are being left out in the cold, and that 77% of them are women?

[Jo Swinson]

Saving for pensions is very important. That is why the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), has been promoting workplace pensions. We are introducing the system gradually, because suddenly having to pay money into their pensions that they have not previously had to pay could have a real impact on people’s current incomes, but our plan is, over time, to ensure that everyone saves for a pension.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of shared parental leave will lead to more equality in the workplace, including equality in incomes? Men will be encouraged to take a greater share of child care, which will allow women to return to work earlier if they wish to do so.

[Jo Swinson]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Shared parental leave is crucial in not just enabling families to share the care of their children in a way that works for them, but dealing with some of the inequalities which, sadly, persist in the workplace. We know, for example, that maternity discrimination still goes on. One of the positive side-effects of shared parental leave will be the reduction of incentives for employers who have been tempted to break the law, and who may now decide that that is not a sensible thing to do.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

5. What representations she has received from the Church of England on the proposed prohibition on that organisation offering same-sex marriages.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

The views of the Church of England were considered during the finalising of the proposals on equal marriage. The Church has made it clear that it does not want to permit marriages of same-sex couples to take place according to its rites, but, should it change its mind, it will be able to make any amendments that are necessary to its canon law and to the relevant primary legislation in order for that to happen. We continue to engage in constructive dialogue as we prepare to introduce legislation to Parliament.

[Stephen Gilbert]

It seems that we are shortly to have gay bishops in the Church of England, but not women bishops. The gay bishops will be able to conduct marriages between opposite-sex couples, bisexuals and transsexuals, but will not be able to marry same-sex couples or, indeed, get married themselves. Is not our established Church in a bit of a mess on these issues?

[Maria Miller]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think that what is important when it comes to thinking about equal marriage, particularly as we proceed with our legislation, is that we show respect for all views in all our debates. It is for the Church of England to ensure that it has in place the proposals that are right for it.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Many of us can fully rationalise and justify voting for civil marriage between same-sex couples, and also for removing the legal impediment that prevents any Church that wishes to do so from marrying same-sex couples, but how can we also be asked to justify voting for a legal impediment in relation to one Church alone? Does that not invite all of us to add personal absurdity to all the anomalies and anachronisms to which the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) just referred?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that not all Churches have the same governance structures in place. Therefore, the legislation we introduce needs to recognise the different position of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. I am sure that when he looks at the legislation he will see that we are amply dealing with the question of the important protections each of those individual religious organisations require.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

This question of religious safeguards is an issue of conscience that will rightly be determined by free votes across the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proper way to address such an issue of conscience is through a Committee of the whole House, as has happened in the past?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to say that from the start our party has wanted to listen to all views on this issue. Questions to do with the proceedings of the House are matters for the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House, and I am sure they will have heard his comments.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I do not think the Minister understands the policy in relation to the Church of England and the Church in Wales. It is ludicrous to introduce a complete prohibition in respect of these two Churches. Would it not make far more sense to do what the Matrimonial Causes Acts did? They just said that no minister of religion shall be required to marry a divorcee, and in this case we should say they shall not be required to conduct a same-sex marriage.

[Maria Miller]

We have, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, spent a great deal of time talking to the different religious institutions, including the Church of England, and they have very clearly said that at this point in time they do not wish to be able to perform same-sex marriages. We are protecting the Church of England and its particular position with regard to common law and canon law, and making sure that it can opt in at a later time if it thinks that is right.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

6. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect of the autumn statement on women, black and minority ethnic groups and older people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Colleagues have had discussions with the Chancellor and others on the impact of tax and benefits changes. The Government are committed to fairness and look very closely and carefully at the effects of their decisions on different groups, including women, black and minority ethnic groups and older people.

[Alex Cunningham]

Evidence from the House of Commons Library contradicts what the Minister has said, because it shows that women are shouldering almost three quarters of the cumulative impact of the net direct tax, benefit, pay and pension changes pursued by the coalition Government. Does she believe this blind spot on women reflects the fact that there are so few women in the Government?

[Mrs Grant]

We have lifted 1 million women out of having to pay tax and put an additional £200 million into child care support, and under this Government we have seen the highest number of women in work. That proves beyond doubt our commitment to women and their families.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

8. What steps she is taking to improve cost-effectiveness and value for money in the Government Equalities Office.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

In light of the 38% reduction in the equalities budget in the 2010 spending review, the Government Equalities Office is pursuing efficiency measures, enabling it to do more with less resource while maintaining high quality.

[Mr Leigh]

What progress has been made in ensuring equality in the Government Equalities Office since June 2011, given that a report found then that there was a gender imbalance of two-thirds in favour of women and women in the office were on average paid 7.7% more than men? Are men not equal to women?

[Maria Miller]

As I am sure my hon. Friend would expect, I want to make sure the GOE is doing what it needs to do to promote equality in its own ranks, and I will certainly look in detail at the points he has raised.

Business of the House

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

10:34

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Mr Speaker, may I wish you and the House a happy and peaceful new year?

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 14 January—Second Reading of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 15 January—A motion to approve the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013.

Wednesday 16 January—Opposition day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 17 January—A general debate on Atos work capability assessments, followed by a general debate on the nuclear deterrent. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 18 January—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 21 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

Tuesday 22 January—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House on the Succession to the Crown Bill.

Wednesday 23 January—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 January—Debate on a motion relating to reducing the voting age, followed by a general debate on the Holocaust memorial day. The subjects for those debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 January—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 24 January will be:

Thursday 24 January—Debate on the first report of the Justice Committee on post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.



May I also take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to offer our congratulations to the Members of this House whose public service has been recognised in the new year honours? May I also say how pleased we are by the awarding of Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath to the Clerk of the House? That reflects his fine public service and leadership, and is a tribute to the House service as a whole.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week, and may I join him in wishing you, Mr Speaker, all Members of this House and all the staff who work here a happy new year? I would also like to join him in his congratulations to those who were recognised in the new year’s honours list.

The ongoing disturbances in Northern Ireland concern Members from all parts of the House. More than 3,000 people were killed during the troubles. The peace process has brought to Northern Ireland hope and greater security, and has helped to attract much-needed investment. Those whose only aim is to bring down the peace process are exploiting events in Belfast, and we must not let a small minority undermine all that has been achieved since the Good Friday agreement. May I thank the Leader of the House for arranging a statement from the Northern Ireland Secretary following business questions? Will he undertake to ensure that she keeps the House regularly updated?

On Tuesday, the House considered the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, and there is more of it to come. The Government have refused to let the Bill have pre-legislative scrutiny and are intent on forcing it through the House in just one more day. Ministers are running scared of scrutiny because they do not want the facts to get in the way of their nasty little caricatures of those who rely on social security. The facts are that 7 million households affected by this legislation are in work; and the Government’s own impact assessment, published at the last minute on Tuesday, thus preventing Members from scrutinising it before the debate, shows that those who lose the most from these measures will be the poorest 10% of households. So can the Leader of the House explain why there is no pre-legislative scrutiny for this Bill, unlike almost all other bills this Session, and look again at the timetabling of this legislation?

Did the right hon. Gentleman find time this morning to tune into the Deputy Prime Minister’s new, gripping, radio show? No doubt, like all Conservative MPs, he has cleared his diary so as not to miss a broadcast. I am sorry to say that expectations were not high among Government Back Benchers, with the view of the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) being:

“Having sat and listened to him at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions, he has never answered a question yet so he isn’t likely to break the habit of a lifetime on radio.”

Having listened to the broadcast this morning—it was half an hour of my life that I will never get back—I have to report to the House that the Deputy Prime Minister did not break the habit. However, I have discovered that, strangely, although the Deputy Prime Minister is keen to do a London phone-in, yesterday he refused to appear on a Radio Sheffield show to answer questions about the impact of Government cuts in his own constituency. As the Deputy Prime Minister clearly has time on his hands, could the Leader of the House make a change to future business to accommodate a statement on why the Liberal Democrat leader is hiding from the people of Sheffield?

I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, who has decided to leave the Government because he is fed up of having to deal with the Liberal Democrats. If every Conservative Member who was fed up with the Liberal Democrats abandoned politics, the only Tory left in the Government would be the Prime Minister.

This week, the PR Prime Minister managed to bungle his own Government relaunch. First, two Ministers resigned because they had had enough of the coalition and then we had the shambles of the Government’s self-audit. Having put together a document allegedly auditing their first two and half years, Ministers realised, as the memo put it, that it had “problematic areas” that would lead to “unfavourable copy” as a result of identifying “broken” promises. On Monday at the relaunch, there was no audit. It is a unique interpretation of Government transparency first to decide against publishing a so-called audit, only to have to retrieve it from the waste paper bin after a bungling aide inadvertently revealed its existence to the media. I have had a look at what is actually in the document. There is no mention of the cost of living going up, nurse and police numbers going down and the economy flatlining. Who is the Prime Minister trying to kid? Seventy broken promises is just the start. It does not say Ronseal on this tin; it says whitewash.

There you have it, Mr Speaker, in one week: a botched relaunch, a cover-up and a whitewash. This just proves that with this Government an omnishambles is not just for Christmas.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. Perhaps it should fall to me to express our appreciation of Lord Strathclyde and his fabulous service over many years. He was leader of the Conservatives in the Lords for 14 years and Leader of the House since the election; he has an exemplary record of public service and we in this House, although we do not normally comment on matters in another place, have benefited many times from how he fostered co-operation between the two Houses. We should certainly thank him for that.

The shadow Leader of the House is right that it is the Government’s intention and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to keep the House fully informed. My right hon. Friend has made statements and she will do so again today. I share with the shadow Leader of the House the view that those engaging in violence in Northern Ireland are attacking the character and nature of Britain and the flag that represents the United Kingdom as a whole. As the Prime Minister rightly said in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, we should be working towards a shared future. There is a tremendous opportunity of which we have seen evidence in Northern Ireland and I hope the statement today will further reiterate this House’s support for those in Northern Ireland who are making that shared future a reality.

The hon. Lady asked about the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. It is a short, simple Bill and what it sets out to achieve is very clear. I do not see any case for pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill with such a character. More to the point, I think the debate the other day was not about scrutiny of the Bill but about differences of view about how to take forward deficit reduction. The Government recognise that it is a necessity, that everybody must play their part and that it was not acceptable for out-of-work benefits to continue to increase at twice the rate of increases for those who were earning. We are supporting those in work, giving them opportunities by reducing taxation. Some 24 million people have seen their tax bill come down as a consequence of the increase in the personal tax allowance and those on the minimum wage have seen their tax bill halved. That is the right way to go—it is about everyone participating in deficit reduction, but those who are most in need should get the greatest support.

I must confess to the shadow Leader of the House that I did not have an opportunity this morning to listen to LBC and the Deputy Prime Minister because I was preparing for questions in this House. However, I regularly attend and listen to the Deputy Prime Minister as he responds to questions in this House, as he did earlier this week. I thought he did so admirably.

Finally, the Government were always going to publish the audit. It is obvious that, compared with the previous Government, this Government have been transparent, clear and accountable both in what we have set out to do under the coalition programme and in what we have achieved, and 90% achievement in just over half of a Parliament is a record that we can be proud of.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Further to the question raised a few minutes ago in Women and Equalities questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), has the Leader of the House considered the importance of holding the Committee stage of the House’s deliberations on changes to the marriage legislation in a Committee of the whole House, bearing in mind that this is a free vote conscience issue?

[Mr Lansley]

It is not the case that issues of conscience in a Bill are always considered in a Committee of the whole House. It is a matter for further discussion on how we take the Bill forward, as we have not yet introduced it. I am sure that, at that time, I will have the opportunity to inform the House about our plans for effective scrutiny of the legislation.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House find time to have a debate on the impact that benefits, housing and tax changes will have on poverty in the UK, and will he tell us when the Prime Minister will visit a food bank?

[Mr Lansley]

It is interesting that, when it comes to tackling poverty, the hon. Gentleman might have included in his list of things that impact on poverty the extent to which people are in work. The level of poverty in this country is not simply a product of the redistributive changes by Government. It is about getting people into work, and one of the central achievements of this country over that past two and a half years has been—we can see it in the contrast between the United Kingdom and many other European countries—the extent to which the private sector is creating jobs and people are going into work. As has been acknowledged by Labour Members, although they appear not to follow through the logic, work is the best means of escaping poverty.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

When he considers business for next week and the coming few weeks, may I urge my right hon. Friend not to rush bringing forward the legislation on same-sex marriage until Government officials and officials in the Church of England and other faith groups have agreed the draft clauses that will give protection to Churches and faith groups that do not wish to perform same-sex marriages, and have agreed that those clauses will do what they say on the tin? Whatever the views of the Church of England and other faith groups might be on same-sex marriage, I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that it is in everyone’s interests that we get the quadruple lock provision properly sorted, and that it will not help the Government’s handling of the measure if there is any confusion about these provisions on Second Reading.

[Mr Lansley]

It is absolutely our intention to ensure that the legislation that comes forward is clear and will carry support. To that end I am grateful not only to my hon. Friend but to representatives of the Church of England for enabling us to have those conversations before the Bill is introduced.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I push the Leader of the House to arrange an early debate on post-natal depression, which affects about 20,000 women a year in this country? It is the most likely cause of death in young women between the ages of 18 and 40 by suicide. It is a very neglected area and the sooner we tackle it and give it higher visibility, the better.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman may recall that in the summer of last year, when I was Secretary of State for Health, one of the things that I set out as part of the further measures to improve maternity services was a focus on post-natal depression. I entirely share his view. There is still, as I know from my knowledge of the health service, variable access to specialist services for some of the most severe cases of post-natal depression. I know my colleagues will be looking at that, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the matter at Health questions next Tuesday, I am sure that would be helpful too.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will it be possible to have a debate next week on collective ministerial responsibility? I tabled a number of questions to the Prime Minister on the subject, which have been ducked. Surely it is important that there should be clarification of what we mean by collective ministerial responsibility, and how and to what extent the Prime Minister feels obliged to enforce the provisions of the ministerial code in relation to collective ministerial responsibility.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have not had the opportunity to see the questions to which he refers, although I would be glad to. As far as I am aware, collective ministerial responsibility continues to apply as it always has done, as has the ministerial code.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On the question of keeping the House informed, before Christmas I asked the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice about proposals for new prisons in north Wales, but he refused to meet Members of Parliament from north Wales. As we speak, the Department is briefing journalists on new prisons and on a super-prison that might be placed in north Wales. Why are the Government so disrespectful of Members of this House that they are briefing Lobby journalists, rather than Members of Parliament, on the matter, which is of profound concern to my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that a written ministerial statement was laid before the House this morning—[Interruption.] He says that he wants an oral statement. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice laid a written ministerial statement that is very full and detailed, and there will, of course, be opportunities in future, for example during Justice questions, for Members to ask questions on that.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In the past half hour my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) have all questioned the length of time there will be for discussions on the Bill to equalise marriage, and it seems to me that a Committee of the whole House is the answer. Previously, when the Leader of the House, as shadow Health Secretary, was involved when a conscience issue came before the House, it was considered in a Committee of the whole House, so will he reconsider his position and ensure that the Bill is considered in a Committee of the whole House?

[Mr Lansley]

I reiterate that in the past conscience issues, including those that have been the subject of free votes by virtue of that fact, have not necessarily been considered by a Committee of the whole House. There is a job to be done in scrutinising legislation, which can sometimes be best achieved in Committee, and all Members have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Report, particularly if sufficient time is available. I am not prejudging the question of the equal marriage Bill at all, as it has not been introduced and I have not announced how we propose the business should be taken forward.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Next Tuesday we will discuss the important section 30 order, which will allow for a legally binding referendum on Scottish independence to be determined by the Scottish Government. Many of the Leader of the House’s hon. Friends are not particularly well disposed to that idea and might be tempted to vote against the measure. Can he assure me that there will be a three-line Government Whip for attendance to ensure that any rebellion is defeated?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may say so, it is sufficient that I deal with the business of the House, rather than attempting to answer questions relating to the whipping arrangements of each individual party. Suffice it to say, the matter will be brought forward on a Government motion.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Many of my constituents contact me about asylum and visa applications, and when my office investigates with the UK Border Agency we see that the personal data held by the agency are woefully out of date. Will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to explain what the Department is doing to ensure that UKBA is not only fit for purpose, but keeps up-to-date personal records?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that the UK Border Agency is developing a strategy to identify and resolve data issues, not least in response to a recommendation of the chief inspector of borders and immigration. That should ensure the quality of data and assist the agency in cleansing the data records on the system. If my hon. Friend has specific examples of constituents affected, I am sure that it would be helpful if he raised those with Home Office colleagues. We know that the UK Border Agency had a poor record in the past. The process of turning that around has begun and is progressing, but it will take time.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), any time a Minister is asked about food poverty, their response is that we have seen jobs created in the private sector. I am shocked that the Government are not aware that working people are accessing emergency food aid in this country. When will the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor, or a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs actually visit a food bank so that they can give more informed responses to the questions asked by Labour MPs?

[Mr Lansley]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady should think that we have not done that, although I can speak only for myself; I have not checked with other Ministers. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and I visited a food bank in her constituency in the early part of last year or thereabouts. I completely understand the concern, of course. Access to food banks has been increased, and that is absolutely right. It is right that people should have access to food banks, and there is better access than there used to be in the past. We are setting out to ensure that those who are in the greatest need get the greatest support. However, it is not simply a matter of public sector support; it is about giving people the opportunity to have the dignity and independence that comes with work and earnings.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Following the recent announcement by the would-be state nannies in the Labour party that they think that the content of breakfast cereals should be regulated, which will put our Sugar Puffs and our Frosties under threat, may we please have a debate on how we can best protect these great British cereals from this unwarranted attack before anyone starts suggesting that they should be put in plain packages?

[Mr Lansley]

At the weekend I was rather staggered by the effrontery of Labour Members, who, in the course of their 13 years in office, presided over what was, in effect, a doubling of obesity, in then saying that something should be done and, in particular, proposing legislation when in those 13 years they proposed no such legislation themselves. They are clearly amusing themselves with the luxuries of opposition. The fact is that in government we have done more in two and a half years to tackle these issues than the Labour party did in 13 years.

On the question of cereals, the evidence is that a voluntary approach can make more progress more quickly, and that is what the responsibility deal is doing. We have achieved that in relation to salt. In particular, it has enabled us to take full account, in a practical and effective way, of consumer preference and consumer taste. We can shift consumer taste and reduce salt in cereals, and the public will continue to buy them. Even Mr Speaker might buy cereals in the morning and not notice that the salt content has been reduced. Reducing sugar is tough because it impacts on taste, but it does not get us anywhere—[Interruption.] I did not even have Weetabix this morning. Reducing sugar in cereals through legislation does not get us anywhere if the consequence is that people simply start sprinkling sugar on their cereals. If we tackle the problem in a way that works effectively through the responsibility deal, that is a more long-term and sustainable approach.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Over the weekend we read a great deal of what was provided to lobby journalists about the Government’s plans for the future of child care, yet when the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister relaunched the Government on Monday afternoon we heard no detail about their plans. When will a Minister come to this House to lead a debate or make a statement so that Members can contribute on the issue of the future of child care, which is such an important one for most of my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were very clear on behalf of the coalition Government in setting out some further directions, one of which, rightly, was investment in the future of child care. They made it very clear that over coming weeks further announcements will be made, and of course they will be made, as is proper, first to this House.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will the Leader of the House note my sorrow to hear today that Shepton Mallet prison is to close—a prison where most prisoners are working? The most recent report and several previous reports have said that it is a settled and remarkably safe prison for prisoners, staff and visitors. Will he recognise the leadership of Andy Rogers, who is the governor, and his team of very dedicated staff, and note that such decisions on closure affect not only money but jobs in the prison and for those who serve it in an area without many alternatives?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice will read what my hon. Friend has just said in response to this morning’s written ministerial statement and there will be opportunities in the future to discuss these issues. I will take this opportunity, as she has asked, to pay tribute to not only Andy Rogers, but to those working in the Prison Service, who do an often thankless and difficult task very well.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

There is an urgent need for prison places in north Wales and today’s statement indicates that it is a possible option for a super-prison, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), I am concerned that we do not have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Justice today. May we have an early debate on the provision of prison places, and could the Leader of the House gently suggest to the Justice Secretary that, given that he was at the Dispatch Box yesterday talking about rehabilitation and prisons, he may have had an opportunity to make these announcements then so that we could have questioned him in this House?

[Mr Lansley]

As I said to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), a written ministerial statement setting out what are, frankly, detailed and substantial issues was placed before and announced first to the House. There will be both formal and informal opportunities for Members to get together with Justice Ministers to discuss how to take this forward.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

At this time of year, local authorities are determining their budgets. Harrow council, uniquely in London, is increasing its council tax by 2%, while Hammersmith and Fulham is reducing it for the sixth time in seven years. May we have a debate in Government time about what is happening to Government money in local authorities and expose the wastage in Labour-run authorities?

[Mr Lansley]

If I recall correctly—I will correct myself if I am wrong—we have had a debate on the local government finance settlement. It is important that we in the House vote for resources to support local government, but it is the responsibility of local government to use those resources effectively and to secure value for money. I know that many authorities are achieving that, but others—I look to the Labour party to explain some of them—are not achieving value for money in what are, frankly, tough financial times. I hope that all authorities will achieve best practice in terms of value for money.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Academies Commission has released disturbing evidence of the selection of some pupils at the expense of those from disadvantaged communities. At the same time, we hear reports of academies being run for profit, which the Education Secretary has previously denied. May we have a debate about the future of academies so that both those very important issues can be addressed in this House?

[Mr Lansley]

Following the passage of the Academies Act 2010, the expansion in the number of academies is a great success of which this coalition Government are very proud. The hon. Gentleman says that the Academies Commission has produced evidence. I have not had an opportunity to read it myself, but the press reports that I have seen do not suggest that it was more than limited, anecdotal evidence. I am not sure that there is any substantial body of evidence. On schools and profit distribution, the position is exactly as my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has said: they are not permitted under the legislation to distribute profits.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the integrity of Government consultations? Following representations from my local Sikh community, will the Leader of the House inform Members how Sikhs up and down the land were consulted on proposed legislation for same-sex marriage?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend had occasion to catch Mr Speaker’s eye in order to ask that question of the Minister for Women and Equalities earlier. He will know that the consultation on theses issues was substantial and attracted hundreds of thousands of responses. I have no doubt that the Sikh community will have been represented in those responses, but I will gladly ask my right hon. Friend at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to secure a specific reply.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on Government transparency, because the Government are telling us not what we need to know, but what we do not want to know? The Department for Education has answered only one freedom of information request in the past nine months, yet on “Call Clegg” this morning the Deputy Prime Minister felt the need to tell the nation that he owned a green onesie, although he has not yet worn it. Is that the sort of information that the public really need to know? How many Ministers own a onesie? The nation should be told!

[Mr Lansley]

I am beginning to think that the best preparation for business questions would be to listen to LBC radio on a Thursday morning. I clearly missed out. I find it incredible that the Department for Education could have responded to only one freedom of information request. Any Department that I have been in has replied to freedom of information requests by the dozen on a weekly basis.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

At a time of great change in the EU and in Britain’s relationship with it, has my right hon. Friend given any thought to improving scrutiny in this place, for example by improving the use of specialist Select Committees to scrutinise EU legislation, promoting the post of Minister for Europe to a Cabinet position and periodically considering European business in this Chamber, rather than always considering Westminster business?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the European Scrutiny Committee is conducting an inquiry into European scrutiny, which Her Majesty’s Government have welcomed. She makes an important point about the wider use of the expertise of departmental Select Committees in European scrutiny. I hope that that will be taken forward. We look forward to seeing the report of the European Scrutiny Committee. Questions on European business may be asked of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In addition, European legislation impacts on the policies of many Departments and so can be raised at many Question Times.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

As the nations of Britain have waited three centuries for an opportunity to reform the undemocratic anachronism of the choice of Head of State, is it not unseemly to rush the legislation through both Houses in a single day, thereby denying the House the opportunity to give the nations a choice over the next Head of State by referendum, so that they can choose whether they want Charles, William or Citizen A. N. Other?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government have no intention of doing what the hon. Gentleman asks. I reiterate that from the business that I have announced, it is clear that we are proposing that the Succession to the Crown Bill should be considered on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House on the first day. There will therefore be two days of debate in this House, each of which will have proceedings that are amendable.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

In April, the Government will cut income tax for 33,340 working people in Pendle and lift 1,570 of the lowest-paid workers out of paying income tax altogether. That is in stark contrast to the previous Government, who abolished the 10p tax rate. May we therefore have a debate on supporting hard-working families and ensuring that they can keep more of the money that they earn?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point admirably. I hope that in our further debate on the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, people will recognise that the changes to personal tax allowances will take a lot of low-income workers out of tax altogether and reduce the tax bill for many millions of people.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I attended Culture, Media and Sport questions this morning in the hope of asking a question about the gambling prevalence survey, but there was so much interest in that matter that it was oversubscribed. I therefore ask the Leader of the House to consider having a debate in Government time on the proliferation of betting shops on the high street in the hope that the concern will ensure that the Government put into action their rhetoric on localism and allow local authorities the right to control the number of betting shops on their high streets.

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government to respond. I am aware that it has considered issues relating to the licensing of betting shops in local areas, so it is perhaps best that it replies on that specific matter. Given the comments from across the House, this might be an issue that the hon. Lady and other Members would like to invite the Backbench Business Committee to pursue.

[Lyn Brown]

I am not a Back Bencher.

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps other Members, with the hon. Lady’s support, would like to ask the Backbench Business Committee whether this issue can be brought forward for discussion.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate about attacks on public service workers, particularly teachers, people in the NHS, and police officers? Over Christmas we had the appalling example of a thug who violently assaulted a headmistress, abused and punched her, but simply walked away with a community service order and having to give her £100 in compensation. Surely such crimes should always be dealt with by a prison sentence. May we have a debate to find out what we can do to protect public servants from such attacks and ensure that the perpetrators of such violence are always sent to prison?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand, and my hon. Friend makes an important point very well. I recall, particularly in relation to the health service, how strongly we felt that on many occasions too few attacks had been followed up, and that too few cases had led to appropriate action. The Government were looking at the extent to which such issues were taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing, but I will ask my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to look at the issue and respond to my hon. Friend.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Sixty per cent. of agricultural land in countries such as Burma and Indonesia that have serious hunger problems have been subjected to land grab. Given that the UK has the presidency of the G8 summit, may we have an urgent debate on how we can use that presidency to stop such practices and return the land to the people who live on it so that they can feed themselves?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am interested in the subject raised by the hon. Lady although I do not think it is one of the issues set as a priority for the upcoming G8 summit. Such summits always afford opportunities, however, not least because of the increasing influence that we are able to exert through the strength of our overseas aid programme and the like. I will therefore talk to my hon. Friends to see whether we can continue to follow up strongly the issues raised by the hon. Lady.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

With new car registrations at a four-year high and record exports for our motor manufacturers, many of our car makers are now looking to repatriate their supply chain, to the benefit of areas such as Coventry and Warwickshire. Skills, however, are an issue, so may we have a debate on that and on how we can encourage our young people into manufacturing industries?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point and he will have welcomed, as I did, what our right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said last year about supporting a supply chain initiative. It is important that we perform strongly in the motor vehicle industry, and that can have considerable multiplier effects. My hon. Friend is right about skills and the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) is this morning making clear the Government’s support for initial traineeships—a sort of pre-apprenticeship programme—to ensure that we do not have an economy in which any of our young people go without access to skills and training, and so that we can provide all levels of skills to industry.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Well before Christmas I secured a Westminster Hall debate on proposed increases to rail freight charges that threaten more than 700 jobs in my constituency. We were promised an announcement by November but nothing has come. If that means a change of heart, I very much welcome it, but may we have an indication of when an announcement will be made as the issue is causing great concern throughout the coal industry in the UK?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, ask the Department for Transport on the hon. Lady’s behalf whether it could let us both know the position on that issue from last year. Transport Minsters will be answering questions in the Chamber on 17 January and the hon. Lady might find an opportunity to raise the issue with them.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

The Drop Inn centre in my constituency is an independently run youth organisation where young people can meet and engage in positive activities. It has assisted and continues to help hundreds of young people in Belper and is an excellent example of the big society in action. Over Christmas, the Drop Inn centre was attacked by arsonists. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how we can support such big society organisations when they are victims of such crimes?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am glad my hon. Friend has raised that matter. It is important to support voluntary organisations, which often do not have an infrastructure that enables them to respond to such events—they should not be subject to such criminal activity. I will speak to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who leads on support for charitable organisations, to see whether he can point to a particular measure, but generally we have innovative routes by which we can provide not only financial support, but a great deal of practical support to charities seeking to develop their activities.

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

Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to holding a debate on how many promises the coalition has not kept, and in particular a debate on the Chancellor’s promise that he would not balance the books on the backs of the poor? He is borrowing £212 billion more than predicted, so he is certainly not balancing the books, but with 14 times more people in the poorest 10% being affected by the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill compared with the richest 10%, he is destroying the living standards of the poorest.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be living in some kind of denial. We inherited the largest deficit among OECD countries and have reduced it by a quarter. We are taking the action necessary following the appalling legacy we inherited, and the way we are going about it is fair. If he looks at the distribution of impacts of income tax changes, he will see that the highest earners see the biggest increase in taxation, and that low earners see reductions in income tax, not least specifically as a consequence of the change in personal tax allowance.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 897 on restoring the 10p income tax rate that was abolished by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)?

[That this House regrets the abolition of the 10 pence rate of income tax in 2008 by the last Labour Government; notes that a starter 10 pence rate of income tax between the personal allowance and 12,000 would instantly move all British workers on the minimum wage about halfway towards earning the Living Wage, in cash terms; concludes that the poorest Brits would benefit the most as a share of income; and therefore urges the Government to restore the 10 pence rate of income tax as soon as economic growth allows.]

May we have a debate on lower tax for lower earners? In that way, we might see how restoring the 10p rate would be a better way to help lower earners rather than recycling benefits through the tax system?

[Mr Lansley]

I have seen my hon. Friend’s early-day motion. He knows we have taken action to help the lowest-paid workers, but as I have said a number of times, the increases in the personal income tax allowance will take 2.2 million of the lowest-paid out of tax altogether. Someone working full-time on the minimum wage will see their tax bill cut in half as a result of that measure.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Prime Minister’s mid-term review and relaunch this week, and particularly on the full and frank audit of Government achievements? Will the Leader of the House tell us why he supposes the full and frank audit forgot to mention that the Government have trebled tuition fees to £9,000?

[Mr Lansley]

Compared with previous Governments, this Government are open on the nature of our programme and what we have achieved. Our frank and full assessment demonstrates not only transparency but a high level of achievement. On tuition fees, the hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that our policy gives this country’s universities and higher education establishments, which are a success story when compared internationally, increased resources to improve the quality of tuition.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate on UK Border Agency delays and bureaucracy? Odstock Medical in my constituency sponsored a PhD student for four years. Despite the change in Government policy, it was unable to secure his position in this country for a further year and he had to be sent back. That is just not good enough, and we need to sort it out.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend no doubt heard my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). The chief inspector of UKBA has said that, since April 2012,

“the Agency has ‘started to tackle the problems’, with improved governance, a stronger performance framework and a more robust approach to tracing and locating individuals.”

Work is going on throughout UKBA, but Ministers are very aware of continuing problems of delay and the difficulty of delivering UKBA activity. All hon. Members experience that and Ministers will want to keep the House fully updated and respond fully. If Members can provide information to Ministers about the nature of the problems their constituents experience, it will help Ministers to ensure that they are delivering the changes in the UKBA that we all want.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the distribution of funding for elite-level sports in the run-up to Rio 2016 in light of the hugely disappointing decision by UK Sport to give zero funding for sports such as basketball, table tennis and volleyball, while giving tens of millions to sports such as rowing, sailing and equestrian? Such decisions cannot just be about past success; they have to be about potential and there is huge potential for a medal in sports such as basketball, as well as it being a sport that is accessible to millions of people.

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, raise these issues with my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but I caution the hon. Lady that on the evidence of the Olympic and Paralympic games, UK Sport, and lottery-funded support for sport and elite sport in particular, has had tremendous success by being very clear in its determination to support the greatest potential and to focus resources to make that happen. That does not mean that we have to agree necessarily with every decision made by UK Sport, but one should give it credit for what it has achieved.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

May we have time for a debate on the rather bizarre decision by the Office for National Statistics not to change how the retail prices index is calculated, despite saying that how it is calculated is wrong? A change would help final salary pension schemes that are disadvantaged by legislation put in place by the previous Government.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not immediately have an opportunity for a debate on this subject, but it will no doubt be discussed at Treasury questions and elsewhere soon. Of course, it was announced only this morning. For my part —I am sure the same will be true of other Ministers—we will look to the ONS to make recommendations and we will now consider them very carefully.

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

In the light of Lord Heseltine’s report, “No Stone Unturned” and his agreement to pilot its proposals in the Humber region, is it possible to have a debate on whether local enterprise partnerships need additional powers and resources to make an impact in areas such as Hull?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will have seen that, in the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave strong support to Lord Heseltine’s report, and, in particular, for LEPs. Also, additional financial support for LEPs was announced in autumn last year. I do not have an immediate opportunity for a debate, but perhaps, through the Backbench Business Committee or elsewhere, we will see a proposal for a debate come forward. It would be useful to have a debate at an early point, not least so that the LEPs can see us understanding and recognising what they are achieving, the plans they are bringing forward, and the opportunities we want to help them realise.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

When a high-profile Yorkshire business went into administration in 2011, solicitors’ fees of £15,000 and administrators agents’ fees of £14,786 were paid, yet a small graphics business in my constituency did not receive the £1,000 it was owed. May we have a debate on when local small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of our local economies, will be given a fair deal when they are left high and dry by companies going into administration?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, all insolvencies involve a degree of loss, or are very likely to do so. He and other hon. Members have been pursuing prompt payment, which he knows is very important to SMEs. They should not be exposed to financing others because payments are not made on time. He will know that before Christmas we announced a review of insolvency practitioner fees, which will look to establish whether further changes are needed to ensure creditors have confidence that those fees are fair and commensurate with work done. He might also bear it in mind that the insolvency red tape challenge is in progress, which might offer another opportunity to raise this issue.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Some of us who support marriage equality none the less want to ensure that the House does a good, proper and thorough job of scrutinising the legislation when it is presented. It might be difficult for the Government to put together a Committee that is fully representative of Conservative Back Benchers. Would it not be a good idea, therefore, to make sure that the Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, or, even better, to give a few legislative days to the Backbench Business Committee, so that it could decide, almost as if it was private Members’ legislation, how to proceed?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my reply to previous questions. We will ensure proper scrutiny of our Bills.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Following the tragic death of my constituent, David Young, who was stabbed on new year’s day, may we have an urgent debate on tackling knife crime?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and mentions the tragic case of his constituent. He will be aware of the Prime Minister’s speech recently on crime and justice, when he said that the Government would be looking at toughening up knife sentences and at the use of cautions. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are working together to review the punishments available for carrying a knife. We strengthened sentences in relation to this under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and the Home Office has committed £18 million to support police agencies and the voluntary sector in tackling knife, gun and gang-related violence and in preventing youth crime.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Yesterday, the Mayor of London published his draft police and crime plan, which offered Croydon an extra 117 police officers by 2015. May we have a debate on what others could learn from the Mayor of London about reducing running costs, concentrating resources on the front line and showing that, in a time of austerity, it is possible to protect front-line services?

[Mr Lansley]

That is an important example for others to follow. In Cambridgeshire, I might say, we are also seeing resources being focused on the front line and an increase in police numbers. It is important to achieve that. There are good examples, and I hope that we can find opportunities when they can be set out for others to follow.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

In a week when a hugely welcome new renal dialysis unit opened in Welshpool, on the Welsh side of the England-Wales border, and it was announced that Shrewsbury prison, on the English side, was to close, may I ask my right hon. Friend to programme a general debate on the implications for provision of public services that straddle the border, in the light of the advent of devolution?

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. On health services, in particular, I know about the sensitive border issues when it comes to accessing services between the two countries, and that needs to be got right. I will raise that matter with my hon. Friends to see whether there is an opportunity for a discussion. Otherwise, of course, it could be considered by the Welsh Grand Committee. I would just say that it is important that we get the financing right, and I encourage the Welsh Assembly Government to work with the Department of Health to set that financing, so that patients can exercise real choice over where they go, either side of the border, in order to access the best services.

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

Wightlink, the largest ferry company serving the Isle of Wight, has recently axed all overnight services on one route and reduced them on others. Although it does not affect tourism, these are lifeline services for islanders. In 2009, a market study found that the threshold to involve the Competition Commission had been reached, but it was decided not to make a referral. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on what alternative remedies might be available?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my hon. Friend has been in correspondence on this matter, because we have discussed it with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I know that he is also in correspondence with the Department for Transport. Without going into detail, let me say that there is no opportunity to intervene over any lack of competition in relation to these services. From the Department for Transport point of view, neither is there a case for a public service obligation. I will ask both Departments to meet him in order to discuss the service as a whole and what the Government’s relationship to it might be.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I will resist the temptation to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to lead a debate on green onesies to show that we are the greenest Government ever. Instead, I would like to ask for a debate on finding a better way to determine issues of conscience, so that such Bills do not have the Government’s fingerprints all over them. If the Government are to propose such Bills, however, they should be introduced in the Queen’s Speech, as has happened for the past 12 years, up until now.

[Mr Lansley]

The Queen’s Speech foreshadows legislation; it always says, among other things:

“Other measures will be laid before you.”

Indeed, in this Session we have introduced a number of Bills, which were desired for a number of reasons, that were not foreshadowed in the Queen’s Speech—the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, the HGV Road User Levy Bill and the Bill relating to infrastructure guarantees —and that will continue to be the case in future.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend may know, climate change week this year is between 4 and 10 March. During the course of Christmas, Devon and Cornwall were badly flooded. May I ask for a debate on climate change during climate change week?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He and other Members might like to discuss this with the Backbench Business Committee. Debates of this character, enabling us to look at such issues, are often more suitable for Back-Bench time rather than Government time, given the way time is now structured in the House; nevertheless, I entirely understand and he quite properly raises the issue with sufficient time for it to be considered.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Staffordshire university has a strong and growing partnership with Gulf college in Oman, as well as universities in Malaysia and China. May we have a debate on how to make the most of the vital partnerships between British universities and universities across the world and perhaps on how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could be involved in that?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am not aware of an opportunity in the business immediately ahead of us for a debate of that kind. However, as he made clear, when we consider the ways in which higher and, indeed, further education are responding and marketing to other countries—including, for example, the simple fact, which one would not believe if one read some of the newspapers, that the number of applications to British universities from overseas this year has increased—I think we have an opportunity to continue pushing forward the trade relationships we have. Indeed, Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are on the Front Bench listening to this, and I know they will take this issue forward as well.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is as concerned as I am about the health and well-being of Members of Parliament and would join me in congratulating the House of Commons on our cycle to work scheme. However, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has told me that MPs are not allowed to participate in the scheme. Will he have the relevant discussions and update the House on allowing right hon. and hon. Members to participate in it?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The technical answer is that the scheme is a salary sacrifice scheme, which under the tax rules is available between employers and employees. As Members of Parliament and their staff are not employed by IPSA, it would not be practical for it to run the scheme. IPSA does, however, operate an interest-free bicycle loan scheme and reimburses Members through expenses when they use bicycles to travel, within the rules of the scheme.

Syria

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

11:32

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

With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on the crisis in Syria—a crisis that is still intensifying.

Some 60,000 Syrians are now believed to have died, 600,000 people have become refugees, 2 million are internally displaced and 4 million are in desperate need. To illustrate the true horror of the conflict, 1,000 civilians were reportedly killed in one six-day period over Christmas. On Christmas day, opposition activists reported that 17 people were executed at a checkpoint in the Damascus suburbs, nine of them from one family. The regime has used Scud missiles to target populated areas and deployed cluster munitions. Entire urban districts have been reduced to rubble in cities such as Homs and Aleppo. I know that the House will join me in expressing our solidarity with millions of courageous Syrian people in the face of this appalling brutality.

We continue to believe that the best way to end the bloodshed and to protect all Syria’s communities is through a political transition. Our country has a moral obligation to help save lives in Syria and a national interest in ensuring that the country provides no haven for terrorist activity. We know that to achieve lasting stability we must work with the Syrian opposition and countries of the region, not try to impose a political settlement from outside, and we are determined that all our actions will uphold UK and international law, and support justice and accountability for the Syrian people themselves.

In the coming weeks we will focus on six principal areas. First, we will intensify our diplomatic efforts to reach a political transition. We are actively supporting the efforts of the UN-Arab League special representative Lakhdar Brahimi, who has travelled to Damascus, and to Moscow for talks with the Russian Government, and who is due to hold trilateral talks with Russia and the United States this week. My ministerial colleagues and I are in regular contact with him and expect to hold further talks with him in London later this month. Our goal remains to persuade Russia and China to join us in putting the full weight of the UN Security Council behind a political transition plan for Syria.

Secondly, we will continue our work to help the Syrian National Coalition to develop its plans for the future of Syria. Since I last updated the House, I have attended the Friends of Syria meeting in Marrakesh, where the US and many other countries followed us in recognising the National Coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and where $150 million was pledged to support the humanitarian effort. The coalition is enlarging its membership to include Christian, Kurdish and other minority communities. At a meeting in Istanbul this week, we saw encouraging signs of the coalition making every effort to broaden its support further and build on its legitimacy, although much work remains to be done.

We are working to strengthen moderate political forces in Syria committed to a democratic future for the country. We have provided £7.4 million of non-lethal support to the Syrian opposition, civil society and human rights defenders, and I can now announce that we will provide an additional £2 million of support, bringing the total to £9.4 million. All our assistance is designed to help to save lives, to mitigate the impact of the conflict or to support the people trying to achieve a free and democratic Syria. It includes solar powered lighting, generators, communication equipment and water purification kits to help opposition groups, as well as satellite communication devices for activists to document human rights violations and abuses so that one day the perpetrators of appalling crimes can be brought to justice.

Our assistance also involves support for local-level administration councils providing services to Syrian people during the conflict. We have given training to more than 300 Syrian journalists who are striving to develop alternative sources of media and freedom of the press in Syria, and we are training activists who are working to create a network of peace-building committees across five cities in Syria. We are also helping the National Coalition to co-ordinate the international humanitarian response, and we have provided a humanitarian adviser to work with it. At all times, we urge the coalition to ensure that all opposition groups meet their commitments on human rights.

Thirdly, we will continue to increase the pressure on the regime to stop the violence. In December, we argued that the EU sanctions regime on Syria, including the arms embargo, should be rolled over for three months until 1 March, rather than for 12 months, so that there would be an earlier review of it. We secured that position. We believed that it was important not to freeze EU policy for a whole year just as a new opposition coalition was being launched and while the conflict was intensifying on the ground.

No decisions have yet been made to change the support that we provide to the Syrian National Coalition or the Syrian people. However, European countries now have the flexibility to consider taking additional steps to try to save lives if there is no progress in the near future. Clearly, the best outcome for the Syrian people would be a diplomatic breakthrough, bringing an end to the bloodshed and establishing a new Syrian Government able to restore stability. However, we must keep open options to help save lives in Syria and to assist opposition groups that are opposed to extremism, if the violence continues. We should send strong signals to Assad that all options are on the table. We will therefore seek to amend the EU sanctions so that the possibility of additional assistance is not closed off.

No one can be sure how the situation in Syria will develop in the coming months. There is no guarantee that Mr Brahimi’s efforts to mediate will be successful. President Assad’s speech last week urged the Syrian people to unite in a “war” against his opponents. Given the regime’s intransigence and brutality, there is a serious risk that the violence will indeed worsen in the coming months. If that happens, the international community’s response will have to be stepped up. So we will not rule out any options to save lives and protect civilians in the absence of a political transition in Syria. We will ensure that our efforts are legal, that they are aimed at saving life and that they support at all times the objective of achieving a political transition and encouraging moderate political forces in Syria; we will keep the House properly informed.

Fourthly, we continue to increase our life-saving humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people. The United Kingdom is the second largest bilateral donor to UN relief efforts, supporting more than 100,000 people across the region with food parcels, blankets and warm clothing. On 21 December, my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary announced a further £15 million in humanitarian aid, bringing our total support to £68.5 million so far. Hon. Members will have seen images of Syrian refugees struggling with rain and cold in refugee camps across the region. The latest £15 million of funding will be used to provide food, clean water, blankets and shelter to help Syrians to cope with the misery of these winter months, as well as medical supplies to treat the sick and wounded since so many Syrian medical facilities have been destroyed, and armoured vehicles to enable humanitarian agencies to deliver aid safely inside the country.

The UN has appealed for $1.5 billion for the first six months of this year. This is the largest ever short-term UN appeal, but it remains seriously underfunded. At the donor conference hosted by Kuwait and the UN Secretary-General later this month, we will again call on other countries to pledge the additional humanitarian aid that is desperately needed.

I pay tribute to the 26 humanitarian workers who have been killed in Syria since the fighting began, and deplore the rise in attacks on medical facilities that are contrary to international law and an affront to basic humanity. We urge all parties to stop the violence and allow humanitarian agencies to deliver assistance safely and without interference, in accordance with international law.

Fifthly, we are continuing detailed planning for how we can help a future Syrian Government deal with the many challenges Syria will face during a transition. This process must be led by the Syrian people, but they will need help from the international community as they repair schools, roads and hospitals destroyed during the conflict, and restart their ravaged economy. Today we are hosting leading members of the Syrian opposition and representatives of 14 countries and international organisations at a Wilton Park conference designed to advance detailed planning of that support, including on political reform, security, institution building and the economy.

Sixthly, we are supporting UN efforts to document and deter human rights abuses in Syria. The Human Rights Council’s commission of inquiry on Syria published its latest report on 20 December. It shows that the human rights violations highlighted in its previous reports are continuing unabated. We will continue to do all we can to support its work, and we are providing specific leadership in efforts to confront rape and sexual violence in Syria. We have deployed experts to the region to provide training in how to respond to reports of sexual violence and to improve the prospect of future investigation and prosecutions—and we will urgently intensify this work.

We are also urging the Syrian National Coalition to commit itself to ensuring justice and accountability for the Syrian people, including by drawing its attention to the right of a future Government in Syria to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court, even though some members of the UN Security Council are blocking that option at present.

So this is our approach: intensifying our efforts to forge agreement at the UN; pursing a political transition on the ground, while ruling out no options to save lives if the situation deteriorates; supporting the opposition and the Syrian people; increasing the pressure on the regime and being prepared to do so in new ways if necessary; working to deter human rights violations and abuses; and planning to help Syria to get back on its feet once the conflict comes to an end. The Syrian people are enduring unimaginable suffering. They are at the heart of this crisis: their future is at stake, and our country and the world must not abandon them.

11:43

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of the statement and I am grateful to him for updating the House this morning.

It is a matter of profound regret that the biggest single change we have seen since we last debated Syria in the House is simply the number of casualties. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, the United Nations estimated on 2 January that the war’s death toll has exceeded 60,000, of whom about half are thought to be civilians, and it predicts that the death toll will increase at a rate of 5,000 a month. The United Nations Arab League envoy Brahimi recently warned that as many as 100,000 people could die in the next year if a way cannot be found to end the country’s civil war. He described the situation as nothing less than the descent of a country into “hell”.

The scale of the suffering is such that an effective set of actions is required, so let me turn to the four substantive points in the Foreign Secretary’s statement. First, on diplomatic efforts to reach a political transition, the continued stalemate in the UN Security Council is beyond regrettable—it is utterly deplorable. Of course the position of the Russians remains central to this impasse, but recent statements by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, have suggested a possible shift of attitudes in Moscow. There is therefore a heavy responsibility not just on Lakhdar Brahimi, but on all P5 countries, including the United Kingdom, to try to break the present logjam. So does the Foreign Secretary accept that, rather than loudly condemning the Russians, a better course would be to talk to them quietly about how common ground can be established on the process of political transition in Syria? Will he tell the House when he last spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov and when he is scheduled to speak to him next about the critical issue of Syria?

Secondly, may I ask about support for the Syrian National Coalition? Any diplomatic support that the Government can offer to the SNC to encourage it to draw up a credible transition plan for Syria is indeed to be welcomed. In that spirit, the Opposition welcome the conference that is taking place in Wilton Park, which is doing just that, and note the additional funding that has been announced today. However, can the Foreign Secretary set out what he believes are, and remain, the principal barriers to unity which have, to date, prevented the Syrian Opposition from uniting on that credible transition plan? We welcomed the Geneva plan that was drawn up last summer, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that, currently, neither side of the conflict in Syria appears to be committed to implementing it? Will he tell the House whether he is still encouraging the SNC to accept the Geneva plan as a basis for transition?

Thirdly, let me turn to the central issue in the statement, the current arms embargo and EU sanctions on Syria more generally. I note all that the Foreign Secretary said with continuing concern. May I urge him to provide more detail on the following matters? Will he set out, as far as he is able, the Government’s latest assessments of the role of al-Qaeda and other extremist organisations now operating in Syria? Given what he said in his statement, does he accept that Syria is currently awash with arms? Does he recognise the grave and continuing difficulty of guaranteeing the end use of weapons supplied to Syria, given the present uncertainty about the identity, intent and, indeed, tactics of some of the rebel forces? Does he accept that it is perfectly possible that, if Europe were to decide to arm the rebel forces, the Russians would simply increase their own supply of arms to the Assad regime? May I also ask him—not least in the light of recent comments by the Foreign Affairs Committee in an important report—what would encourage him to believe that intensifying the conflict would reduce the present appalling level of suffering of the Syrian people?

Finally, let me turn to the humanitarian consequences of the current violence. Last October I visited the Zaatari refugee camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border, one of many such camps that have been set up to house the fast-growing number of refugees who are fleeing the violence in Syria. During my visit, the aid workers to whom I talked warned of the onset of winter and of worsening conditions on the ground. Their worst nightmares have now been realised. Only this week, aid workers in the camp were attacked by refugees after fierce desert winds and torrential rains had swept through and devastated their tents. There are warnings of a major snowstorm later this week, which will bring even deeper misery to those who are already desperate.

The latest figures from the UN Refugee Agency show that 597,240 people have registered or are awaiting registration with the agency in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. The latest reports from the UN state that £620 million of aid is now needed to help Syrian refugees in countries around the middle east, while £312 million was required to help refugees in Jordan alone. Given the Foreign Secretary’s statement this morning that the UN appeal “remains seriously underfunded”, what steps will he and the Prime Minister take to help to secure those additional funds from the international community before the vital meeting that will take place in Kuwait later this month?

The principal responsibility for the appalling suffering being endured by the Syrian people rests, of course, with Assad and his brutish regime. Last week, in his latest speech, he once again demonstrated a truly callous disregard for human life by expressing no real intention of helping to bring the conflict to an end or to take responsibility for its beginning. However, the burden of responsibility on the international community remains a heavy one. The Opposition believe that, rather than directing their efforts towards intensifying the conflict, the British Government should continue to focus on building international agreement around an inclusive post-Assad Syria and meeting immediate humanitarian needs. I ask the Foreign Secretary, not least in his capacity as a distinguished parliamentarian, to guarantee to the House that we will be consulted again before any change is made in the present approach.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which illustrate that there remains a strong degree of unity on this terrible crisis across the House. I reiterate that I will continue to provide regular updates to the House; I think this is the seventh statement I have made on Syria recently. If there were to be any change in Government policy, I would, of course, bring that to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to what Mr Brahimi said about the possibility of 100,000 deaths this year. That underlines the worsening nature of this crisis. It is not just a continuing crisis; it is a worsening crisis. We have to look at everything we do in the light of that. We are doing a great deal, as I set out in my statement, but we must always be open to doing more and be open to ideas for doing more. We approach this issue in that spirit.

The right hon. Gentleman asked questions on four general areas. On the diplomatic situation, he asked, a bit pointedly, why, rather than condemning Russia, we do not talk to the Russians quietly. We do a great deal of talking to them quietly—we do that on a pretty much continuous basis—but that does not mean that we do not give our public views about their votes in the UN Security Council from time to time. I last met the Russian Foreign Minister for a substantial discussion about Syria in Dublin on 6 December, and I have invited him to visit London in the near future, so our contact with the Russians on this issue is pretty continuous. There has not been a substantial change in the Russian position, although there is, perhaps, a greater Russian interest in renewed discussions. The trilateral meeting between Mr Brahimi, the US and the Russians this week is further evidence of that. We will absolutely keep discussing the diplomatic way forward, based on the Geneva communiqué, which we did agree with the Russians. What we have never managed to agree with them is how to implement the Geneva communiqué. We see the wholehearted involvement of Russia, preferably in a UN Security Council resolution, as being required to bring that about. Russia has not changed its position on that, but we will keep working on it.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about support for the opposition and the barriers to unity. Opposition groups have grown up almost independently of each other, and have not been able to communicate very well on the ground in Syria, and it is therefore difficult to create a united opposition, particularly when some are inside the country and others are outside the country, but the National Coalition is doing a very good job of that—in my judgment, the best job that can be done. There have been well-known difficulties at many stages in bringing in Kurdish representatives, but that has been agreed. It has been agreed that the Kurds will take up a vice-presidency of the National Coalition, but the Kurds themselves have not yet agreed who will fill that position, which serves to illustrate the difficulties involved. The National Coalition is by far the best attempt we have seen so far to bring together responsible opposition forces in Syria. That is why we have chosen to recognise it and work with it.

In the right hon. Gentleman’s third set of questions he asked for more detail, but given the chaotic situation in Syria, it is not possible to quantify accurately the number of extremist, or al-Qaeda supporting, fighters in Syria. In the opinion of opposition leaders, they represent a small minority of what is perhaps a six-figure number of opposition fighters, but it is simply not possible to quantify the exact number. In light of any presence of extremists, however, it is important that we try to bring this situation to a conclusion as soon as possible and support moderate political forces. That is what much of our efforts are directed at.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the many hazards in supplying arms into a conflict area. I stress that we have made no change to our policy in this regard. We are trying to build flexibility into the EU position. It is also important to note that the arms embargo as it currently stands prohibits the supply to opposition groups of such items as body armour, helmets and certain types of communications equipment, so its definition of “arms” is quite broad. That must be borne in mind in any future flexibility that we might build in.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked, rightly, about what steps we are taking to encourage other countries to provide more humanitarian aid, as we have done. The Secretary of State for International Development and I are very busily engaged on that. I discussed it with the Arab League secretary-general, Nabil el-Araby, on Monday and I am raising it in all my bilateral meetings with European and Arab countries to try to build up, ahead of the Kuwait meeting, a greater degree of donations. I hope that I have given full answers to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has said that the British Government accept a moral obligation to do what we can to save lives in Syria. Against that background, I warmly welcome his statement that the Government are now willing to “seek to amend the EU sanctions so that the possibility of additional assistance is not closed off.” Will he please confirm that that does not exclude the possibility that the Government may, at some stage, be willing to consider providing military equipment that could be used in a defensive way to save lives? He is aware—indeed he referred to the fact—that ballistic missiles had been used by the Syrian Government on several occasions this week against targets in the north. As NATO has agreed to provide and is currently deploying Patriot anti-missile batteries to protect Turkey, would it not be appropriate to consider providing similar support to Syrians, given that these anti-missile batteries cannot kill people—they can only save lives and therefore would be consistent with the objectives of Her Majesty’s Government?

[Mr Hague]

As I have said, we are not taking any options off the table; we are not excluding any option, given the worsening situation and given that no resolution to it is in sight at the moment. I also stress, as I did to the shadow Foreign Secretary, that we have not changed the British Government’s policy on what we will supply, but we are trying to build in the flexibility for the future. The direct answer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s question is therefore that we have not excluded that possibility; indeed, as I was pointing out in my answer to the shadow Foreign Secretary, there are many different categories of military equipment, many of which fall short of being equipment that has a lethal use. Large categories of equipment can be used to save lives and cannot be used offensively. So we have not excluded that possibility and we must keep all options open as the situation develops.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his use of terms such as “flexibility” and leaving “all options” on the table could be a prelude to western-backed military intervention, and that that would be disastrous? The cross-party support for his condemnation of the barbarity of Assad’s regime and for political transition would disappear, because this is a civil war. This is not a barbarous dictator versus his people; it is an increasingly deepening civil war and it will not be resolved by military action.

[Mr Hague]

Let us be clear that it is a barbarous dictator oppressing his own people. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to argue with something that I have not said; there was no mention in my statement of military intervention, nor any advocacy of that. He is setting himself up to argue with a position that the Government have not taken. [Interruption.] Yes, I am not ruling out options, but I do not think we can do so when we are facing a situation where a six-figure number of people might die this year. It would not be responsible to do that as we do not know how the situation will develop. So I am keeping our options open, but the dangers and drawbacks of military intervention are well understood in the House and in the Government.

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

Notwithstanding the terrible brutality taking place in Syria, may I ask my right hon. Friend to exercise the utmost restraint and caution in any extension of policy covered by the expression “all options” are on the table? I do so, first, because this is a civil war, and intervention in civil wars has a long history of failure; and secondly, because there is a risk that we will have a proxy war between Russia and NATO fought out on the streets of Syria by Syrians.

[Mr Hague]

I am very conscious of the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend and I hope that he will agree on the position we have taken. Although we are trying to help in the mass of ways I set out in my statement, we are cautious, in the light of all the lessons of history. As I was pointing out to the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), I am not standing here advocating military intervention. So we keep our options open, but that is not some sinister disguise for a change in Government policy; if there were to be a change, I would bring it to the House.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has spelt it out very clearly that by the end of the year about 100,000 people might be dead in Syria. Will he confirm that although Security Council authorisation to use force for humanitarian purposes is now widely accepted, force can also be justified on the grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity without a UN Security Council resolution as long as certain criteria are met, such as that it is objectively clear that there is no practical alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved?

[Mr Hague]

I agree with the right hon. Lady, as that is our broad understanding of international law. There is, of course, a further argument about the wisdom of such intervention, but in a situation of overwhelming humanitarian need with no clear alternative a strong legal case can be made.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has confirmed that from 1 March EU countries will have more room to manoeuvre. Does he agree that the composition of the opposition forces has now become less obvious and that their long-term intentions are less certain? Will he be very careful about who exactly he is helping before providing any extra assistance?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, of course, and we are very careful about that anyway. Part of the justification for giving the help we have given so far to the Syrian opposition is to strengthen the moderate forces and people who want to see a free and democratic Syria. Let me be clear that the flexibility I have talked about will be in place from 1 March—the whole sanctions regime on Syria has been rolled over only until then. We have not yet agreed in the EU whether or how we will amend the sanctions regime; those discussions will be going on over the next few weeks. The opportunity for flexibility has now been built in by our requesting a three-month roll-over.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I very much welcome what the Secretary of State says about Britain’s role in delivering humanitarian aid. I also welcome what he says about the European Union. On that point, and on the need to seek a political solution, will he endorse what the EU has done thus far, or does he have any other view?

[Mr Hague]

The European Union has also been engaged in trying to promote a political solution. For instance, the EU High Representative attended the Geneva talks in June. It is realistic, however, to point out that the diplomatic focus is on the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the Security Council as a whole. It is the work of nation states on the Security Council to try to settle our differences. In that respect, the EU has a more limited role, but there is a strong degree of unity across the European Union and the External Action Service strongly supports the actions we have taken.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Even though the Government are being so helpful to the Syrian opposition, have we sought to extract an undertaking from them that any store of chemical weapons discovered will be handed over for destruction so that it cannot possibly fall into the hands of al-Qaeda?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we have very much made that point and my hon. Friend is correct to bring it up. We have made it very clear to the National Coalition that we would expect any future Government of Syria to join and to adhere to the chemical weapons convention and the biological and toxin weapons convention. In all the conversations we have had with the national coalition, its horror of the chemical and biological weapons that all the evidence suggests have been amassed by the Assad regime is very clear. I hope that one thing that will happen in a future Syria will be the destruction and disposal of those weapons.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The United States has said that there is a red line if the Assad regime uses chemical weapons, but when the Foreign Secretary meets the Secretary of State designate, Senator John Kerry, as I think he will shortly, will he impress on the US that red lines should relate not just to chemical weapon use, but to the other crimes being carried out by the Assad regime?

[Mr Hague]

Yes. Our horror at the prospect of the use of chemical weapons should in no way mitigate or minimise our horror at the brutality across the board of the Assad regime. The United States has so far adopted very similar policies to the ones I set out to the House and is also engaged in the humanitarian relief and the provision of similar types of equipment to the Syrian Opposition. Of course I will discuss this in great detail with Senator Kerry over the coming weeks. Nevertheless, it was quite right that the United States—and we joined them in this—sent a particularly strong message to the regime about the use of chemical weapons. It may be that the communication of such a strong message helped to inhibit the use for now of such weapons, so it is right that we send a particularly powerful message on that.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

With your generosity, Mr Speaker, and that of the Foreign Secretary, may I ask that we ensure that the resolve not to abandon the civilians on the borders of Syria is matched by similar resolve in respect of civilians on the borders of another country, Burma? I have just received an e-mail from a source in Kachin state that says:

“Five or six fighter jets and helicopter gunships are attacking the areas around Laiza every day. . . IDPs and innocent civilians are terrified . . . they have totally destroyed the peace building process.”

[Mr Hague]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing us to go a little wide of the situation in Syria—thousands of miles away. Of course we are deeply concerned about continuing conflicts in Burma, which are at the top of the list of what we raise with the Burmese Government; the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who is sitting next to me, was there recently having those discussions. I will look at the report that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) brings up and we will continue to communicate our views very clearly to the Burmese Government.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

There is a strong Syrian diaspora in the United Kingdom, including in my constituency. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the number of refugees who may want to see Britain as their ultimate destination, and what discussions is he having with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure a sympathetic response to any requests?

[Mr Hague]

The emphasis is very much on helping to look after refugees where they have arrived, as they clearly have in vast numbers on the borders of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq, and some of them are now in Egypt. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any guarantee about any individuals or any particular number that would be able to come to the United Kingdom, but of course as the situation continues to deteriorate and the numbers continue to mount we will have to keep that under review.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In view of the absence of unanimity among the permanent members of the Security Council, as a result of which instructions to the International Criminal Court are hamstrung, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a key responsibility of whatever regime follows in Syria to indict alleged war criminals and bring them to trial, rather than pass them to the International Criminal Court?

[Mr Hague]

A future Syrian Government can do either, as has been the position in Libya. It will be open to them to refer the situation in their own country to the International Criminal Court. It will also be open to them to pursue justice in their own country. We would express the hope that if they do that, they will act in line with international norms and human rights standards, but they can do either. It is up to them to decide in the future.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Of the 600,000 refugees who fled Syria, 200,000 have ended up in Turkey. Given that last year 100,000 people crossed the border between Turkey and Greece, what specific help is being given to those two countries to deal with the problem?

[Mr Hague]

Officially, the latest figure for Turkey is 150,000, but there will be other people who are not caught by the official figures, so it is on an enormous scale. Turkey receives some of the assistance I have described. Our assistance is delivered primarily through international humanitarian agencies, which are working in all countries concerned, so it goes through that form. That includes Turkey, as it asked for international assistance. I am not aware of Greece asking for particular assistance. In many such cases people go to live with families, rather than in camps. Wherever assistance is needed, that of course is what the money we are providing is for.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly welcome the approach of cautious flexibility that the Foreign Secretary has set out but, in the interests of a peaceful and diplomatic outcome to the conflict, are we encouraging or facilitating any communications between the Syrian National Coalition and Russia, perhaps with a view to reassuring the Russians about any future security concerns that might be preventing them playing a more responsible part in resolving the conflict?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the cautious flexibility, or the flexible caution, whichever he said—either could be applied. We are in favour of all concerned discussing these matters with each other. There has been a growing reluctance among Syrian opposition groups to discuss things with Russia because they are so appalled by its policy towards Syria, but we absolutely encourage discussions between the National Coalition and the Russian Government. That ought to reassure Russia, but no such discussions with the opposition over the past 23 months, since the crisis began, have yet produced any change in the Russian position.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. In it, he stressed support for “the flexibility to consider taking additional steps to try to save lives if there is no progress in the near future.” Given the concerns we have heard about the potential for military intervention, can he be absolutely clear about what those additional steps might be?

[Mr Hague]

The broad answer is no, because the flexibility is designed to allow us to take a variety of steps in future, and we have not decided on any of them. The reason I stress that and make it clear to the House is that we secured a change in the duration of the EU sanctions regime when it came up for renewal in December. It was due to be renewed for 12 months, but we and France, in particular, argued that it should be renewed for only three months so that we can reconsider our policies at that stage. That was to provide flexibility, not because we have changed what we have decided to do. I pointed out in response to earlier questions that the arms embargo of course covers weapons that would have lethal effect, but it also covers body armour, helmets and certain types of communication equipment, so it is easy to see that there might be a case for greater flexibility.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has committed us to continued assistance for those opposition groups opposed to extremism. Plainly, there are opposition groups, both within the coalition and operating on the ground, that we have difficulty with because of their vision for Syria’s future. Will he share with the House his assessment of the balance of power within opposition forces between those whose vision for the future we would welcome and those whose vision we would be uncomfortable with?

[Mr Hague]

As I have mentioned, it is impossible from outside Syria, or even from inside, to quantify that balance precisely. It is the contention of leading figures in the National Coalition that the great majority of those taking part in the fighting, and those opposing the Assad regime peacefully, want a free future for their country and their people, want rid of the regime and do not have an ideological or religious fundamental agenda. Certainly, acquaintance with the leading figures of the National Coalition corroborates that view. Their sincere contention is to bring about a free and democratic Syria. The longer the conflict goes on, the greater the opportunity for extremist groups to establish themselves. I do not want to offer any quantification of that, but the balance of opinion among opposition forces is still, thankfully, on what we would call the moderate side.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I hope that the Patriot missiles and the American, Dutch and German troops operating them will deter further attacks and incursions from Syria into Turkey. Will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House under whose command the missiles are and in what circumstances an order could be given to use them?

[Mr Hague]

The missiles are positioned in Turkey back from the border and are there to protect Turkish airspace. They are clearly not part of any intervention in Syria. They are not designed to do that and will not be positioned to do that. They are NATO equipment, so of course all the arrangements follow logically from that. It is a NATO deployment.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

With a population of 4 million, Lebanon is a small but very important neighbour to Syria, which has a population of 22 million. Lebanon is struggling to cope with the 200,000 refugees who have crossed its border. Is the Foreign Secretary on red alert, or amber alert, for the spread of the civil war across the border into Lebanon, and what humanitarian assistance can we offer its Government?

[Mr Hague]

We are very much on alert and active in assisting Lebanon. Over recent months our ambassador there has done an excellent job in supporting political stability on the ground in difficult circumstances. Of course, part of our humanitarian aid goes to Lebanon and we are ready to increase it if necessary. We have also doubled our assistance to the Lebanese armed forces to help them cope with this difficult situation.

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

There are reports that at the end of November the findings of Israeli intelligence led the United States, Russia and China to put pressure on President Assad to cease his programme of arming missiles with chemical weapons. Does the Foreign Secretary think that programme will resume?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady knows that I cannot comment on intelligence matters in the House, but I can say that at the end of November the United States did issue the warning we discussed earlier, and indeed I brought it up in the House as well. As I made clear at the time, we had a reason to do that and to give a specific warning against the use of chemical weapons. I know that, due to the history in relation to Iraq, whenever Governments assert that there is no doubt about the existence of chemical or other weapons, people are entitled to their scepticism, but there can be no doubt about the existence of such weapons in Syria or that the Assad regime has deliberately manufactured and stockpiled large quantities of such weapons. If there was any chance that the Assad regime would survive in future, I am sure that it would continue that manufacturing and stockpiling.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary rightly talks about chemical and biological weapons and will be aware how fearful the Syrian people are that the Assad regime could use those weapons against them. Is there currently any assistance the UK could provide to Syrian groups to detect or guard against the use of chemical or biological weapons?

[Mr Hague]

That is a good point, and it illustrates one of the complexities of the EU arms embargo. We are currently unable to supply chemical detection equipment to opposition groups in Syria because of the terms of the embargo. That is a good illustration of an area where flexibility might be needed in future.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I have a constituent whose wife and children are stuck in Damascus and unable to get out due to the dangers. What help can the Foreign Office give to help them get out? That raises the wider question of humanitarian access and medical aid to people inside Syria who are stuck in the conflict. What progress is being made to help people inside the country?

[Mr Hague]

Progress has been made in some areas, but probably more than half the 4 million people in desperate need cannot currently be reached with humanitarian or medical assistance. That is why I reiterated the appeal to all concerned in Syria to allow peaceful humanitarian access. This is a major aspect of the crisis. Of course, there is nothing that we can do directly to change that other than to work with the agencies and the National Coalition and to call on the regime to allow such access.

On the hon. Lady’s point about her constituents, I will have a look at the specific case if she would like to give me the details. However, it is quite a long time now—about a year and a half ago—since we asked all British nationals to leave Syria. Our embassy had to be closed for safety reasons a long time ago. The Hungarians then very generously took over our consular responsibilities, but they have had to close for safety reasons as well. She can therefore understand that our ability to assist people on the ground in Damascus is now virtually non-existent.

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

What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that the minority Christians, many of whom have given their acquiescence to the Government, would not face persecution if Assad’s regime were to fall in whole or in part?

[Mr Hague]

I am glad to say that Christian activists have joined in the opposition National Coalition. We stress at all times to the National Coalition the importance of not only maintaining the inclusion of Christian, Kurdish and other minority communities but constantly reiterating its commitment to a country where in future all those people have their rights acknowledged and can prosper and live together peacefully. That is very much the declared intention of the National Coalition, and we must hold it to it in future years.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary give an absolute guarantee that prior to the commitment of any UK troops there will be a debate and a vote in this House on the lines of the precedent of 2003? He has said that he believes in the UK punching above our weight. Does not that often mean spending beyond our interests and dying beyond our responsibilities?

[Mr Hague]

I say no to the second part of the question—I do not believe that it means that. It means many things. It means our country having a presence and an activity in the world of which our 260 diplomatic posts and our huge development programme are good examples. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of those things, which are aspects of our punching above our weight in the world.

On the commitment of forces, I stress again that I have not said anything today, or in any statement, advocating the commitment of UK forces. In any circumstances, in Syria or elsewhere, we now have a well-established convention in this House of which I personally am a strong advocate and in which the Government as a whole believe very strongly. So, yes, the hon. Gentleman can have a broad assurance about that.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Given the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, given that their use would affect not only Syria but the neighbouring countries, and given that the regime, which it appears is about to fall, is more likely to use those weapons, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be right in that circumstance for NATO to take preventive action under the responsibility to protect?

[Mr Hague]

It is right for us to have contingency plans. It is very difficult to lay down in advance what we would do in every situation, but we have sent a very strong warning to the regime about chemical weapons. The United States has led that warning. I cannot go into the details of the military contingency plans that we or NATO have to deal with a wide variety of situations, but I can assure my hon. Friend that our contingency plans do deal with a wide variety of situations.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary, specifically to what he said about the UK’s relief efforts with regard to the 100,000 people to whom we are giving food parcels. He will know that the UN is warning that it can reach only 1.5 million of the estimated 2.5 million Syrians in need of food aid. What conversations has he had with leaders of the surrounding Arab countries to help UN agencies to get improved access to those in need of assistance?

[Mr Hague]

We have many such conversations; for instance, I discussed it with the Foreign Minister of Jordan yesterday afternoon. The problem is not about the willingness of the neighbouring Arab countries. We should pay tribute to them, because they very generously bear a great burden having welcomed into their countries hundreds of thousands of people. There are many people not only in the camps but staying in families and communities in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. I absolutely pay tribute to those countries. They are not the problem; the problem is the attitude of the Assad regime, whose forces do not permit humanitarian access to large parts of the country, and the fighting in many other areas that makes it hard to get access. That is one reason why, as I said, we are providing funding for armoured vehicles that can carry humanitarian assistance into certain areas so that aid workers can provide it with a greater degree of safety. We have to keep working on this with the National Coalition, keep the international pressure on the regime, and encourage countries globally to provide the necessary funding.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Returning to the UN situation, when I spoke about Syria to China’s ambassador in London yesterday, he reiterated his country’s opposition to imposing regime change. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it will be harder for Russia and China to establish good relations with the Syrian people and their next Government the longer they stand in the way of hastening an end to their painful struggle?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I very much agree with that. There is a diplomatic price in Syria and in the region for Russia and China in blocking, as they have, what we have tried to do at the UN Security Council. What we are calling for at the UN is not regime change but a transitional Government who can include members of the current regime and members of the opposition on the basis of mutual consent; of course, we understand that not to mean Assad and his immediate acolytes. China and Russia have agreed to that in our Geneva discussions, but they have never agreed to the UN Security Council putting its full weight behind a chapter VII resolution with the threat of consequences to bring it about. That is the leap that they have not been willing to make. I encourage all hon. Members to point out these things to diplomats of those countries, as the hon. Gentleman has been doing.

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

In previous statements the Foreign Secretary has identified specific money for work to do with sexual violence and the victims of sexual violence. In today’s statement, he said that we will intensify this work as a matter of urgency. Are further resources and funding going into that particular piece of work?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, they are. We have done specific work on this on the borders of Jordan. I have now assembled a team of 70 experts to work globally on an initiative to prevent sexual violence, including doctors, lawyers, people skilled in documenting such abuses, psychologists and so on. Last month we deployed part of the team to the Syrian borders; I did not announce their location for their own safety. There will be further such deployments of British experts. Following that first trial deployment, I expect to be able to deploy them further in the region in the coming months.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary tell me whether the United Kingdom is able to supply body armour, not necessarily to the armed groups but to the innocent Syrian civilians who are being caught in the crossfire?

[Mr Hague]

This is another very relevant point in our discussions about the arms embargo. We are not able to supply body armour at the moment. We supply the equipment that I set out in the statement, but body armour is another item that is caught by most definitions of the arms embargo as it stands. When we talk about flexibility in future, we have to bear it in mind that an arms embargo on the opposition covers equipment of this nature as well as lethal equipment.

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

Given what the Secretary of State has said about the difficulty of getting emergency aid to the millions who need it, should not the UK Government and the world community give a high priority to putting pressure on all those who have influence over parties in the Syrian conflict to allow that humanitarian aid to access places in need? Russia is an obvious example, but we also have influence and we should use it in this conflict.

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. We are constantly trying to do that and that includes the pressure that we put on Russia. A major point is that the Friends of Syria—more than 100 countries—have taken up trying to put that pressure together, but on this subject, as on so many others, no amount of international pressure has succeeded in changing the brutal attitude of the Assad regime, which sees any international presence as a threat to it, even when it is an international effort to deliver humanitarian aid.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Clearly, the Assad regime is dependent on Russian and Chinese diplomatic support, but what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the possible logistical support and weapon rearmament provided by Iran to the Assad regime? If that is the case, what can be done to sever that link?

[Mr Hague]

There is a good deal of overwhelming evidence, as I have said in the House previously, of the tangible assistance given by Iran to the regime. It is another aspect of the deeply unhelpful policies pursued by Iran in the region. That assistance is likely to have included, in recent times, financial assistance to the regime, but also people to assist in the conflict itself and military equipment. We do everything we can to inhibit the supply of such equipment. I have taken up several times with the Iraqi Government the issue of the overfly over Iraq of Iranian flights into Syria. The Iraqi Government have given assurances about that and, indeed, have searched some flights in recent months. We will continue to take up that issue with Iraq and, indeed, try to expose Iran’s participation in the brutal oppression of the Syrian people.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary, as a former historian, has already alluded to the need to learn the lessons of history. May I press him a little more on what steps the Government are taking to make sure that the lessons from Libya for transition to the future are learned in Syria?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we must learn those lessons. The situations are, of course, different. We must always respect the differences between these countries. The more that the national coalition can create a consensus among opposition groups about the basis, philosophy and principles on which they would like to see the country governed, the more successful Syria will be in future. That is more important than deciding which individuals will occupy which posts. It is important that they are in contact with and have influence over as many as possible of the armed groups and militias that support the opposition cause, because in Libya different groups fighting in different parts of the country did not have strong enough links for the subsequent government of the country.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of reports that President Assad has offered to exchange 2,000 captured opposition personnel in return for 43 Iranian military experts and that Iran has also given him missiles. In light of this imbalance of resources, what further support can the United Kingdom and other international partners give to the opposition?

[Mr Hague]

That relates to all the issues that we have been addressing over the past hour. We are giving the further, non-lethal practical support that I mentioned in my statement and we are trying to secure within the EU the flexibility to change or develop that as the situation changes in the future, for the reasons I have given. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) brought up the very good example of chemical detection equipment. We will have to look at those things if the situation continues to worsen.

We have all seen the reports of an exchange, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) is right to bring that up. The fact that there are such large numbers of Iranian military experts in Syria whose release the Iranians have had to negotiate illustrates the point we have just been making about Iran’s involvement.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to continue to speak to his international counterparts about the humanitarian assistance needed. Given that this terrible situation will only get worse because of the first winter storms hitting many of the refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere, will he undertake to speak to his international counterparts with a degree of urgency? The Foreign Secretary has also said that we are the second largest donor to the UN programmes at present. Does that suggest that richer countries are not putting in as much as they should, and is he confident that the UN target will be met?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there is urgency to this matter. As I have mentioned, we are already speaking—we have been doing so for some time—to other countries about the need to supply more financial assistance to the humanitarian agencies involved, and the United Kingdom succeeds in setting a very good example. That is part of our daily discussions with other nations from all parts of the world. It is not possible to say, given the scale of the appeal for $1.5 billion and the world’s poor track record so far in meeting it, that we are confident that it will be met, but there will be an intense effort over the coming weeks. My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary is heavily engaged in it and the hon. Gentleman can be assured that we will not waste any opportunity to encourage other countries to play their part.

Events in Northern Ireland

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

12:36

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about recent events in Northern Ireland.

Before updating the House on the protests and disorder, I wish to report on a serious attempted terrorist attack. On 30 December an officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland discovered an improvised explosive device attached to the underneath of his car shortly before he was due to drive his wife and family to Sunday lunch. The IED was viable and were it not for the alertness of the officer in checking his car, it is highly likely that he and his family would all have lost their lives.

This despicable attack bears the hallmarks of the so-called dissident republicans and looks to be the latest example of the relentless attempts of these groupings to try to murder police officers. It underlines the need for continued vigilance and the Government will continue to do everything they can to help the PSNI combat the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland.

The House should also be aware that two individuals have been charged in relation to the murder of Prison Officer David Black.

Turning to the disturbances in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland, since I last reported to the House on 11 December protests over the flying of the Union flag at Belfast city hall have continued, with only sporadic respite over Christmas. Although many of these protests have been peaceful, even they have seen roads blocked and daily life disrupted. A significant number of protests have led to serious disorder, mainly concentrated in east Belfast.

Although, thankfully, there were no significant public order incidents last night, the violence during the preceding six days saw masonry, bricks, fireworks and petrol bombs thrown at police, and in once instance shots were fired. Police vehicles have been attacked with sledge hammers and, in total, 66 police officers have been injured since the protests first began. On 5 and 7 January, water cannon and AEP rounds—attenuating energy projectiles—were discharged. Threats and intimidation against elected representatives continue, with the office of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) still the subject of daily intimidation.

The intimidation and violence is unacceptable and intolerable. The Government condemn those responsible in the strongest possible terms. We reiterate our full support for the Chief Constable and his officers in their courageous attempts to maintain law and order. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the bravery and professionalism of PSNI officers, who put their personal safety on the line every day to keep people in Northern Ireland safe and secure.

According to the Chief Constable, senior individual members of the Ulster Volunteer Force are involved in orchestrating the violence, although in his view this is not being sanctioned by the leadership of the group.

Since 3 December, 107 people have been arrested and 82 charged with various offences. The perpetrators of this violence should be in no doubt that, as the Chief Constable made clear on Monday, they will face the full rigour of the law. Those who continue to organise these protests and engage in violence need to ask themselves what they think they are achieving. The idea that hurling bricks at police officers is somehow defending the Union flag or protecting Britishness is incomprehensible. These people are not defending our national flag; they are dishonouring our national flag and our country. What is more, they are being reckless with the peace process and all that it has delivered.

The damage that those people are inflicting on Northern Ireland’s economy must be considerable. Huge efforts have been made in recent years to project a modern, confident, outward-looking Northern Ireland that is a great place to do business. However, the pictures of riots and disorder that are being beamed around the world make it far harder to compete in the global race for inward investment. Jobs and livelihoods are under threat. It is therefore essential that the protests and violence stop now.

Since the disturbances began, I have been in regular contact with the Chief Constable, the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Justice Minister and other political leaders. The Northern Ireland political parties need to work together to find a way forward. It should not be impossible to find a solution which sees decisions on flags made in a way that respects different views and takes into account the different traditions and identities present in today’s Northern Ireland. For that to happen, the issue needs to come off the streets to allow local politicians and community leaders the space to sit round a table and engage in constructive dialogue.

I have used recent weeks to highlight the urgent need to make progress in addressing the underlying divisions within the community in Northern Ireland, which can make decisions on issues such as flags so fraught with tension. On many occasions, Northern Ireland’s political leaders have expressed their firm commitment to building a shared society, free from sectarian division. That is a theme to which I and my predecessor, along with the Prime Minister, have returned many times.

So much has been achieved in the 20 years since the peace process really got under way. The overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland can lead their lives with a normality and freedom from fear that would have been impossible back in the dark days of the troubles. However, we all need to acknowledge that the process is not finished, and the stability delivered by the Belfast agreement should never be taken for granted.

For some, sectarian divisions remain deeply entrenched and it is time for bold moves by Northern Ireland’s political leadership to address them. We need to build a genuinely shared future for everyone in Northern Ireland. It will not be easy, but Northern Ireland’s political leaders have already shown themselves capable of taking difficult decisions in order to make progress on many matters. They have fixed tougher problems than the ones that we face today. I believe that they can rise to this challenge as they have to so many others over the past two decades. The UK Government stand ready to work with them and support their efforts to deliver a better and more cohesive future for Northern Ireland.

12:42

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. I join her in condemning the disgraceful violence that we have seen over the past weeks. The serious rioting, attacks on the police and threats against elected representatives, including the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), have been appalling. As the Secretary of State has said, the hon. Lady has behaved throughout with dignity and courage.

This violence would not be acceptable in London, Cardiff or Edinburgh, and it is not acceptable in Belfast. People in Northern Ireland need to know that the UK Government are giving this matter the highest priority and that Northern Ireland matters. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State what discussions she has had with the Prime Minister about the recent violence and what discussions he has had or intends to have with Northern Ireland Ministers about what might be done to support them further?

It was welcome that the Secretary of State updated the House on the attempt by dissident republican terrorists to murder a police officer and his family over Christmas, which was sickening. As she said, that reminds us of the ongoing threat from those who wish to destroy the peace and progress. It is good that the police have made arrests in relation to David Black’s murder. That sends out the clear message that the perpetrators of these crimes will be brought to justice wherever possible.

The public disorder and violence that we have seen on the streets began when the decision was taken by Belfast city council that the Union flag should be flown only on designated days. Will the Secretary of State join me in saying that in a democracy one cannot try to change decisions by the use of force, and that those who break the law can expect to be dealt with using the full force of the law? Violence can never be allowed to win.

As the Secretary of State said, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has shown exceptional bravery and courage, even at great personal cost, with 66 officers having been injured already. Let us all follow her in commending the police for their professionalism and dedication to duty.

The Chief Constable has stated clearly that senior figures from the Ulster Volunteer Force are involved in much of the violence. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of loyalist paramilitary involvement in the disturbances? Does she agree that attacks by paramilitaries on the police and elected politicians are matters of national security? Is she confident that the PSNI has the resources to continue its current level of commitment without impacting on its other policing duties?

Today, I was due to visit a project in Belfast that helps young people back to work. I have seen in communities across Northern Ireland, both nationalist and Unionist, initiatives to ensure that every young person has hope, that every community looks to the future, that jobs are created and that everything possible is done to overcome the sectarianism and divisions of the past. The responsibility for much of that is devolved, but will the Secretary of State ensure that the consequences of all her Government’s economic and social policies are fully considered with respect to Northern Ireland? Deprivation, disengagement and alienation are a challenge in any community, but if that challenge is not met in Northern Ireland, it can have dangerous consequences. As the Secretary of State said, we need to ensure that Britishness and Irishness are fully respected in Northern Ireland.

Will the Secretary of State join me in saying that the scenes that we have seen on the TV do not represent the real Northern Ireland, and that we must do all that we can to ensure that positive messages about the new Northern Ireland are seen and heard across the world? There has been real progress over recent years in Northern Ireland. It is not easy and sometimes there will be setbacks. As I have said, we need to deal with the alienation that we see in some of the communities of Northern Ireland, and particularly in some of the most deprived communities. However, the setbacks must not be allowed to define Northern Ireland and its people or to derail the progress that has been made. Too much has been achieved for that and we must not allow the clock to be turned back.

[Mrs Villiers]

If you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, I will answer at some length, given the number of important matters that have been raised.

Like the shadow Secretary of State, I pay tribute to the courage and dignity of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). It is intolerable that she and so many other elected representatives from Northern Ireland have been subject to death threats and intimidation.

I welcome, once again, the constructive and bipartisan tone of the Opposition on the matters that we are discussing. I wholeheartedly agree with the shadow Secretary of State that such violence is not acceptable on the streets of the United Kingdom, whether in Edinburgh, London, Cardiff, Manchester or Belfast. It is intolerable and deeply damaging.

The shadow Secretary of State asked for assurances about contacts with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is being briefed every day and I have had three face-to-face meetings with him on this matter, including one this morning. I am keeping in regular touch with him. He retains a close personal interest in Northern Ireland because he knows what a great place it is and what huge opportunities it has. That is one reason why it was his personal decision to take the G8 to Northern Ireland later this year. He is keeping a very close eye on all that is going on. I should also mention that I have briefed the Irish Government on these serious matters.

Like the shadow Secretary of State I think that although the headlines focus on the disorder, we should never forget that the ongoing terrorist threat is very serious. One risk associated with such disorder is that police officers are brought into vulnerable situations where they might become targets for dissident republican attacks. I also agree with the shadow Secretary of State that democratic decisions cannot be changed by violence. The history of Northern Ireland over the past 50 years demonstrates that it is sitting round a table, talking, engaging in a dialogue, and considering compromises and an inclusive way to resolve issues that lead to progress, rather than resorting to violence and rioting.

The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the role of the UVF, which we have discussed on a number of occasions. I have also discussed the issue with the Chief Constable and other PSNI officers. It is of concern that individual loyalist paramilitaries are involved in these matters, and crucial that the police do all they can to ensure the full rigour of the law is brought to bear on anyone engaging in violent conflicts, whether or not they are members of paramilitary organisations. As I have said, the Chief Constable’s view is that the orchestration is not coming from the leadership of the UVF, and that is consistent with my view.

Whether these issues raise matters of national security is a point I discussed with the Chief Constable and Drew Harris yesterday afternoon. In essence, there is always an overlap at the border between matters of national security and other areas of policing, but I assure the House that the PSNI and its partner agencies such as the Security Service are doing all they can to combat that threat. They are certainly not letting the borderline between national security and other matters get in the way of an effective response. However these incidents are categorised or classified, it is vital that the police bring to bear every means available to combat these disgraceful scenes of violence. On PSNI resources, the Chief Constable is confident that he has the capacity to deal with the disorder, but having resources tied up dealing with these riots leaves fewer resources for the community policing that is so important for confidence building and protecting people from crime.

Like the shadow Secretary of State I welcome the positive initiatives under way in Northern Ireland to give young people hope, and I reassure him that all the Government’s economic policies are thoroughly tested for their impact on low-income and disadvantaged communities. The reality is that it becomes much more difficult to fix the kinds of problems that may concern those involved in these protests—educational under- achievement, health care, jobs—if there is rioting on the streets. It is counter-productive for protesters to engage in violence; they are doing no service to the causes they espouse but instead making it more difficult for the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver a safe and prosperous Northern Ireland.

Like the shadow Secretary of State I believe that a key part of the Belfast agreement is that both Britishness and Irishness are fully respected as different identities in Northern Ireland. The success of the past 20 years demonstrates that those who define themselves as British and those who define themselves as Irish can co-exist peacefully in Northern Ireland and work constructively together.

Finally, I welcome the opportunity to emphasise the positive about Northern Ireland, and whatever has happened over the past six weeks should not blind us to the fact that it is a great place in which to live and invest. It could be a fantastic year for Northern Ireland with Derry/Londonderry already taking its place as a successful UK city of culture, the G8, and the world police and fire games—one of the biggest international sporting events in the world. All those things are an opportunity to project a modern, forward-looking Northern Ireland. We need to get back to that because the protests are undermining what could be a fantastic year for Northern Ireland.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of her statement and for keeping me, as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, informed about what has been going on in Northern Ireland. I also join her in paying tribute to the dedication and bravery of the PSNI which, along with its predecessor the Royal Ulster Constabulary, has saved Northern Ireland from sinking into even deeper problems over many years.

We have heard it said that certain people in Northern Ireland have not reaped the benefits of the peace process. Although I agree there is a lot of work to do in that respect, does the Secretary of State agree that the underperformance of the economy in Northern Ireland is largely a result of violence over many years, the likes of which we have again witnessed over the past few weeks? Is not the way forward, as she has said, for both communities to sit round the table and discuss these matters, rather than carrying out terrible acts such as the murder of prison officers and the attempted murder of police officers?

[Mrs Villiers]

I very much agree with the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Many of the economic difficulties in Northern Ireland have their roots in the violence of the past. That is why it is so frustrating that rioting and violence today is undermining what have been incredibly successful efforts by the First and Deputy First Minister to attract inward investment. If any of the rioters are concerned about prosperity and jobs, going out on the streets and hurling bricks at police officers is the last thing that will improve that situation. Such behaviour is guaranteed to deter investors from coming and creating jobs.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

I say to the Secretary of State that condemning the deplorable violence is the easy bit, and will she do two further things? First, given her national security responsibilities will she engage directly with the loyalist groups and be willing to talk even to those who may be on the fringes of the violence—as we did to positive effect in 2006-07—who feel excluded from the political process? Secondly, will she come up with a package of resources to tackle the deplorable level of youth unemployment? Some of the young republicans—and in recent times the young loyalists—involved in this violent activity have no stake in the society. That does not justify their violence but it does explain why it is happening.

[Mrs Villiers]

I certainly think that part of the way forward is an inclusive dialogue that must be led by Northern Ireland’s political parties. Indeed, as part of our work I and the Minister of State engage in regular conversations and listen to the concerns of people across the community. Addressing youth unemployment is one of the UK Government’s highest priorities. Employment figures across the UK have been improving over recent weeks but there is still a very significant problem, particularly in Northern Ireland. The issue continues to be one of our highest priorities and we will continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive on ways to grapple with it. One reason David Cameron chose to bring the G8 to Northern Ireland was to demonstrate his commitment and attract inward investment.

[Mr Speaker]

I know the Secretary of State was referring to the Prime Minister. We are clear.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The whole House agrees that the violence and intimidation taking place in Northern Ireland is totally counter-productive and undermines the very cause the protesters are protesting about. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is right that the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should fly above city halls, town halls and all municipal buildings throughout the United Kingdom, as it does above the British Parliament?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that these violent protests are counter-productive and that those engaged in violence are undermining the cause they wish to support. It is important that decisions on flags are taken in an inclusive way with respect for different perspectives and points of view. Arguably, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, which is why I have been encouraging the leadership of the political parties to come together and engage in dialogue on the right solution for flags and symbols in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I am proud to be British and proud of our Union flag but the violence in Northern Ireland, whether from loyalists or dissident republicans, grieves me greatly. We have been unequivocal in our condemnation of all such violence and of attacks or threats against elected representatives. Before Christmas, I, my wife and my children were threatened with being shot because of the stand that I take in Northern Ireland. This House will stand with all Members from Northern Ireland who continue to uphold the standards and principles of democracy.

I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain): we need more than condemnation. The Good Friday agreement and the St Andrews agreement were about developing consensus politics in Northern Ireland. With respect, the decision of Belfast city council to remove the Union flag was not about consensus politics; in fact, it was a reversion to the very thing the nationalists say they detest—majority rule. We need to build a consensus, and Unionists must be included in such sensitive issues. If we exclude one community, we get not consensus but confrontation, which we need to move away from.

A shared future must include everyone—not just one side of the community, but both sides—and it must respect the identity and tradition of both sides. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to support Northern Ireland politicians, because I believe the Government have a role to play in that. Politics is the only answer. As the right hon. Member for Neath has said, we need to consider initiatives to tackle social deprivation in areas where there is a disconnect.

The DUP will provide leadership—the First Minister has stated that—but we need a level playing field. Right now, many people in Northern Ireland feel that the peace process has become skewed, and we need to correct that imbalance.

[Mrs Villiers]

It is a great regret and concern that the right hon. Gentleman and his family have been subjected to those threats and I pass on my sympathies to them. He is right that the way forward is to seek consensus, and one that respects the different identities present in modern Northern Ireland. I fully agree with him on the importance of the UK Government working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on initiatives to regenerate and provide the economic prosperity that is vital to underpin the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. That is particularly important in deprived communities across Northern Ireland. I am happy to continue the work I have been doing since being appointed on how we can boost the Northern Ireland economy and attract jobs and inward investment from around the world.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and join her in deploring the attempted murder on 30 December by dissident republican groups.

I am conscious of some of the figures the Secretary of State mentioned: there have been more than 100 arrests and 66 police officers have been injured. We should imagine the impact in England, Scotland or Wales if 66 police officers were injured over a period of about a month. There would be absolute uproar, so my appreciation and respect for the PSNI is second to none.

I should like to emphasise the flag issue. I have been doing research in the past few weeks. Interestingly, I discovered that, in the city of Lisburn, all the political parties have reached an agreement, led by the DUP and the Ulster Unionist party—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I very gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I extended a degree of latitude to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson)—that was a matter of discretion—but this is a statement to which the responses must be brief questions. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman is now approaching his question mark.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your reminder—I am approaching my question. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is incredibly important at this time that the political parties provide leadership and maturity, and that the leading political party in Northern Ireland needs to go that one step further in providing that leadership by accepting that democracy trumps everything?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is very important for the political parties to provide leadership in Northern Ireland and I am confident that they are doing so. They take this matter seriously. The events are a wake-up call to all of us—a reminder that we need to address the underlying causes of the tension, and to find ways in which to bring different parts of the community together to build mutual understanding, so that it becomes easier to resolve flags and symbols issues without provoking such distressing scenes on our streets.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I join the Secretary of State in condemning the attempted murder of a police officer and his wife and family in my constituency by dissident republicans. I also join her and the shadow Secretary of State in commending the police for their professionalism under extreme pressure during the loyalist disturbances and riots, and for holding the line on behalf of the whole community of Northern Ireland between the rule of law and descent into chaos.

The PSNI has assessed that senior members of the UVF in my constituency are involved in orchestrating that rioting and are participating in it. Combined with the dissident republican threat, we find ourselves in a grave situation in the general peace process. What role does the Secretary of State believe the UK Government can have in tackling not only that violent threat, but the deep-rooted sectarianism that is rampant in Northern Ireland, in trying to create a more stable foundation on which to build for the future? Does she agree that the only sustainable, lasting and enduring solutions in Northern Ireland will be found by our sharing responsibility and taking things forward on behalf of the whole community, and that such solutions will not be found in partisan and tribal options?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Yes, it remains a grave concern that individual members of the UVF are involved in the violence—I discussed that with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister yesterday. Indeed, I passed on some names that had been provided to me on the matter.

On the dissident republican threat, the riots create dangers and vulnerabilities for the PSNI that it would not otherwise have, as I have said. The increased presence of members of DR organisations in nationalist areas such as Short Strand is gravely worrying. The hon. Lady is right that the threat is real—those who are engaging in the violence are being reckless with the peace process.

I also agree with the hon. Lady that it is important for the UK Government to be engaged in efforts to help the Northern Ireland Executive to make progress on a shared future. That is why such progress has been the focus of pretty much everything I have said as Secretary of State, why my predecessor returned to it again and again, and why the Prime Minister highlights it every time he visits Northern Ireland. It is vital that we see progress, and we are keen to work with the Northern Ireland Executive on those matters.

I agree with the hon. Lady that sharing responsibility and building consensus is the way forward on sensitive issues such as flags, rather than seeking to change things through violence.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s words on the PSNI and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long)?

Two very important points have been made by the shadow Secretary of State and the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). This is not about flags, but about something much more profound. When visiting Northern Ireland over the new year period, I spoke with residents in the Sandy Row and Shore road areas of Belfast. There is a profound sense of alienation in the deprivation of those communities, and a real sense that they are not being listened to by those they have elected. Will the Secretary of State join me in urging all elected politicians in Northern Ireland—Members of the Assembly, councillors and Members of Parliament—to get into those communities and listen, and will she listen to what they tell her about what we can do to improve the conditions in those communities?

[Mrs Villiers]

Certainly, in any democracy, it is vital for elected representatives to engage at the grass roots with members of the community who feel alienated. I urge all those who feel a sense of detachment from the political process to come forward. I imagine that many people who are rioting on the streets are probably not even registered to vote. There are many ways for them to express their political views and to support Britishness, and many ways to support the flying of the Union flag, that are peaceful and constructive, and that will work. There is a way forward. There is openness and an opportunity for those who genuinely care about our national flag to get involved in a broad conversation on how we resolve those issues. I encourage them to do so.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

While recognising the social problems that unfortunately continue to exist in Northern Ireland, is it not necessary to make it perfectly clear that there can be no excuse whatever for violence or intimidation from either side? Is it not the case that the large majority of people in Northern Ireland support the peace settlement, which was started by John Major and negotiated successfully, following a change of Government, by Tony Blair and Mo Mowlam? Moreover, as a result of those negotiations, articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution were removed—the very articles that caused such annoyance and complaints from the Unionist community over many years.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We should not forget everything that has been achieved by the peace process. He is also right that there is no excuse for violence, regardless of social background. It is important to recognise that although there are problems with sectarian division in Northern Ireland, there are many people who no longer share those sectarian views and have left them behind. We need to ensure that that becomes more broadly based across the community.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The House is still in shock about the death of the prison officer David Black. The second incident on 30 December sends us again into shock. It is an appalling regression to what might have happened in the past, and let us hope that we can get a grip on it. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there has been evidence of weapons either being seen or used in the riots in Belfast?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said in my statement, in one incident shots were fired at the police. My understanding is that the rounds were blank, but I am afraid that there is a ballistic threat in relation to these riots.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Further to the point articulated by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, on education, and as one who, as a former student leader, worked with the National Union of Students-Union of Students in Ireland as long ago as the late ’90s, it is clear there is a generation of young male Protestants who have not achieved their full education potential, and have been educated in crumbling schools with no great drive to go on to further and higher education. Will the Secretary of State listen to the cross-party pleas to help the Executive to invest more in education to give all parts of the community in Northern Ireland a real future?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that educational opportunities are key to addressing some underlying problems. This is an issue I have discussed with a number of community groups, for example, a great organisation called the Resurgam Trust in the Lisburn area. There is a crucial opportunity for the early intervention programmes that have proved so successful in many parts of the United Kingdom. It is not for the UK Government to dictate to the Executive how much of a priority they give to that, but we are very supportive of the work that is being done. He is right that this is a key way to improve the current situation.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her well-thought-through statement. Has she made an assessment on whether this is localised to Belfast, or is it a broader issue? May I also ask her what can we do to ensure better school results in Northern Ireland? I understand that there is success in some places, but that in others only 3% or 4% of children end up getting five GCSEs or more.

[Mrs Villiers]

The Northern Ireland education system has significant contrasts. For many children, it is spectacularly successful, and, of course, it has two world-class universities. However, there is a concern about those for whom it is not delivering and a concern about educational underachievement. As I said, this is a high priority for the Northern Ireland Executive and the Education Minister, and the UK Government continue to support them through the block grant they give to Northern Ireland. I am very happy to work with the Northern Ireland Executive on the good work they are doing to improve the current situation.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). There have been a lot of glib phrases about a shared future. Will the Secretary of State define for the House what she means by a shared future? Many people from the majority Unionist community feel bewildered that the British Government and the British Opposition are campaigning to keep Scotland part of the United Kingdom, while in Northern Ireland we are talking about a shared future. Why are we not talking about a shared future in Scotland, and why are we not putting the same resources and support into keeping Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom?

[Mrs Villiers]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, and I am sure she will agree with me, the question of Northern Ireland’s future in the Union is settled on the basis of consent. The Government are not neutral on the Union and we believe that Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom is safer than it has been for many years. Regardless of that, it is crucial to find ways to unite the community in Northern Ireland. It is true that there remain sectarian divisions. On the subject of Scotland, I know that there are indeed some concerns about sectarianism there, although it does not manifest itself in the same ways as it does in Northern Ireland. It is true that many people in Northern Ireland have left those sectarian divisions behind, but not everyone has. We need to give children the opportunity to participate in shared education, and look at ways to have space that can be genuinely lived in, occupied and used by both parts of the community. In particular, I single out some of the education initiatives in County Fermanagh, which have demonstrated that it is possible to give children the opportunity to be educated alongside those from other backgrounds in a successful way. Those are the sorts of initiatives we need to deliver.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and join her in praising the PSNI for all it is doing to maintain peace in the Province of Northern Ireland. Does she agree, as we try to continue the peace process and move towards reconciliation, that all political leaders should be very careful in their use of language and what they put into print, to ensure that they do not create a climate that leads to a feeling of justification for other measures that people unfortunately take that are beyond the bounds of political debate?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that it is important that inflammatory language is avoided, because we can see the potentially disastrous consequences to which it can lead.

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

I join the Secretary of State in praising the bravery of PSNI officers, particularly in recent days and nights. She is right, and the Prime Minister was right yesterday, to underline the vital responsibility that every politician in Northern Ireland has to map out a shared future to which everybody, including disaffected loyalist communities, can feel they belong. One area that she retains responsibility for is the work of the Parades Commission. Given that we are just weeks away from the start of this year’s parading season, will she update the House on recent discussions she has had with members of the commission about the role that they can play, alongside police and community leaders, to make sure that parades, and indeed legitimate protests, are properly stewarded and responsibly organised?

[Mrs Villiers]

I met the whole Parades Commission just a few days ago to discuss its thoughts on the forthcoming year. Technically speaking, I think the parading season begins in mid-February. The commission takes its role very seriously and there was some progress last year on public order issues related to parading. It is focused on doing the best it can to make the right decisions that are balanced and fair, and to take into account competing considerations. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Gentleman, and members of his Government, in building peace and calling for the same kind of shared future that the Prime Minister has focused on so strongly during his term of office.

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

Further to the decision of Belfast city council on which days the Union flag may be flown, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that all citizens of Northern Ireland feel that they can express their views, including by the ballot box, rather than being disengaged as so many seem to be?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is important for this House to send out a clear signal that there are a whole range of ways that people can get involved in the political process, whether they express their views by e-mailing their MP, using social media sites, or coming along to public meetings. That is the way to influence the outcome of important debates on the future of Northern Ireland—not by chucking bricks at police officers.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is my understanding that when Scotland hosted the G8, additional policing resources were not provided. I think the Secretary of State said that they would be provided in Northern Ireland this year—can she confirm that point? Will she also confirm whether the Chief Constable has asked for additional resources to deal with the ongoing violence?

[Mrs Villiers]

The Chief Constable has not asked for additional resources to deal with the ongoing violence, but he is making a careful assessment of the impact of the violence on his resources. The resources needed to police the G8 summit are under consideration, and we are working with colleagues in the Home Office and the PSNI to see what might be possible. It is also important to emphasise that the £200 million deployed by the Government to assist the security efforts in Northern Ireland have played an important part during the riots, not least because it has funded the vehicles that have come under attack—the capital renewal of the PSNI’s vehicle stock was partly funded by the extra £200 million.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The saddest aspect of this senseless violence is the potential deterrent effect on business investment and tourism. Will my hon. Friend update the House on conversations she has had with business leaders, retailers and other potential employers on improving the Northern Ireland economy, increasing investment and creating new jobs?

[Mrs Villiers]

Virtually every day I am in Northern Ireland, I am in those kinds of discussions, because it is crucial that Northern Ireland’s economy recovers. We saw some fabulous, successful events last year, including the Titanic centenary events and the Queen’s visit, and, as I have said, this year again we have opportunities to showcase all that is good about Northern Ireland. I am enthusiastically taking part in that, and I know that the Prime Minister will be doing so as well during his forthcoming visits to Northern Ireland, including for the G8. We are confident that we can host a successful and secure G8 summit, despite the recent disorder.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I was struck during the statement by the sense of disengagement in certain parts of the community, but I have been less clear about the Secretary of State’s strategic vision for dealing with that. Will she be a bit more specific about the steps that will be taken to try and engage some of these communities? Simply asking them to come forward is not a solution. Will she tell us specifically what she is doing, with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, to engage some of these communities?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said, I have regular discussions with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Today sees the first meeting of the Unionist forum, which will be engaging with members of the Unionist community, and, as I have said, I and the Minister of State are focused on wide and inclusive engagement on all the challenges facing Northern Ireland. It is important for the Northern Ireland Executive to continue the work to build a shared future and to engage with disaffected communities. A key way to do that is by focusing on educational under-achievement and the sorts of social problems we have debated this morning.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the PSNI, which has behaved with professionalism and bravery in the face of intense provocation and attacks over recent weeks. I expect it will be almost impossible to put a cost on the economic and reputational damage to Northern Ireland, but has she been able yet to estimate the policing costs so far of the recent protests and disorder?

[Mrs Villiers]

Various unofficial figures are circulating, and it is deeply regrettable that resources that could be going into visible community policing and confidence building are being taken up by rioting. As I said, the Chief Constable is looking carefully at the implications of the situation for his resources and will keep me updated.

Backbench Business

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

Dementia

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

After Mr Burstow has finished his contribution, I will announce whether there is to be a time limit, and, if there is, what it is.

13:23

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the timely opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House this most important of issues. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her commitment to, and interest in, these issues and her determination to ensure this debate took place today, and the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who chairs the all-party group on dementia. Together, the three of us argued the case for this debate to come to the House, and I look forward to their contributions. They are both passionate about this issue.

Earlier this week, I was at an event at which the daughter of an 86-year-old woman with dementia said some things that spoke to what this debate is all about. She talked about being a full-time carer for her mother and about the agonising decision to move her mother into a care home. She said that although death and moving house were probably the two most traumatic events in our lives, dementia was a never-ending bereavement and that the daily trauma had robbed her and her mother of life. Such true-life experiences, many more of which I hope will come out in today’s debate, make it plain why dementia is now the disease most feared by the over-55s.

My interest in the issue goes back well over a decade and was started by a report that I read into the inappropriate and, in some cases almost abusive, use of anti-psychotic medication. Even then, the side effects were beginning to be well documented and understood, so it is no wonder that at the time these anti-psychotics were labelled as a chemical cosh. As the evidence has mounted over the last decade or so of the increased risk of stroke as a result of these drugs and of the fact that they can shorten lives, I was prompted to ask endless parliamentary questions to Ministers about the matter and to produce a series of reports. At times, it felt a bit like banging my head against a brick wall.

I am pleased to say that the wall has started to tumble and that things have begun to change, and, in the last two and a half years, we have seen a 52% reduction in the prescription of these drugs to individuals receiving them for inappropriate reasons. As a result, lives have been saved and lives have been changed. But—and it is an important but—the Prime Minister’s progress report on his dementia challenge made it clear that there is no room for complacency and that there is still too much regional variation in the use of these drugs to manage people with dementia and too much prescribing. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the next steps will be, when the next audit, which has been committed to, will take place and be published and what other steps he thinks will be necessary to ensure that we achieve the goal of a two-thirds reduction in prescribing.

I pay tribute to Clare Gerada, president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, who was instrumental in getting the co-operation of GPs for the necessary surveys to understand prescribing practice and who has led some of the change in culture and behaviour in this area. I also pay tribute to the last Labour Government—not something I always do—for producing the first national dementia strategy. It was one of the first in the world, in fact, and should be recognised as an important contribution.

When I became care services Minister in May 2010, I had to make a judgment: did we carry on the road laid out in that strategy, or did we start again? I took the view that we should use the strategy as the foundation for future action, and I am pleased to say that, as a result, the Government have done a lot to deliver on the strategy and go beyond it, through the creation of a dementia action alliance, bringing many different organisations together in a common cause, through clearer commissioning guidance, through collaboration with the Design Council and through funding the Life Story Network to run training courses. The latter is a small thing, but it makes a big, big difference: by telling our stories and understanding who we are, we start to look beyond the diagnosis of dementia, and, as a result, we start to treat the person, not just the disease.

Furthermore, the audit of dementia services has given us a handle on where different parts of the country have reached in developing their services and has led to new incentives in hospitals to support best practice and the much-valued—I hope—analytical tools that will help to drive up diagnosis rates, which are still far too low. Following the research call made just over a year ago, I was delighted to see just last week that £20 million of funding has now gone to new dementia research projects. That far exceeds what I expected at the time as a Minister and certainly what many officials in the Department expected. It really is fantastic news.

The Prime Minister’s dementia challenge has put dementia centre stage, promoting dementia-friendly communities and raising the bar for early diagnosis and quality of care, along with ensuring vital dementia research too. There is a lot happening and it can happen back in our constituencies as well. All of us have an opportunity—and, I believe, a responsibility—to challenge our local services to do more to become more dementia-friendly and ensure that they learn the lessons from best practice. However, there are some questions that the Minister needs to answer about what comes next. The current dementia strategy runs its course in 2014. What comes next? In my view, there has to be a successor strategy—one that is perhaps different from the current strategy in a number of ways, building on the work being done as a result of the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge.

That challenge is a challenge to the whole of Whitehall, not just the Department of Health. Every Department should be a catalyst for action on dementia within its sphere of responsibilities. Indeed, just before Christmas I tabled a series of parliamentary questions to try to establish what each Department was doing to support the dementia challenge. The answers I received were highly variable. Not all Departments seem to have clocked the fact that they could materially do something to make a difference in their sphere of responsibilities. I hope we can pick up on what the Prime Minister said about this being a challenge that cuts right across society, as well as ensuring that it is picked up and understood right across government. Any new strategy needs to embed dementia-friendly thinking right across Whitehall.

We cannot have a debate such as this and not talk about carers. It is important to stress and value the role that family carers play. That is why I was pleased to see recently that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has launched a consultation on new indicators in the quality and outcomes framework for identifying carers of people with dementia. That is fantastic, but what about all the carers who do not happen to be caring for someone with dementia? On this occasion I think it is wrong to single out one disease. I hope that others will make that comment in the consultation too. The most recent research by the Carers Trust into the NHS and carers’ breaks continues to make depressing reading, however. Too much of the NHS is still ignoring carers and not doing enough to passport the money that this Government have committed to carers’ breaks and make them a reality. As the NHS increasingly wakes up to the big challenge of supporting people with dementia and other long-term health conditions, it needs to wake up to its role in supporting carers too.

I have already mentioned that I was pleased to see the increased research funding that is coming through. I was delighted in 2010 when the coalition programme included a commitment to dementia research. That is a commitment that I lobbied the then Liberal Democrat health spokesman—now the Minister on the Front Bench—to include in our manifesto. Although there has been progress—with a road map now setting the direction of travel, a challenge group bringing various players together and a commitment to double research spending—I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated as a Minister by what I felt to be a poverty of ambition when measured against the burden of disease that dementia represents. We are not yet doing enough—we do not yet have the critical mass—to reach the scale and pace necessary to gain the understanding and insights that we need to make the breakthroughs. The £20 million from the research call is fantastic and I hope it will make a difference, but we still have lessons to learn from the journey made by the cancer research movement. I believe the dementia research challenge group itself needs to be challenged more. We need a long-term plan for dementia research and a sustained increase in funding for at least the next decade. This is about a common endeavour—a collaboration, as it were—between the research funders and the research community, so that we make a concerted effort to expand our knowledge of this disease, to diagnose and treat it and, ultimately, to understand and defeat it.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend, but dementia is clearly not an English disease; rather, it is an international threat. Is there not scope for massive international collaboration on what is an issue confronting all nations?

[Paul Burstow]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Yes, there is scope for that; indeed, many research organisations in this field are already collaborating internationally. However, as a country with a very reputable research tradition, it is important that we should be in the vanguard of that research and put in place the necessary infrastructure to drive it forward.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and welcome his very good introduction to this debate. I would make the same point about research within the UK. Post devolution, we often tend to look at it in terms of the different nations and regions in the UK. We should be sharing the best expertise and best practice right across the nations, because 800 of my constituents have been diagnosed—I suspect that there are many more who have not and they, too, need the very best assistance and support.

[Paul Burstow]

One of the great things about devolution is that we can try out different things in different jurisdictions, but it is great only if we learn from that by taking the best and using it elsewhere. I therefore agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that that is an important part of this debate. The ability to exchange and learn—and, yes, sometimes reject things that others are doing—is important.

My final point is about reform. I hope this year might be a tipping point for dementia. Reform of our broken care and support system has never felt closer. For people with dementia and the families who care for them, it cannot come soon enough. When the Prime Minister launched the dementia challenge back in March last year, he acknowledged the catastrophic costs that some people incur as a result of drawing the card in the lottery of life that says “Dementia”. He said:

“We are determined to do the right thing by these people”.

A dementia diagnosis is traumatic enough, without the knowledge that care costs can often spiral out of control as the disease progresses. While care financing is left unreformed, people with dementia face the prospect of losing both who they are and everything they have ever worked for.

I therefore very much welcome the news in Monday’s mid-term progress report that the Government are to press ahead with a cap and increased means test, and the confirmation that the House received on Tuesday from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that the necessary legislation will be enacted in the lifetime of this Parliament. In my capacity as Chair of the parliamentary inquiry into the draft Care and Support Bill, let me tell the Minister that the Committee has made it clear to me—and I absolutely agree—that we expect as much detail as possible on any new clauses or other changes that will flow from the introduction of a capped cost system into the legislation, so that we can do the House the service that we have been asked to perform, which is to report on and scrutinise the provisions and help the Government to introduce the best possible legislation to Parliament.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

Let me confirm to my right hon. Friend that I want to do everything I can to ensure that the Committee is as informed as possible, so that it can do the important scrutiny work that it is charged with doing. Let me also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that he did as my predecessor to push the dementia debate forward and make substantial progress.

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and look forward to that collaborative approach to the Committee’s work.

I want to end by quoting from an e-mail I received recently. Hon. Members might be aware that I made some comments last week about one way in which I thought this policy change might be paid for. That generated quite a lot of responses; this is one of the ones I think I can quote in the House. It says:

“Tonight I am sitting on my own in the kitchen of our family home surrounded by a lifetime of mum’s possessions, all full of memories from certain times of our lives, while mum is in a care home blissfully (and thankfully) ignorant of my turmoil.

This has to be the lowest point in my life.

Not only coming to terms with the complexities both mentally and physically of dementia, realising I’ve lost my mum even though she’s still here, but stumbling through the bureaucratic minefield of trying to obtain funding and the emotional pressure of raising money by selling off, in effect, mum’s ‘life’.”

That is really what this debate is about. It is about people’s lives and how we can make them better. It is about how we can make the terrible journey through dementia as good as it possibly can be, and how we can secure the common good of having the right services at the right time. I look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ contributions to the debate.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are going to be brave—or foolish—and start without a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, but it would be helpful if Members aimed to speak for 10 to 12 minutes. Anything beyond that would not be helpful.

13:40

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). In my capacity as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia—the right hon. Gentleman elevated me in his speech; our group is incredibly well led by Baroness Sally Greengross—I want to pay tribute to his work in this field. I appreciated his personal drive on this issue; it has made a big difference. I should like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for this debate. I should also like to thank all the Members here today. This is a fantastically good turn-out for a one-line Whip, Back-Bench business debate on a Thursday afternoon, and it indicates just how deeply people feel about this issue. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) has been a tremendous help on the all-party group, and I am delighted to be vice-chair alongside her. Her personal drive and commitment have made a big difference.

Nearly 1 million people will be living with dementia by 2020, and the issue now touches the lives of virtually every family in Britain. It is a big issue for the NHS, but it is also a big issue for all the public services. I entirely endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s point that we have to join up the services right across Whitehall if we are going to make the progress that we need to make.

Ten years ago, when I was a Health Minister, it is fair to say that dementia was not at the top of the agenda for Ministers or for the NHS. As ever, there were more pressing issues, such as cancer, heart disease, waiting lists, maternity services—the list goes on. The voices raising the issue of dementia, and of care for older people more generally, were not heard as clearly then as, thankfully, they are today. This is now a massive challenge facing all of us, and I believe that increasing pressure from the public has helped to focus the minds of politicians and practitioners on what can and should be done to support those with dementia and, crucially, the people who care for them.

I also want to depart from normal practice and pay a warm tribute to the Prime Minister. He has put his personal weight behind this issue, and I know from having been a Minister that having the Prime Minister behind a project can give it momentum and get the system moving. It can provide a kick-start and a catalyst. I want to say a genuine thank you to the Prime Minister on this issue. That does not mean that there is not much more to do, and there are certainly concerns about ongoing funding issues, but having the Prime Minister say, “This is my challenge; I am behind it” will get things moving in the system.

Like most people, I got involved in this issue because someone I love has dementia. It is my mum. Over the past five years, I have seen and experienced the impact of that on her and on my dad, who, at the age of 83, is still her full-time carer. I want to raise three issues today. I want to talk about diagnosis, support in the community and the research challenge that we face.

My mum’s diagnosis was absolutely appalling. She had been having problems with her memory for about a year and a half and, like many people, she thought that it was just because she was getting older that she could not remember day-to-day details. However, when she could not remember the day of the week and when she started constantly to repeat herself, we as a family thought that she would benefit from a bit of expert advice.

Mum’s GP was not bad. He referred her to the mental health team for older people. She was just 70 at the time. What happened after that, however, was absolutely terrible. My mum and dad received a visit from a local psychiatrist whom they had never met before. She sat herself down on the settee without any formalities and proceeded to ask my mum 10 questions about the day, the date and who the Prime Minister was—I can think of lots of people who would not have known who the Prime Minister was—and after just a few minutes, announced to my mum and dad that it was very clear that my mum had Alzheimer’s. As Members can imagine, they were stunned and upset. They had no idea what that meant for them or what the future might hold. They were frightened and bewildered.

That was just the kind of brutal diagnosis that we used to hear about in relation to cancer sufferers, but here it was happening to the people I love. Suffice it to say that, after a formal complaint, we did not see that psychiatrist again, but the incident brought home to me how many people in those circumstances are subject to such hurtful and damaging insensitivity. Better dementia diagnosis has to be a priority. Yes, this is about earlier diagnosis, but it is also about sensitivity, understanding and finding the right circumstances in which to make a diagnosis that will fundamentally affect people’s lives.

Diagnosis rates in this country are low and incredibly varied. In general, just over 40% of people with dementia receive a formal diagnosis. The lowest rate is 26%, in Dorset, and the highest is nearly 70%, in Belfast. There must be a reason for such a dramatic variation. We have made little progress in recent years towards driving up diagnosis rates, yet diagnosis is key, because without it a person cannot gain access to the support services and the help that they need.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Is it not part of the problem that many GPs are anxious not to diagnose dementia because they feel frustrated that they do not know what to do following such a diagnosis? They do not know what to offer the patient, and there seems to be an inclination to avoid that frustration by not making a diagnosis of dementia at all.

[Hazel Blears]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, the recent all-party group inquiry into diagnosis revealed exactly that situation, which is a real concern. Many GPs are uncomfortable about making a diagnosis of dementia. They sometimes feel that such a diagnosis is pointless if the necessary drug treatments or wraparound care and support services are not available. Increasing the confidence of GPs at that point to enable them to make a diagnosis is of fundamental importance.

The figures on diagnosis are quite stunning. Only half the GPs questioned said that they had sufficient training in this area, and a third of them believed that a lack of access to drug treatments was a barrier to early diagnosis. Almost a third were not confident about making a diagnosis of dementia, and only a third felt that they had had enough training to go through the diagnosis process. Unless we tackle that, we will not get the increase in diagnosis that the Prime Minister and all of us want.

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

I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Lady has said. She mentioned that Belfast had a high rate of diagnosis, at 70%. The figure in my constituency is around 36%. During her inquiry, was there any attempt to establish why best practice or prevailing factors could not be transferred and learned across the spectrum, in order to improve the situation?

[Hazel Blears]

Yes, there was. The all-party group had an interesting presentation from the Scottish Health Department. Diagnosis rates in Scotland are very high indeed, and we learned that the highly organised, managed and focused system there was driving up diagnosis. It is driven, to some extent, from the centre, and I know that that is not always popular these days, but the drive from the centre out to the GPs is really making a difference. I think that there is room for us to adopt a more driven process—it need not necessarily be more centralised—in which GPs are more accountable and in which they report back on rates of diagnosis. There is much more that we can do in that regard.

Diagnosis is a problem, but once a diagnosis has been made, the availability of support in the community becomes relevant. There are many problems in that area. Our inquiry revealed that many carers felt that nothing happened after the diagnosis, because there was no help or support available. In my area in Salford, we are lucky. We have one of the 10 national demonstration projects established under the national dementia strategy in 2009, and we are developing some really innovative services in the community. I should perhaps declare an interest: my mum attends the centre two days a week, and I sit on the strategic board that drives the process there. I have seen that when people are really committed to such projects, they can make a huge difference.

Our centre is the result of a partnership between the local authority and the Humphrey Booth charity, which has existed in Salford since the year 1600. It is a marvellous example of people working together. The centre is known as the Poppy centre, and its facilities include a dementia singing group, on a Wednesday, which attracts 150 people. That is an incredible resource. The centre also offers day centre services, art work, music, personal tailored care, a dementia café for when friends and family drop in, living history, hairdressing and hand massage. It is a wonderful place, staffed by brilliant people.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend and other Members because I cannot stay for the whole debate. The lesson I have learned from her expertise and from the evidence I have heard about Salford on this and other occasions is that we cannot think in the old way about how we help people with dementia; we have to be creative and provide the best range of services possible.

[Hazel Blears]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are at the beginning of the kind of innovative care that she talks about. One thing we need to do is to get more young people and more young clinicians involved in this area, because that is how we will see innovation coming through.

We have a brilliant centre in Salford run by the manager Sue Skeer. There is also Sue Smyth and Nicola Fletcher, and users and carers are on our board. Margaret and Fred Pickering are an inspiration: Fred has dementia, Margaret is his carer and the whole of our practice is driven by users and carers at the centre. We are lucky, but many places have nothing like the Poppy day centre to support them.

We want to make Salford a dementia-friendly community and to make sure that transport, housing, leisure and local shops are all aware of the issues around dementia. My local university in Salford is setting up a dementia centre—a collaboration between the department of the built environment, including architects, and the department of social care. Design is being looked at really seriously. A marvellous Italian Professor Ricardo Codinhoto and a wonderful nurse, Natalie Yates-Bolton have inaugurated not just the design centre at Salford university, but now a European collaboration so that we will have an international design network on how we can make dementia-friendly communities work.

My question to the Minister on dementia-friendly communities, which we hope to be in Salford and which York, Plymouth and other places are pursuing, is: what resources have the Government committed to support the work of these communities, and how will it be sustained in the long term? We can push on, but we need a resource to make it happen. Yesterday, I met Duncan Selbie, the new director of Public Health England, who is going to make dementia a national priority for public health, so there really is commitment and energy behind all this. I want to hear from the Government what they can do to help.

Let me briefly cover my second theme—I have accepted two interventions—which is about the research challenge. I met the Wellcome Trust this week, and I was hugely encouraged by its willingness to put serious research funding into this area. It is looking not just at clinical research, which it might have done in the past, but at research on “living well with dementia”, recognising the importance of a holistic approach. I was impressed, too, when I met David Lynn and Dr John Williams. They acknowledged the difficulty of this area because there is so much that we still do not know about the brain. Nevertheless, despite the failure of the recent clinical trials, the data from them could prove very useful in taking us forward to the next steps, which we hope will help us find drugs that will at least slow down or delay the onset of Alzheimer’s. What everyone who has Alzheimer’s wants is a cure; they are desperate to get some progress here.

If we have a really big push on research, I feel that progress could be made. Our scientists are some of the best in the world in this area, yet for every six scientists working on cancer, only one works on dementia. Only 2.5% of the Government’s research budget goes to dementia, with 25% going to cancer. We should look at the progress made in cancer over the last 20 or 30 years; I do not want to wait another 25 or 30 years to make the same progress for the hundreds of thousands of people who are suffering from dementia now. The Government really must press on.

There are many people out there who want to help us. Just this week, the Daily Mail featured a long article about the possible benefits of coconut oil and the work done on that at Oxford. I have no idea whether that is likely to help people. It has helped some families, but we can see from that the absolute desperation people have to try to find something that can help the life of their loved one. Research is thus a huge challenge, as is help in the community.

I want to express some concerns about where we are at the moment. It is a time of great change in the health service. We are moving from primary care trusts to clinical commissioning groups, and it could be a time of instability. I am worried about the expertise—or lack of it—in the clinical commissioning groups when it comes to commissioning for something as complex as dementia. I want every CCG to have a lead for dementia, developing expertise and knowledge so that they know how to get the best from the money available. I would like to hear the Minister say that he wants to see a dementia lead in every CCG.

My final point is about the resources available to us. Over the last three years, my local authority has faced cuts of £876,000—30% of the adult social care budget. I know the Government will say that they have put £1 billion back in and that £1 billion has been lost, but when the budget is not ring-fenced, it can easily get spent on other issues. It is virtually impossible for councils to meet their targets without looking at the adult social care budget, which is 40% of their overall expenditure. That is why we can see day centres closing. They are an essential support network, providing a lifeline for carers, yet they are being cut. I am very worried indeed—not just about local authority cuts, but about buddying services provided by Age Concern. These voluntary and third-sector groups, so essential to people, are now quite fragile.

I am sure that the future funding of social care is going to be discussed. I make a plea: please may we have the cap at a level that helps the majority of families that need to be helped? If it is set at £75,000, I will be worried that those who really need the help will not receive it.

I think we are now at a point where progress can be made of the kind that has probably not been made for years. I really hope that we can press forward on a cross-party basis. We need a long-term settlement so that we can support people at what is probably the most difficult and frightening time of their lives.

I remember what it felt like to discover that my mum had dementia and that her future would be so different from the one that her and my dad planned together. We have been lucky in that we have been able to speak up and get help and support from the fantastic caring people at the Poppy centre, but it is hard for many people who might not have a strong voice or someone to advocate on their behalf. My mum instilled in me that sense of justice and fairness, which has driven me throughout my political life. I know that she would want me to continue to fight for all those who often find themselves bewildered and powerless, and to make sure that they are treated with care and dignity. We owe them all nothing less.

13:49

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

It is an honour and a pleasure to follow what ended as a very moving speech by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). She is a fantastic fellow vice-chairman of the all-party group, and a real champion on this issue. I would also like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who I thought progressed this issue as a Minister much further and much quicker than did previous Ministers.

I start my comments this afternoon with an explanation of what sparked my interest in this incredibly important issue. As a parliamentary candidate, two events collided and aroused an immense passion about dementia that will stay with me for ever. I cannot quite recall the precise sequence of events, but one was personal and one was professional.

The first was my father calling me to tell me that his mother, Nana Crouch, had been diagnosed with dementia. My beloved grandfather passed away when I was a teenager. Following her diagnosis with this awful condition, nana regressed quickly and was transferred into residential care for her own safety. I went to see her, but she was so confused about who I was that she became quite frightened and I left concerned for her own mental well-being. It was very upsetting to see a lady I respected and loved hide in a corner cowering with fear.

The second event involved me knocking on the door of a man called Maurice. He and I remain friends today, despite our political differences. At the time, Maurice’s wife was still alive but was in a care home suffering from dementia. Maurice is a great man, one with a military background and one who had his whole world of traditional male-female relationships turned upside down when he suddenly had to care for his wife. The challenges that Maurice faced are ones that many carers are exposed to, but his real concern—one I now share—was the poor care his wife received while she was in hospital for a minor injury, where her health care needs were exacerbated by her dementia.

This issue of inadequate hospital care for dementia sufferers is a substantial one. While there is much evidence of good practice, there is an unacceptable variation in the quality of care. Maurice has become a pain in the proverbial, albeit in a good way, to local health care organisations. He champions the need for better care for dementia sufferers in hospitals—and rightly so. Of the carers responding to the Alzheimer’s Society’s “Counting the Cost” report, 77% stated that they were dissatisfied with the overall quality of care provided to people with dementia in hospitals. The key reasons included nurses not recognising or understanding dementia, lack of person-centred care, patients not being helped to eat or drink and patients being shown a lack of dignity and respect.

The issue has been highlighted many times, most recently in a report from the Royal College of Nursing. Staff training, for which nurses themselves are calling, would constitute a vital step towards the addressing of those inadequacies. However, we must also achieve the correct balance between health care assistants and nursing staff, which is vital to the provision of personalised care in hospitals. All too frequently the problem is not the number of staff, but the fact that the ratio of health care assistants to nurses is too large, and nurses are therefore unable to support staff sufficiently.

Unnecessary admissions and prolonged stays in hospital are expensive, and much too often they have negative effects on health and well-being. The all-party group looked into that and the cost to the NHS. I personally favour the notion of the halfway house: a service that could provide a primary care facility for those requiring medical attention for, say, a broken bone or a superficial wound, but in a less hospitalised environment. Not only might that be more cost-effective for the NHS, but it could address the issue of institutionalisation. One in four people in hospital beds have dementia, and, on average, people with dementia stay in hospital a week longer than those without dementia who are being treated for the same injury.

People with dementia often become extremely distressed by ordinary events, such as meal times, and need extra help. If food is just left in front of them, they will not necessarily eat it even if they are hungry. It might be helpful for carers or family members to be present when they are served their food, but most hospitals do not currently allow visitors at meal times. I am keen to hear from the Minister what measures are being introduced to make hospitals more dementia-friendly, and, in particular, what action is being taken to increase dementia awareness and understanding among hospital staff.

I am delighted that the Prime Minister is personally taking an interest in the issue after launching the dementia challenge. One of the more creative aspects of the challenge relates to the importance of dementia-friendly communities. I have observed three local initiatives that, although they have only just begun, have the potential to evolve into wonderful examples of how to meet that challenge. The first was the Alzheimer’s Society roadshow that took place recently at a local Tesco store. More than 55 people visited the vehicle in two days to obtain help, support and advice, 17 of them engaging in one-to-one sessions. Six new people accessed local dementia cafés as a direct result of the roadshow. I must say that I am a huge fan of dementia cafés: I think that they are bringing real value to our local communities.

The second initiative is run by Asda Chatham, which rather movingly granted Christmas wishes to those in a local dementia care home. I was there to help, and talked to the manager during the event. He is keen to ensure that his staff have a better awareness and understanding of dementia, so that they can understand and help when someone is standing at the till feeling confused by something as simple as the coinage in their purse—coins that they do not recognise as the coins from their childhood. We have seen instances in which people stand and stare at oranges, for instance, for a significantly long time, and someone comes along and helps them to understand, making them feel less confused and more relaxed about the environment that they have suddenly realised they are in. I think that our local supermarkets have a key role to play in that regard.

The third example is the fabulous work of Kent fire and rescue service in preventing vulnerable people from harming themselves while living at home. It is a trusted service, and it is doing its bit to help. We heard on the radio recently that in Kent—although not in my constituency—a man with dementia had rather sadly put his pyjamas in the microwave, and had almost set his house on fire. Members of the fire and rescue service arrived and sprayed a retardant over most of the house to ensure that he and his wife could live there safely without the risk of fire.

As the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, dementia is not just a problem for the Department of Health and local authorities, but an issue for the whole community. Every individual, organisation and department needs to play a part in changing society and its attitudes to a disease from which more than a million members of the population will be suffering by 2021. We need better collaboration and integration across different sectors, and we need to establish how limited resources can be used more efficiently and effectively.

People can and should be able to live well with dementia. We want people to live in their own homes for longer, not only because that is better for them but because it is financially prudent. Early intervention via better, quicker diagnosis is essential. Medication and memory clinics mean that we can now live well with dementia for longer if it is identified early, but at present only 40% of people with dementia receive a formal diagnosis, and that is not good enough.

I recently undertook an anonymous survey of GPs in my constituency. The problem highlighted most frequently was limited time with the patient. A standard 10-minute appointment is not necessarily sufficient in view of the complexity of the disease. When I asked what authorities could do to improve diagnosis rates, one key theme emerged: the need for quicker access to specialised staff, whether that would mean nurses in the community or shorter memory-clinic waiting times. There is such a difference between the worst case of a nine-month waiting time for memory-clinic services and a waiting time of 24 hours, which is best practice. If a day’s wait is possible somewhere, it should be possible everywhere.

Another vital aspect of ensuring that people live well in their own communities is support for carers. We must do all that we can to give those whose world has been turned upside down the time, advice and respite they need. My constituent, Ron, had quite a good experience of the support that was available, and when his late wife was diagnosed with dementia, organisations and services contacted him very soon afterwards. He was provided with a range of support, aimed at the needs of a carer, by Crossroads Care, Admiral Nurses and the Maidstone & Malling Carers Project, but that does not always happen. Other constituents who have contacted me have been completely lost and alone, dealing with the volatile and confused behaviour of their loved ones with little or no support.

It is imperative that we ensure that, following diagnosis, all carers receive a list of services and support in their area. That does not naturally happen at present, but it is important for the person suffering from dementia and for the carers. Ron told me about a book that one of the charities had given him providing a comprehensive list of common difficulties that arise for a person caring for someone with dementia, along with simple and straightforward ways to overcome them. He told me that it was a lifeline and a bible. Will the Minister ensure that a copy is available on the new “Our Health” website as it is rolled out across the country between now and March? It is an essential tool for carers.

Ron’s carers were wonderful, but when his wife passed away shortly before Christmas, all his support was discontinued from the moment of her death. Now the only support he has comes from his neighbours, who help him with his shopping, and it has taken him six weeks to secure an appointment with a befriending service. We have come so far, achieving great improvements in carers’ rights and dementia awareness, but we have such a long way to go. The fact that the person being cared for has died does not mean that the carer has as well. Indeed, that may be the time when help is most important to a carer.

Finally, I want to say something about funding. We must, absolutely must, find the correct way of funding health and social care budgets. My constituent Frank went into a care home with social care needs, and, as a self-funder, was initially charged £650 a week. After he arrived, he was diagnosed with dementia, a defined health condition, and his weekly charge has now increased to £1,200 a week owing to additional care costs. However, a state-funded person is charged only £550 a week, and there is no explanation for that. I am helping Frank’s family to explore the issue, but the fact remains that his lifetime savings and assets will be depleted in no time as they pay for his care.

We must get on with implementing the Dilnot recommendations, particularly the cap on care costs, and we must remember that the cap does not include accommodation costs. In my view, the £75,000 that was rumoured in last week’s papers is far too high, as it will make little difference to most people. I know that budgets are tight, and that the £35,000 recommended by Dilnot would cost the taxpayer £1.7 billion, but we need to consider our priorities. I am a defender of our international aid efforts, but we must consider whether it was right to spend nearly £1 billion over the past five years in India, a country with its own space programme and nuclear arsenal.

The Department for International Development needs to spend an extra £3 billion in the next two years if it is to fulfil the Government pledge of 0.7% of GDP. In cash terms, that is an increase from £7.8 billion in 2010-11 to £11 billion in 2014-15. Governments are judged on their morality, and perhaps it is now time that we recalibrated our priorities and considered spending the extra billions of pounds earmarked for aid projects abroad on funding quality care for the elderly at home.

Benjamin Franklin famously, but rather gloomily, noted:

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

As we begin another year in the 21st century and teetering on the cusp of having a significantly ageing population, we could probably add a third item to his short list: sadly, we are likely to know someone who is suffering or has suffered from some form of dementia.

This is an important debate, and I am very pleased that the Backbench Business Committee gave time for it. Ultimately we, as elected politicians with the power to change how we deal with those with dementia, owe it to Maurice, Ron, Frank, Nana Crouch and every constituent who suffers from, or cares for, or is a friend or family member of, someone with this awful condition, that actions really do follow the words.

14:10

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I apologise in advance for the fact that I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) on securing this debate on what is a very important subject, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving time for it to take place.

First, let me emphasise that this issue is not only about money; it is about people who care about other people and about being compassionate. Since I first spoke out about compassion in nursing, my office has been overwhelmed, receiving more than 1,400 letters and e-mails from people who have experienced poor standards of care in hospitals throughout the country. Many of them are from the friends and relatives of people with dementia or other forms of progressive neurological disease. I shall read out a few extracts from this correspondence.

The first concerns a 73-year-old man with Parkinson’s and early dementia:

“We found him barely able to speak, sitting in a chair with no trousers, shoes or socks on. On another occasion on Christmas day afternoon we went to see him and asked him what he had eaten for lunch. The answer seemed to be ‘nothing’. We returned at lunchtime the next day to find him sitting with untouched food in front of him. He had spilt a cup of water over himself, his dentures were not in, and he was incapable of picking up a cup or food. A member of staff came to clear away the untouched food, but we stayed for an hour and fed him, piece by piece. He ate the whole meal. Other family members and friends then repeated this process on subsequent days. We were told by staff that during his stay of 37 days this quite slim man lost 3 stone in weight. We believe that the care in the ward with respect to medication and feeding was negligent.”

Another letter states:

“I had a similar experience when my mother spent some time in hospital. Registered blind and suffering with dementia, she was left hungry, thirsty, dirty, frightened and lonely until visiting hour. She also fell more than once and the staff were quite rude to us when we queried why she was complaining of being in pain.”

Another letter says:

“Myself and my family have also experienced similar treatment in the case of my late mother. She suffered from dementia and was admitted as an emergency following a fall at her care home. At the age of 82 she survived the surgical procedure but the care she later received was abysmal. We spent most of the valuable visiting times ensuring she was kept hydrated and feeding her the meals just left in front of her. After a few days we noticed she was deteriorating and despite repeatedly questioning staff, we found they were avoiding us.

After 6 days we were informed that her deterioration was due to the fact that she had been given not only her medication, but also that of the patient who occupied the bed before her (including the contraceptive pill). My mother died shortly after discharge.”

Finally, I want to highlight the case of an RAF veteran of the second world war who now has vascular dementia:

“Right from the very start with his admittance to the emergency ward there has been a lack of communication and understanding of his condition and care needs. Staff in the induction ward had no comprehension of his dementia and informed me that my father was violent and disruptive. Not only has his condition deteriorated but the level of care is absent

He has been left in a bare bed, naked in his own excrement, excrement ground into his fingernails, left without a blanket (there were no blankets available in the hospital). If for whatever reason we cannot attend he is not fed, his tablets were not given to him and left on the table.

My father is an RAF Veteran of the Second World War. He did not serve his country or pay his taxes for 43 years of continuous employment to approach the end of his days in a filthy, poorly administered establishment.”

I ask the Minister this: can we really call ourselves a civilised society?

14:11

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I am sure everyone who listened to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) describing on the radio the terrible passing of her husband will have been moved, and all the accounts she has given this afternoon are certainly appalling and unacceptable.

I want to be concise, so I shall touch on only a few key points. My first point is on training for care assistants, a topic the right hon. Lady talked about. After I was first elected to this House some 30 years ago, several years passed before I first heard the word “Alzheimer’s”. At Christmas I would visit nursing homes in my constituency, and they were mostly full of spry widows in their 70s, but it is now impossible to get into a nursing home or residential care home in my constituency unless one is suffering from severe Alzheimer’s or dementia. As a consequence, many more people with mild dementia are now living at home in the community, being looked after by carers.

We must greatly expand the number of care assistants in three environments: first, in hospitals. If we are to have a graduate nursing profession, we also need to ensure that caring assistants see that they have a vocation— that they are part of a profession and they have a set of skills. We also need to ensure that there are sufficient well-trained and motivated care assistants in nursing homes and residential care homes. For a long time nursing homes would recruit staff from overseas, very often from India, the Philippines or eastern Europe. They would train them, and then in due course those people would go and work for the national health service. Because of various changes to migration policy, however, that is no longer possible. Thirdly, we have more people with dementia and mild dementia living at home, and they also need proper care and support from care workers.

I raised this issue with Ministers earlier in the year, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) kindly gave me a comprehensive response:

“We are doing lots of work with the sector to grow the workforce. We are, for example, aiming to double the number of social care apprentices to 100,000 by 2017 and expanding the current care ambassador scheme to promote a positive image of the sector.”

I have to say that I do not get the feeling that there are currently 50,000 apprentices in the social care or care worker sector, and I do not get a sense of there being many social care apprentices in my patch. That may be because they are not promoted as such, and how does one recognise a social care apprentice or a qualified social care worker in a residential care home or hospital?

The Minister rightly says that the Government acknowledge the importance of training and qualifications in supporting workers in their roles and in improving the quality of care services, and the Government are spending £285 million each year on training and developing the care worker work force. This may just be my view, but, again, I do not get a sense of how that is being demonstrated in outputs. I say to the Minister that we need a clearer focus on the training and development of that work force. We have made nursing a graduate profession but we must also ensure that those who are not graduate nurses—care workers in our hospitals, in our nursing homes and in the community—have a similar sense of vocation and similar training and apprenticeships. They need to be recognised as qualified care workers, and we must continue to invest in that work force.

As the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, compassion is key to all of that. When my mother and her generation trained as nurses, they saw compassion as an essential part of their vocation; that was inherent in being a nurse.

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

I wish to give a further anecdote. My mother trained as a nurse and she said to me that on the first day in her job she was taken by the matron to the bed and told, “This is your world. The patient, and nothing else, is what you are there to look after. I want to know exactly what is happening with each and every patient in your care.”

[Sir Tony Baldry]

That was absolutely the case. There are occasions when one is just going to be out of touch on this, but hospitals are changing. When I was young, my father was a consultant and he had three wards. He was responsible for them and each had a sister, who was identifiable and accountable, as were the staff nurses. Everyone was accountable and everyone knew what was happening. Hospitals are changing, and in some ways medical technology means that things move a lot faster: for example, hysterectomies can now be day cases. However, people are staying longer in other parts of hospitals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, a large number of people in hospital are also suffering from dementia, and hospitals, as well as treating the acute problems of such people, need to respond to that. They need to work out where those people go once they leave the hospital. Very often someone’s dementia is not spotted until they are in hospital.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

My mother, too, was a nurse. Sadly, at the end of her life, she ended up in hospital far too frequently, and at the very end she also had dementia. She would say that the nurses would never have been allowed to work on the wards that she worked on, because they treat conditions, not people—that is the problem. They no longer see the person in the bed; they see only the condition. Until that focus moves back to the person and their needs, and away from the condition and the diagnosis, we will not get the change we desperately need.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. Many of us took part in a Westminster Hall debate earlier this week on palliative and end-of-life care, when similar points were made. Sadly, all too often, what we read in our national newspapers demonstrates the desperateness that is occurring, as does the fact that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley received 1,000 letters and e-mails in response to her tragic circumstances. This culture change in nursing needs to be reversed, because we must get compassion back into the NHS.

The second point I wished to discuss was carers, as I co-chair the all-party group on carers. It is estimated that 670,000 people in this country have dementia and the number is due to double in the next few years. As has rightly been said, most of us will either suffer from dementia or will know someone who will be a sufferer and so will be a carer at that time. One frustration for carers is that they do not get recognised as being carers, which is extremely frustrating, particularly when they are dealing with the GP of the person they are looking after—their loved one. I intervened on the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) to say that part of that frustration has arisen because GPs have been slightly in denial about people with dementia, because they are not sure what to do with them when they make the diagnosis.

However, I am pleased that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has proposed that GPs should follow three new indicators on caring for people with dementia. First, GP practices should be examined on the

“percentage of patients with dementia with the contact details of a named carer on their record.”

GPs must, therefore, diagnose someone with dementia because otherwise they will not know that they have a carer on their record. The second indicator is:

“The practice has a register of patients who are carers of a person with dementia.”

The third indicator is:

“The percentage of carers (of a person with dementia) who have had an assessment of their health and support needs in the preceding 12 months.”

There was criticism in some of the national press of the Prime Minister’s determination to ensure that people get a proper diagnosis of dementia if they are suffering from it, but unless people get such a diagnosis—unless GPs face up to the fact that their patients have dementia and start to care also about the carers of these people, by making sure that they get carers, assessments and so on—we will never get the qualitative and quantitative changes in how society is run to allow us to face up to a revolution, which has happened in the lifetime of many of us, in the number of people living in our society with dementia. This issue is going to grow.

I was very impressed by what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles said about Salford being a dementia-friendly community; many of us must go back to our constituencies and look at the challenge dementia poses, because, in comparison, my patch is simply in the foothills of that. Over the next few years, we will all have to try to make sure that we have dementia-friendly communities.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I meet a lot of carers. I do not have the experience that some hon. Members have, but the one that struck me about so many of these carers is that they are deeply dedicated. It would be really good if they could be considered more professional. After all, we think of doctors as being in a profession, and nurses definitely have a profession. There is now a requirement for a profession of carers that is widely recognised and accepted in society. Does my hon. Friend think that that has merit?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I do. I have been trying to encourage organisations such as St John Ambulance to think about providing training for carers. Some people find that, overnight, their wife or husband has a stroke or serious fall and they find themselves as the carer, and others must deal with a gradually deteriorating situation such as dementia. Such experiences are frightening and the people involved often have to grapple with bureaucracy, the health service and so on. I am sure that if it were possible for local training to be provided for carers, a lot of these people would feel much more empowered and much more competent. The question is finding the organisations that can deliver such training.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one key thing that also must happen is ensuring that Departments also demonstrate a lead on tackling dementia? The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and I have been very impressed by what HMS Drake has been doing; the people there have been instrumental in Plymouth in fighting for more dementia awareness, including among Departments.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

That was an extremely good point, and it was one made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) in opening this debate; every Department has a part to play in tackling dementia. Nobody would immediately have thought of the Ministry of Defence as having a role to play in tackling dementia, but every Department, as part of collective, joined-up government, needs to consider what it is doing on dementia.

The last point I wish to make relates to research, attitudes and so on. One of the most depressing things about dementia is going into residential care homes and seeing people sitting doing nothing, staring at the wall. That is desperate. I have little fear of death—death at the worst can be eternal darkness—but I have a total fear of getting dementia. It must be a sort of living death for as long as one has it.

A number of organisations are coming forward with ideas of how to improve, if not people’s memory, how they can cope with dementia. An organisation with a strong following in Oxfordshire is the Contented Dementia Trust. Some of its work is supported by the Royal College of Nursing, and Oliver James’s book, “Contented Dementia”, is one of the best-selling books on dementia in the UK. The Contented Dementia Trust has a particular way of helping people with their memory, because from a carers’ perspective dementia, once diagnosed, is best understood as a person’s failure to store coherently the facts of what has just happened in their life—although associated feelings are stored—whereas facts stored long before the onset of dementia remain relatively intact and potentially useful. That is why when one goes to see people with dementia they can tell in graphic detail what they did during the second world war or their childhood, but they cannot say what they had for lunch. The Contented Dementia Trust has worked out a method that, it believes, helps people with that.

I hope that somewhere in the Department an evaluation of the various systems has been undertaken with an open mind, to consider what works. Clearly, what is required is consideration of how to stimulate people with dementia so they do not become part of the living dead. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, we want to ensure that those with dementia can live with dignity and can live lives of the best quality. That does not mean being stuck in a chair in a communal lounge all day between meals, perhaps getting some stimulation or perhaps not getting any. They require stimulation, help with their memory and the sorts of activities that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles identified as taking place in various day centres in Salford.

We all need to share and develop the practices that work best, to ensure that people do not get proprietary about there being one correct way of dealing with dementia. We must all recognise the limits of our knowledge. One of the desperate things about dementia is that those who suffer from it cannot tell us what is happening in their lives, as if they have moved on to another planet and cannot come back and tell us what is happening to them. It is a one-way journey and they cannot help us—we can only sense whether they are happier or more contented. I hope that Ministers and officials will consider the work of organisations such as the Contented Dementia Trust with an open mind.

The debate highlights for us all the sheer scale of the challenge over the next 20 to 50 years. It must continue to be a national priority if we are to get the compassion and care that every one of our constituents and loved ones deserves.

14:33

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the contributions we have heard in this high-level debate from every right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber. I must declare an interest from the start, as my husband suffers from dementia.

I worked some time ago for what was known as The Project. I, as the lead social worker, and a community mental health worker did joint assessments of people who had been diagnosed with dementia. That joint assessment was critical in ensuring that people got the right quality of care. I cannot emphasise enough how valuable and important those joint assessments were, because we saw the world from two totally different perspectives. We saw the person in the round. We saw totally different things and, when we came out, we never ceased to be amazed by the different clues and issues that we had picked up. It meant that the person received a different—and higher—quality of care.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) talked about social care workers. We were very fortunate. The Project was funded by the local authority, which was the old Mid-Glamorgan county council, and the health trust, so a lot of money was put into it. We were given our own group of social care workers—we recruited and trained our own social care workers to give them an intensive knowledge and understanding of what dementia was, of the many forms of dementia and of how it would manifest itself. We also taught them about fear: the fear of carers and families of not knowing the world they were entering into. We taught them to give people information so that they knew what the future would hold, how their condition might progress and how to look for the changes and steps they were approaching, as well as where the change was coming.

In the age of the internet, everyone can become almost an expert, but if you use the internet you can become very frightened because there is too much information and it just scares you. You need a connection to professionals who give you a feeling of being held and being walked through it at your own pace as you, as an individual carer of an individual person, go through the trauma of dementia. You also need advice about money—golly gosh, do you need that advice—about the benefits you can access and about how you are going to afford this. I have had to convert my home into a mini-hospital. A lot of my furniture has gone, and I now have a downstairs bathroom and an extension built on to the property. You need to alter your life around the person you are caring for.

Treatment is not available for everyone, but you need to know what the experts are saying about the best way forward for you as a carer and for the person suffering from the condition. Education is essential not just for the caring community but for the professionals you interact with all the time. The worst thing carers suffer from is isolation. A number of times, when I spoke to people who were faced with dementia in a professional capacity, they told me the worst thing was the isolation. They said, “If someone has cancer, people are around all the time, but you get a diagnosis of dementia in your family and people disappear.” I found that true, too—not totally, but it is certainly there.

There are provisions that society has put in place, and I shall talk about the advance power of attorney later, but communication skills seem to have disappeared. People simply do not know how to talk to people with dementia. Even when someone has quite profound dementia, there is often a way in. There is still a person in there and it is our job, as professionals, to find that person—to get in there and find some way of doing that.

I have wonderful carers who look after my husband—they are absolutely amazing. I have two people who work only for me and they look after my husband full time. They have allowed me to carry on with my job and they have allowed my husband to carry on having a life. They take him to the theatre, they take him out for lunch and they take him out for walks. They make him laugh. We communicate with him in all sorts of ways: we draw things and we write things down. His capacity for movement is now extremely limited, but he finds a way at least to say yes or no. We still insist that he makes decisions. We do not make the decisions for him; he has to make them and he must be party to them. I have stood in front of him and said, “I am not making this decision: you will tell me. Do you want this?” And he has laughed—it has to be said that he has had that in his life for a long time, but it is still there and he still finds somewhere that way of nodding, of squeezing my hand, of holding the pen and writing on the paper. We can still get that. It drives me crazy when I see nurses and professionals who will not take the time to do that.

I have been very fortunate. I have a fantastic GPs surgery, which won an award for the quality of the care that it has given to carers and to its patients. It makes a huge difference if you know that you can reach out to your local medical community and it will reach back to you.

I am very fortunate that I live in Wales because the cost of care in Wales is capped. I urge the Minister to look at what Wales has done in relation to the capping of care. It makes a difference because in addition to paying for your social care needs, you also have to pay for all the other things that you might need, such as my downstairs bathroom and the changes that I have had to make to my home to make it feasible and possible for a man who can no longer walk to access the dignity that he deserves—having the chance to be clean every day, accessing the privacy of the toilet, accessing a shower so that he feels clean and fresh and feels like a human being.

As a carer you become very reliant on the kindness of strangers. That has been true in my case. I will remain profoundly thankful for the wonderful people who have entered my life. Also, there are people out there dedicated to research, and we need their dedication and their commitment. I am very fortunate. My husband has a condition that many people do not know about; there are many dementia conditions that people do not know anything about. He has a condition called Pick’s disease. It is associated with motor neurone disease. His mother had motor neurone disease.

The research into Pick’s disease is coming out of Manchester, University College London and Cardiff university. I am fortunate in that I have close links with Professor Huw Morris, who is the lead in Cardiff university, and I know that huge strides are being made to identify the cause of Pick’s disease. A huge family of 38 members in Gwent, who have Pick’s disease throughout their family history, have made a huge difference. Families want to be engaged in research. They want to make a difference. They want to know that their experience will change the future. I urge the Minister to take time to talk to families about what they think they can contribute not just to the change in care, in treatment and in people’s attitudes, but to the change in medical research. Often families want to be part of that.

I have advance power of attorney for my husband. We were together with Dr Morris, who turned to me and asked whether I would be willing, when my husband died, for his brain to become part of the research. I said, “I’m sorry, I’m not making that decision. Steve will make that decision.” And he did. He wanted to be part of that. He wanted to contribute something. He did not want it to have been in vain. It is important that we respect the dignity and the right of the individual early on in their diagnosis to be party to simple questions like, “Are you willing, if there is an opportunity for you to give cell samples, blood tests, organs? Will you do that?” People have to be asked those questions.

People have to be asked early on, “Do you want to know what is happening?” You have to have some quite brutal and painful conversations and it is only fair. Some hon. Members have talked about GPs not wishing to make a diagnosis. It makes me laugh when I see the figure of 43% non-diagnosed dementia cases. How can we even know it is 43%? We do not even know that. Part of the reality is that GPs need to talk to carers and ask early on, “How do you two want to play this? Do you want me always to be brutally honest with you or do you want some protection from what is happening?”

We have to find a way of being more honest and more mature and not patronise people with dementia. We have to keep that person in their life, central to their life and central to their family for as long as it is possible. It is only then that we can hold our heads high as a decent society, as a caring and compassionate society, and make dementia something that we are no longer afraid of, but something that we fight.

14:46

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). I pay tribute to her thoughtful and emotional contribution. I pay tribute also to the right hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for securing today’s debate and for their equally thoughtful contributions.

I shall focus my remarks on my area, Pendle, and the Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust’s current consultation on dementia care services across the county. In my constituency there are 1,114 people diagnosed with dementia, compared with 1,060 people in 2010. As we all know, dementia can affect anyone. It is not just an old person’s illness and we know that there are hundreds of different types of dementia, so getting the correct diagnosis is one of the biggest challenges wherever one lives in the country.

My maternal grandmother, Mary, suffered from dementia brought on by a series of strokes. Although I was only young at the time, I remember going to visit her in Withington hospital in Manchester, where after any particularly bad period she was given six weeks’ assessment. I remember the locks on the doors to the ward, for patients’ own safety, and watching as the grandmother I knew and loved slipped away from us. However, for many I have met in Pendle the emotional heartbreak is even worse, with husbands and wives diagnosed with this terrible condition in their mid to late 50s, their hopes of an enjoyable retirement together dashed, their dreams shattered.

Thankfully, the support available to dementia sufferers has improved significantly in recent years. In my constituency, although some people have raised concerns about getting the correct diagnosis from their GP, we have Memory Services, based at Maple house in Burnley general hospital, to which many people are correctly referred. With the help of Lancashire county council and the Alzheimer’s Society, East Lancashire Community Dementia Forum runs a dementia café in Colne on the fourth Thursday of every month, at the Arcadia café on Windy Bank—the importance of dementia cafés and the roles they can play has already been mentioned. Last May, I went along to the café, which runs from 2pm to 4pm, and found that providing information, advice and refreshments in a relaxed and friendly environment was a great idea for both those suffering with dementia and their carers.

In August, I was also pleased to attend a meeting of the Alzheimer’s Society’s carers support group at Walton lane community centre in Nelson. We discussed a huge range of topics, including respite facilities, the hospital beds situation, pathways to diagnosis, the difficulty for Alzheimer sufferers of qualifying for blue badges, disabled facility grants, day care and standards of care, among many other topics. Following the meeting, I took up several of the broad points with the NHS, Lancashire county council and Pendle borough council and pursued a number of individual cases. In the same month, I also attended the East Lancashire Community Dementia Forum at Brierfield library, when the focus was on short breaks and respite care.

Let me turn to Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust’s consultation on specialist dementia care services in Lancashire. The consultation opened on 3 December and runs until 25 February, with an opportunity for Pendle residents to discuss the options with representatives of Lancashire Care on Monday 28 January at Training 2000 in Nelson. Much of the information contained in the consultation document sounds very positive and few dementia sufferers or their carers would disagree with it. For example, it states that 83% of carers and people with dementia said that being able to live in their own home was very important to the person with dementia. It states that people with dementia should be moved as little as possible and, therefore, community or home care is the best option. It notes that significant progress has been made in Lancashire and that over the past year 93% of dementia care contacts were in the community, supported by specialist teams.

However, the consultation document goes on to state that there were trends over the past three years of reduced admissions, readmissions and lengths of stay from the population in central Lancashire. If that could be replicated across the whole county, it suggests, the demand for specialist in-patient services could be expected to decrease to the point where those admitted would make up a much smaller group, and it is likely they would only be those detained under the Mental Health Act.

On that basis, the trust proposes two options. Option 1 is to reduce the existing 65 specialist dementia in-patient beds across four sites in Lancashire to just 30 such beds on a single site. That single site would be in Blackpool, which could not possibly be further away from my constituency, which is in the Pennines on the Yorkshire border. Option 2 is to have 40 dementia in-patient beds on two specialist sites, one in Blackburn and one in Blackpool. Option 1 gets three pages of glowing support, whereas option 2 gets two pages, almost a third of which points out its “Issues”—or, should I say, “Disadvantages”?

I have in my hand the consultation document, which is available in all libraries in Pendle, Ribble valley and the rest of Lancashire. It even goes so far as to have a wonderful diagram showing the two options available—option 1 includes a nice little flower, whereas option 2 has a mucky bit of grass. Now, call me a cynic, but I remember a similar document, ironically entitled “Meeting Patients’ Needs”, being published under the previous Government. It led to our local accident and emergency department at Burnley general hospital being downgraded, despite massive and cross-party public opposition. Although I am a massive supporter of the work done by Lancashire Care, sadly, the consultation document strikes me as very similar. When reading it, I cannot help thinking that the decision in favour of Option 1 has already been taken and that the consultation is all about getting the public to rubber stamp it.

I, for one, will not be voting for Option 1. I will not be supporting the relocation—given the location of Blackpool, it can hardly be called centralising—of all specialist dementia in-patient beds, for a range of reasons. Primarily, the location is in no way central to the population served. It would be almost impossible for friends and family to get to without a car, and even then it would be a very long drive. Given the distance, it would be almost impossible for contact to be retained between the dementia sufferer and not only their family, but their community care team.

We are talking about only a small number of people who would need to use these specialist in-patient beds, but the reduction from the current 65 beds to 30 beds is too much, too soon. The Blackpool option, if approved, would be up and running in 2015, and even the consultation document admits that current usage of the 65 in-patient beds across Lancashire stands at 46, or 70% utilisation. I appreciate that redirecting resources from in-patient services to community services will help to reduce dementia admissions, but with growing dementia rates and an ageing population, just 30 beds for a county the size of Lancashire seems too few. The lack of information provided on how community services will be enhanced with redirected funding also gives me great concern.

In Lancashire, there are already at least 17,600 people aged 65 or over with dementia, and these numbers are expected to rise to more than 25,600 by 2025. We are also seeing increasing numbers under this age being correctly diagnosed with dementia. After speaking to a number of local GPs and local health commissioners in East Lancashire, I know that many of them, too, will be supporting the option of two sites with 40 beds between them rather than one with 30. I hope that other clinicians, people with dementia and their carers will also support this option and respond to the consultation before it closes on 25 February.

14:56

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Nothing I say will equal the power of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon)—a personal account that I am sure will resonate far beyond this place. I congratulate members of the Backbench Business Committee on choosing this important topic for debate and praise the spirit in which Members in all parts of the House have engaged with issues of dementia.

This topic is particularly close to my heart. Anyone who has watched helplessly as a loved one battles with dementia, often forgetting your name and your relationship to them, knows the agony that is felt and the feeling of hopelessness. As people will know from their own experiences, it is all the more painful when it is a close relative, especially when, as in my own case, it is your own mother who is suffering from this cruel condition. Words cannot begin to describe the heartbreak of seeing a vacant expression etched across the face of a person once so full of vibrancy as they struggle to fathom what is going on or why they feel in such a strange state of confusion.

As I was coming to terms with my own mum’s condition and the fact that this condition had stolen her mind, I was left with the same unanswered questions that thousands are now asking: why was she not diagnosed earlier? Why did not my brothers, sisters and I recognise the signs earlier? Why was there not better advice on the different treatments available? Why was the support that she received from relevant authorities at best patchy but at worst totally inadequate? My mum was not lucky enough to have had the expert advice, care or treatment that is available today when she died.

We can ill afford to kick social care into the long grass and avoid the realities of an ageing population that will undoubtedly present challenges for dementia health care professionals in future. With no new treatments having been released on to the market for 10 years, it was right for the Prime Minister to guarantee money for research by the Alzheimer’s Society following the work of the national dementia strategy presented to this place by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and rightly highlighted by the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) in his opening speech.

Today I want to talk about ways in which the city of Liverpool is sourcing innovative treatments for dementia. It is estimated that the number of people in Liverpool with dementia will rise from 4,382 in 2010 to 5,209 in 2021, ranking the city third highest in the north-west. Alarmingly, of those in Liverpool who were suffering from dementia in 2010, only 51% had actually received a diagnosis. That means that almost half of our city’s dementia sufferers were unknowingly living with this debilitating condition. That is why in our city we have decided to tackle dementia head on as part of Liverpool’s decade of health and well-being, which was officially launched in 2010.

Although most hospitals treat dementia patients by using a group of medications called—I wrote this down earlier thinking it would be easy to deliver in Parliament— cholinesterase inhibitors or the drugs donepezil and memantine, in Liverpool we have tried and successfully tested the use of art and culture in dementia treatment. Our non-pharmaceutical approach to dementia treatment is a unique model and one that other cites and regions across the country may wish to follow as they cope with increasing demand on decreasing resources.

After Liverpool’s highly successful year as the European capital of culture in 2008, we worked with international partners to collate evidence that proved that art and culture have the potential to improve well-being and have a positive role to play in mental health care.

Museums and art galleries are the gatekeepers to history. They play a crucial role in society, which is to protect and preserve what has gone before so that we can learn for the future. During our evidence-gathering we received a report entitled, “Museums of the Mind”, which encouraged museums to think about the role that they could play in their local communities with regard to mental health issues more broadly. National Museums Liverpool recognised the growing problem with dementia in our city and decided that it wanted to work specifically on the issue, drawing on the expertise of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which ran an internationally acclaimed programme where gallery staff engaged with individuals living with dementia. And so House of Memories was born on Merseyside.

The scheme is training and delivering programmes built around the objects, archives and stories held in the Museum of Liverpool. The idea is to provide social and health-care staff with new skills and resources to share with people living with dementia and to promote and enhance their well-being and quality of life as a potential alternative to medication.

As the total cost of dementia to the UK economy rose to a staggering £23 billion in 2012—a figure that is unsustainable in an age of austerity that has been extended to 2017 by this Government—the work of National Museums Liverpool is a blueprint for other cities and regions to follow as we look to improve dementia care and reduce the cost to the NHS. As always, however, funding pressures are endangering the future of such innovative programmes. I believe that Liverpool’s non-pharmaceutical approach can and should be adopted by other cities and regions in the United Kingdom, thereby saving millions of pounds for the NHS.

One of the most worrying aspects of dementia care is the fact that public awareness of dementia remains scandalously low and that we as a society almost ignorantly allow dementia to be excused as nothing more than the ravages of old age. Liverpool therefore began by drawing together a partnership of major businesses from a variety of sectors that went beyond health care professionals and included many organisations from our thriving cultural sector. This meant that Tate Liverpool, the Bluecoat and the Liverpool biennial festival worked alongside Liverpool universities, Age Concern, BBC Radio Merseyside, the police and fire services and charities such as Dare to Care and Crossroads Care.

Last year the decision was taken by Liverpool Hope university, in conjunction with the chief executives and managers of Liverpool city council, the Alzheimer’s Society, NHS Merseyside, Mersey Care NHS Trust, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust and Age Concern Liverpool and Sefton, to dedicate 2013 as the year of dementia, as part of Liverpool’s decade of health and well-being.

Liverpool’s ability to make a difference for dementia patients would not be possible were it not for the excellent work of the Alzheimer’s Society. When I was the lord mayor of Liverpool, I chose the Alzheimer’s Society as one of my five sponsored charities and was extremely proud to award it with its largest ever cheque at that time of £115,000, in recognition of the vital work it does in our city.

[Hazel Blears]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly innovative speech about developments in Liverpool. He mentioned the Alzheimer’s Society. Does he agree that without the drive, commitment and imagination of the Alzheimer’s Society, we would not be seeing the current progress and momentum?

[Steve Rotheram]

My right hon. Friend is right. It is not until somebody who is close to you needs the support of services such as those provided by the Alzheimer’s Society that you understand just how good and supportive they are. When I gave the Alzheimer’s Society that money as lord mayor, I also gave money to Alder Hey children’s hospital. It is much easier to raise money for sick children than for people whom some others see as just getting a bit old and going a bit loopy. That was one of the accusations against my mother. People said, “She’ll be okay, she’s just losing it a bit!” That is not the same thing as dementia. That is why it is important to raise awareness of dementia and why it is fantastic to see that this debate has been so well subscribed to.

In Liverpool, the Alzheimer’s Society facilitates services for dementia patients that use art and culture to assist sufferers and their carers in better understanding the condition. For instance, dance therapy is offered which invites

“movers and shakers of all ages to come and enjoy themselves and shake off the shackles of dementia”.

Additionally, multi-sensory stimulation is provided through art therapy and music therapy, which stimulate emotional, social and cognitive connections between dementia patients, their carers and their families. There is also a memory clinic, like those mentioned by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), in Walton in my constituency, which is a weekly meeting that offers support, advice and guidance to sufferers and their loved ones.

In other words, Liverpool is dedicated to a creative approach to stimulate rather than medicate dementia patients wherever possible, and to prolong their quality of life as much as is possible. I hope that Members will use the example set by Liverpool to encourage similar partnerships across the cities, towns and communities in their regions. A recent participant in National Museums Liverpool’s House of Memories scheme recalled a lesson that they had learned as a member of the programme, which MPs may wish to consider on leaving this debate:

“The House of Memories scheme has enabled me to come into the world of the person living with dementia, rather than expect them to enter mine. After today, my approach will be very different.”

By changing the emphasis of dementia treatment to a more pioneering approach such as the one successfully tried and tested in Liverpool, we can begin to change the stigma of dementia and improve patients’ lives. In doing so, we can aim to educate sufferers about the advantages of owning up to the problems that they face and improve the rates of early diagnosis, while at the same time ensuring that the wider public are more aware of the early signs of the condition. Only then can we, as a society, forgive our collective ignorance and really begin to support our patients and dedicated carers in tackling this country’s fastest growing health priority.

09:30

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Like others, I pay tribute to those who secured today’s debate: the Backbench Business Committee, the right hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), and my hon. Friend Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). The debate is about a hugely important subject of which many Members will have personal experience.

Many of us are aware of the scale of the issue: dementia will affect 1.7 million people by the middle of the century, probably double the figure now. It is probably one of the biggest challenges that this Government—and future Governments—will have to face, and will be particularly important in Wales where the percentage of people aged over 65 is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles paid tribute to the commitment of the Prime Minister, who launched the dementia strategy last year, and there is a commitment to increased spending on research. That is not anywhere near enough, however, and I am certain that in future our commitment to tackling dementia will have to be greatly increased.

I want to make five or six brief points, some of which are from a Welsh perspective. As we know, the matter is devolved, but as the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, where there are differences between the parts of the United Kingdom, lessons can be learned from one Administration by another, and devolution can be a sort of test bed. Different attitudes are developing in Wales and we may be able to learn things from that.

The issue I will mention first because it is so important is early diagnosis. Levels of diagnosis in Wales are particularly low—only 37.5% of people with dementia are diagnosed, which is far lower than in other parts of the United Kingdom—and of course access to new drugs and treatments is simply not available to people who have not been diagnosed with dementia.

Many of us—probably most who will speak in this debate—have personal experience of the issue, and one thing that is common to most is that we do not realise when someone is suffering from dementia. We may think there is a degree of slowness but we do not realise what they are suffering from. The second time it happens in a family people respond much better because they know pretty much what to expect. Those suffering from dementia can be crafty because they are desperate to hide their condition; in some ways there is embarrassment about it and they do not want people to know. Without experience, dementia is difficult to identify, so early diagnosis must be an aim for anyone concerned with dealing with it.

The second issue, which was touched on earlier, is training for nurses. There is a general issue at the moment about basic care in the health service—that was touched on last Tuesday during the debate on the Liverpool care pathway, and the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) also mentioned it. To my mind, such training is particularly important for people in the acute health services, many of whom are elderly. Many people go into hospital because they have had a fall although they are also suffering from dementia. The level of disruption and disturbance caused when they go into hospital can completely disorientate sufferers, and the rapid onset of serious dementia is much quicker and more radical in such a situation. It is important that those working in acute health services are trained in identifying and dealing with the dementia aspect of illness, as well as with the actual condition such as a broken hip or bone.

My third point is about Parkinson’s disease. I am involved in my local Parkinson’s disease charity. I do not know whether the trauma of Parkinson’s disease brings on dementia or whether it is the other way round, but we know that people suffer from Parkinson’s disease for quite a long time before it becomes publicly apparent. Many people will go into hospital and seem to suffer from dementia without anyone realising that they are suffering from Parkinson’s. That disease may come on more quickly—the trauma may cause it—so it is vital that in hospitals and care situations patients’ conditions are regularly assessed to see whether they are suffering from Parkinson’s disease, and that they are not just dismissed as a dementia patient while another illness is completely ignored.

I touched earlier on the liaison between Governments in Wales and England but that may apply to other Administrations as well. Without making any negative political point, there is a difference in approach. The Welsh Government are much more suspicious of the private sector than the UK Government—that applies particularly to the provision of social care. The Welsh Government’s view is that social care is delivered far better by the public sector, but, generally speaking, social care is delivered by the private sector.

The relevant Committee has considered that, and there is a very good chance that there will be new, different approaches in Wales—they could be based on co-operatives or they could be community based. They might work in an urban situation, but it is important that the Government in Westminster and the Government in Wales are aware of what is happening, and that they learn about good practice and what might work.

My final point—perhaps I will be the only hon. Member to make it in the debate—is on the Welsh language. Many who are elderly and frail in Wales spoke only Welsh until they were seven, eight or nine years old—in those days, people became involved in education at that age. Today, people often go to monolingual, Welsh language schools. Up until the ages of seven or eight, that is the only language they speak, and we know that people suffering advanced dementia revert to their childhood language.

I visited an esteemed former Member of the House and House of Lords who suffers from dementia. Towards the end of his life, he was able to speak only Welsh. Previously, he had been able to speak English, but at that stage, he could speak only Welsh. I acted as an interpreter. That is important in care homes in Wales. Such people are suddenly completely isolated. Very often, they cannot speak even to their spouse.

[Mrs Moon]

I rise only to confirm exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. I worked in specialist rehabilitation in Gorseinon, which is part of Swansea where the Welsh language is much more prevalent. Families would come in, and often, I would say to them, “Speak to your family member,” which was usually a mum or a dad, “in Welsh, and tell me what you want.” It is true that going back to the language of childhood often makes communication continue for much longer than speaking the adoptive language. However, that has implications in our multicultural society across our ethnic communities, and we must bear it in mind. No matter where a person comes from or whatever their culture, we must be able to provide communication in their language of childhood.

[Glyn Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady. I was going to expand my point on the Welsh language into the impact on people who speak other languages, as so many do. People’s reversion to the language they spoke as children came as a huge shock to me. I found that the great parliamentarian I went to see was unable to communicate with his wife because she did not speak that language—it was the only one he could speak. It was a strange experience. In that home, nobody could speak Welsh, which was a tragedy. Hon. Members often discuss and debate where the Welsh language should be available, but it should be available in care homes in Wales, and particularly in ones that have a dementia wing. Having somebody who can speak Welsh is important.

A spin-off point from that is on people who have moved away from Wales—the diaspora. They could fall ill in another part of the country. Traditionally, they would come home to where they are originally from and continue to see family and friends, but they could finish up not being able to communicate with people where they live. There is a case for work between the Governments in England and Wales—the availability of the language of youth applies to other parts of the UK—on helping to repatriate people to deal with the problem. Not being able to communicate with anybody, including family, must be incredibly difficult.

Dementia is a huge issue and there are many aspects to it. I hope I have touched on one—language—and one or two others that have not been covered by other hon. Members.

15:20

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate right hon. and hon. Members on securing this important debate. The speeches have been moving and thoughtful. Today has demonstrated the best of Parliament, with MPs coming together and contributing to how we can resolve the dreadful issues around dementia. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak today as, in addition to representing a constituency in Oldham where, in 2010, 2,318 people were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, the most common form of dementia, I have personal experience of being the daughter and carer of someone with Alzheimer’s. I would like to bring that personal experience to the debate.

In September last year, my mother died of Alzheimer’s. She was only 74. In 1992, she remarried and moved to the US, and it was there, 10 years later, that she was diagnosed with the disease.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that those who have experienced these sorts of incidences first hand can bring to debates a remarkable amount of insight to, and understanding of, these conditions? Does she also agree that it is important for us all, especially Government, to listen to those experiences, so that we might be able to learn from them?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I totally agree.

My mother was 64 when she was diagnosed and was still working. She told me that she stood in the middle of the office where she worked and could not remember why she was there. Not only did she find it abhorrent to be diagnosed with this devastating degenerative disease, but the financial consequences of having to give up her job were a severe blow too.

To watch her decline was nothing short of heartbreaking. Two years after she was diagnosed, the penny dropped for me when we went to a restaurant and she was given a menu. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, it is so important to make sure that people with dementia still have as much control over their lives as possible. She looked at the menu, and kept on looking at it again and again. She did not understand what she had to do with the menu—one of the practical consequences of the disease. She became a different person—not a better or a worse person, just different. As much as I loved my old Mum, I loved my new Mum too. I will remember until the day I die the first time she did not recognise me, which was about four years after she was diagnosed. She was very distressed, because she knew that I was someone of importance to her, but she did not know her relationship to me. Needless to say, the pain I felt was—well, I cannot explain.

My mother went from being a brilliant, vivacious, caring woman—a woman who invented the term social justice before it entered the lexicon—to a woman who gradually lost her ability to communicate, feed or toilet herself. In the last year of her life, she became wheelchair-bound and in her final month completely bedridden. She was unable even to lift her head and the end came shortly after she lost her ability to swallow.

In many ways we were very lucky because my mother remained physically well for so long, but also because up until the last year of her life she seemed relatively content, smiling and laughing, particularly around animals and children, as she had always been. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend that people with dementia understand far more and we have to find ways of communicating with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) also talked about different ways of engaging with people with dementia.

Unfortunately, the care arrangements in the final year of Mum’s life, and ultimately the circumstances around her death, can only be described as shameful. She was in the US at this stage. After much consideration, I have decided to talk about this now because dementia has such consequences for everybody in this country and across the world. Up until 2011, my stepfather, who is 81, had been Mum’s main carer, although he paid for a carer to help Mum get up in the morning in their New York home. I used to provide respite for him during my leave, but the physical and emotional toil and strain was taking its toll and he began looking for caring support.

That support was offered by an acquaintance of his who offered to provide care for my mum for an agreed fee. Over a few months, unbeknown to me or my family, the new carer moved into the house, got access to their finances, sold their home and drove them more than 800 miles away from my stepfather’s family in New York to South Carolina, where they knew nobody. Within a week of the move, my mum was admitted to hospital and we were told that she had days to live. When I arrived, I was shocked to see their circumstances: they had moved from a comfortable family home to what can only be described as a hovel, and the female carer had gained almost complete control over their lives. I alerted Adult Protective Services in South Carolina to my concerns for my mum’s and stepdad’s welfare on 24 August. After week’s of chasing it, including through the Governor’s office, I got a reply on 19 October saying that it deemed my father, whom it had never even met, to be competent and would not be taking it any further. Unfortunately, my mum had died by then.

My mum’s story is not unique. The stages in her decline and her and my family’s experiences are being replicated in this country and across the world. My story happened in the US and, based on my discussions with adult protection teams in this country, I am confident that the casual response from Adult Protective Services in South Carolina would not be reflected here, but there are still lessons to learn. We must ensure that the regime we set up around carers protects people with dementia from exploitation. I fear that, as has happened in other areas of the world where personal health budgets and individual social budgets have been introduced, some of the moves towards personal budgets here will lead to fraud and exploitation.

I could speak for hours about what I believe we need to do, but I would like to raise just a few points. First, as individuals, families and communities, we need to be more aware of the disease, as has already been mentioned. The odds are that most people will be affected by this disease. It might not be themselves or their family, but it might be their friends or neighbours, and we need to do more to protect ourselves against the disease. The Alzheimer’s Society is a wonderful resource, as we just heard, for information and support. We need to keep active and healthy, not smoke and so on—all the messages we know so well.

We need to do more on research. I fully support and recognise what the Government are doing in increasing research funding—it is such an important area—but the moneys being dedicated are paltry next to the scale of the problem. We need to address that. I was pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said about the Wellcome Trust funding, and I hope that we can pursue that more.

Finally, we need to do far more at health and care service levels. As I said, 2,318 people in Oldham were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 2010 and more than 800,000 across the country. By 2020, it is estimated that this number will have increased to 1 million. Most worryingly, however, as we have already heard, that is an underestimate and is probably half the actual scale of the disease. Apart from the human cost, £23 billion is spent treating and caring for Alzheimer’s patients every year. This will rise to £27 billion by 2018 and will continue to increase. There is already a care crisis in this country, with cuts to adult care services in the NHS, and this will only get worse, not better. Care services are already at breaking point. How will families cope with Alzheimer’s? It is a ticking time bomb. I urge the Government and the Opposition to work together to reach a cross-party consensus on how we fund and deliver a national care service, and that must include the Treasury teams. We cannot afford to kick this issue into the long grass any longer.

15:29

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) hit the nail on the head when she made the point that everyone knows somebody who has been affected by dementia or some form of Alzheimer’s. I have a stepmother who is very elderly now—she is 93 and is in a home. The last time I went to see her, she was woken up and she looked at me, squawked and went straight back to sleep again. That is very sad—it is incredibly sad—for one simple reason. This was a woman who got a degree at Oxford in 1938, at a time when women did not get degrees. She then became an interpreter at Bletchley Park during the war and played a significant part in defending our country from Nazi oppression. For her to be in that position now is very worrying and concerning for all of us. I very much hope that she continues to have an acceptable life, and I am delighted that everyone there is most certainly going to be helpful.

I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who must have found it very difficult to talk about their personal lives and experiences. I commend them both for being able to do so in this environment and for getting through it. May I also say what an honour it is to share a platform in this debate with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck)? I suspect that, between us, we will find ourselves repeating each other somewhat, although I am in the fortunate position of going first.

The issue of social care is becoming increasingly important. There has been an enormous amount of press attention on how people are cared for in the latter years of their lives. However harrowing the stories may be, they provide us with an opportunity to speak about social care and lessen the stigma that surrounds death and dying. Dementia is already a significant issue and a growing concern that should not be ignored.

I am delighted to say that I represent a constituency in a part of a city that has a really good reputation on dementia, especially through the university. An enormous amount of research is done; indeed, I am for ever getting telephone calls from Ian Sheriff—for whom I have an enormous amount of time—who rings me up and gives me advice on how we should handle this issue. However, I was surprised to find out that there are currently more clinical trials into hay fever than into some common forms of dementia. So I heard that our mutual friend the Health Secretary had announced that spending on dementia research would receive a £22 million cash injection I was incredibly grateful. More funding will most certainly need to be made available to excellent bodies around the country such as the Alzheimer’s Society and to universities such as Plymouth.

Plymouth university conducts a great deal of research into dementia and this policy area. In September the university held a very good conference, which it asked the Prime Minister to attend. Unfortunately he could not come, but we will see whether we can have another go later. Any help that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), can give to encourage the Prime Minister to come and participate in the dementia conference would be helpful. Indeed, his lead in the dementia challenge has given the whole thing an impetus. The university also does a lot of work on community engagement and raising awareness. Indeed, shortly after Christmas I went to Stoke Damerel community college, which has done a lot of work on encouraging youngsters to become more involved in community engagement with dementia. May I also pay tribute again to HMS Drake, which is taking a big lead on dementia and ensuring that this happens elsewhere in the Ministry of Defence?

In Plymouth there are around 3,200 individuals with dementia. That figure is forecast to rise by 35% in the next 10 years, but this is just the beginning. The diagnosis rate is 39%, which it is estimated will increase by 27% before 2021. That means that a large number of people in my constituency do not have access to the care and support they need on a daily basis. The new NHS mandate commits to drive up diagnosis, which can only be a good thing for both sufferers and their families. I know that the Government want the clinical commissioning groups and the NHS Commissioning Board to work together on that aim, and I would welcome more information from my hon. Friend the Minister on what plans are in place to ensure that that happens, so that the lives of sufferers and their carers can improve.

GPs are on the front line when it comes to driving up diagnosis rates. They express their concern about mistaking the symptoms of dementia for old age. In some cases, they do not make a diagnosis of dementia because they feel that to do so is futile. I am aware that the Department of Health has put the case for a reward through proactive case finding, which is due to be consulted on this year. Is there a timetable for that consultation to begin? The sooner we start to diagnose those in need, the sooner we can start to help them.

Earlier this week, I participated in a debate on the Liverpool care pathway. We had an interesting discussion, and real concerns were raised. I told a story about a constituent who came to see me about her father. It had been decided to put him on the Liverpool care pathway, but the family were concerned because they knew nothing about that until they were told about it by one of the car park attendants at the hospital. The process was supposed to last for two days, but it went on for 12 days, and the family were very concerned about that. Will my hon. Friend the Minister have another look at that issue, just to make sure that such cases have been included in the review of the LCP?

A number of excellent facilities exist around the country, especially in Plymouth, and I want to pay tribute to St Luke’s hospice, and to the hospice movement in general, for doing a tremendous job. They are certainly appropriate places for people to spend the last few days of their lives. Given that the report on Stafford hospital is to be released shortly, however, it is clear that dementia sufferers often do not have the dignified death that we would expect for them. I am aware that we are all mortal, although I have wondered whether God might make an exception in my case, and whether I might be here for ever and a day. I know that that is not going to happen, however.

It is important to ensure that, when dementia sufferers die, they are able to do so with dignity and without pain. The more work that we can do to ensure that that happens, the better. Vulnerable people need to be properly looked after, as do their carers. We need to ensure that we talk to the relatives as well, to ensure that they understand the processes involved. None of us—politicians or anyone else—likes to be ambushed, and it is important to help those family members to work their way through their suffering as well.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some good points. Those who care for dementia sufferers need respite care, but we do not always provide for that as well as we should. I am keen to see more respite care being provided for those who care for people with dementia.

[Oliver Colvile]

I agree with my hon. Friend. This is also about the families, who have to deal with dementia on a daily basis.

Given the appalling events at Stafford hospital, appropriate checks and balances must be put in place to ensure that people with dementia are given the proper quality of care in all hospitals. Further, it should become standard practice that the demands of someone with dementia should be listened to. It is incredibly important that we get better at listening to what they, and their families, are saying. Dementia is a complex illness, and it is often difficult to assess its onset. Whenever possible, however, conversations should be held with the individual and their loved ones about what is happening and the process that is involved. Such conversations would be useful in helping the family through the process.

Dementia is now one of the top five causes of death in the United Kingdom, and it is disappointing that the health and wellbeing boards are being a little slow to consider people’s needs. About 800,000 people in the UK have dementia, and that number is going to go up. It is said that more pressure is being put on the national health service. I do not think that is right. I think that we are making enormous strides in order to deliver better health care for our elderly. It is because we want to do more that our national health service is facing increasing levels of challenge.

For those with dementia, the changes to long-term care are crucial. I am delighted that the Government are looking at trying to take forward the Dilnot report, to which I made my own submission—I have a copy here or I could e-mail it to the Minister. That report must be viewed as a blueprint for how to go forward.

There has been increasing debate with the Treasury since the 1940s. Let me remind everyone of what happened in 1947 when the national health service, of which we are all very supportive and proud, was first set up. The other half of the equation was long-term social care. Over the last 10 or 15 years since I was a candidate for Plymouth, Sutton as it then was—it is now Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—I have spoken about the divorce of social care from the national health service. If I have a heart attack or have cancer, I will have to deal with it one way, but if I have Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or dementia, it will be considered to some extent as being a separate challenge. I believe that we need to bring the two much closer together.

I have some concerns about using insurance. Every time I have had to make claims—on my car insurance, for example—I have always had some difficulty with my provider. We need to look at that, but we need to ensure that people do not see all their savings just disappearing into a black hole. That is something that we need to deal with as a country. There is a danger that the amount of money individuals are asked to pay for their care will remain far too high. We cannot hide from that in our ageing society.

At the beginning of my time in the House, I wrote a paper on the strategic defence and security review, in which I said that there were two important matters of which we needed to take notice. The first was that more money needed to be put into defence—I continue to say that—but the second was that we should devote more money to long-term care for the elderly. That was my No. 2 priority; it has to be incredibly important.

I welcome the Government’s decision to take on the global health challenge—a priority after years of neglecting this growing problem. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment and the leadership and extra support he has provided for people with dementia in carrying out their everyday tasks. That shows a shift in the wish to combat the stigma that surrounds dementia and to achieve greater awareness of the illness. We need to learn, too, from the ethnic minority communities that tend to work much more closely together with their families in providing care.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I want to support his point about the Prime Minister and the issue of stigma with a quote from Professor Dawn Brooker, who helped found the Association for Dementia Studies at the university of Worcester. She said:

“Stigma and fear are the biggest enemies of achieving”

progress on dementia. She continued:

“What makes the PM Challenge so important is that it says very clearly that he is not ashamed or fearful of standing up and talking about dementia. If he can do this then it makes it safe for every politician and leader to do the same.”

I believe Members of all parties have shown the same courage in taking this issue forward today.

[Oliver Colvile]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the same issue applies to mental health, about which I have also spoken at some length in this place. We need to break down these taboos and move on.

I very much hope I have not taken all the thunder of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View. There must be joint responsibility between Government health boards and staff in the health service to ensure that the diagnosis of dementia and the quality of care improve significantly. In way, we can show that we are on track for the future.

15:44

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this Back-Bench debate on dementia. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on securing the debate and on their excellent contributions. I join others in saying how much I appreciated the moving and personal contributions from right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon. It must have been very difficult for them to talk about their personal experiences, but they did it very well.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles has worked unstintingly on this issue, locally and nationally. Like her, I want Salford to become a dementia-friendly community. I share her pride that Salford contains one of the 10 national demonstration sites, in the Humphrey Booth centre in Swinton, which has its own day centre, the Poppy centre. I also agree with her that more needs to be done to improve our community services, to reduce hospital stays, to increase rates of diagnosis of the condition—many Members have mentioned that today—and to end the stigma that is so often associated with it.

I want to talk specifically about carers for people with dementia. As others have pointed out, about 10% of our 6.5 million carers are caring for a person with dementia, which means that at least 2,000 of our 22,000 carers in Salford must be in that position. The nature of the symptoms of dementia clearly makes providing such care particularly difficult. People with dementia can grow agitated, and they may wander at night and call out when asleep, which means that the carers themselves get little sleep. The personal care needs of those with dementia can be very great, as has also been mentioned today. Many people are performing a caring function for more than 100 hours a week. As we have heard, family members caring for a person with dementia must cope with personality change and loss of memory. Those very serious changes cause them to suffer feelings of grief and loss, similar to the experience of bereavement but before bereavement.

Dealing with that heavy caring work load also means that shortcomings in the provision of appropriate care services will be keenly felt. If carers do not have confidence in the quality or appropriateness of care, they will not have the confidence to take the respite breaks they so badly need. In 2007, when I was parliamentary champion for carers week, I visited some local carers and talked to them about our local services. One of them, a remarkable woman, was caring for her husband, who had vascular dementia. When she and I introduced ourselves, she told me “I am his nurse.” That was the change that had come about in her relationship with her husband.

The woman also told me how impossible it was proving to be to find adequate respite care locally. On one occasion, a week’s respite care had been arranged, with her husband staying at a local nursing home. Owing to a catalogue of problems at the start of the week, she then had no confidence that the home would manage her husband’s care properly, and she began to visit him there every day. By Wednesday, when family members found him lying unshaven in a soiled bed, she said that enough was enough, and brought him home. The end result of all her worries during those four days was that she developed eczema and had to visit her GP. That was her one week’s respite care.

One aspect of that woman’s life that she did praise was the support given by Crossroads Care, which is now part of the Carers Trust. Twice a week it provided two hours of respite care that she trusted. During one two-hour slot, she did her shopping at the local supermarket; during the other, she went to play bingo. When I asked her what we politicians could do for her and what changes she wanted to see, she told me that she wanted regulators who inspected care or nursing homes to ask carers for feedback about their experiences, and that, for herself, she wanted occasionally to have respite care lasting longer than two hours, so that she could wander around the shops rather than racing to get back home.

That was more than five years ago. I wish I could record that the situation for carers for people with dementia had improved radically in that time, but, given the increasing number of people with dementia and the crisis in the funding of social care—which has been touched on by several Members—the amount of respite care per individual carer cannot be stepped up dramatically, which is a pity. Crossroads Care told me that in 2008 it had provided 9,000 hours of respite care for 398 carers. This year it will provide some 13,800 hours of respite care for 567 carers. As I said earlier, we probably have some 2,000 carers for people with dementia, so the support is reaching only just over a quarter of the people who might need it.

The Health Committee’s recent report on our accountability hearing with the Care Quality Commission concluded that the regulator inspecting our care homes still did not have the confidence of carers, families and residents. It recommended that feedback from carers and other members of the public should start to be regarded by the commission as “free intelligence”, and that the regulator should act swiftly when complaints were brought to light.

In 2007 I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Carers (Identification and Support) Bill, which required health bodies

“to identify patients who are carers or who have a carer”

and take steps to promote their health. I have introduced similar Bills subsequently, including, on 7 September this year, the Social Care (Local Sufficiency) and Identification of Carers Bill. I am still convinced of the need for health bodies—hospitals or, in primary care, GPs and their teams—to identify carers and ensure they receive information, advice and health checks. That would help avoid the isolation carers feel, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) talked about. They would be connected with professionals and other carers.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying, and, indeed, we might mention institutions such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in this context. When I worked for the Alzheimer’s Society, we had the experience of trying to persuade NICE that evidence from carers about some quite difficult-to-research things such as behaviour and daily living skills was valid evidence when collected systematically and at scale—and, indeed, just as valid in its way as the evidence from things such as clinical trials and cognitive scales?

[Barbara Keeley]

Yes, and probably more so. The key concept here is that of the expert carer. Reference has been made to the professional carer, but I think expert carer is the right term. I shall talk about NICE shortly.

My Bill stated that health bodies should promote and safeguard the health and well-being of carers. They should ensure that effective procedures exist to identify patients who are carers or who are about to become carers, and ensure systems are in place to make sure that carers receive information and advice and that general medical services are rendered to patients who are carers. The reason for that is that carers will ignore their own health. They will entirely put the person they are caring for first, and put their own health to the back of the queue.

I was interested to see that this week NICE started a consultation on the topics prioritised for development in the quality and outcomes framework for 2014-15. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) discussed the three indicators, the first of which is:

“The percentage of patients with dementia with the contact details of a named carer on their record.”

The second indicator is:

“The practice has a register of patients who are carers of a person with dementia.”

The third indicator is:

“The percentage of carers (of a person with dementia) who have had an assessment of their health and support needs in the preceding 12 months.”

I would have welcomed this development, as the identification and support of carers is a crucial issue, but I have some comments to make on the indicators. I doubt whether the QOF is the best way to achieve progress, and in some respects this issue is a higher priority. We currently give three QOF points to GP practices that keep a register of carers, but they could, in fact, have a small and static register of carers that they did not consult on, improve and develop. They would still get three points, however. The task of properly identifying carers and making sure they get the advice and support and the health checks they need is certainly worth more than the £400 that these three QOF points averages out as being worth. Is that what we think these tasks are worth? They surely must be worth more than that.

I have taken advice on this matter and I suggest that a better solution would be to tier the indicator payment based on the percentage of carers identified. Sufficient QOF points should be given properly to recognise the achievement of the task as well. It will take a number of people quite a bit of time to perform it, particularly if it is performed at the higher levels of achievement. Carers trusts tell me it is hard to find GP practices where more than 3% of carers are identified. The figure should be about 10%.

I fully support the indicator measuring the percentage of carers who have had an assessment of their health and support needs in the preceding 12 months, as that is a very important development, but why does it cover only carers of people with dementia? In my constituency there are carers of people who have had a stroke who have a very heavy, and very similar, work load to carers of those with dementia. It would be better to specify a small range of long-term conditions that lead to carers having a heavy caring work load, and they should be identified and receive assessments.

I want to record my thanks to organisations in Salford and elsewhere that do a wonderful job in supporting carers of people with dementia. I have mentioned the Humphrey Booth centre, and Age UK in Salford has a dementia support service. Those services are very important. They provide buddy cafés that support both people with dementia with activities and carers with respite. A buddy café lasts for five hours. That is a welcome period of respite for carers. There is a drop-in café at the HBC as well as a carers training programme, and it offers vital information, advice and advocacy services. It is a key partner in Salford, providing better quality services to people with dementia.

Last, but definitely not least, I should mention Salford Carers Centre, which plays a key role in identifying carers and helping them with information, advice and support. I believe that our practice in identifying carers, both in primary care and acute settings, is making a real and vital difference to helping our carers to care. I have invited the Minister, just as I invited his predecessor, to come to Salford to see what we do. The key other part of that now is Crossroads Care, which provides vital respite care.

I will finish on the issue about the funding of care, as many hon. Members have done. The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the moving speech made by a carer at the meeting earlier in the week to launch a pamphlet he wrote. In her contribution, that carer described the difficulty of managing catastrophic care costs for a person with dementia. She said:

“A £35,000 cap, as proposed by Dilnot (or even £50,000 or £60,000) could give me back my life. Our liabilities would be over. I could concentrate on my frail mum instead of the practical and emotional burden of single-handedly selling our family home. My mother has an incurable disease that has robbed us both of our lives; must it rob us of our assets too?”

I could not put it better than that, so I will not try to do so. As other hon. Members have said, we must consider setting the cap, up and down the country, at a lower level than £75,000, which will help people such as this carer. I have outlined a number of ways to support the carers of people with dementia, and I hope we give them the priority they deserve.

15:56

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

I listened with great pleasure to my hon. Friend—I hope I can call her that—the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley); I have the privilege of serving as her deputy on the all-party group on social care. I wish to echo the point she has just made, which was also so well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who played such an important role in securing today’s debate.

This is a very important occasion for us to show the collective will of hon. Members—there are so many here today—to hold the Government’s feet, and indeed the Opposition’s feet, to the fire. We need urgently to come to an all-party agreement on how to fund properly the future of care and social care in our community. I also wish to thank the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) for her contribution. I am sure that she will indulge me as I thank the chair of the all-party group on dementia, Baroness Greengross, who has dedicated her whole life, both in the other place and outside Parliament, to raising issues affecting older people, their families and carers so well. I thank the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles for her part in securing this debate, which gives us such an important opportunity to de-stigmatise dementia and other mental illness.

I remember only too well that when I was a child growing up people would not talk about cancer; it was whispered about or called “the C word”. Thankfully, we can now openly talk about cancer, which is to the great benefit of sufferers, their families, their loved ones and their carers. We must quickly move to the same position for people suffering from dementia, Alzheimer’s and a range of other mental health conditions.

[Neil Parish]

I agree very much with my hon. Friend that cross-party support on how to provide long-term care for people with dementia is essential, because our population is ageing. Better medical care means that people are living longer, but of course it also means that we will have more people suffering from dementia. It is right that we accept that situation as being part of society and as something we must deal with, but we must have a way of providing the funding so that we do not take away everybody’s assets to pay for treating dementia.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes his point well. I know that other hon. Members have very worthwhile points to make, so I do not wish to take up too much of the limited time available. However, I wish to make just a few points about how we in Cornwall are rising to the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge. It is right for us to set strategies nationally and to agree nationally on the overall frameworks to tackle one of the greatest challenges of our century. However, it is also important to look for the solutions locally. We should set the strategies nationally but enable everybody in communities around the country to come together to find their solutions. As the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) rightly said in his opening remarks, we will all have to rise to the challenge. Every single part of society and every part of the public sector has its role to play. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, the private sector, including supermarkets and other organisations in the public domain, has an important role.

What have we done in Cornwall of which I am so proud and which I want to share with right hon. and hon. Members? Let us start with the NHS, because when people seek a diagnosis that is where they start off on their journey with dementia. We have set up the Kernow clinical commissioning group, which is very successful and has got off to a flying start. It has attracted a large sum from the dementia challenge—well over £500,000. What is it doing with that money? It is working very effectively in partnership with other parts of the public sector, voluntary organisations and other parts of the NHS to ensure that there is an integrated, joined-up approach in Cornwall.

The CCG has targeted an issue mentioned by many Members, which is the need to ensure that everybody working in health and social care is properly trained, from carers through to doctors and nurses in the acute sector, to ensure that they are aware of dementia and how to talk to and relate to the people with this condition with whom they come into contact, as well as their families, friends and informal carers. The group is also using the money to ensure, among other things, that from the moment of diagnosis of dementia through to the end of life, sadly, there is a named individual available for that person and their family and carers. Obviously, it is early days as it just got the funding in November, but its ambitions are very important and will make a real difference to the quality of life of families in Cornwall.

Another issue that has been mentioned today is the lack of care from some nurses in parts of the acute sector. I want to share with hon. Friends a great initiative in the Royal Cornwall hospital, which is our only acute hospital in Cornwall. The friends of the Royal Cornwall hospital, who have worked so well with nurses, doctors and managers over a long period, are addressing some of the issues raised today. They have a very good system of mealtime companions, specially trained volunteers who work alongside care assistants and nursing staff. When the staff are too busy, they provide the extra time, care, compassion and consideration that needs to be given to a range of patients, including those with dementia, to ensure that they have a drink and something to eat. The hospital is also open to family members and others at mealtimes. I recommend that hon. Friends take that issue up with their hospital trusts and use the example of Royal Cornwall, which has clearly found a way around the problem.

The voluntary sector and society as a whole will have a hugely important part to play. Like many other hon. Members who have spoken, I am involved with the memory café in my constituency, in Falmouth. There are 24 other memory cafés in Cornwall and they are really important. People with dementia and other memory loss conditions, their families and their carers can come along to a safe, supportive environment, have some fun and do some interesting activities, talk to each other and get information. That is very important.

In Cornwall, we are fundraising for Admiral nurses. Those Members who have Admiral nurses in their constituencies will know the very important work they do to support families in much the same way as Macmillan nurses support cancer patients and their families. Admiral nurses provide an invaluable service for people with dementia and I shall be working hard alongside those who are fundraising so that we soon, I hope, have Admiral nurses in Cornwall.

I could talk about a lot of things, but for the sake of brevity let me simply say that many of the activities I have mentioned must be co-ordinated and planned. I want to reassure my Opposition colleagues that that is possible. Our health and wellbeing board in Cornwall has got off to a really good start. It works very closely with public health providers and all the different parts of the community, from housing to environmental health, to pull together a strategy for dementia and turn the good ideas and aspirations into action. I see the reforms to the NHS giving a great deal of power to doctors, other health professionals and people across the public sector to come together to work in partnership to deliver local solutions that work for communities. Salford is quite different from Cornwall and we all need to work together to find what works in our communities.

A great deal of good work has been going on in Cornwall and will continue in years to come, but I am not complacent. We are a part of the country with a fast- ageing population and have yet to find ways to diagnose dementia accurately. We have some of the lowest levels of detection of dementia. I will work hard with colleagues in Cornwall in all sectors to drive that up.

[Hazel Blears]

Like the hon. Lady, I am keen to foster the sense of consensus and cross-party working on this essential issue, but the elephant in the room in this debate is the severe cuts that have had to be made to local authority social care over the past three years—nearly £1 million in Salford. I wonder how in her community in Cornwall, which will be facing similar issues, she is dealing with the impact of substantial cuts in day-to-day care.

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that question, because it gives me a good opportunity to praise Cornwall council. Undoubtedly all local authorities are facing tough decisions as a result of having to make cuts. There have been no politics in this debate so I will not go on to say why we are faced with the mess and why we have to make those difficult decisions, which I am sure we would rather not have to make. Cornwall council has not cut at all its expenditure on adult social care.

It gives me great pride to be able to stand up here and publicly thank Cornwall council for that. It is making sure that every penny that it receives from the Government—every single penny of the extra money to integrate NHS services with Cornwall council’s adult social care service—and the entitlement money and the money for carers’ respite is being spent. The council is not cutting front-line services for the most vulnerable people. The current settlement coming from the Government is increasing the amount of money into Cornwall for further improving and integrating the quality of care between adult social care and the NHS.

Those of us who have been around this subject and who have been campaigning on it for years, which includes many of the Members in the Chamber, know that the future lies in joined-up, integrated services. It is not about throwing ever more millions of pounds at the problems. It is about being smarter and wiser and linking all those services around the patient, the carers and the families. That is what is going on in Cornwall.

To summarise, I am in no doubt about the challenges that we face and I am not at all complacent. We need to build on the very good momentum and leadership shown by the Prime Minister on the issue to ensure that every family and everyone suffering from the condition gets the best possible care from us.

16:08

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

Most Members in the Chamber will have received e-mails and letters and read in the media that MPs and people at Westminster have no idea what is going on in the real world. I hope people have been listening to and watching this debate and have heard the highly emotional, very personal, incredibly thoughtful speeches that we have had in the debate today, which give the lie to those cynical comments from those outside this place. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for the debate and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) for opening it. His expertise and interest in care in relation to dementia are well known and noted, and I thank him for taking the opportunity, along with many others, to highlight one of the more important health issues facing the country.

Unlike almost every other Member who has contributed to the debate, I have not had anyone in my close family suffer from dementia—I know people who have, but they were not immediate family members—so my speech might sound a little more clinical than others we have heard. We probably all know someone who has been touched by dementia. As we live longer, virtually every family will be affected and, as with cancer, we will have to learn to cope with an illness that a century ago people would not have lived long enough to experience. Indeed, only 30 or 40 years ago—20 years into my life—we would not have experienced family members having that awful degenerative disease.

[Mrs Moon]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must be careful not to make it sound as if dementia happens only to the elderly? Vascular dementia and prefrontal dementia affect young people. Certainly, prefrontal dementias tend to onset when people are in their 40s and 50s. We must not let the population of this country run away with the idea that dementia happens only to old people and that it is a consequence of old age, because that is not necessarily so.

[Alison Seabeck]

My hon. Friend speaks with enormous knowledge and is absolutely right. My godmother died at the age of 56 from Alzheimer’s, as it was described then, although I suspect that it was something much more complex.

Our ageing population poses challenges, including how we discuss in a much more open and constructive way what has, in effect, been a no-go area. Cancer is a case in point. It is mentioned in hushed tones, in corners of rooms. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) touched on that in her speech. Victims were often not told they had the disease. Dementia and Alzheimer’s have been treated in much the same way. As with cancer, I think that we are all learning not to be afraid of speaking about the disease. By doing so, we can better support those affected, their families and carers.

We know that the number of sufferers is going to rise. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile)—we duplicated on this a bit—pointed out that the number is rising significantly across the UK. Indeed, it will probably rise to 1.7 million people by 2050. In Plymouth, probably around 3,000 people have dementia—I say probably because many people with dementia will not have gone to their GP and their families might not be aware of their condition. That brings us back to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), because there are potentially so many people out there who are yet to be diagnosed. That is why such debates are so important in raising awareness. We cannot simply carry on sweeping the issue under the carpet. It is a little like hiding bills behind a clock on the mantelpiece: they do not actually go away; they just mount up. The same applies to dementia; caring issues mount up, and costs certainly will.

Dementia will cost the UK about £23 billion in 2013, yet dementia research is desperately underfunded, as we have heard. The Government invest about eight times less in dementia research than they do in cancer research. These are financially difficult times, but we need to ask whether we have that balance right. I welcome moves from the top of the Government to look at the priority dementia receives.

Dementia is a particular concern in the south-west. Figures show that 40,000 people across the region have been diagnosed, and Devon has one of the highest levels in the country, in part because of our demography—people want to retire there, so there is a significant number of older people. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend has put me right, it is not just an older person’s disease.

I know from my constituency surgeries, as I am sure that others do, just how scary a diagnosis can be for patients and their families. We need to handle the diagnosis point with enormous sensitivity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) made that point extremely powerfully and clearly. Every family copes in different ways, but they all ultimately need support. Some may pretend that they do not—that they can get on, manage and cope—but that is not the case.

Carers tell me that they get stressed and worried when they are out with their loved ones. They are acutely aware that others do not understand the behaviour of the person they are with who is suffering from dementia. Shopping can be a simply dreadful experience. One carer said to me, “It would be so good to be able to go out shopping and not worry.” The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a good point about that. I am delighted to hear that companies such as Asda are training their staff better to recognise and support customers who are having difficulties. I hope that other companies out there have heard that and will look at the excellent work that those companies appear to be doing.

Nor can we underestimate the pressure on carers’ mental health. They often struggle on in silence. We all know the type of person: they appear on the outside to be incredibly resilient, but in fact they are not. They need their needs to be fully understood, not only by the health service but by the people around them—those who work with them and live with them.

In Plymouth we are working towards becoming not only a dementia-friendly community but a dementia-friendly city. We have some superb people leading the campaign and taking the steps to move it forward, including Ian Sherriff and Dr Helen McFarlane from Plymouth university. We have councillors and officers on Plymouth city council, as well as a welter of voluntary organisations. We also have an accredited memory service. The diagnostic rate for the identification of dementia has seen a significant improvement following the work by Dr Cartmell to map a dementia pathway, which has provided GPs with a useful educational tool to support referral, diagnosis and treatment.

As we have heard from virtually every speaker, the early diagnosis of dementia is very important, as is the way in which society reacts to and supports those with the disease. People are helped to be empowered at a much earlier stage when they are better able to take important decisions about their care pathways. They are also enabled to share those decisions with the people closest to them, who may well be caring for them. Those affected should be able to take their own decisions for as long as that is feasible and possible. It is hugely important that they are able to take an informed view about their future life and lifestyle while living with dementia, guiding clinicians in the pattern of care wanted. Early diagnosis takes a certain tension out of the system, and we cannot overstate how important that is.

As I mentioned, in Plymouth we have lots of organisations working towards our becoming a dementia-friendly city. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked about the naval base, HMS Drake, where people have signed up to play their part in the Plymouth Dementia Action Alliance. Human resources policies have been amended to support service families, who may also be caring for somebody with dementia. Someone on the front line on a tour of duty in Afghanistan already has an awful lot to worry about apart from worrying about a relative, or somebody they are very close to, who has dementia. It is enormously important for them to be confident that that person is in good and caring hands while they are a long way away and out of contact.

The Dartmoor rescue team has also lent its skills. One might ask why, but I am afraid we have all heard these stories and all know people who have said, “A member of my family has left home and wandered off.” We have a young councillor on Plymouth city council whose grandfather has a habit of doing that and she often tweets asking whether anybody has seen him. The Dartmoor rescue team is bringing its expertise to bear not only by helping to track and find people, but by taking people for walks in areas they may be familiar with on Dartmoor and elsewhere.

As we have heard, the private sector is also buying in and schools such as Stoke Damerel have taken an interest, because children have grandparents who may be suffering. Helping them understand what is happening to their gran or grandpa offers reassurance.

I want to see the work that is being done in Plymouth to prepare us to be a dementia-friendly city come to fruition. I put on record my thanks to all those involved in the alliance who are pressing forward with that work. Importantly, I want every city in the UK to follow the lead of, and move in the same direction as, some of the country’s early pioneers.

I recently attended the opening of Waylands in Ernesettle in my constituency. It is a residential centre for people with varying stages of dementia. It is a well-thought-through development and I would hope to see more such developments being built to such a high standard. Everything has been thought through, including memory boxes and the colour of the walls. It is a superb facility. However, there is an issue—this has been touched on by other Members—namely the recruitment of staff with the right qualifications and attitude towards nursing and supporting patients with dementia. The centre tells me that it has been quite easy to recruit care assistants with good qualifications and the right attitude, but much more difficult to get properly trained dementia nurses. What is the Minister’s Department doing, alongside the Departments for Education and for Business, Innovation and Skills, to ensure that we have enough people with the right skills to meet that undoubted need? We also need reassurance that those people are properly trained. We do not want a recurrence of what happened in Stafford.

Patients with dementia cannot whistleblow, which is a real issue. If someone does not have a family around them to identify the problems they face, how will their voice be heard? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has said, too many people are alone in hospital who do not have people to take action to feed them. I cannot say how strongly I feel about the importance of good, compassionate nursing care to look after people with every need—and I mean every need—and ensure that they eat and live as long a life as possible, given their conditions.

We also need to take into account the fact that dementia sufferers have a range of other physical ailments. We need to learn and do better on the ways in which they are nursed and how clinical teams handle them. These people are very afraid, in strange circumstances, often alone and faced with strange equipment and various other things. I genuinely think that an awful lot more could be done to make their progress through the health-care system altogether more sensitive to their individual needs.

I look forward to hearing the responses of both Front-Bench representatives to this debate. I want a firm commitment to a long-term dementia strategy but, more importantly, we have to have a national solution for care and it has to be affordable. As other Members have said, the figures in the press this week seem to be excessively high, but I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

16:23

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

These are, as Charles Dickens put it, the best of times and the worst of times. It is a time of plenty; it is a time of difficulty. It is a time of great medical advancements, and yet a time of a greater number of dementia sufferers. It is a time of conflict on the Floor, and yet a time of shared priorities and shared understandings of the difficulties that we all face. Any person who wishes to understand the House of Commons should have been present today when, to be frank, we have seen the best of the House. The hon. Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) gave the finest speeches that I have heard for some time, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) made the best intervention by a Minister that I have heard for a long time and for which we will all be grateful to her. These things are remembered in this place.

Members of my family have suffered from dementia and anybody who has suffered from a brain tumour, as I have, will know of the insidious creeping of memory loss, the loss of brain function through neurodegenerative disease and the huge difficulties that those things entail. I am very fortunate that I had the operation, recovered and am, I like to think, better than I was previously. I believe that my experience gives me a unique insight into the early onset of the brain disorder that constitutes dementia. It is a terrible thing. It is a harrowing, upsetting and difficult thing to have to deal with.

I will speak about the reality in my constituency, but I am having to abbreviate my speech massively. Tynedale, which I represent, is a dementia-friendly community with well over 1,000 sufferers. It has outstanding GPs, care homes and hospices, and an NHS community that is doing a fantastic job. I pay tribute to Age Concern, Headway and the Alzheimer’s Society, which do a great job. I also pay tribute to homes such as Wellburn House in Ovingham, Helen McCardle Care’s Acomb Court, the Abbeyfield homes in Corbridge and Ponteland, and Tynedale Grange in Haltwhistle, all of which provide exemplary elderly care and do all that they can to assist those who are suffering from the onset of dementia.

Ever-increasing work is being done by the national health service. As I said at the outset, it is good that there is greater understanding of this problem and that attempts are being made—of course, we all want more to happen—to provide the analysis and research that are so desperately needed for a true focus on neurodegenerative disease. Surely the most difficult part for the Government is to have joined-up services. We can talk about individual good examples from communities up and down the country, but until there are joined-up medical services, provided on a multitude of bases to individual patients, we will always struggle. That is the most important thing for the Government to work on, even if they do nothing more.

Like others, I welcome this debate. It does great credit to the Backbench Business Committee and to the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and others who have promoted this issue.

The Prime Minister has had the guts to stand up and make sure that people understand that dementia is no different from cancer or heart disease—it is a fundamental disease and a killer. However, because it is unseen and intangible, it is difficult to comprehend the problems that it entails. I welcome the increased funding.

I want to make three points in my abbreviated address. The first is about the need for joined-up Government. There must be ways in which Government can advise, cajole, improve and give assistance to the various providers at the various stages in the system, such that all their individual efforts become a collective effort.

Secondly, I welcome the fact that intellectual stimulation is still seen as the best method of preventing degeneration in cases of dementia. In that respect, we must be careful not to become too accountant-focused in the provision of health care services. I made my name as a pro bono lawyer fighting the decision to close services at Savernake hospital. I regret to say that the previous Government were involved in that, but other Governments have done such things in the past. We have to focus on the parts of the health care system that are providing the intellectual stimulation that is the preventive in these matters.

Finally, I represent a community that contains one school with a catchment area roughly the size of the area inside the M25. West Northumberland is the least populated part of the country and rural health care is monumentally more difficult than urban health care. I do not dispute that these matters are difficult everywhere, but if someone is two hours’ travel from a hospital or an hour from their local GP and has problems on an ongoing basis, it is immensely difficult to provide health care. The Government must bring their attention to bear on how they can assist NHS organisations in the provision of rural health care in the future, and on how to tackle this insidious and terrible disease.

16:30

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

It is a real privilege to have listened to so many excellent and moving speeches from both sides of the House. This is by far the best debate I have sat through since becoming a Member of Parliament and I feel very lucky to be part of it. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, and warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on securing this extremely important debate.

As we have heard many times today, dementia is a cruel and distressing disease that affects an increasing number of people in this country. Like many hon. Members who have spoken, I have seen the impact that dementia has had on my constituents and in my own family. Women in their 60s and 70s are seeing their once proud, sharp and vivacious husbands not only struggle to get up in the morning or go to the toilet, but to finish sentences and remember key points of their married lives together, and their hopes of having a great retirement with the person they love are fading away. Sons and daughters are trying to help their mums and dads walk, talk and feed themselves—just as they used to do for them—and coping with the terrible shock when their own parent does not recognise them or seem to know who they are.

Dementia is distressing not only because of the physical impact it can have on the person with the condition and the practical struggle that many families face in caring for their relatives, but because it affects something so essential to our humanity—our relationships with our families and the people we love and care for most. Relationships are based on memory and shared experiences. If memory fades and those experiences and relationships are lost, it feels as if the disease is taking away the essence of the person we love and therefore something fundamental about who we are too.

People are frightened of dementia because they fear it will destroy their minds and relationships as well as their bodies, and because they think that nothing can be done. That, however, is not the case. Although there is currently no cure for dementia, as many hon. Members have said, with the right care and support, people with dementia can enjoy a good quality of life, even in advanced stages of the condition.

Hon. Members have spoken passionately about services in their own constituencies and places they have seen. Last year I visited a day care centre, Dove House in Barnet, provided by the fabulous Alzheimer’s Society. The people there told me how going to that day centre and having stimulating, non-medicating help and support such as gardening, cooking, singing or music, had brought their loved one back to life in a way they did not think was possible, and also that they had got a desperately needed break and therefore their relationship had improved.

There is superb residential care for people with advanced dementia at Fountain Court in Wolverhampton, which I visited last year. It is run by an inspirational manager, Michaela Wilson, who demonstrates the kind of creative thinking mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), and many others. I will give two brief examples of that.

First, there was one resident who never took a cup of tea. Michaela Wilson was worried about that because people need hydration, but she saw that he kept tapping his pocket and realised, “Ah. He is used to having change in his pocket and thinks he is supposed to pay for this.” She gave him change every morning; he put it in his pocket, it always fell out, but he took a cup of tea.

There is a second example of such creative thinking. The home is brilliantly designed—lights go on when people get out of bed, and doors open. There was a yellow toilet seat because people with dementia recognise colour, but one guy kept getting out of the other side of the bed and going to the toilet in the bin. The staff were getting a bit annoyed, so Michaela Wilson said, “At least he recognises he’s supposed to go to the toilet somewhere,” so they put a second bin there. The man slept better and was more relaxed. It was a fantastic service.

The quality of dementia care is changing, but not quickly enough and not in enough parts of the country. Many hon. Members have said that we need to do for dementia over the next 10 years what we have done for cancer over the past 20 years. Above all, we need to give people hope that something can be done. That is essential in ensuring that everyone gets an early diagnosis, because people do not want to come forward if they believe that nothing can be done if they are diagnosed.

We must do even more to raise awareness of dementia and to tackle the stigma many people still feel, so that they are not embarrassed if their husband, wife, mum or dad butters the plate and not the toast in a café, or if they cannot order from the menu. We must transform information for families and say what dementia is, how it can affect them and what help and support is available. There are many different bits of information in different places, but for such a distressing condition, we need to bring it together.

NHS social care and voluntary services must work far better together—that point was made by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—so that families do not have to battle different parts of the system when they are already distressed enough. Care and support must be personalised to each individual and their family. Dementia affects people’s memory and the way to reach out to them is by finding a hook into that memory, so care and support must be highly personalised.

That has radical implications for the education, skills and training not just of nurses and care assistants, but of general practitioners and managers, who must hold their staff to account for the care they provide. That is particularly relevant in communication skills, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend has said, and, as many hon. Members have said, we need further progress in dementia research.

The Labour Government began the journey towards delivering better dementia care—I am grateful that the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam recognised that. In 2009, we launched the first ever national dementia strategy, “Living well with dementia”, which began the process of establishing memory clinics, providing better training for GPs, and improving the quality of dementia care for people in hospitals.

In early 2010, we appointed the first national clinical director for dementia and commissioned a quality standard for dementia from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The current Government’s dementia challenge builds on many of the improvements Labour introduced. I welcome the increase in funding for dementia research and the aim of creating more dementia-friendly communities. If the Alzheimer’s Society in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland is anything to go by, I am sure the Alzheimer’s Society nationally will do a superb job in recruiting and training volunteers as dementia friends.

However, we need to assess those initiatives against the wider and—I would argue—far bigger impact of the Government’s policies on the NHS and local council social care. Let us look at district nursing, which is just one essential aspect of better dementia care. Those vital nurses work alongside GPs, care assistants and other staff to help people who usually have dementia and another condition—co-morbidity and multi-morbidity are the big challenges we face. District nurses help people to stay healthy and well, living in their own homes, but 1,400—one in five of the total—have been cut since the coalition came to power. That is not good for patients, but it is not good for taxpayers either, because people with dementia end up in more expensive hospital or residential care when they cannot get the support they need to stay at home, which is what they want to do.

Delays in patients being discharged from hospital specifically because of a lack of NHS services in the community—this is not about social care, but about NHS in the community—such as district nurses have increased by 38% since August 2010. The delays cost the NHS £6 million every month.

If the problems and difficulties in the NHS are bad, those in social care are far worse. More than £1.3 billion has been cut from local council budgets for older people’s social care since the Government came to power. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said, council budgets are being cut by a third. Adult social care makes up about 40% of that budget and is councils’ biggest discretionary spend. Any money that is going across from the NHS is not ring-fenced, so inevitably those services are suffering. Councils are doing their best to save money by changing the way care is provided and by working more closely with the NHS. Faced with the scale of cuts to council budgets, however, many have little choice but to restrict the number of people who qualify for help, reduce day care services and increase charges for vital support, such as home help and residential and respite care, if they are to balance the books.

That is having a real impact on people with dementia. We are seeing an increasing number of 15-minute home visits. They are simply not long enough to get a very frail and distressed elderly person with dementia up, washed, dressed and fed, and end up costing the taxpayer more. The Alzheimer’s Society says that one in five people with dementia are admitted to long-term care institutions earlier than would have been the case had they received the right support at home.

There is a dementia challenge, but we cannot tackle the crisis in dementia unless we tackle the crisis in care. That means addressing the current and growing crisis in social care and putting in place a better, fairer system for the future. This is not an easy thing to do, as Labour discovered when we were in government. We have welcomed Andrew Dilnot’s recommendations on long-term care funding as a step towards a better, fairer system. We initiated cross-party talks on this vital issue, which unfortunately broke down when the Government unilaterally issued their own progress report on funding care and support, but I want to state clearly for the record that if the Government were serious about those talks we would be back in like a shot. We now see media reports that the Government intend to implement the Dilnot principles, but not until after the next election, and put a cap on care costs at £70,000 or above, rather than the £35,000 Dilnot recommends. Dilnot says that

“moving outside the range of £25,000 to £50,000 could mean that the overall reforms would fail to satisfy our criteria on fairness and sustainability.”

Capping care costs above £50,000 would mean

“people with lower incomes and lower wealth would not receive adequate protection.”

A £75,000 cap would not even help many families on middle incomes. The long-term care insurer, Partnership UK, says that a person paying the average cost for a single room in a nursing home in the south-east would not hit the cap for five years because that care is so expensive. The average length of stay in Bupa care homes is about two years. In other words, the person would die before they reached the cap. There is a concern that a £75,000 cap would not encourage people to take out insurance because the premiums would not be affordable. If these reports are true, will the Minister stop, think again and get around the table for cross-party talks, so that together we can put in place a decent, fair and sustainable plan for the future?

In conclusion, we need fundamental reforms to transform dementia care. We need one care system, not separate systems for people’s physical, mental and social care needs. We need care and support that is radically reshaped around the needs of individuals that involves their families and the wider community, and is provided by NHS and social care staff with the right skills, training and understanding. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles, my parents taught me the values of justice and fairness. In the century of the ageing society, we will deliver justice and fairness to people with dementia only if these reforms are made. I hope that that is something Members on both sides of the House will work together to achieve.

16:44

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee and every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken, and pay tribute to the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), for his dedicated work on the subject and to the work of the all-party group on dementia, which works tirelessly on a subject that, in the past, has been too much ignored but which, at long last, is starting to get the attention it deserves.

I cannot begin to do justice to the many extraordinary contributions made in the debate, so I commit to write to all hon. Members who have taken part to answer each of the specific challenges put to me, if I cannot deal with them now. A forum such as this—less combative than many of the debates on the Floor of the House—is the perfect place to talk about dementia. I have listened with humility to the contributions of many hon. Members and I completely associate myself with the comments of the shadow Minister: the contribution from the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) was remarkable. She spoke with authentic authority, having experienced all these problems—the isolation, the impact on the family and so on.

I have learned much in this debate, as a Minister learning my trade, and will take on board much of what has been said. I should also mention the right hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who, along with others, paid tribute to the fantastic work of the Alzheimer’s Society, which I have seen in my own constituency. It is a brilliant organisation doing invaluable work. I totally agree also with the shadow Minister about the analogy with cancer. Getting to grips with Alzheimer’s has to be seen as the challenge of the 21st century. I am sorry I missed the contribution from the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), but I have heard all about it and thank her as well.

There is no party political divide on dementia. There can be discussions about the funding of social care and so forth, but there is a consensus about what needs to be done. The work was started by the last Labour Government, who took a lead internationally in setting out a proper strategy for dementia, and this Government have taken on that strategy and developed it. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his personal commitment, as others have done. Whatever our political affiliations, beliefs or background, we all know that dementia is one of the most important health and social care issues facing society. It is also one of the most pressing. As mentioned, we know that dementia costs society about £19 billion a year. In 30 years, as the number of people with dementia doubles, even that vast sum will look like chicken feed.

As with all health and social care issues, however, we do people a disservice to reduce dementia to money and budgets. It is about much more than that; it is about people and how we treat them, about the individual with dementia, their families and their friends, all of whom have to live with the effects of what can be the most terrible of conditions, but a condition that many people can and do live well with. That is an important message to get out. It does not necessarily mean the end of the world. People can live well with it.

Dementia affects all of society. It is a universal concern. Study after study shows that it is the condition that people fear the most—more than cancer or anything else—so we need to be better prepared. The Department of Health is doing all it can to stitch dementia awareness into every part of the community—not just GP surgeries, hospitals and other health-focused places, but banks, supermarkets, bus stations, post offices and all the different forms of local public services, and the private sector too. The whole of society has to play its part in changing attitudes and making society dementia friendly. All those places can become more dementia aware and dementia friendly, and if they do, people with dementia will benefit and live better.

On 26 March last year, the Prime Minister gave a speech about the Government’s challenge on dementia. He said that we would do more to translate the national dementia strategy into greater action on the ground in three key areas: first, improving health and care; secondly, making communities more dementia friendly, so that people with dementia are better understood and catered for; and, thirdly, doing more research into dementia. When he launched the challenge, the Prime Minister said we would set out plans to make life better for people with dementia and their carers. Indeed, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) spoke movingly about carers and mentioned that she had invited me. I think I am going, and I very much look forward to hearing about the good work done in Salford.

That announcement was almost 10 months ago. I am pleased to say that since then there have been significant developments in each of the three strands in the Prime Minister’s challenge. Each has been run by a champion group that includes experts in their fields—Sir Ian Carruthers from the NHS, Sarah Pickup of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services from social care, Sir Mark Walport and Dame Sally Davies from research, and Jeremy Hughes from the Alzheimer’s Society, as well as Angela Rippon. Those groups have looked at the current situation in their fields and identified priorities for improvement. They include changing how society views people with dementia, improving diagnosis rates and getting researchers to work together in pursuit of better treatments. Several hon. Members have mentioned the stigma of dementia. We face similar challenges in mental health generally. “Time to change” is a fantastic campaign, but the challenge is just as great with dementia. There is still an awful lot of work to do.

I would like to read a quick summary of what we have undertaken since last March. We have launched a new dementia friends scheme to make 1 million people more aware of what dementia is, helping to break down barriers between people with the condition and their local communities. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton and many others talked about the importance of raising public awareness; the dementia friends scheme can be an effective way of doing so. Indeed, I urge all hon. Members present to sign up—they can do it now by registering online—and become dementia friends. He made the point that public awareness was, in his words, scandalously low. I share that view.

We have set aside £54 million for the NHS to support dementia diagnosis in hospitals and now to ensure clinical leadership in hospitals. We have set aside a further £50 million to make health and care environments such as hospital wards and care homes more dementia friendly. The Government’s first mandate for the NHS prioritises dementia. We have launched a national advertising campaign to raise awareness, reduce the stigma attached to dementia and encourage people to contact their GP if they experience symptoms of dementia and have that difficult early conversation—the sooner it is had, the better for the person with dementia and their carer. We have developed a toolkit for clinicians to increase diagnosis rates—we have heard about the interesting work in Plymouth and how diagnosis rates have been significantly improved as a result of that clinical leadership.

Through a consultation, we asked the public what action they wanted to see and incorporated those views into the work of the three challenge groups—the hon. Member for Bridgend was absolutely right that people must be involved, engaged and listened to in dementia research. We have also supported the launch of the call to action to create dementia-friendly hospitals. Some 65 hospitals have signed up so far, but I take the view that every hospital in the land should sign up. I urge them to get on with it, because it is so important. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley gave powerful testimonies and told some deeply disturbing stories about what happens in some of our hospitals. That reinforces just how important this is and why the Secretary of State is right to be clear that the quality of care is just as important as the quality of treatment.

The hon. Member for Bridgend talked about the crucial importance of communication between care staff, nursing staff and relatives. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) talked about getting compassion back into the NHS. There is actually an enormous amount of compassion in the NHS, but there are sometimes situations where it falls below the acceptable standard. That is what we have to address.

We have provided £36 million for a new National Institute for Health Research translational research collaboration on dementia, with research into better treatments, care and understanding of the condition. We have also provided £9.6 million to expand the UK Biobank.

I am conscious that I am not going to have nearly enough time to deal with all the issues that have been raised today. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the importance of early diagnosis. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles talked about the completely unacceptable regional variations. All clinical commissioning groups will have to set ambitious objectives to close the gaps, and they must be held to account for that. The National Commissioning Board will build up a national picture of the challenges in each local area. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) talked about the encouraging progress that can be made in that regard. People want timely, good-quality information that helps them to make the right choices about their care. The hon. Member for Bridgend talked about the importance of the GP discussing with the family the approaches that they want.

In conclusion, the coalition Government are doing as much as possible, but there is much more to be done. We will make an announcement soon on funding for elderly care. The Care and Support Bill must, in my view, include paving clauses on Dilnot. We have a real opportunity now to secure the reform that is so long overdue. We should also remember that the Dilnot recommendations included raising the threshold for means-tested support to £100,000, which would help an enormous number of families who are experiencing real difficulties.

To address the challenges of dementia, we need a response not just from the NHS, not just from the Government and not just from businesses, but from society as a whole. There are promising signs. The Prime Minister’s dementia challenge is not only about geeing up the NHS and our local authorities, but about all the resources that our communities have to offer. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam that we need to develop the strategy beyond 2015. Of course, we will need to assess and learn the lessons from the current strategy, but we must then apply it beyond that date. The same applies to research as well; I completely agree with him on that.

There is a lot of hard work being done by the NHS, by social care professionals and by others across England—work that is increasing diagnosis rates, and reducing the prescription of antipsychotic drugs for people with dementia, to name but two. As a consequence, many more people are getting the treatment and care that they need and that their loved ones deserve. Long may that continue.

I am on a learning curve as a new Minister, and I have found this debate immensely helpful. As I said earlier, I have learned a lot from it. I dedicate myself to doing everything I can, for as long as I have this job, to try to make a difference.

16:57

[Paul Burstow]

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), I would like to thank each and every one of the Members who have contributed to the debate. Some of the speeches were personal; they were all powerful and moving, and they speak to why this debate cuts across party divides. It is not about party dispute; it is about party consensus across the House. On behalf of my colleagues, I also want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling the debate.

I want to highlight a number of areas; the first is early diagnosis. Many Members have said that it is absolutely critical and makes a big difference. However, a diagnosis that just hangs a label around a person’s neck does not make a difference. What makes a difference is understanding the person, the journey they have been on and the journey they are about to embark on when they receive that diagnosis.

That brings me to the second area, which relates to care and treatment. In order to understand a person, we need to know them. If we know them, we can ensure that they have a sustained, adaptable and joined-up package of care and support that moves with them and their needs as their condition progresses, and that must apply not only to them but to their friends and family. We have heard some harrowing accounts today of how compassion has been absent from our national health service and our care services, but we have also heard stories of hope, where things are going better. They are the beacons that we need to look to, and we need to light more of them around the country.

A third area is research, which is also about hope. We need to ensure that we invest in understanding so that we can defeat the disease and, in the meantime, treat people much better. If the debate delivers no other message to the Government today, I hope that it will deliver this one: this Government really need to lead and deliver when it comes to research and reform; they need to get on with it. It is long overdue, and it is time for the coalition to deliver it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of dementia.

Business without Debate

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

welsh grand committee

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That—

(1) the First Report of the Commission on Devolution in Wales, Empowerment and Responsibility: Financial Powers to Strengthen Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;

(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 23 January at 9.30 am and 2.00 pm to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

(3) the Chair shall interrupt proceedings at the afternoon sitting not later than two hours after their commencement at that sitting.—(Karen Bradley.)

Educational Support (Children with Cancer)

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

17:00

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating CLIC Sargent on its report, “No child with cancer left out”. It is an excellent report that addresses many of the challenges facing children with cancer and raises awareness of the impact that such a diagnosis can have on a child’s education. The report centres on those returning to primary education, but it is just as relevant—many of its points are just as relevant—to those attending secondary school, as well.

Every year, around 2,000 young people aged 16 to 24 are diagnosed with cancer. For those aged up to 15, it is around 1,600. That equates to about 10 families a day being given the devastating news that their child has cancer. That will affect not just the child’s life, but the whole family’s life, including the siblings and everyone around the family. As parents, there is nothing that can prepare us for it. The parent’s world is turned upside down, and all the things that seemed important just the day before suddenly become totally and utterly irrelevant.

The child embarks on a programme of treatment that, while necessary, is frightening for all concerned. In many cases, medical intervention will take years, with many ups and downs along the road. For leukaemia, under standard protocol, it will take three years of treatment for boys and two years for girls. For other cancers, it will be a combination of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. For some with more complex conditions or for those who relapse, it will mean a stem cell or bone marrow transplant.

Speaking as a parent of a child who was diagnosed with cancer, I can honestly say that, at the time, the last thing I thought about was the future or current educational needs of my son, Max. It never crossed my mind at all. I was totally focused on getting him through the medical battle against this dreadful disease.

That issue has perhaps become part of the problem in that there is no co-ordinated approach to support the child after treatment in respect of education. We tackle and address the physical and medical side, but fail to consider the educational and social needs of the children affected. That is a problem not just for parents, but for schools, local authorities and, indeed, Government policy.

For children who thankfully survive cancer, that is far from the end of the story. For most, it is the start of another journey—this time of trying and working to get back into school, and of re-building and re-establishing friendships with the peer group. It is important both to get the peer group to understand what the children have gone through and to support them in going forward.

The CLIC Sargent report found that nine out of 10 children with a cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatment reported that their school life was affected. Two key issues need to be addressed: first, how the school and education authority respond to support the child on return to school and prior to that return; and, secondly—perhaps too often overlooked, but none the less vital—how to prepare the school, and class mates in particular, for the child’s return to school.

On that second point, there appears to be no established procedures to advise and help schools and teachers. There is some good practice out there and some respondents detailed in the report say they had a very positive experience for their child—but, equally, the reverse can be the case. Some schools are ill prepared, or perhaps understandably reluctant to address what is a very difficult issue, particularly when very young children are involved.

We can, after all, put ourselves in the position of the classmates of one of those children. One moment the child is at school playing games, and the next moment he or she is gone, for what must seem a very long time in the life of the other young children. They may send a card, but they will have no other real contact. When the child returns to school, he or she may look very different as a result of chemotherapy and steroids. Lack of hair, a minor issue in itself, may seem particularly strange to younger children. A central line visible through clothing may be difficult for them to comprehend, and probably quite frightening for them.

The other children will obviously have questions to ask. Why has it happened? Could it happen to them? Will the child get better? Is it possible to catch it? I am sure that there will be a host of other questions. Such issues, however, need to be addressed before the child returns to school rather than afterwards, when concerns and, in some cases, bullying may arise. The CLIC Sargent report highlights what is, thankfully, a minority of cases in which classmates have bullied children out of jealousy because of their lower attendance at school, or because they have been on a supported holiday to Disneyland or Lapland through a charity such as the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Perhaps it has not really been explained to the classmates why the child has been allowed to be away from school for such a long period.

Let me say at this point how important I think charities such as Make-A-Wish are in boosting a child’s confidence and well-being. I have done some work with the Ellen MacArthur Cancer Trust, and my son has certainly enjoyed his experience of it. The trust does excellent work in bringing young cancer sufferers together to meet the challenges that sailing can provide. It is really positive, and really helps them to build their confidence.

Whatever form bullying may take, I think that it is mainly born of a lack of understanding of what a child with a cancer diagnosis has actually been through. In the time in which such children have been absent from school, many of their classmates will have moved on and made new friends. Trying to re-establish former friendships may not be easy, particularly if the child who has been absent is unable to participate in the same activities and games as before. One of the most telling quotations in the CLIC Sargent report comes from a parent who recognised that

“returning to school isn’t just about educational needs—it’s about emotional ones too.”

I think that that is just as important as supporting the academic side of a child’s education.

CLIC Sargent and a number of hospital schools can and do offer support for teachers through events such as teachers’ days, but they cannot be expected to provide across-the-board cover. We need more joined-up thinking on the part of local authorities and hospitals to ensure that a more comprehensive and co-ordinated approach is adopted to enable schools and teachers to tackle the issue. That applies not just to state schools but to private and free schools, and to secondary as well as primary schools. The Anthony Nolan “register and be a lifesaver” campaign is an excellent example of the way in which young people can be educated in how they can save lives by joining blood, organ and cell registers.

The second issue that I want to raise is the educational support that is available to children, both before and after their return to school. The CLIC Sargent report found that over 70% of children had received some form of education during their treatment, either at a hospital school or through home tuition, or in most cases a combination of both. While local authorities have a statutory duty to provide suitable education to children with an illness, there are still issues in respect of children with cancer accessing provision. Hospital schools play an important role when a child is in hospital for a prolonged period, and I can certainly say from my experience that they help re-engage children in what we call normal life, outside of just coping with the treatment itself. When a child leaves hospital but is still unable to return to school, access to home tuition becomes vital.

The report highlights that securing home tuition provision can be far from straightforward. My own experience with Flintshire county council was very positive. My son had an excellent teacher, Jane Watts, who helped him through a very difficult period both in respect of teaching and in being someone to talk to, and I thank her for all the help she gave us. Other parents have not been so lucky, however. Some have found that either the provision is not available or it seems to take an inordinate amount of time to set it up. While entitlement to home tuition in terms of the number of hours to be provided is not defined in law, the majority of local authorities provide a minimum of five hours a week, and that is what my son got. In the vast majority of cases, that level of provision is not enough, and it therefore needs to be increased.

There needs to be flexibility so that provision can be varied, depending on the child’s needs at various times. If the child is undergoing treatment, five hours may be too much, while at other times the child may be able to cope with, and may want, a lot more time than that. It seems strange that in many cases if the child had been excluded from school for bad behaviour, rather than because they had a cancer diagnosis, they would get much greater provision.

Flexibility is key, therefore, but we should also extend provision so it does not just stop when the child returns to school, because it is a vital component in helping children catch up when they return to school and in allowing for further periods of absence. My son had a number of post-transplant absences from school; graft-versus-host disease can lead to weeks, or even months, off school. We were able to pay for extra home tuition once the local authority provision had stopped, but that is not an option for many parents because of financial constraints. I am concerned that in our current difficult financial climate, rather than access to home tuition being extended, it might become even more limited. That must not be allowed to happen. I hope the Minister will address that point, and will agree that we must ensure that quality provision is maintained and enhanced.

The next challenge is the return to school itself. In the CLIC Sargent report, 56% of parents said that their child found it difficult to readjust to school; many found that their child’s skill levels had regressed since treatment and that their child found core subjects, particularly maths and English, far more difficult. CLIC Sargent also found in an earlier 2011 report that 64% of 16 to 18-year-olds with cancer fell behind with their work and failed to attain the results they had expected, with 29% of all young people surveyed saying they had left education altogether.

There is a broad consensus that children with cancer need extra support in school, but there is a lack of agreement on, and understanding of, what that level of support needs to be and the nature of it. Some children will need a minimal level of additional support, whereas others will need a far more formalised special educational needs assessment, which will in some cases go on for their entire school career. No matter how effectively children’s needs are assessed on their return to school, and particularly if they receive extra support, an ongoing level of assessment and support still needs to be provided, as circumstances can change. That goes back to the point I was making earlier: the path to normality is not steady; it is a bumpy road, and there will be plenty of ups and downs along the way.

Therefore, flexibility in provision is key, but clearly that provision needs to be there in the first place. The children and families Bill, which will be before this House in the coming months, gives us the opportunity to build in such provision and guarantee children with cancer the support they need. My concern is that the Bill, in draft form, seems to focus predominantly on children with a high level of special educational needs. I understand why that is, but many children with cancer may not meet those criteria, and may receive little or no support as a result. The Government therefore need to ensure that their definition of special educational needs includes all children with a disability, in order to ensure that education providers’ duties under the Equality Act 2010 are integrated into the raised special educational needs code of practice. For children with mild or moderate special educational needs, there needs to be more clarity on how a new, single, school-based category of special educational needs will interact with the local offer and school-based support. We also need to know how parents can ensure that their child is provided with the level of support they need, and that that support continues throughout to meet their educational needs. Even if there are periods, right up until they go to university, when they drop out and then go back into education, that support should be maintained all the way through and they should not have to go through a laborious process to get it again.

Children with cancer experience many challenges in life, none more so than fighting the disease itself. For those who win the battle, or continue to fight, the very least we must do is provide an environment in which they can reach their true potential in life. Education is the key to that future, and we should do everything we can to provide the additional support that those children need. We need greater co-operation between schools, local authorities, hospitals and Government policy to ensure that that aim is actually delivered. We need to be more co-ordinated; we need to be more joined up in our thinking. These young people need our support and we cannot let them down.

17:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

I thank the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) for raising an important issue and for his very moving speech about his experience and that of his son, Max. It was particularly informative because it was based on the personal experience of parents and children going through that difficult and troubling situation. It has been very helpful in informing the Government’s policy and I hope that he will continue to engage with the Government, particularly given the forthcoming Bill, which covers some of the issues he raised in his speech. I praise the report by CLIC Sargent and the important work that that charity does to support children. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Ellen MacArthur Trust and its vital work.

The Government believe that pupils with cancer deserve as good an education as any other pupil and poor health should never mean poor education. We need to provide good education to all, regardless of their personal circumstances or educational setting. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the issues for children with cancer as well as those suffering from other illnesses and problems. The problems are very real, but I hope to outline some of the steps the Government are taking to address them. I will also take on board some of his comments for our future work.

We want schools to ensure that they exercise their professional role in supporting all students. They are best placed to know the circumstances of the individual children, what support is most suitable, what is available and how to work with other local bodies. We do not want to prescribe a set of processes for them to go through, because we think the focus should be on outcomes and how the children and families are affected.

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that sharing information effectively and efficiently is essential. All relevant information should be shared with the parties involved. Obviously, there are issues about being in touch with data protection principles, but that should not discourage schools or others from providing information when they can do so. Commissioners of services should maintain ongoing contact with the provider, pupil, and parents with clear procedures for exchanging information, monitoring progress and providing pastoral support.

The hon. Gentleman made some powerful points about reintegration into school, which are supported by the evidence from the CLIC Sargent report. There should be agreement on how to assess when the pupil is ready to return and the school should provide an appropriate package of support to assist their reintegration. There should be objectives and plans agreed with parents, providers and schools to ensure successful reintegration. The Government published advice on that last July and further advice on health needs early this year. We have taken action and if he believes that there is more to be done, I or my colleague the children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), will be happy to speak to him further.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the social aspects of reintegration are a huge issue for children and their families. While a child is absent, they should remain on the roll of their school and should be encouraged to feel part of the school. The schools should do everything possible to help the pupil keep in touch with their class, its work and other activities. Schools should also keep the pupil’s peers updated and help remind them that the pupil is still part of the school community.

[Mark Tami]

One point made in the CLIC Sargent review was that a school read out the child’s name in the register in every assembly. That was a powerful and important way of reminding the children that that child was still very much part of the school.

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The report contained some excellent examples of best practice. One that struck me was the friends who bought their fellow pupil an iPad so that they could keep in touch and had play dates so that the pupil felt that they were part of the school community while they were unable to attend. Unfortunately, the report also highlights other, less positive cases where there was bullying, perhaps caused by fear or lack of understanding. The Government believe that bullying is absolutely unacceptable and should never be tolerated. We have sent a strong message to schools on this, and we have shared advice and best practice. As part of the school’s approach to tackling bullying, it is also important that children with additional health needs are supported and not stigmatised or made to feel different. Schools need to ensure, through their behaviour and bullying policies and their re-integration plans, that these issues are considered.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the children and families Bill. The special educational needs measures in the Bill are specifically about special educational needs. They deal with a specific issue which, by its nature, does not include all children with medical needs. However, we are ensuring that SEN policy, policy on children with health needs in mainstream schools, and alternative provision policy are sufficiently joined up and work in a complementary way. We are also involving the sector, including parents and representative bodies such as CLIC Sargent, in our policy development and implementation. My officials are meeting CLIC Sargent later this month. We also want our guidance to be living documents which reflect developments, so that everybody who works in this area feels a sense of ownership and understands the important examples of best practice and case studies which were raised in the report and in other work.

We are currently revising guidance for schools on supporting children with medical needs, including those with cancer. This complements the new guidance on ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs. We expect schools, employers, staff, parents and local health services to work together in the interests of the child, focusing on the outcome rather than the process.

A pupil with cancer might fall behind in their education, for example if they are absent to receive treatment. Our advice to schools and local authorities includes ensuring better communication and information sharing to ensure that all involved in the pupil’s education are able to support the pupil to catch up. The hon. Gentleman mentioned English and maths. We are doing more general work to ensure that children who fall behind are able to catch up at the relevant point in their school career, so at the end of primary school a year 7 pupil who has not met the expected standards in literacy and numeracy will be given extra support, such as further tuition, through an additional premium of £500. This will provide valuable support to bring them up to speed in advance of secondary school. I hope that that will also help the students to whom the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech.

A pupil who, earlier in their school career, needs additional help with reading will be identified through a year 1 phonics check and given extra support by their school to improve their reading skills. We want to make sure that pupils with cancer have the same opportunities as other pupils to take exams, that schools will support them in doing so, and that they are encouraged to continue at school if they are in the 16 to 18 age group that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

While students are not at school, there are important forms of provision, including hospital schools and home tuition. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that five hours were not enough and were not flexible enough. My understanding is that local authorities have a legal duty to arrange suitable education for a child who cannot attend school because of their health. It is up to the local authority to determine the best way to do that, but we expect local authorities to take into account advice offered by the hospital or a consultant when making decisions about that. If the child’s health allows, we expect that provision to be full-time. If that is not happening in practice, it needs to be followed up. That is an important part of the Government’s policy.

I took the hon. Gentleman’s point that extra support should not necessarily stop when a child returns to school if the child needs such support. Again, this is about local authorities and health authorities working together.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent contribution to the debate, and I look forward to his participation in the upcoming Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

17:29

House adjourned.

Petition

Thursday 10th January 2013 Petitions

Thursday 10 January 2013

Emergency life support skills in schools

Thursday 10th January 2013 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that knowing how to stop bleeding, open an airway or perform CPR should be considered as important to a young person’s education; and that steps should be taken to ensure that there are a new generation of life savers across the UK.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make emergency life support skills a part of the curriculum to be taught in all schools

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Julie Hilling, Official Report, 21 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 680.]

[P001136]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Education:

I recognise the importance of emergency life support skills (ELSS) and the benefit pupils can gain from acquiring them. However, I do not agree that making ELSS a statutory part of the National Curriculum is the right approach. The aim of this Government is to reduce prescription throughout the education system and, in doing so, to allow teachers and school leaders to use their professional judgement to provide what is best in their circumstances.

The non-statutory framework for Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education already provides a context for teaching young people ELSS. At primary level, pupils can learn about basic emergency procedures and where to get help. At secondary level they can develop the skills to cope with emergency situations that require basic first aid procedures, including resuscitation techniques. Schools are free to support their teaching with additional programmes and to do so by using reputable organisations to deliver training where that meets the needs of their pupils.

The National Curriculum was originally envisaged as a guide to study in key subjects which would give parents and teachers confidence that students were acquiring the knowledge necessary at every level of study to make appropriate progress. As it has developed, the National Curriculum has come to cover more subjects, prescribe more outcomes and take up more school time than originally intended. It is our intention that the National Curriculum be slimmed down so that it properly reflects the body of essential knowledge which all children should learn and does not absorb the overwhelming majority of teaching time in schools. Individual schools should have greater freedom to construct their own programmes of study in subjects outside the National Curriculum and develop approaches to learning and study which complement it.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 10th January 2013 Westminster Hall

Thursday 10 January 2013

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]

Local Bus Market

Thursday 10th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Competition in the local bus market, Third Report of the Transport Committee, HC 10, and the Government Response, HC 761.]

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

13:30

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I am pleased to launch this debate on the Transport Committee’s most recent report on bus services, “Competition in the local bus market”, which we published in September. It follows our previous report on bus services after the spending review. I intend to follow up some of the issues that we raised.

Bus services are the Cinderella of public transport. They are a lifeline for millions of people, enabling them to get to work, school and college, and to hospitals, shops and vital amenities. More than 5 billion passenger journeys were made by bus in 2010-11, more than three times the number of journeys made by National Rail, yet bus services receive less subsidy and a fraction of national attention.

Our reports focus on bus services in England outside London. Buses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the devolved authorities, and London has a more regulated bus system than the rest of England: services are provided under franchise arrangements set out by Transport for London. Bus services in London receive more local authority subsidy than the rest of England put together. It is perhaps not surprising that London bus services are regarded as an example of successful public transport provision, and that bus use in London grew by more than 50% in the decade to 2010 and continues to grow. By contrast, bus usage outside London fell.

It is sometimes forgotten that buses are the most popular form of public transport. Some 4.7 billion passenger trips were made in 2011-12, and half of those were in London. The amount of bus travel has grown, particularly concessionary bus travel. In 2011-12, holders of concessionary bus passes for older and disabled people made an average of 109 bus trips each. The number of fare-paying trips outside London, however, has fallen by more than 5% in the past five years. Bus demand outside London fell in the second half of 2012. Does the Minister think that that is the start of a new downward trend as funding cuts bite on fare levels and the number of services, or does he regard it as simply a blip?

Buses play a vital social and economic role. More than 50% of bus trips are made by people in the lowest two income quintiles, and more than half are made by people aged under 20 or over 60. Our earlier inquiry into bus services after the spending review received numerous letters and e-mails from people across the country telling us about the direct impact on their lives of reductions in bus services due to cuts in funding. Our inquiry was much strengthened by evidence from users of bus services who told us in great detail how important bus services were to them and how they had been affected by their withdrawal.

About 80% of bus services outside London operate on a fully commercial basis. The remainder are supported by local authorities. That includes many evening and weekend services, as well as many rural services, which provide vital support to local communities. Our earlier report drew attention to the combination of funding cuts that seriously affected the provision of supported services. Cuts in central Government funding to local authorities are having a major impact. Not only was local authority funding reduced by 28% overall from 2011-12, but the subsidy provided to bus operators—the bus service operators grant—has also been reduced by 20%. That is likely to have made some previously commercial services unviable.

The Campaign for Better Transport has recently published research showing that local authority support for 20% of tendered bus services was reduced or withdrawn in 2011-12, 41% of local authorities made cuts to spending on bus services and 10% cut spending by more than £1 million. Can the Minister confirm whether the Department for Transport knows how much local authorities are now spending on bus services, following cuts in central Government funding to those authorities? Can those data be put in the public domain? It is not satisfactory to have to rely on data extracted from local authorities by freedom of information requests, as did the Campaign for Better Transport research. We need to know the full national picture.

The Minister spoke to the Committee about promoting examples of good practice where local authorities have found innovative ways to provide services despite funding cuts. What examples can he give us? How has the Department set about promoting good practice? What effect has the cut in BSOG had on both commercial and supported bus services? Has it led to more pressure on budgets for supported services? The Government recently consulted on reforms to BSOG, including the possibility of paying some of it to local authorities rather than operators and using some of it to support the better bus areas fund in future. When will decisions on that be announced?

Our September report considered the recommendations of the Competition Commission aimed at improving competition in the local bus market. It is a difficult matter, as there is little evidence to suggest that more head-to-head competition between bus companies on routes will provide better service. Where such competition exists, it has often been detrimental to passengers; it has not made bus travel more affordable. Between 1997 and 2010, the cost of motoring increased by 32.5%, while bus fares increased by 76.1%. The reality is that passengers tend to benefit from partnerships rather than on-route competition between local authorities and operators.

During the course of our inquiry, we visited Oxford, where a voluntary partnership has led to significant improvements. Services have been rationalised, improving the city’s environment and traffic flow, timetables have been co-ordinated and a smart card has been introduced that can be used on any service. Passenger numbers have increased. Partnerships are the way to improve bus services. If possible, they should be made by voluntary arrangement.

The Government have a role to play in promoting best practice, encouraging local authorities and operators to work together and ensuring that the competition authorities do not block or inhibit sensible arrangements that benefit passengers. The Competition Commission has done some valuable work, but its focus is narrow. It puts far too much emphasis on head-to-head competition and misses the wider context of what passengers seek from bus services and the impact of deregulation. Our report questioned whether the Competition Commission had pulled its punches when it came to challenging major firms’ dominance in certain areas. The concept behind bus regulation was that it would lead to competition on all routes, which would improve passengers’ experience and reduce fares. However, the evidence shows that, in practice, five major bus companies dominate the whole bus service.

It might not be possible to make voluntary arrangements to improve bus services across the country. That reality was anticipated by the last Government, which is why, during the last Parliament, legislation was introduced for statutory partnerships and franchise arrangements known as quality contracts that put the emphasis on local authorities to specify what they want bus operators to provide. This Government have kept that legislation on the statute book. When we spoke to the Minister about it during Committee sessions, he assured us that the statute would remain in place, but it is unclear how far the Government are committed to encouraging local authorities and local transport authorities to use that legislation.

In our report, we discussed the problems of being the first authority over the line in setting up a quality contract. The Government seem determined to provide no assistance to such a local authority, and I would be pleased if the Minister clarified their position on statutory partnerships and quality contracts. In what circumstances would the Minister encourage a local authority to pursue such options?

The creation of the Government’s better bus area fund is very welcome. The Campaign for Better Transport has shown that the fund has mitigated some of the impacts of cuts in some areas. The Government have linked the provision of that funding to the development of partnerships, but local authorities wishing to set up quality contracts are not eligible for it, which looks like a strong signal from the Government for them not to go down the road of using quality contracts. I hope that that is a misreading of the situation and that the Minister will confirm that, if a local authority wishes to use the Local Transport Act 2008 to set up a statutory partnership, it would be eligible to bid for better bus area funding.

The introduction of multi-operator ticketing is another important aspect of any bus partnership. We recommended that local authorities should have the power to implement a multi-operator ticketing scheme where a voluntary agreement cannot be reached. The Government have said that they will clarify guidance on the use of such powers under the Transport Act 2000 and consider the need for further legislation. Will the Minister clarify the time scale for that work and say how he will decide whether new legislation is needed? Should it be needed, is there any prospect of new legislation being enacted during this Parliament?

Another important issue relates to what happens when a commercial service ceases and the local authority decides to support that service to enable it to continue. The operator of that commercial service has a significant advantage over its competitors, because it knows the revenues and costs associated with running the service. The Competition Commission estimated that the resulting reduction in effective competition for tenders costs local authorities between £5 million and £10 million a year.

Information on those services could be provided voluntarily by bus operators, but they have so far refused to disclose it, citing commercial confidentiality. The Government are exploring that situation, but the Committee recommended that they should set a deadline for operators to agree to disclose the information and introduce legislation if operators fail to do so. Will the Minister tell us what progress is being made on that issue, and does he contemplate introducing legislation to force companies to disclose the relevant information?

The disclosure of data is also an important consideration in other areas. Passenger Focus is doing important work in surveying passengers’ views of services. Overall, satisfaction levels are relatively high: on average, 85% of passengers are satisfied with their service, but that global figure hides considerable disparities between operators. We want more disaggregated data to be available, so that the performance of operators in individual areas—and, indeed, that of individual operators—can be properly assessed. That will require more work on the collection of underlying data. Does the Minister share our view that more information on customer perceptions will help drive up service levels, and will he support Passenger Focus in getting the necessary funding and assistance to undertake that work? More could be done to publish data on operators’ performance—for example, on punctuality and cancellations. Far less information is available for bus services than for trains. We did not sense that the Government are seeking the disclosure of data, so will the Minister explain and elaborate his view?

As part of our inquiry, we took evidence from the senior traffic commissioner, Beverley Bell. The traffic commissioners play a vital role in regulating the safety and punctuality of buses. Ms Bell told us that the performance of some bus operators was so poor that they ought not to be in business. The Competition Commission has recommended that the traffic commissioners should draw up a code of conduct for bus operators to prevent buses from engaging in anti-competitive behaviour on the road. Ms Bell told us that she did not have the resources at her disposal to do that satisfactorily. Has progress been made with the code of conduct? Is the Minister concerned that the traffic commissioners may lack the resources necessary to do their job effectively?

It is worth reflecting that the Office of Rail Regulation, which regulates rail services, spends about £29 million a year on staff and office costs, compared with the £15 million spent by the traffic commissioners. The seven traffic commissioners in Great Britain, who are responsible for the safety and punctuality of the whole bus industry, are supported by 138 staff, of whom a substantial proportion are devoted to the licensing of goods vehicles. The Office of Rail Regulation has 280 staff, with additional rail regulation and safety staff at Network Rail. That indicates the contrasting approaches to regulating bus and rail services, and therefore to protecting the interests of bus and rail users.

We recommended that the roles and resourcing of the traffic commissioners should be reviewed before the next spending review. Will that review take place, and will the wider review of non-departmental public bodies mentioned in the Government response to our report cover such issues? Will that review be made public? In our report, we compared the limited resources available to the traffic commissioners and the much more generously resourced Office of Rail Regulation as another example of how buses can be characterised as the poor relation of rail. The subsidy for bus services is lower than that for rail, even though it unambiguously helps the least well-off. The leadership in the bus industry is also less visible than that in the rail industry, particularly since the formation of the Rail Delivery Group. Stronger leadership—for example, in driving the introduction of new ticketing technology—would benefit both bus companies and passengers.

In conclusion, these are potentially troubling times for the bus industry, and therefore for bus passengers. Services are under threat, demand outside London is dropping and there are significant funding pressures. There is uncertainty about the regulatory environment, with quality contracts and statutory partnerships being unused and the traffic commissioners struggling to cope with their work load. The Competition Commission has offered helpful recommendations, but they do not address the key issue of the need for partnership. Indeed, the Government’s strategy for buses is unclear. I hope that the Minister will offer some reassurance that he has a positive policy for buses and that there is more to Government policy than funding cuts and voluntary initiatives. Millions of bus users across the country deserve better.

13:48

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and it is always a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). I certainly enjoyed working with her and my Select Committee colleagues on the inquiry.

Bus travel certainly affects many of our constituents, and I am probably not alone in having the issue generate a fair chunk of my e-mail inbox and postbag. It was one of the first issues that I had to deal with after I was elected, and the Minister may recall that he answered an Adjournment debate that I secured within a few weeks of the general election. Before the election, my local bus company had unilaterally decided completely to reorganise its route network and timetable, without holding effective consultations, which created many problems.

I will not trouble hon. Members with the details, but many of the issues have now been satisfactorily resolved with the council, the bus company and a new bus users group. None the less, that underlines the importance of the issue and the need to have effective consultation between all the different players in the industry. There has been a happy outcome; bus usage is up in Milton Keynes. The latest figures show an 8% increase. We even got a name check in the Government’s document, “Green light for better buses”. I hope that some of the lessons that we have learned locally will be of wider benefit to the country.

The main conclusion that I draw from our investigation is that each local market is different. There is no optimal one-size-fits-all system of regulation for local bus services. What works in a large city region might not be applicable to a small cathedral city, which might be different from a new town, which might be different from a semi-rural area with many market towns and villages.

As part of our investigation, we visited Oxford, which had the most impressive transport model. I accept though that it might not be directly applicable in other areas. Good co-ordination between the different bus companies and the local authority on timetabling, routes, the location of bus stops and, crucially, ticketing has led to a welcome increase in bus usage. The model allows the ideal form of competition, without the negative aspect of different companies aggressively competing for customers.

Organised competition enables passengers to choose between different operators and drives up standards. If one operator lets its standards slip—unreliable and dirty buses and unfriendly drivers—passengers can easily switch to its competitor. I very much liked that model and saw that it could be used in other areas. The Government’s better bus area fund will help allow other local authorities to explore similar schemes and to adjust them to suit their own circumstances.

I also welcome the Government’s decision to retain some flexibility for local authorities in the regulatory structure. As I have said, different models will suit different areas, and it is right for local authorities to select the most appropriate one for their area. A successful scheme should not be kept as a secret that no other authority can pick up on. I agree that there is a role for the Department for Transport and for bodies such as the Local Government Association to share best practice and to encourage similar types of authorities to look carefully at certain models.

Furthermore, I suggest to the Government that we explore ways to move beyond just bus regulation systems—although, obviously, that must remain the main focus. There is scope to consider how regulation might be combined with buses and other modes of public transport, such as local rail services or tram services, which are being developed in many English cities.

PLUSBUS is a scheme that allows combinations of rail ticketing and bus ticketing, which is fine as far as it goes, but I suspect that it is not particularly well known or well used, and a lot more work could be done in that area. Indeed, when we looked at the competition element in the inquiry, I asked the Competition Commission whether it was looking at competition in the context of local transport services as a whole rather than just bus against bus, and I was not satisfied that it was. Clearly, better decisions could be made in that area further down the line.

Looking at transport services as a whole will be particularly important as technology evolves and more smart-ticketing options become available. I am talking about not just multi-operator tickets, which passengers can use to pop on and off different buses run by different operators without having to take a new ticket, but multi-mode tickets. The Transport Committee saw such a scheme on our recent visit to the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland as part of our rail inquiry. One of the lessons that we received, particularly in the Netherlands, was on the development of end-to-end journeys. Dutch state railways provide the equivalent of Boris bikes and bus tickets, tram tickets and railway tickets, and it even hires out electric vehicles in city centres. The technology to allow that to be done seamlessly is developing all the time and will open up different opportunities in the future.

The single key lesson must be that passengers have confidence that when they use their smart tickets, they will be charged the cheapest fares. The system will not work if there is a fear that their accounts will be debited a vast sum of money because they have selected the wrong permutation of journeys. There must always be confidence that the consumer will get the best value ticket. I am not sure whether that requires specific Government regulation, but it is something that needs to be taken on board.

There is an upward pressure on bus fares, as there is on every mode of transport, whether private or public. That is primarily a product of rising fuel energy costs and of councils and the Government having to grapple with the public deficit, and that is not going to go away. However, I take an optimistic view. Potentially, there is a bright future for bus usage and bus fares. It is surely an economic fact that, if we encourage more people to use buses, there will be a downward pressure on fares. The reason for that is simple: if the same fixed costs are covered by a greater number of users, the unit cost will be reduced. That is a basic economic fact.

Many studies have shown that the primary factor valued by both existing and potential bus users is not so much cost but the frequency and reliability of services. If we can instil confidence in people that bus services are reliable and effective, more and more people will be encouraged to use them. There are many good examples of transport systems around the country. I highlight in particular the scheme in Oxford, which has a lot of potential.

I urge the Government to look at our recommendations for sharing best practice and for making sure that local authorities are encouraged to develop these new schemes, and I am sure that that will deliver a healthy increase in bus patronage in the future.

13:58

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is now more than 25 years since buses were deregulated outside London. I do not like to use extreme language, but deregulation has certainly had a very damaging effect on public transport, especially in the metropolitan areas, other urban areas and the shire areas. I have made many speeches in favour of some sort of re-regulation of the buses; the Minister has heard many of them over the years, and, on occasion, we have agreed. I suspect that we still do agree. I disagreed with some of my party’s bus policies when it was in power, and I still maintain those views. I am pleased that the shadow team now seems to have better policies than we had when we were in government.

The focus of my speech today is on the report of the Competition Commission, which was considered by the Transport Committee. Before getting on to the specific recommendations of both the Committee and the commission, however, it is worth taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) about the segregation of the bus industry. This is a simplification, but I think that it is essentially true that the bus system in London works extremely well. It has never been deregulated; it has received significant investment; and bus companies in London take less profit out of the system than they do in the metropolitan areas. So the bus system here in London is good.

However, if we look at the metropolitan areas, whether we look at the statistics for the last year, for the period from 2005 or even go back to deregulation, we see a steady progression of fare increases above inflation. In real terms, fares have doubled over all that time and passenger numbers have dropped by 45%. In London, the direction has been the opposite. That is an indication of where public money is better spent in the support of public services.

In the shire areas—I represent a very urban constituency, so I am not an expert on the shire areas—bus services often do not exist at all. It is not a question of their not being subsidised; they do not exist. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, when approximately £4 billion a year goes into the rail system—I am not against that—and parts of the country do not have any bus services, either commercial or subsidised, we need to take a serious look at the situation.

Parts of the bus system, in historic towns such as York, Oxford or Cambridge, are working. In those towns, the authorities have been able to restrict car access to the town centre and they have set up partnership schemes. Therefore, if one goes through the different areas, one sees that there are very poor services in many shire areas and limited amounts of competition on the road; declining bus services in metropolitan areas, with increasing fares; relatively good services in towns such as Lincoln, York and Oxford; and excellent services in London. For any Government who want to provide services to the whole country, it cannot be satisfactory to see that differentiation of service.

Before I move on to the reports by the Competition Commission and the Transport Committee, I will make one simple point about the Lib Dem “nearly policy” on concessionary fares. One of the reasons why the decline in passenger usage in metropolitan areas has not been more severe—in fact, it was even halted for a period—was the increased money that the last Labour Government put into concessionary fares. That meant that people over the age of 60 had free access to the buses and used them, which changed the usage of buses for the better.

At the moment, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Deputy Prime Minister, is considering whether to take concessionary passes away from people such as me, because we can afford to pay the bus fare or do other things. In a way, one cannot argue about that. However, the Liberal Democrats should also think about congestion. Most of the policy of most of the Governments during the past 30 or 40 years has been to try to get people to leave their car at home and use buses instead. The fact is that, if relatively affluent pensioners can afford buses, they will not pay the bus fare to Stagecoach or FirstGroup if their pass is removed. Instead, they will take their car out; that is what I would do if I did not use the bus or tram in the area where I live. That will lead to increased congestion. I suspect that the Minister sympathises with that view, but I ask him to say to people—within his own party and within Government—that they should think harder about the transport implications before they go too far in pulling concessionary fares.

I will move on now to the Competition Commission report itself. I think that any reading of both the written evidence and the oral evidence that was submitted to the Committee will show that the Competition Commission’s report was deeply flawed. Before I get on to that, however, I just want to say one or two words about competition. It is sometimes assumed—particularly by those from the Labour side who want to re-regulate buses and to introduce quality partnerships in parts of the country—that we are against competition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where commercial businesses are involved, in order to ensure that we get the best-quality, most efficient and effective service, competition is a good thing. However, the fact is that in most of our big cities and in a lot of our shire areas competition does not exist. In fact, if we wanted to have competition in those areas, it would be necessary to introduce off-road competition, because the competition is not taking place on the road itself. There is no competition in many parts of this country.

If people look at the evidence that the Transport Committee received, they will see one indication of the lack of competition outside London; there is competition in London, although it is not on-road competition. That is the profit levels of companies. If people read the oral evidence that FirstGroup gave to the Committee, they will see that FirstGroup said that it is withdrawing from London because it could make twice the return on the capital outside London that it does inside London; those were not quite the words that FirstGroup used, but they are what FirstGroup meant. If competition were working, the situation would be the other way round: we would expect FirstGroup to be making less and to fight more for profits in other parts of the country. As I have said, nothing that I say in this debate should be taken as showing that I believe that, where there are commercial interests involved, there should not be competition. There certainly should be competition.

Turning to the Competition Commission report itself, I was disappointed by the quality of the evidence that the commission used. It published an interim report that hinted that it was considering pushing towards off-road competition—the quality partnership approach. However, that was changed in the final report. A couple of things happened. We know the figures for FirstGroup because its representatives told them to the Committee, and they also told the Committee that other bus companies had done the same. FirstGroup spent about £3 million lobbying, providing information and—I think that this is a direct quote from the Competition Commission—putting its case as strongly as it could. Undoubtedly, that affected the final recommendations of the report, which were that there should be more head-to-head competition on the roads, without any mechanism to produce such competition or any evidence that it was happening in all but a few places. In fact, I think the Competition Commission gave us three examples of areas where competition was happening, but they were fairly isolated places and not in our major conurbations. That was disappointing.

The Competition Commission officials said, when asked why they had shifted the emphasis in their report, that they thought that specifying the level of services would lead to less competition and higher costs. When we asked why they thought that, they cited the costs in London, but they could not really give any more information. I looked at the evidence that the Committee received before I came into Westminster Hall today. The Minister in his own oral evidence to the Committee—I think that it was in response to question 400, if he wants to look at it now—more or less demolished the commission’s argument, because he gave figures that showed the subsidy per passenger in London was 45p, whereas in the metropolitan areas it was 57p and in the shire areas it was 71p. The commission’s basis for rejecting quality partnerships—without taking evidence—was, therefore, deeply flawed. At the same time, however, the commission had evidence of huge collusion between the bus companies in the north-east. Rather than examining the real costs in London, where profits—albeit not excessive ones—were being made and there was a good service, it used a theoretical model that clashed with the London experience and with what was happening in the north-east. That was one of the flaws.

The commission identified anti-competitive practices in the north-east, and such practices clearly exist in other parts of the country as well, but it is difficult to prove that they do because, by and large, bus companies do not have written agreements not to compete with each other—they just do not do that. When the commission was asked about divestiture, which has happened in other anti-competitive areas, it said that only big bus companies would come in if, in an area such as my part of Manchester, it stopped FirstGroup. The company has been operating a near monopoly very badly in north Manchester, and the commission has said that it would just be another large company that would come in. FirstGroup has operated an appalling business when it comes to running buses in north Manchester and it is now selling its interest to Stagecoach, so there is no intermediate point at which there is on-road competition; there is just the selling of one almost monopoly to another monopolist. The fares have been high in north Manchester, and, although I do not know this for sure, I cannot imagine that Stagecoach will reduce the fares when it takes over the garages.

I believe that the Minister is sympathetic to helping with quality contracts. There is legislation, in the form of the Local Transport Act 2008, that enables such contracts to be put in place. There has, however, been no answer to the question posed by the Transport Committee, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside today, about why the bus service operators grant cannot be used to help local authorities to introduce quality contracts. It will be difficult to bring in a first quality contract. I believe it will save money—I think that the detail of the Committee report is wrong in stating that it will be more costly—but it might be very difficult when we have Brian Souter of Stagecoach saying that he would rather drink poison than allow a quality contract to happen. He and his managers are threatening a scorched earth policy.

When the Minister came before the Committee, he made some helpful comments to the effect that bus companies should follow the law, and I am interested to know whether there is anything else he can do to support the company in west Yorkshire and Nexus, which, I understand, are both still going down the quality contracts route. I believe, as does the Minister I suspect, that the scheme will lead to a better bus service, so if there is a legal option to go down that route the Government really should provide as much support to the quality contract areas as they are prepared to provide to the better bus ones. I cannot see why the quality contract areas should be discriminated against.

This has been a long speech. The Transport Committee’s report is good, and I hope that the Government will move on and support the moves to balance up bus services. Without going through all the detailed arguments, it seems that there is much greater similarity between Greater Manchester, the west midlands and London in relation to introducing franchising operations and a regulated system, than between Greater Manchester, Oxford and Cornwall. I hope that the Government, recognising the success in London, will try to move within the 2008 Act to help the introduction of the schemes, not just in Manchester but in Leeds and Newcastle.

14:15

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

We all like to talk about trains when we discuss transport. I do not know what it is, but conversations often seem to end up focusing on them. However, the form of public transport that is most fundamental to us all is the buses. We do not usually get trains to our doors, so unless we are going to get our car out of the garage and drive to the station we need a bus to take us there. We have huge congestion on our roads, particularly in a conurbation such as Greater Manchester, and there is a great loss of money to business and industry because so many people are caught up in terrible traffic jams all the time. We also need, however, the integration of transport, with all our transport modes linking up.

If we think about who uses buses, we know that two groups of people will always have to use them if they are going to use any form of public transport: the young, before they can drive, and the old, when they reach a point at which they can no longer drive—let us hope that we all reach that point in our lives. There are also disabled people who cannot drive, and poorer people who cannot afford their own transport. We need the people who can afford to use their own transport to choose to use the buses, to make them economical, and I will talk in a bit about what happens in London. We need to make the services economical for people to run; we need to save the planet.

When we look at what people want, we see that they do not really want competition. I have never met anyone who cares about who runs their buses. What they want is a cheap and regular service that goes near their door. One of the problems with competition is that no one wants to compete for a contract on roads that do not take people into a city centre. In comparison, on the route along Oxford road in Manchester there are buses every two minutes—or is it every minute?

[Graham Stringer]

Every minute.

[Julie Hilling]

I asked a student who lived there, “Do the buses stop in the night?” and she said, “Oh yes, they stop in the middle of the night.” I then asked, “How long do they stop for?” and she replied, “For 10 minutes, at 4 am.” There are buses every minute, 24 hours a day, apart from during those 10 minutes at 4 am.

A couple of years ago in Manchester, the situation was so bad that no other vehicles could get into the city centre. All the buses were queued far back because so many people were competing to run their buses along that corridor. We can compare that with the estate I live on. The service to Hag Fold stops in the evening, and on a Sunday it does not start until midday, so no one can use the bus to go to church on a Sunday morning, or for a day out. That is the reality of our buses, and I live in an urban area; I am not even talking about a rural district. We need, therefore, planning for services across an area that is not based just on whether a route is profitable. We need a service that goes as close to people’s doors as possible, otherwise those who can drive will.

Cost is incredibly important. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the excellent Chair of the Transport Committee, talked about the ever-increasing cost of bus travel, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).

For the third time this week, I will talk about my neighbour, Leah, because she will be affected by the cuts to tax credits and other benefits. She is a mum of two who works 16 hours a week and earns £101. She pays £18 a week—£4.50 a day—for her travel card, which, of course, can be used only with one provider that stops serving the estate in the evening. Unless she gets home early enough, she has to pay another bus company to get her anywhere near home. Compare that with £2.80 a day in London for a service that can be used with any provider.

Travel cards are important for reducing costs and opening up integrated services. Look at the liberation of Oyster that we have had for nine years. Those of us who reside in London for a few days each week have been amazed by the Oyster card: people can go on any bus or tube by flashing the cost-effective card. Compare that with people in my area, who have to decide from which company they will buy a travel card on any given day, because a card can be used only on one service, such as First. They have to ask themselves whether the company will manage to take them on the whole of their journey, or whether they will have to buy separate fares because the company will take them on only part of the journey.

Transport for Greater Manchester is trying hard to get some sort of Oyster mark 2 for the conurbation, but there is no surprise that the operators are not co-operating. Fares in south Manchester are 15% to 20% cheaper than those in the north of the conurbation. Having different operators is the only answer, because it surely cannot be true that diesel costs more in Bolton than in Withington. Costs seem to be part of the reason why the operators are not co-operating. What will the Minister do to support areas such as Greater Manchester to introduce travel cards that will liberate services for so many people?

Running a big bus company is a licence to print money. Since deregulation, the companies are earning a profit of some 7% each year at no risk. If a service is uneconomic, the operators can cancel it and hope that the local authority will pay them to deliver it. Quality contracts would enable routes to be bundled so that operators would have to deliver all the routes in a bundle, both good and poor. They will still be able to make a profit, but they could not continue to hold transport authorities to ransom over the provision of a route.

People make choices about where they live and work, and about schools, based on public transport. What are they supposed to do when they lose the bus service that enables them to lead their life? We know of people who have had to give up their job because they have lost a bus service and can no longer get to their place of work. I have a group of women in Blackrod who can no longer go to their church, which they went to for many years, because the bus stopped running along that route. I ask the Government to use the better bus area fund to support all models of co-operation, including quality contracts. They should also do more to support passenger transport executives and local authorities that are considering quality contracts.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned earlier, we know operators have threatened a scorched earth effect by removing all buses if a transport authority wants to go the way of introducing quality contracts. Well, I do not think that a bus operator should be allowed to obstruct the implementation of Government legislation by making such threats. It would not be acceptable for other groups to threaten to thwart Government legislation, so why is it acceptable for a bus operator to do so?

Bus travel has zoomed up in London. Why has bus travel gone up so fast and so far? It is about cost, availability, the Oyster card and regulation, and it is very much about subsidy; it is about the state saying, “Public transport is a public service, not just a means to get around.” My constituents in Bolton West deserve the same sort of service as London residents, and I look to the Minister to address how he can help the Greater Manchester transport authority and my constituents get the service they deserve.

00:00

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the members and staff of the Select Committee on Transport on securing this debate and on producing such a reasoned and timely report. I was especially pleased to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who has chaired the Committee expertly throughout the inquiry and speaks with great authority in support of buses, which are the Cinderella of public transport and, as she says, provide a lifeline for millions of people across the country.

The Transport Committee’s report provides a much-needed critical analysis of the Competition Commission’s investigation. The commission shone a light on the bus industry, exposing serious market distortions and raising helpful suggestions for reform, but the investigation itself inspires questions about the proper balance between competition and regulation and about the future structure of the bus industry. The commission’s report, notwithstanding its considerable strengths, is limited by an assumption that direct, head-to-head competition is beneficial to passengers. Of course, the commission was only following its remit, but perhaps that remit could have been applied a little more widely.

The reality is that sustainable competition on the same route is rare, and most areas settle into a pattern of single-operator dominance, occasionally interrupted by short, intense and disruptive clashes between rival companies. The roots of the problem can be dated to the deregulation regime established by the Transport Act 1985. The then Government’s ambition for widespread competition proved unsustainable. The new market did not achieve balance, as deregulation’s architects had hoped. After the frenzied bus wars of the 1980s and 1990s, a new pattern of dominant operators emerged.

There are exceptions, of course. Thanks to strong campaigning, London was protected from the 1985 Act and was therefore able to build a planned, integrated network, with competitive tendering for routes. With that provision, combined with other factors unique to the capital, bus use has risen dramatically, in contrast to the national decline in patronage. In 1985, one in five British bus journeys took place in London; today, the figure is one in two. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) has said, that raises clear questions about how other towns and cities can make similar progress.

Where municipal operators have survived, they have proved that they can help to buck the national trend. Nottingham City Transport, which serves the city that I am proud to represent, was named operator of the year for 2012, and strong leadership from the local authority has helped to grow the local bus market. Some challenges are still being overcome, such as establishing an integrated multi-operator smartcard—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) explained clearly why products such as the Oyster card, which Londoners probably now take for granted, are so valuable to passengers—but the point has been proved in Nottingham: determined local vision can help to reverse the wider pattern of decline.

For most passengers a lack of quality and choice—or geographic market segregation—is the norm. Some companies have, in effect, established private monopolies, with unfeasible hurdles for smaller competitors seeking to enter the market and without challenge from the biggest operators, which now account for 69% of the market. That is not a market solution; it is a model that has failed. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West and for Blackley and Broughton both described the experience in north Manchester, which will be familiar to many.

It is hard to disagree with the Campaign for Better Transport, which states that the Competition Commission’s focus on direct competition prevented it from fully considering alternatives. The Select Committee’s attention to the remaining barriers to quality contracts was welcome, and Labour is working to remove the uncertainty that is holding back some transport authorities. A number of witnesses said that they would like quality contract schemes to be introduced, but there remains, as the report discusses, the problem of who would be first across the line. We would offer genuine support for authorities seeking to develop quality contracts, just as we would for those developing voluntary and statutory partnership agreements.

As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Each local market is different, and local authorities must have a genuine choice about what is right for their area. Specifically, Labour would introduce bus deregulation exemption zones as a mechanism to transfer the risk from local to national Government, giving transport authorities the certainty that they need to commit to quality contracts where that is right for their residents.

Far from seeking to remove the remaining barriers to tendering, the Government’s proposed changes to funding criteria will raise the hurdle still higher. Authorities that introduce a quality contract scheme will be disqualified from receiving better bus area funding. Transport authorities that want to develop future schemes will have the odds weighted against them. I hope that the Minister, who, when in opposition, put on record his support for quality contracts, will withdraw that proposal. Indeed, when the Local Transport Act 2008 was considered in Committee, he speculated that

“a future Government, perhaps of a different complexion,”

which was

“unsympathetic to the idea of quality contracts”

could

“seek to kill the measure slowly”.––[Official Report, Local Transport Bill Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2008; c. 205-6.]

That is precisely what is happening under this Government.

Although the withholding of better bus area funding is a proposal at this stage, it is undeniable that the threat is inhibiting the development of quality contracts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside described, that sends a strong signal to local authorities not to go down that route. When the South Yorkshire integrated transport authority decided not to pursue a quality contract scheme, it was made clear that the Government’s stance on funding had been a major factor in the decision.

I know that the Minister will be studying carefully the responses to his consultation. I ask that he also listens to the recommendations of the Transport Committee and withdraws the proposals that punitively target authorities that choose to pursue tendering. Of course, the proposal to stack the deck against quality contracts comes after a round of swingeing cuts to local transport, including buses. Overall funding for local transport has been cut by 28% and the bus service operators’ grant has been cut by 20%.

Early predictions, optimistically repeated by the Government, that cuts of this magnitude could be absorbed without a substantial rise in fares have been discredited. Fares rose by more than double the rate of inflation last year, and supported bus services, which are often relied on by some of the most vulnerable members of society, were cut by 9.3% outside London. As Passenger Transport stated last week,

“the bus industry is in danger of being forced into another great cycle of decline, in which cost rises, funding cuts and consequent fare increases each give another vicious downward twist to patronage levels.”

Passenger Focus has collected a great deal of evidence on the human cost of the cuts. In some areas, buses have been reduced to mere skeleton services. One passenger told researchers:

“You feel imprisoned in your local area.”

Indeed, the Campaign for Better Transport identified one estate—Burbank in Hartlepool—where bus services have been cut completely. It does not have to be this way. The Government should be striving to achieve something more than the slow subsidised decline of bus services outside London. Despite failings in local markets, buses are still the most used mode of public transport. Travelling across the country and Europe, I have seen the enormous potential that buses hold. But Britain has to grasp the challenge and not see buses as an easy target for cuts. That is why Labour has set out which cuts we would reluctantly support, to protect public transport services.

Thanks to the work of Greener Journeys and others, we know more now than ever before about the economic and social benefits of buses. Jobs and growth and tackling social exclusion are two sides of the same coin. That is why the present reduction in funding is cutting so acutely. Democratically accountable local authorities are best placed to provide leadership, deliver service improvements and promote integration with other modes, including rail. This is what communities need. Real, accountable devolution of spending and decision making can help address market failings when they occur, and Labour is committed to devolution and protecting bus services.

With your permission, Mr Walker, I would like to close by paying tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who, unfortunately, has had to step down from his role in the shadow transport team following a serious injury. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish him a full and speedy recovery.

14:35

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

I thank all those who have taken part in this afternoon’s debate. I particularly thank the Committee and its Chairman for its report on competition in local bus markets. It is good to have time to debate the issue once again. The report was a welcome addition to the evidence base on this subject. It reminded us once again that, although competition is important, the ultimate prize is to improve bus services for the travelling public. That must be our primary aim. That was a key test for the Government when considering the Competition Commission’s recommendations—namely, would they result in more passengers travelling on the bus?

There is a point of uncommon purpose and agreement with my colleague the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood): Greener Journeys has made a welcome contribution to the debate on buses. We know from the work by Greener Journeys and others that bus services make a significant contribution to the economy. Sustainable growth relies in part on a good quality, affordable bus network to get people to jobs, training and education. I think that I have said so before, but if I have not, I can confirm that I am pursuing that matter and that welcome report with colleagues in different Departments across Government. Clearly, it is not simply a transport matter, but an employment and environment matter. Other benefits might flow from the recommendations being taken forward.

Although the overall picture is mixed, I am positive that we are headed in the right direction. There are many areas of the country where bus services flourish and where significant progress is being made in ticketing, infrastructure and integration. I have seen first hand in places such as Sheffield and Oxford the power of partnership working to make a real difference to bus services in city centres and beyond. There is significant investment going into new vehicles, new technology and new services by the better bus companies, both big and small. There is good innovation out there. I pay tribute to Trent Barton. It is always unfair to pick one company out, but I have been very impressed by the way that Trent Barton markets individual services, which is a testament to how a good bus network can be built through good management. We see a key example there.

I have been keen to build on investment by encouraging the bus industry to think about what more it can do to get people on to buses. That is why I am pleased that bus companies across the country have come together with two exciting offers in response to my suggestions. The first, BUSFORUS, is a website to collate information on bus services and tickets in one place for young people. The Passenger Focus survey, to which the Chairman of the Select Committee referred, showed a high level of satisfaction with bus use. Of course, it masked a slightly less high level of satisfaction among young people. That is helpful in persuading bus companies that they should perhaps give more consideration to young people in the way that they conduct their business. They are now doing so, and they have made a good start with the website.

[Graham Stringer]

The Minister makes a fair point about the survey masking dissatisfaction among young people. An even bigger point, because the survey is of bus users, is that it completely masks the dissatisfaction of the people who have abandoned bus services because of poor quality or high fares. The figures of 88% and 92% satisfaction are misleading, because they exclude the people who no longer travel by bus.

[Norman Baker]

It is true that those no longer travelling would by definition be excluded, because they would not have been on the bus to be subject to questions. I suppose the same applies to rail services. However, if bus services were being abandoned because of poor quality, I would expect that to be highlighted by the people still on the bus, but who have not yet abandoned it, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s point is necessarily true, if I may say so. It might be that bus passengers are no longer on the bus because they have decided to travel by a different mode—car or train—or because the bus is no longer there in the circumstances that suit their individual needs.

The second deal was Bus for Jobs, which helps jobseekers get back to work by offering free travel for the whole of this month of January. Those are exactly the sort of leadership examples that should be demonstrated by bus companies. I will continue to work with the companies, and cajole them if necessary, to ensure that they continue to put passengers’ long-term interests directly at the heart of their businesses. Of course it is in their commercial interest to do so, and therefore they ought to be doing that for themselves, as many of them are.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I have listened with great interest to what the Minister said about BUSFORUS and Bus for Jobs. Can he set out his assessment of how well those initiatives by the bus industry are meeting the needs of young and unemployed people, in particular given that Bus for Jobs only lasts for a single month?

[Norman Baker]

The Bus for Jobs initiative is being assessed by the bus companies, and I spoke about it to a leading member of the bus industry yesterday. I will be keeping in touch with the industry, to see what the initial response is and whether there is a case for extending the initiative. That would be a matter for the bus companies, but we want to see the response first—us from the Government point of view and them from a commercial point of view. If the initiative is successful in persuading people who have not considered the bus before to take the bus and then to stay with the bus, it might be a sensible commercial proposition for the bus companies.

However, I have made no secret of my belief that the bus companies need to do more to help young people, and that has formed a key part of my speech on major set-piece occasions when I have addressed the bus industry. The industry has responded sensibly and well to that challenge, and the companies know that I will continue to engage with them formally and informally. The subject is always on the agenda of the Bus Partnership Forum, which I hold with the industry six-monthly and in which young people also participate.

Overall, commercial services, which represent about 80% of bus mileage, are holding up quite well, which is good news that we should all welcome. I understand the challenges of being in opposition, but I encourage Opposition Members not to talk down the bus industry, which is easy to do—I have been in opposition myself. They should recognise what is going well, as well as not so well. Commercial services are holding up, and we should take some comfort from that.

Although there is good news on that front, I recognise—I am the first to do so—that in some areas of the country the garden is not quite so rosy. Recent statistics show that the supported service network—only 20% of overall bus mileage, but important for many people—is not as healthy as the commercial sector. The picture is not uniform, as it inevitably will not be in an era of localism, such as the one we are moving into, because the decisions are made locally by elected councillors. Some councils, such as East Riding, have prioritised bus services in setting their budgets, while others, such as Surrey, have reduced their spending but have done so creatively and carefully so as not to translate cuts into significant service reductions.

Other councils, I am sorry to say, have made what appear to be arbitrary and swingeing cuts that fail to consider properly the needs of their local residents—I refer to North Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire—which can lead to people in isolated communities, particularly in rural locations, having restricted access to education, training, work, health care and other important services. We have heard about how those who use the bus tend to be at either end of the age spectrum, so young people and elderly people are especially affected if such cuts are made, because they rely more on public transport to get around.

[Julie Hilling]

While the Minister is talking about local authorities continuing to support bus services, has he investigated whether those that do not have suffered more extreme cuts from the coalition Government than others? A lot of Labour authorities, for instance, have had much higher cuts to their spending than Tory councils. I recognise that that might not be the case in the two examples he gave, but I was wondering what the correlation is with local authorities that can no longer support such services.

[Norman Baker]

The allocation of money to local councils and their predominant concerns are matters not for the Department for Transport, but for the Department for Communities and Local Government, which sets the allocation for local council funds. We do not control that, but allocate our own funds, which we are increasing through the green bus fund and the better bus areas and community transport. That is what our Department has been doing, but I am unable to answer the hon. Lady directly, because that is not my Department’s responsibility. I do not believe, however, that there is a direct correlation between the reductions in local funding from the DCLG and the cuts in bus funding.

Indeed, what is reflected—quite properly—is the exercise of local discretion. Some councils have decided to protect bus services and to make them a high priority, while others have not sought to do so, which is entirely up to them, because they consist of elected local people. I certainly encourage individual constituents in those areas where bus cuts have been significant to ask their local councils and councillors why they have decided to prioritise bus cuts, as opposed to anything else, while perhaps the councils next door have not done so. To be fair, I referred to non-Labour councils, North Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire, but I can also pick out Darlington, Stoke and such councils, which have reduced their budgets. Things are mixed throughout the country.

Overall, however, bus mileage remains broadly flat, with commercial services in many cases picking up the slack as bus companies continue to look for opportunities to grow their local markets.

[Lilian Greenwood]

May I take the Minister back to his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West? The Government are trying to have it both ways, taking credit for progress in the bus industry while blaming local authorities for cuts to services. He must take responsibility for inflicting front-loaded cuts, disproportionately hitting less affluent authorities and forcing councillors to make impossible decisions. The Government are using localism as a way to hide behind the effect of their own decisions.

[Norman Baker]

That is not fair, and I have already listed some of the extra money that the Department for Transport has made available to help buses. In a moment, I will go on to what we are doing. Moreover, many councils are not making cuts, which demonstrates that there is flexibility. Some have chosen not to make cuts, although there have been reductions across the patch, not only in local councils but in Departments. I do not wish to rehearse the Budget position, but there was a general recognition that reductions in Government expenditure were necessary. Indeed, the hon. Lady’s party was also committed to a large swathe of cuts had it been returned to power in 2010. In the Department for Transport, we are doing what we can to protect bus services, and I hope that local councils have the same objective—some appear to be discharging it well, others less so.

We are doing our bit to help, and we remain committed to supporting local bus markets through direct operator subsidy, through DCLG funding of local government and through our targeted investment packages. That includes £70 million on better bus areas, which was a bolt out of the blue and a windfall that the bus industry was not expecting, with more to come for those places that successfully apply for full devolution of bus subsidy. That also includes around £200 million in capital funding for major projects in Manchester, Rochdale, Bristol and elsewhere, and many of the 96 projects made possible by the £600 million local sustainable transport fund, which is a brand-new Government initiative and provides a major increase in spending on sustainable transport compared with that of the previous Administration.

Many of the 96 projects include improvements related to bus services. In addition, I recently announced a further £20 million for a new, fourth round of the green bus fund, on top of the three previous rounds worth £75 million. Many of those buses will be built in Britain, helping British manufacturing and jobs as well reducing our carbon impact from buses. Such funding, therefore, is not insubstantial and not a bad deal for the bus industry. It comes in spite of the tough financial climate and the need to reduce the structural deficit.

As I have made clear before, however, with such significant amounts of public expenditure invested in the bus market, it was only right for us to consider whether it has been delivering the best service for bus passengers and best value for the taxpayer. That is why we are engaged in a series of reforms to facilitate competition and to increase local accountability for spending on bus services. We are reforming how bus services are subsidised, providing guidance on ticketing and tendering for contracts, and making regulatory changes to encourage more on-the-road competition where the market supports it.

On bus subsidy and the reform of BSOG, I am considering the response to last year’s consultation and will have final proposals before Easter. That will include the treatment of areas where quality contract schemes are planned, which is clearly and understandably of interest to the Committee. Guidance for local authorities that wish to apply for better bus area status will be out later this month.

[Mrs Ellman]

I am trying to interpret the Minister’s welcome comments. Is he saying that he will be able to give a clear answer about whether local authorities could secure public support for embarking on statutory partnerships?

[Norman Baker]

That issue was raised at the Select Committee, to which I gave evidence, and it has been raised again today. Local councils want to understand the relationship between better bus areas and quality contracts; that is fully understood. I will not give a definitive answer today. The matter has been subject to consultation, as the hon. Lady knows. The responses to the consultation are being carefully considered, and I will discuss those matters with my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport, but I accept the need for clarity, and I intend to provide that so that everyone knows where they stand.

I am pleased to note that, by and large, the Committee’s key findings and recommendations complement and support the coalition Government’s policies that were set out last year in “Green Light for Better Buses”. I have a lot of time for the Chair of the Committee, but I thought she was uncharacteristically unfair when she said that there needed to be more to our policy than funding cuts. That was a gross distortion, and failed to note the direction of travel that is clearly set out in “Green Light for Better Buses” and our proposed changes to funding arrangements. That constitutes a policy that we believe will help to deliver better arrangements for our buses. Combined with our response to the Competition Commission, it sets out a clear policy. The hon. Lady may disagree with it, but it is a clear policy. In fact, the Committee’s findings suggest that she does not disagree with much of it.

We have made it clear that partnership is a highly effective way of delivering quality, affordable bus services, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s endorsement of partnerships as a good way forward. Our better bus area proposals are indicative of that. The purpose of such areas is to ensure that councils and operators work together, because that is more successful than a council wanting to drive forward policies, perhaps for good reasons, when the bus industry is not interested. Similarly, if the bus industry has good ideas, but a council is unresponsive, those ideas will not be delivered. The proposal to financially incentivise two groups of people to come together is entirely sensible, and can only work to the benefit of the public.

We will support the integration of services when that is in the public interest, and we will encourage the roll-out of smart, multi-operator ticketing. We will monitor local authorities as they develop their partnership agreements, liaising with the Office of Fair Trading when necessary—the Chair of the Committee made this point—to ensure that competition law does not become an insurmountable barrier to sensible service improvements.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does the Minister share my concern that a false distinction is sometimes made between quality contracts and partnerships? We all want effective partnerships, and the Labour Government legislated to promote them. When I was in Copenhagen, I saw how tendering and partnerships between operators and transport authorities do not just co-exist; they are essential to policy success. It is artificial and misleading to present them as two completely different things. They can work together, and funding should follow.

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Lady is tempting me to respond to the consultation exercise, which I will do with clarity in due course. A point about quality contracts that I made to the Select Committee in response to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) was that they are there in law:

“They are there as part of the Local Transport Act 2008”—

I was a member of the Committee—

“They remain on the statute book.”

There is no intention of removing them from the statute book and I expect the law to be respected by all parties. I would take a dim view of any bus company or anyone else who sought to undermine the law of the land as it is on the statute book.

On resources for traffic commissioners, to which the Committee referred, the coalition Government has already given a commitment to review their role in the next financial year as part of a wider review of non-departmental public bodies. It is sensible to include a look at their public service vehicle work as part of that review.

I shall pick up individual points that hon. Members have raised this afternoon. The Chair of the Transport Committee referred to multi-operator ticketing and whether it would require new legislation. We have made it clear that we strongly support multi-operator ticketing. We believe it is important to deliver the sorts of outcomes that passengers want, and to avoid the situation to which the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) referred of passengers buying a ticket and then having to buy a further ticket to get home. That cannot be a sensible outcome for passengers, and cannot help public transport generally. We do not want that.

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

We have made it clear to bus companies that we want multi-operator ticketing. We have also made it clear that we reserve the right to introduce legislation if that does not occur. We hope that it will occur—there is some evidence of that—not least because in Oxford where it is occurring, the bus companies have discovered that it is in their financial interest. I am confident that the bus industry has bought the idea of multi-operator ticketing, and that it will become increasingly common throughout the country. However, we reserve the right to take that forward in legislation if necessary.

We also believe that transparency is important. I welcome any figures that can be produced to help passengers and to give a wider perspective of how the industry is performing, and indeed how the Government is performing. Anyone who knows about my role in Parliament will know that I have been hugely committed to transparency in all sorts of areas throughout my time here. We must avoid placing huge extra burdens on industry for not much return, so we cannot require endless figures to be produced if they are of little value, but in principle we are certainly open to any suggestions for extra information that is genuinely valuable. If the Committee has particular issues in mind, I will be happy to consider them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) referred to door-to-door journeys. He called them end-to-end journeys. I have discussed with the rail and bus industry how to describe them, but I will not bore him with the nuances of that conversation. Suffice it to say that the general view was that we should call them door-to-door journeys, and that is what the Department is doing. It will shortly produce information on such journeys to aid the process. It will cover the bus and rail industries, and ensure that different modes of transport are joined up. In best practice they are, but sometimes they are not.

My hon. Friend was right to refer to the role of smart ticketing, which is key to delivering door-to-door journeys properly. He said that it is necessary for people to be confident that they will get the cheapest fare when they use a new ticket-purchasing method for their journey. I absolutely share that view. For the railways it is a key objective of the fare and ticketing review that people buy the ticket that is appropriate for their journey, and do not pay over the odds unnecessarily. Obtaining the best possible deal for rail and bus passengers, which also involves transparency, is to the fore of the Government’s thinking.

I always listen with interest to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton when he talks about transport, because for many years he has demonstrated a genuine commitment and great knowledge. He referred to London’s upside, but he will recognise that it also has its downside. There are pros and cons with the London arrangement, and I am familiar with both. In any assessment of what is best for one area it would be wise to consider the upside and downside in London when considering arrangements for buses.

The hon. Gentleman referred to concessionary fares. There will be no change in the arrangements during this Parliament. That is what the coalition Government has said, but what individual parties do in their manifestos will be a matter for them as we approach the next general election.

The hon. Member for Bolton West raised the interesting matter of—I suppose, though she did not frame it in this way—the purpose of bus travel. What is the objective that we, or local councils, are seeking to deliver and what are bus operators delivering by running buses? There are different reasons, it seems to me, why buses are run. One is to provide a regular means of transport at a high frequency along corridors such as Oxford road, which is effective, or can be effective, in securing modal shift from the motor car, and thereby, in theory, easing congestion, reducing carbon emissions, and providing a viable public transport alternative. As we have seen in London and elsewhere, there is no question but that when we have frequent services and people turn up without having to think about the timetable, it drives passenger numbers up, creating a virtuous circle where buses become more attractive and more buses can be run. We have that in many parts of our country—not all, but in many parts—including much of London. However, it could be argued—this is one of the downsides of London, I might say—that sometimes, and it is my view, there is an over-provision of buses, which run significantly empty on occasions, back to back all the way along the road. That is a particular problem on Oxford street, as opposed to Oxford road.

It seems to me that the second purpose of a bus is to provide a social function and a necessary connection between those who are without private transport but need a bus to get to a school, a hospital, or whatever it happens to be. The hon. Member for Bolton West suggested that the answer was route-bundling, which is a perfectly legitimate philosophical view. However, I would say that route-bundling may satisfy her need for buses that go round the houses, but what is the consequence for Oxford road, or buses along high-frequency corridors? I am not sure that we can have both—perhaps we can. If we reduce high-frequency corridors to provide buses round the houses, that may meet more social needs, but it may secure less modal shift from road. I raise that philosophically to point out that such things are not perhaps as straightforward as they are sometimes presented.

[Julie Hilling]

I certainly had not taken my thoughts to the level of “Well, if you are going to provide a service here, you are taking a service off somewhere else.” For me, it is more about running the Oxford road service with that frequency, and alongside that, having another area of routes. Some will be highly lucrative and others less so. It is less about the distribution of resources, and more about saying, “Yes, we need to provide this service and those services.” It is not about taking resources away to provide them.

[Norman Baker]

Many of us, including me, would like to have our cake and eat it, would we not? “Eat our cake and have it” was, I think, the original English phrase, which makes more sense. If we can do that, fantastic, but I draw attention to the conundrum about the supply of buses and what is done with them.

The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton referred to the costs of bus services in Manchester, and the hon. Gentleman made what might be termed “uncomplimentary comments” about FirstGroup. To be fair, I understand that FirstGroup recently reduced its weekly tickets to £13 from £18 in Manchester. FirstGroup tells me that initial signs are positive, with passenger growth levels ahead of 5% in just eight weeks, meaning that, so far, more than 300,000 bus journeys have been made on the reduced fares. It tells me that that is part of a long-term plan to rebase bus passenger levels in Manchester.

Assuming all that is correct, and there is no reason to think that it is not, it is a welcome development. I have often tried to persuade public transport operators that cutting fares can be useful in driving up business, and if that is what is being demonstrated by FirstGroup in Manchester, as it appears to be, it is a welcome development. I hope everybody would agree that it could potentially lead to more buses, cheaper fares and the creation of the virtuous circle that I referred to.

[Julie Hilling]

The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way. My understanding is that that experiment is in one part of the conurbation, and it certainly does not include services to Bolton and other parts. Hopefully, if that experiment is working for FirstGroup, it might consider bringing costs down across the conurbation.

[Norman Baker]

Precisely. If it is working, and it appears to be, it would be wise commercially to see where else it might apply. Doubtless, the people at FirstGroup are listening to this debate very carefully, and they will have heard the hon. Lady’s pitch for a similar scheme for Bolton West and elsewhere, no doubt, in the conurbation.

The hon. Lady asked what we would do to roll out something like Oyster. I can assure her that we are doing a great deal of work on smart cards, or smart ticketing—it is becoming difficult to get the right form, because we talk about mobile phones and everything else, and there is no simple phrase these days to describe all that. As a Government, one of the first things that we did was give a big sum of money to the various passenger transport executives to help develop smart ticketing in their areas, and we are giving other help as well. That money is forthcoming for rail and bus.

The hon. Lady asked what we would do to help Greater Manchester. I hope that we will do a great deal. We continue to work productively with the integrated transport authority up there. I am always very happy to meet its representatives and hear any concerns that they have. We have, in fact, given a great deal of money to Manchester for transport in the past two and a half years, including the beginning of the delivery of the entire northern hub, so I hope that we are doing a good deal to help transport in that area.

I was asked about data on bus spend. I am advised that DCLG collects some of those data and they are published as part of its annual statistics—not just on supported services, but more generally. On best practice, I think it is something that has value, but it is predominantly for the local government family in this new era of localism to identify that themselves. Of course, we are interested in it, and talk regularly to our local government colleagues and to the Association of Transport Coordinating Officers, for example. However, it is broadly my view that the Local Government Association needs to do rather more to step up to the plate and identify best practice, rather than simply seeing itself as a body that lobbies Government for something. In the new era of localism, it has a different role to play, which I hope it will develop rather more than it has done. We are helping local government in many ways, including through providing guidance for local authorities on tendering.

[Graham Stringer]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I feel that he is coming to the end of his speech, and he is being very generous in giving way and covering all the issues. However, I have not heard him answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) about the deregistration of services, and whether he will legislate to ensure that, when services are registered, both ridership and fare information is made public.

[Norman Baker]

Let me muse on that matter for a moment—until I become inspired—and deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South as part of my closing remarks. I have noted with interest her support—increased support, I might say—for quality contracts, and her proposal for bus deregulation exemption zones. The Opposition is of course entitled to produce its own policy and I look forward, with interest, to that evolving. Therefore, perhaps it would be churlish of me to point out that for 13 years, some of us were making such arguments and they were batted back and we were told that what we were proposing, which may not be terribly different from what she is now suggesting, was a load of old nonsense. It would, however, be churlish to make that point.

I do not think that it is true to say we are in a great cycle of decline. I say to the Opposition that there are issues about the bus industry that I have been happy to accept, including what some councils have done in terms of bus cuts and the real impact that has on individuals in those areas. However, I encourage her not to exaggerate the position. That “great cycle of decline”, as I mentioned yesterday, shows an increase in passenger journeys of 0.6% over the last 12 months. Even if we take out London, a decline of only 0.8% is shown. It is not a great cycle of decline, and we must not talk down the bus industry and the opportunities for users.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I want to clarify that they were not my words but those of Passenger Transport. Just this week, it expressed its concern about the impact of a number of things, including cost rises and funding cuts. It is not just me who has real concern about the future of the bus industry—that view is widely held—and I just wish the Minister would respond to it.

[Norman Baker]

I have responded to it, and I have indicated that we are not into a great cycle of decline. I indicated that commercial services are holding up very well. The bus industry is responding with ingenuity and innovation. It is taking steps to take over some of the services that have been tendered and that were run by councils. Indeed, it is beginning to grow the market in places. The initiatives in Manchester and Sheffield, where fares have been cut, shows us a way to grow the market. I do not accept that we are into a great cycle of decline; nor do I think that it is helpful for anyone, whether the Opposition, Passenger Focus or anyone else—whoever the hon. Lady happens to be referring to —to talk about these matters in such apocalyptic terms.

The hon. Lady said that buses had been cut completely in Hartlepool and that it did not have to be that way. No, it does not. She should perhaps ask Hartlepool council why things are that way there, because they are not that way in other councils.

The hon. Lady said that local authorities are best placed to provide leadership, and we entirely agree, which is why we are pursuing a policy of localism. However, I hope she will accept, as we do, that that will produce a non-uniform picture across the country, as local authorities behave in different ways as a result of the freedom that they have been given.

The hon. Lady says that Labour is committed to devolution, and I am delighted to hear that, because I did not notice much of it in the 13 years of the previous Government. However, if she is now going along with our localism proposals, that is very welcome. That sends a message that there will, I hope, be no reversal of the localism that the Government has pursued, in the unlikely event that Labour forms the next Government. That will give local authorities some comfort that the direction of travel will not be changed.

On deregistration, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton will recognise that primary legislation would be required and is difficult to achieve slots for. Alongside every other Department, we have to make a case to be given spare time to pursue the matter, so we are not looking to legislate. We are exploring voluntary options, but, as with all things, we reserve the right to introduce legislation if necessary. I very much hope that it will not be, and we are certainly getting quite a long way down the track on a whole range of issues by taking a constructive, engaging, voluntary approach with local councils and the bus industry.

Let me end on a note of agreement. I share the views of the hon. Member for Nottingham South about the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). I very much understand why he has taken his decision, and we all wish him a full recovery and a speedy return to the Front Bench.

15:10

[Mrs Ellman]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the Minister for his full response. I note his positive approach to many of the issues that have been raised, and I acknowledge the positive support that he has given the bus industry, in so far as he has been able to do so within the constraints of Government policy. I look forward to pursuing these issues and particularly how we can enable local authorities that wish to become involved in statutory partnerships to do so. The Committee will pursue these issues further. I thank the Minister for his positive approach.

Question put and agreed to.

15:13

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 10th January 2013 Written Statements

Thursday 10 January 2013

Economic Statistics

Thursday 10th January 2013 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

Following public consultation, the national statistician has today announced that no change will be made to the formula used in the construction of the retail prices index (RPI). The UK Statistics Authority has endorsed this recommendation.

Under the arrangements set out in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, the independent UK Statistics Authority is responsible for ensuring the quality of official statistics. As such the Government have had no involvement in today’s decision.

For gilt investors their future cash flows on existing index-linked gilts will continue to be calculated by reference to the RPI in accordance with the terms and conditions of those gilts. The Government will continue to issue new index-linked gilts linked to the RPI.

The Government will consider any implications of the national statistician’s announcement on their approach to RPI indexation across different policy areas in due course.

Public Health Grants to Local Authorities (2013-14) and (2014-15)

Thursday 10th January 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

Today I am announcing ring-fenced public health grants to local authorities for 2013-14 and 2014-15.

This Government have an ambitious vision to help people live longer, healthier and more fulfilling lives, and to improve the health of the most vulnerable fastest. From April 2013, upper tier and unitary local authorities will take on a new duty to improve their population’s health, funded by this ring-fenced budget. Local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their communities, and to tackle the wider determinants of health at a local level, putting people’s health and well-being at the heart of everything they do—from adult social care to transport, housing, planning and environment. The public health grants will allow local authorities to transform the lives of the local people through commissioning a wide range of innovative services.

Despite difficult financial circumstances, I am pleased to announce that we have been able to provide an above inflation growth representing a major investment in health and the prevention of illness. We are investing £2.7 billion in 2013-14 and £2.8 billion in 2014-15. In each year every local authority will see real-terms growth. This is on top of an updated 2012-13 baseline that is now just over £2.5 billion, significantly above the estimate of £2.2 billion that we published in February last year.

Announcing allocations for the next two years will provide local authorities the certainty they need to extend and develop their planning, including for initiatives that may be better delivered across more than one year.

The allocation is built on the advice of the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA). ACRA’s interim recommendations went through an intensive engagement during the summer, generating some important changes that we believe will be welcomed by the public health and local government communities.

Full details of the public health grants to local authorities have been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Prison Capacity Management

Thursday 10th January 2013 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Our strategy for the custodial estate is to ensure that we have sufficient places to meet the demand of the courts while securing best value for money for the taxpayer.

My intention is to have more adult male prison capacity available than we had in 2010 but at a much lower unit and overall cost. Our strategy for achieving this is to replace accommodation which is old, inefficient or has limited long-term strategic value with cheaper modern capacity which is designed to better meet the demand for prison places and supports our aim to drive down stubbornly high reoffending rates. I am also announcing today that the Government are to start feasibility work on a new prison that could hold more than 2,000 prisoners—around a quarter more than the largest current facility.

At present, we have buildings within the prison estate which date back to the 18th century. Prisons are not all located where we would want them to be to best meet the needs of the courts or support resettlement and there is an annual maintenance cost of approximately £184 million. There is clear evidence that by replacing old uneconomic places with modern prison capacity we can drive substantial savings for the taxpayer and I am determined to do just that.

Last year we opened a significant amount of new accommodation including 1,600 places at HMP Oakwood in the west midlands. The average cost at Oakwood is £13,200 per place. This is less than half the average cost of existing prison places, and sets the benchmark for future costs. In order to further drive down unit costs in prisons, I can today announce that we plan to significantly increase capacity at four existing prisons by building additional houseblocks to provide up to 1,260 new modern and cost-effective places. Our current intention is that new accommodation will be built at HMP Parc in Bridgend, HMP Peterborough in Cambridgeshire, HMP The Mount in Hertfordshire and HMP Thameside in London.

These houseblocks, along with Oakwood, which is now reaching capacity, represent over 2,800 new places. This provides the opportunity to close excess capacity elsewhere in the estate.

I am therefore announcing that we will close around 2,600 old and uneconomic places through the closure of six prisons and the partial closure of accommodation in three other sites. The affected establishments are:

Rail Franchising

Thursday 10th January 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

When I took the decision last October to cancel the competition for the inter-city west coast rail franchise and to put the wider franchising process on hold, I commissioned two independent reviews.

I am today laying before the House the second of these, by Richard Brown, the chairman of Eurostar and a highly respected industry figure. His report sets out his recommendations on how best to get the franchising programme back on course. I welcome this report, and am grateful to Mr Brown and his team for their swift and thorough consideration of the issues.

Mr Brown concludes that franchising is a fundamentally sound approach for securing the passenger railway services on which so many people rely. He has identified a number of detailed recommendations for improving the way that franchises are specified and franchise competitions are run. The issues he has identified deserve, and will get, very careful consideration. His recommendations include:

that the franchising programme should be restarted as soon as possible, but at a pace that both the Department and the industry can sustain;

that franchise term should be determined by the circumstances and size of each individual franchise;

proposals to strengthen and simplify the bidding and evaluation process for each franchise;

proposals for the financial and contractual structure of future franchises, including in relation to risk allocation and capital requirements; and

that the Government should plan to devolve responsibility for further English franchises to the relevant authorities.

Mr Brown also makes recommendations on how to strengthen my Department’s capability to manage the future franchising programme, echoing the findings of Sam Laidlaw’s independent inquiry into the lessons to be learnt from the inter-city west coast competition. My Department has already published a response to Mr Laidlaw’s report, setting out a series of actions that will allow it to resume the franchising programme, with the confidence of the rail industry, as soon as possible. The permanent secretary has now appointed a single director-general with responsibility for rail, including franchising.

The review recommends that the Government should determine, by February, our plans for the three franchise competitions which I put on hold last October. I accept that recommendation, and I will update the House when I have determined those plans.

Until then, however, I consider that it would be inappropriate to publish Mr Brown’s specific recommendations about these three franchise competitions because of their stock market sensitivity, and so I have redacted the relevant paragraphs from the version of the report I have published today. I will publish the redacted paragraphs once I have decided the way forward for those three competitions.

Mr Brown also recommends that we should set out a clear programme for future franchise competitions. I will do so in the spring, alongside a further statement of the Government’s rail franchising policy in the light of Mr Brown’s recommendations and the Transport Select Committee’s “Rail 2020” report.

Grand Committee

Thursday 10th January 2013 Grand Committee

Thursday, 10 January 2013.

14:00

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 10th January 2013 Grand Committee

Announcement

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)]

Good afternoon, my Lords. I remind the Committee that in the unlikely event of there being a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.

European Union (Croatian Access and Irish Protocol) Bill

Thursday 10th January 2013 Grand Committee

Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill and no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. With the agreement of the Committee, I will now put the Question that I report the Bill to the House without amendment.

Question put, That the Bill be reported to the House without amendment.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, before proceeding, I would like to place on record the respect of the whole Committee, I am sure, for, Zlatko Mateša, Prime Minister of Croatia between 1995 and 2000. I was with him in Andorra only a couple of months ago when he suffered a very severe heart attack. I am glad to say that he is on the mend.

The reason why I mention him is because as Prime Minister in 1995, he provided the leadership, the inspiration and the commitment to the European project through signing the first agreement between the European Union and Croatia. As Prime Minister, he also established the office for European integration in his country and appointed a Deputy Prime Minister, Ljerka Mintas-Hodak, as Minister for European integration.

Zlatko Mateša is a great European who has been a good friend of this country, not least through matters Olympic. He has led the Croatian national Olympic committee for many years. I am sure the whole Committee will wish him well and hope that he makes a speedy and full recovery, recognising the remarkable and important contribution that he has made. His work and the work of his successors have been good news for British relations with Croatia and good news for Croatia. This is an important year for Croatia, which will go down in its history. We will all celebrate and support that country on its road to full integration within the European Union.

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, is it in order for me to say something about the Irish protocol? I apologise for not having given notice that I intended to do so.

There is a bit missing from the Irish protocol, for which the UK bears some responsibility. The story starts with the rejection of the EU constitution by French and Dutch voters, which prompted Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy to propose a social clause to be incorporated into European treaties to reflect the fact that the single market is a vehicle for social progress and that economic freedoms and competition in the market should not have priority over fundamental social rights and not be used to evade or circumvent national laws and practices.

The idea was dropped as the constitutional treaty was minimised; certain things were concentrated on—some things were withdrawn, not added, to the process. Then came along two legal cases turning on the relationship of the free movement principles with national employment law systems. I refer to the Laval case and the Viking case. In both cases, the European Court of Justice ruled that the free movement principles would prevail.

There has been a series of other cases, some of which noble Lords will probably be familiar with because they are closer to home. One involved British and Irish Ferries where the predominantly Irish workforce was replaced by an eastern European workforce. This caused a lot of consternation in Ireland at about the time that the Irish voters rejected the EU constitutional treaty. This protocol is designed to permit the Irish Government to put the issue again to the Irish people, which they have done. But at that time the initial rejection was put down in a major way to the Irish Ferries case, employment issues and workers’ rights.

There are other cases. The British Airline Pilots Association—I declare an interest as the unremunerated president—in a dispute with British Airways, which was establishing subsidiaries in Paris and Brussels, was seeking clarification on whether the British collective agreement, which covers Hong Kong, Australia and other places, would also cover Paris and Brussels.

There was also a dispute at Immingham in 2009 in a petrochemical plant that attracted a lot of attention under the heading of “British jobs for British workers”, a phrase that the previous Prime Minister had used. In each case, employers were seeking to take advantage of the ECJ rulings in the Laval and Viking cases. Let me make it clear that unions are not objecting to the employment of foreign labour—absolutely not. We are trying to protect collective agreements and to be able to enforce those agreements in the country where the dispute arises. We are looking to protect the collective agreement to ensure equality between migrants and indigenous workers, particularly where there is a loophole in the posting of workers directive where a migrant employer brings in his or her own workforce.

This is when the idea of a social protocol re-emerged to be attached to the Irish protocol. It was based on a clause on the free movement of goods originally drafted by Mario Monti when he was European Commissioner. He said then that in relation to the movement of goods, the single market would not interfere with fundamental rights. We have been seeking to get that phraseology shoved into the provisions on the free movement of services.

We have the support of the Taoiseach, the Irish Government and most Governments. It all went through the diplomatic channels and COREPER in Brussels, but it was blocked at the eleventh hour by the UK Government, who were worried about red lines in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and feared that it would strengthen calls for a referendum in the UK on Britain’s EU membership.

Interestingly, for those who think that powers should be repatriated, if we had been then in the Norway position, this particular measure could never have been blocked; the rest would have agreed it. The British influence worked against my interests in that case, but it showed Britain’s influence in the EU through participation.

The response of the European authorities was to establish another exercise, also under Mario Monti, who proposed a regulation rather similar to the one he had proposed 10 years earlier in the free movement of goods legislation. The Commission drafted a regulation based on his report but, interestingly and importantly, said that they could not go further than the ECJ decisions because it was important simply to recognise that free movement is a European competence and labour law is a national competence. They were going to respect that as no doubt the British Government wished.

That has produced a lot of disillusion. I am certainly not holding my breath for any prospect of change, but the campaign for a change goes on. As Brendan Barber, my successor at the TUC, has said, we managed to get Monti 1, we did not manage to get Monti 2, but now we would really like the full Monti. The full Monti is a social protocol which we came close to achieving in the Irish protocol that is before us today.

I emphasise that the campaign for the trade union principle of when in Rome, do as the Romans do—advice given many centuries ago to St Augustine—is very important.

I will not go into the broader implications of social Europe. I am presuming a little on the Committee’s time at the moment, and I am grateful for its patience. However, it is important to recognise that social Europe is a crucial part of Europe’s future. That concept made Europe popular, certainly on the left of British politics. Ever since, it has been chopped and cut back, and this is an example. Funnily enough, the number of supporters decreases. If we pro-Europeans are going to fight for the European Union in future, do not be careless with the concept of a social Europe. Do not be careless with the rights that have been established, or how social Europe can be used to move us in the direction of the more successful European countries such as the Nordics, Germany, the Netherlands and the eastern side of our North Sea.

I thank the Committee for its attention and for this opportunity.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, before we receive any more contributions, I remind the Committee that the Question before it is to do with the reporting of the Bill back to the House. It is not really debatable. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, I do not think that he can expect any further contributions on the observations that he has made.

[The Earl of Dundee]

My Lords, I first congratulate the Minister and Her Majesty’s Government. The forthcoming European Union membership of Croatia is greatly to be welcomed and we all welcome it. I declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Croatia, and also as Scottish consul for Croatia. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Anderson. They have both made an enormous contribution within Parliament to assist Croatia in recent years.

It so happens that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and I have just come from a meeting with a Montenegrin delegation. I asked its members one question which may be timely: given that we now have three countries within south-east Europe committed to the European Union—Montenegro, Croatia and Slovenia, with the latter already in membership—what plans are they already evolving among themselves to confront intransigent problems preventing candidature and EU membership elsewhere in south-east Europe?

First, we have not least the absence of constitutional reform within Bosnia and Herzegovina; we have the Kosovo/Serbia difficulty; and we have border disputes and a number of other matters holding back Macedonia and Albania. What plans have the Government to address those issues along with these three committed EU states, thus making use of their energies?

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but this not appropriate to the Question we have before us. The Minister is not required to answer the noble Earl’s question.

[The Earl of Dundee]

I am grateful to the noble Countess for reminding me of that. I am fully aware that the Minister is not required to answer my questions today. I had a word with her before these proceedings and suggested that she might come back to me later on. She has already kindly agreed to do so.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I am delighted to follow the noble Earl, who I am tempted to call “my noble friend”. We had a discussion as to whether we should sit on the same side of the Committee. Indeed, we form a troika with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, in this respect. Again, I do not expect any answer to the questions I raise at this point. Perhaps the Minister will consider them and will be able to give some answer at the next stage of proceedings.

Croatia is, as the noble Earl said, the last entry into the EU, as it will be on 1 July, under the old rules. As we know, the new rules will be far tighter—particularly, as the noble Earl has said, in respect of the rule of law. There have been bilateral problems in respect of Croatia from Slovenia, in that Slovenia first drove a hard bargain in respect of Piran and, latterly, in respect of the bank. I understand that Croatia has given a firm, if not bankable, pledge that it will not use the fact of its entry as a means of creating problems for other countries in the western Balkans.

14:15

In terms of its regional responsibilities, Croatia is also to be complimented on passing to all other relevant countries the acquis, which it has translated, since the language is essentially the same in Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia. This is a major matter, although I understand that a large part of the material that it produced actually relates to defunct, expired elements of the acquis and is not relevant.

The most important point, which perhaps the Minister can briefly come back to when we next convene, is how to deal with the matter of regional integration. We know that after Croatia’s entry to the EU on 1 July, there is likely to be a substantial hiatus. It is possible that, depending on the result of its vote, Iceland will enter the European Union in about 2015. Thereafter, the earliest possible date—and the target date for Montenegro—is 2020.

All the instruments of the European Union must be used to keep the remaining countries of the western Balkans in play, to ensure that there is not a greater divide. For example, I understand that Bosnia will lose out in terms of trade in several respects. The particular trade matters that are relevant include the sale of river fish and animal skins. So we have to ensure that there is no further divide over that period as a result of the Croatian entry.

Finally, there are clearly other regional implications, although it is now agreed that there will not be a bloc entry and the European Union accepts that there is differentiation. Montenegro has a particular advantage because it already uses the euro and there are no bilateral problems. It will be very important, therefore, that those countries that have recently gone through the process of joining, particularly those in the region such as Slovenia and Croatia itself, help the remaining countries of the western Balkans. It is in their interests. It is surely in our interests.

My very final point is that it would be helpful if, next time, the Minister could give some indication of how we will use our experience of helping Croatia in its own six-year preparation for entry on 1 July in terms of twinning and technical help for the neighbouring countries in the western Balkans in preparing for their hoped-for entry. The key point is this: the troika and all of us will surely give a very warm blessing to Croatia on its progress to full entry in July.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, once again I remind the Committee that the Question before it is to report the Bill. Perhaps I might observe, with great respect to those who have contributed thus far, that it might have been more appropriate to add these points under a clause stand part or similar Motion. Equally respectfully, I recommend to the Committee that we do not progress this debate further.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I suggest to noble Lords that they put an amendment down on Report if they wish to speak to it.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, I will take a few brief moments to thank noble Lords who have made contributions today. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, makes important historical points but also raises some concerns for the future. I add my comments to those of my noble friend in relation to Mr Mateša. I am sure that all of us will join him in wishing him a speedy recovery.

There was some overlap of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and my noble friend Lord Dundee in terms of those who are inside the European Union family, those who are now joining and those who are seeking to join. I think we would all agree that there is a responsibility on those of us inside the European Union to ensure that we keep on making the case for an enlarged European Union and for those joining the EU family to meet their responsibilities. We must also ensure that as nations we continue to strengthen our bilateral relationships with nations aspiring to become part of the European Union family. With those comments, I beg to move that the Bill be reported to the House.

Bill reported without amendment.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [HL]

Thursday 10th January 2013 Grand Committee

Committee

Bill reported without amendment.

Legislative Reform (Constitution of Veterinary Surgeons Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees) Order 2013

Thursday 10th January 2013 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

14:21

Moved By

[Baroness Northover]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Legislative Reform (Constitution of Veterinary Surgeons Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees) Order 2013

Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, this draft legislative reform order seeks to make changes to the outdated constitution of the two committees that deal with disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary committee and the preliminary investigation committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. At the moment, the college is required to populate these two committees with members of its governing council. In effect, that means that the same body of people is responsible for both setting the standards for the profession and dealing with possible breaches of those standards. This is not in line with modern regulatory best practice as there is insufficient impartiality and independence and there is public pressure for reform. The RCVS needs to separate these functions to balance both professional and public interests. In addition, the current size of the disciplinary committee makes it difficult to manage the current and future case load in an efficient and timely manner. The college reports that RCVS council members who are elected to the disciplinary committee are now overstretched as they struggle to find time for the increasing number of sitting days.

The constitution of the DC and the PIC is prescribed in the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and reflects the regulatory practices of that time. Replacing Part I of Schedule 2 to that Act allows the college to implement modern disciplinary practices in line with other comparable regulators such as the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. In these organisations, there is a separation between those who advise on professional standards and those who implement the disciplinary process.

The proposed amendment to the Veterinary Surgeons Act is to change the constitution of the two disciplinary committees, in terms of both the eligibility for membership and their size. This will allow the royal college to make changes that comply better with the Better Regulation Commission’s principles. No longer will the membership and chairmanship of the PIC and DC be drawn from the council. They will in fact be ineligible for appointment. Instead, appointment to both committees will follow an open, transparent and independent recruitment process. For the first time there will be a statutory requirement that the committees must contain a proportion of lay people, to bring a fresh perspective to the work of the committees and to improve further their independence. There will an increase in the size of the committees. This should make it much easier, and possibly quicker, to assemble a panel for an individual case-hearing from the larger pool of people, thus removing a burden, specifically defined as “an obstacle to efficiency”, from the RCVS.

The amendments will also introduce more flexibility into the constitution of the committees as well as remove the most outdated restrictive provisions. Committee members will serve for a specific term of office and for no more than two terms on each committee. The new size of the committees allows for flexibility in case further increase is needed in the future, without the need for another legislative change.

Removal of the provision regarding veterinary practitioners supports better regulation principles by removing outdated and unnecessary provisions through simplification and streamlining, while removal of the prescriptive timing of committee elections removes another burden to the college’s operation of its disciplinary process. However, provisions that are seen as important in the current Act will be retained—these relate to the size of the quorum and the important judicial principal that no member may sit on both the preliminary investigation committee and the disciplinary committee in relation to the same case.

In conclusion, this replacement of the relevant schedule to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 is necessary to allow the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to exercise its functions in relation to disciplinary cases brought against members of the veterinary profession. It will allow the disciplinary committees to work in a more efficient manner and in compliance with better regulation principles, and will provide flexibility to cope with future changes. I beg to move.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an honorary associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association. This draft legislative reform order has been long in gestation and I know there will be relief all round to see it finally enacted. The order will bring the royal college in line with other professional health bodies, as the Minister said, such as the General Medical Council, which are responsible for setting standards as well as imposing discipline on those of their registrants who may be in breach. The importance of being fair as well as being seen to be fair has grown since the human rights legislation came into force. Ensuring that membership of both the preliminary investigation committee and the disciplinary committee is no longer elected by or from among the council of the royal college eliminates the possibility of accusations of bias. Increasing the size of both committees ensures that there will be a larger pool from which to draw members for hearings. The pressure on members to attend disciplinary committee hearings will be relieved and waiting times for hearings will be reduced. We should never forget that justice delayed is justice denied.

I have always believed that lay members add strength to committees of professionals because they are in a position to ask the important “how, what, when, why, where” questions that professionals tend not to ask each other. Changing the status of the current lay observers to full membership and enabling them to vote is laudable and will increase the transparency of the committee proceedings. I am also pleased to see the built-in flexibility with the size of committees for particular hearings as well as the definition of quorum membership and size that this order defines.

The open, transparent and independent recruitment process described by the Minister and in the impact assessment is a foil to anyone tempted to complain that the appointment of committee membership was opaque and partial. This problem had been of concern to the public, the veterinary profession and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons for more than a decade. The possibility of producing a new veterinary surgeons Act to replace the one that is now nearly 47 years old was considered. I recall the suggestions from the EFRA committee in the other place being given a very firm put-down by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when he was Defra Minister on the grounds of lack of time and finance. This order is the next best thing, and I commend it.

14:30

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I support this order. As my noble friend has described, it has been a long time coming before us. Again, I declare my interest as an honorary associate member of the Royal Veterinary College and member of the British Veterinary Association. I well remember as a shadow Minister all those years ago that this was something that kept coming up whenever we had working meetings with the college. It was particularly worried about being seen as both judge and jury, which is clearly not in anyone’s best interests. From an outsider’s point of view, it was particularly noticeable that the profession itself was anxious about this, more so than the lobby by consumers. We had looked at perhaps introducing a new veterinary service Act, but that was not possible, so this order is the best way to bring things up to date and make it possible for the royal college to be seen to be doing its work at its best. I totally agree with my noble friend that outside lay people can bring a layer of inquiry because they often ask questions that are not raised by professional colleagues because they do not necessarily have that sort of knowledge. An outsider will pose questions that a professional would not ask because they would know the answer. I thank the Minister for introducing it.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the order before the Committee, ably supported by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I will not detain the Committee long as this is a non-contentious updating of regulation in line with modern practice. In the other place, it was taken without debate as there was no dissent following the excellent second report of the House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee. The report explains with great clarity the problem with the constitution of the disciplinary committees of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons as defined by the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and sets out the proposed solution made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 by ensuring that the same group of people in the veterinary profession is not responsible for setting the rules as well as investigating complaints and adjudication. It also introduces formally lay persons on to both the preliminary investigation committee and the disciplinary committee. In your Lordships’ House, the ninth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee cleared the order, satisfied that it meets the tests set out in the 2006 Act. The committee was also content with Defra’s proposal that the affirmative procedure should apply. From these Benches, I am happy to add our agreement to the order.

In assessing the order, notwithstanding the necessary updating of compliance, I wonder if there is evidence of problems that have arisen from the existing procedures. In my conversations with the royal college, I am grateful to Anthony Roberts who sent me the details of an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against the judgment made exactly on the grounds that this order seeks to remedy; namely, that the profession’s disciplinary procedures were inherently unfair and against the Human Rights Act. This appeal in December 2011 was dismissed by the Privy Council, which noted that the royal college had gone to elaborate efforts to separate the membership and work of the committees that produce guidance, investigate complaints and pass judgment. It also noted that the RCVS had made strenuous efforts to ensure that its disciplinary procedures were fair and in accordance with human rights legislation. In addition, the Privy Council recognised that the veterinary profession’s regulatory framework was indeed constrained by the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and the council therefore supported,

“statutory reform so as to enable members of the disciplinary committees to be chosen from outside the Council”.

This view from the Privy Council lends significant weight to the case for the legislative reform order before us.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his guidance on the situation. We look forward to his maiden speech tomorrow. He described this order as the most important reform of the profession since the 1966 Act. It is a discreet reform that is in the best interests of the public and the veterinary profession. It includes lay persons among the committee’s membership, thereby balancing public and professional interests.

I should like to tempt the Minister to comment further. The only sanction that the disciplinary committee has is to remove or suspend a veterinary surgeon from the register. This is a draconian power that disallows a vet from going about his or her business. When I commented on this to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, he said that the royal college has introduced further reforms to ensure that it remains at the forefront of regulatory best practice. The royal college has been able to widen its sanction measures by dealing compassionately with veterinary surgeons with health or mental health issues. I wonder whether further measures could be introduced, such as the power to fine or even to suspend penalties, although some may argue against this. Can the noble Baroness say whether other powers have been considered by her department, and what view she has in this regard? I know that the royal college has initiated a performance protocol which aims to allow the college to manage proportionately any justified concerns about professional performance and to launch a new code of professional conduct.

It is encouraging to see that the royal college is constantly seeking ways to improve and I commend it on its activities. Last November, it introduced its first-rate regulator initiative. Among the areas that the college has been reviewing is the regulation of veterinary nurses who are not subject to statutory regulation. Indeed, the title “veterinary nurse” is not protected. I understand that as long ago as 2007, the college introduced a non-statutory register for veterinary nurses under by-laws made under the royal charter. Mindful of the increasing role of veterinary nurses in practice teams and public expectations about professional accountability, what are the department’s views in this respect? In its discussion with the college, has the department come to a conclusion on how statutory regulations may be introduced, and to what timetable?

These further questions must not allow us to refrain from making progress today. I agree that the order before us must be passed to bring forward the necessary reforms, and I look forward to their implementation.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Mar and Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for their fulsome support for this measure, and I wish that that was the case for all the departments that I cover. This is really refreshing, especially for my first SI for Defra.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, flagged up a couple of areas which I shall seek to address. As he will know, the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 regulates the profession of veterinary surgeons. We are aware that the college has been working to develop proposals for a framework for the statutory regulation of veterinary nurses, but these have not yet been presented to Defra for consideration.

In October last year, a project was launched that will see joint input from Defra officials and representatives from the veterinary profession and other para-professional industries to review how “minor acts of veterinary surgery” undertaken by non-veterinarians should be controlled in the future. Our general approach is that we would like to see a more effective but proportionate—echoing the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—risk-based approach to this. We will look for a non-regulatory solution wherever possible and look forward to further discussions on this.

I was also asked about the fact that the only sanctions available to the college are those of removal or suspension and whether other powers are being considered. These could not be brought in using a legislative reform order, but we welcome what the college has done in terms of the health protocol. I have taken note of what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, and given that I have been given various other pieces of information on this, I shall be happy to discuss the detail with him later. As he has said, we do not want to slow down the passing of this order.

I want also to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said about the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I enormously appreciate the fact that he came to see me to express his support for this order, pointing out that he would have liked to have spoken in the debate but could not do so because he will be making his maiden speech in the debate tomorrow, which we look forward to hearing.

I thank all noble Lords for their support for this order and I will follow up on anything that has not been dealt with. In the mean time, I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Biological Threats

Thursday 10th January 2013 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

14:43

Tabled By

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements they have in place to protect the residents of the United Kingdom against biological threats; and what measures they are taking to promote the international regulation of biological weapons and to ensure that security standards are sufficient in laboratories engaged in biological research around the world.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken an interest in this debate and I want to express my thanks to Julian Elderfield, a master’s student at the London School of Economics last year, who has prepared for me some very interesting notes on this topic. They inspired me to put forward this Question for Short Debate. Admittedly, I tabled it last May, so we are considering it a few months later, but I am none the less sure that the issues have not moved on significantly during that period.

We are all aware that the National Risk Register places in tier 1 a number of significant threats to the United Kingdom. Those include a major natural hazard which requires a national response, such as an influenza pandemic. Also included in the tier 1 category is the threat of international terrorism, stating specifically:

“International terrorism affecting the UK or its interests, including a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack by terrorists”.

That is the context within which this debate is framed.

We need to consider why biological threats have the capacity to be potentially so catastrophic. Of course, there have been a number of developments over the years, not least the rapid growth in international travel, which means that a virus emerging in one part of the world can travel round the world extremely quickly. We saw that with the SARS epidemic and other phenomena over the years. The changes in the way in which the world operates have had significant consequences.

The other context for all this is that viruses can, entirely naturally, change rapidly. They can mutate. They are comparatively simple organisms, if indeed they can be defined as organisms, and their mutation will often throw up viruses that have different effects or impacts, are more easily spread or are more virulent when they are ingested.

There is a whole group of issues around natural hazards and biothreats. In addition, of course, 50 years ago many countries—including, I rather suspect, our own—were experimenting with or thinking about biological weapons. Most countries would now deny that they have such a capacity but the fact that many countries considered this research and experimented with it raises the issue of what happened to those programmes and their products. In some instances, they were stockpiled and in some instances we do not yet know what happened to that material.

So far, one virus has been effectively eliminated in its natural state: smallpox. However, there are, I think, two stocks of the smallpox virus that have been retained for research purposes, presumably because of the possibility that smallpox might recur in some other way in the future. We have to consider the security of those stocks and whether there are similar issues around them.

The other big change that has happened, really quite dramatically, in the past 10 to 15 years is the speed of technological advance and the ability of scientists now to undertake genetic manipulation. As I said earlier, viruses are very simple. They are simply a capsule, often with perhaps 10 or 12 genes within them. The changing of just one gene within a virus can have a very profound effect on what that virus does: how easily it is transmitted, the extent to which it can be transmitted from an animal to a human being or between humans, and the consequences for the organism that is infected.

In fact, in 2001 the Journal of Virology published a research paper that demonstrated a whole number of ways of modifying the mousepox virus. This new virus was so effective that it overwhelmed the immune system of the test mice, causing massive liver failure and eventually killing the subjects. That reaction occurred even if the mice had been vaccinated against the mousepox virus. That was a legitimate scientific experiment— an effort to control the mouse population in Australia —but it demonstrated that a quite small change in a single gene with comparatively simple techniques could have major consequences.

These techniques are becoming more straightforward and all sorts of legitimate research is taking place in these areas around the world. Some of this could have the consequence of rendering a vaccine ineffective; some of it could confer resistance to therapeutically useful antibiotics and antiviral agents in pathogenic organisms; it could increase the virulence of a pathogen, or make it easier for that pathogen to be transmitted; or it could perhaps alter the range of hosts for that pathogen. A whole number of things are now technically possible that were not easily doable 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Entirely legitimate research on genetic manipulation and modification is of course going on all over the world for entirely benign purposes.

The question that I want to pose is: how well regulated around the world is that research? How confident can we be that other countries are applying the sorts of restrictions that we would wish to see? Some pharmaceutical companies may have an interest in carrying out experiments and developing their techniques in countries where the regulatory regime is far less intense than it might be in our own country.

We have the Biological Weapons Convention, which is extremely well supported. I think that in excess of 150 countries around the world have signed it. However, as I understand it, although countries have said that they accept that they should not be developing biological weapons, the world has not set up what we might consider to be any effective system for monitoring compliance or verification. Some of the biggest and most powerful countries—the United States of America, for one—are extremely dubious about setting up any external system to monitor their own compliance and do not necessarily see the need for a supervisory body.

The US, for example, clearly has no official bioweapons capability but has constructed a huge research base, in many different centres around the United States, under the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures programme. That is undertaking, no doubt quite properly, genetic research, development and testing. However, if the United States says, “We are not happy with our compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention ever being tested by anybody else”, it is very difficult to see how that could be enforced on other countries.

Scepticism also persists about whether Russia’s offensive bioweapons capabilities have been completely dismantled. There are, I think, five Russian military bioweapons facilities which remain closed to outside inspection. Many of the officials linked to their current defensive programme are the same officials who developed Soviet offensive capabilities during the Cold War. There is a question again about how secure those facilities are, particularly as we know that regimes change and that certain parts of the world become less stable as things move forward.

There is clearly a risk that stocks of materials developed for one purpose could be misused or fall into the hands of terrorist groups or, potentially, rogue regimes. There is also a question of where scientific research is going. There have obviously been discussions over the years, particularly in the United States following the September 11 attacks, as to whether certain areas of scientific activity should be properly reported and appear in the scientific journals. I do not think that is a very positive route to go down but it recognises the levels of concern that exist in this.

In responding, can the Minister first say what is being done to improve supervision of these matters? Secondly, what is being done to regulate the security of scientific establishments, including those that hold stocks of pathogens? It all ends with a fundamental question. We are at risk, as a nation, from a pandemic of whatever sort and from whatever origin, whether naturally or unnaturally occurring. Are we really satisfied that our emergency and health services are able to withstand that?

14:55

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for initiating this extremely important debate and being kind enough to let me have sight of that excellent research paper from Mr Julian Elderfield. Without that, I would not have been able to speak in this debate; such is the paucity of my knowledge of these matters. There are important broader considerations, many of which I engage with regularly, so I decided that it was important to hear what was said today.

It seems that the concerns on this issue fall into three broad categories: public information, international co-operation and regulation. In the context of the report by the Defence Select Committee in the other place on cybersecurity, we heard yesterday from General Jonathan Shaw, former head of cybersecurity at the MoD, about the lack of preparedness. He made the point that one of the greatest weaknesses in the system is the lack of awareness of the public, enterprise and companies as to what can happen to the infrastructure around us and of the potential breakdown of day-to-day technological systems on which we all rely. He called for a public awareness campaign similar to the HIV/AIDS campaigns of the 1980s, when every household in the country received a leaflet informing them of the background and their options in terms of behaviour change and so on. That is the extent to which he considered public information to be critical.

Although it is a very different threat, that could equally apply to the threat from biological warfare, which may potentially be more serious than cyberwarfare in the context both of an indiscriminate bioterrorist attack could affect densely populated areas, and of serious leaks from laboratories that could cause multiple fatalities. There would then be questions of identifying what created the emergency and dealing with the fall-out from it. The awareness and preparedness of the emergency services was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He is a great expert on that so I will not particularly dwell on it, but it will be critical to how the emergency is dealt with. For example, identifying the nature of the attack would itself be a challenge, as well as dealing with potential mass casualties.

The aftermath of the sarin attack on the Tokyo underground in 1995 is instructive. That was the most serious attack on the Japanese mainland since World War Two. It killed 13 people, seriously injured 50 and created temporary problems with vision for about 1,000 people. Immediately after the attack, ambulances transported nearly 700 patients and hospitals saw nearly 5,000 patients who got there by one means or another. Most of those reporting to hospital were the worried well—in other words, people who thought that they might have been affected. As it turned out, many of them were not but they were a drain on hospital facilities in an emergency.

Witnesses reported afterwards that subway entrances resembled battlefields. In many cases, the injured simply lay on the ground, many with breathing difficulties. Many of those affected by sarin went to work that morning despite their symptoms, most of them not realising that they had been exposed to it. Most victims who sought medical treatment as the symptoms worsened got the information that led them to report to hospital via news broadcasts, so there was a considerable lag between the incident itself and the information on what had happened and what people had to do about it if they were affected.

In the aftermath, emergency services were criticised for their handling of the attack. For example, the Tokyo subway authority failed to halt several trains despite reports of passenger injury and the platforms were inundated. Sarin poisoning was not well known at the time, and many hospitals only received information on diagnosis and treatment because a single professor at Shinshu University’s school of medicine happened to see reports on television. He had experience of treating sarin poisoning after a very small incident, recognised the symptoms and had information on diagnosis and treatment. He then led a team who sent the information to hospitals throughout Tokyo via fax machine.

That was some considerable time ago, although frankly 17 years is not that long. Technology has moved on and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, after the attacks of 7/7 here in the UK, we have put into place a significant number of protocols to ensure that a joined-up response can be effected in the event of a major emergency. The question still arises of how quickly we can identify the cause, given the plethora of different types of pathogens that can be used and, indeed, the natural variants that can exist. Another question is whether we have sufficient antidotes to treat the victims.

Information campaigns may also be useful in deciding what not to do. In the Tokyo attack, significant numbers of people were exposed to sarin only because they helped others who had been directly exposed. Among those passengers on other trains were subway workers and health workers, who immediately set aside everything else and got stuck in to helping people. We know from this that even basic guidance such as where to look for information would itself be helpful.

The second principle to deal with is international co-operation. Before I move to the UN framework, it is worth commenting that—according to today’s New York Times—the first General Assembly of the United Nations was convened in London for its first meeting on this date in 1946. What a happy day it is for our country.

Multilateral diplomacy aims to regulate biotechnology and to prevent bioweapons. This is, of course, of limited use when it comes to terrorists, and that is the problem. Traditional diplomacy on its own is not enough. As we know from bitter experience, international law is meaningless to terrorists. Given that the Biological Weapons Convention is nearly universally ratified— 165 states have ratified it and 12 have signed it—the treaty offers a sound platform for developing further policy in this area. We need to build on the BWC and not let unilateral measures undermine the treaty. One method of strengthening the BWC is to institute greater confidence-building measures in the regular meetings which take place in between the quinquennial reviews, the last of which took place in 2011.

The lack of enforcement and verification of the BWC is a further problem, but it does not invalidate the treaty. It has contributed to the national policy development and is therefore a key source of policy diffusion and information sharing. While we would want to see a global verification regime, I suggest that while the US continues to be an obstacle we should not hold out too much hope and should do what we did with the ICC, when partners of the US moved forward without that particular ally, while encouraging it to participate from afar.

We also need to recognise certain limitations of global Governance. We are not going to eliminate bioweapons research; major powers will always want to create a security margin for themselves by doing defensive research to develop bioweapons in order to understand how they work and how they may be able to develop measures to fight them if they are released by enemies. There will always be a suspicion that other countries’ defensive research could potentially be used for offensive purposes, but it is our responsibility to our citizens to continue to do that research.

Given the boundaries between pure and applied research, defensive and offensive, civilian and military uses are unavoidably blurred. It is also important to better integrate biosecurity considerations into current public policy on biotechnology, nanotechnology and synthetic biology. I suspect that this is largely missing from current policy initiatives in these areas, not least within the European Union framework. In responding, is my noble friend able to tell us what work is ongoing within the EU to advance this?

I conclude by turning briefly to regulation. From the literature it appears that more could be done to increase security in the institutions that deal with these matters. Better controls are required. Can the Minister tell us in summing up what requirements are put on laboratories in the UK to conform to standards, as well as international bodies that engage in this work, particularly those which sub-contract to research laboratories abroad?

15:05

[Lord Giddens]

My Lords, this is a cosy and intimate debate given the seriousness of the risks that we are discussing, but I still want to congratulate my noble friend Lord Harris on having set it up and on his excellent introduction. There are three sets of factors which make biological threats far more menacing than they were for previous generations. The first of these, as my noble friend has said, is work in scientific laboratories that is designed to unpack the basic building blocks of nature but which can have spin-offs of a dangerous kind. I shall say a little more about that later. Secondly, there is the disruption to or destruction of the world’s ecosystems, releasing pathogens from their normal hosts. The process is normally known as zoonosis and it is one that is fraught with implications for human beings. Thirdly, as my noble friend also mentioned, we have globalisation which can transmit pathogens almost immediately from one side of the world to the other.

This is an extraordinary package of innovation for us to have to live with. As the science writer David Quammen notes in his book, Spillover, the consequences appear,

“as a pattern of weird and terrible new diseases emerging from unexpected sources, raising deep concern and deep foreboding among the scientists who study them”.

Such diseases can spark global pandemics which are all the more dangerous because they feature pathogens for which there is no known cure or treatment. Just as ominously, they can be used in warfare or in terrorist activity. The emergence of terrorist groups willing to inflict damage upon millions of people and who may be indifferent to their own survival is a chilling thought.

The SARS outbreak of 2003 was contained partly because of quick diagnostic work—there is something to be learnt from that—and partly because rigorous quarantine measures were taken in the key cities involved. But there was also a large element of luck. SARS is unusual in that the symptoms appear before a person becomes highly infectious; in other words, there is a space of time for detection and intervention that does not occur in most other diseases. The nightmare scenario for the UK is what would happen if a new strain of disease should form the basis of a terrorist attack, especially a disease with no known cure.

I have three questions for the Minister. The first concerns the Biological Weapons Convention. It seems to be only obliquely relevant to stopping such an eventuality, while more generally it is a relatively weak mechanism. So-called confidence building measures are supposed to be crucial to its operation, providing for the sharing of knowledge and strategies, but since the late 1980s only eight states out of 116 signatories have supplied CBMs every year. How could the BWC be further beefed up?

Secondly, we know that scientists are our guardians in this area. We cannot depend on political leaders because only scientists can calculate where diseases are likely to emerge and identify new types of bio-weapons. Scientists work in a variety of national and international organisations such as the WHO and scrutinise emerging trends in the production of pathogens. However, as was said earlier, at some point the public must be involved in relation to public understanding of the risks and threats. What role do the Government see for public education here?

Thirdly, what do the Government make of the interesting controversy over research involving H5N1 influenza—in other words, bird flu—which has been much debated over the past couple of years and to which it is difficult to seek a resolution? This research led to a strain that could be transmitted between humans through the air. In January 2012, the New York Times published an article called, “An Engineered Doomsday”, imploring scientists to abort their research and destroy the strains produced. In the view of the Minister, should there be some controls on the dissemination of scientific studies, or even on such studies themselves? If so, where should the lines be drawn and by whom? As the noble Lord will know, this controversy continues in the scientific community without, so far, a clear outcome—although there seems to be some progress. This is a prototypical case; that is, the more new diseases emerge from zoonoses, or as the by-product of scientific research, the more we are going to face this dilemma over whether there should be limits to research and the publication of research. These lines are extremely difficult to draw.

15:11

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey has made clear in his powerful speech, the issue we are debating is one of considerable importance and, indeed, worry for the world in general and our own nation in particular. We should be grateful to my noble friend for giving us this opportunity to discuss the issues and potential issues involved, and I hope my noble friend will receive specific answers to the points he has raised from the Minister, not least his points about the effectiveness of our current defences against biological threats and a bioterrorist attack.

The question we are considering refers specifically to biological threats, biological weapons and biological research. I hope that I will be forgiven if in my remarks I refer to the broader heading of the threat from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material, which of course includes biological threats. Scientific advances, matched by the rapidly increased and increasing ease with which knowledge can be shared, makes it more and more difficult to keep chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material away from those with malign intent and a disregard for international law, whether they be state actors, some highly unstable and repressive, or non-state actors, some driven by contorted religious fundamentalism. In a situation where weak and failing states outnumber strong states by two to one, globalisation is driving a major redistribution of power and threats, and demographic change is placing pressure on the world’s increasingly stretched natural resources, with the potential that has as a source of conflict, a stable security landscape is certainly not what we have at the present time.

A very immediate source of concern is Syria, where the fourth largest stocks of chemical weapons in the world are held. President Obama has rightly said that deployment of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would be a “tragic mistake”, but of course there is also the issue of what might happen in a post-Assad era, when these stocks would presumably come into the possession and under the control of others currently unknown, including in their intentions.

We agree with the Government’s recognition in their 2010 national security strategy that,

“International terrorism affecting the UK or its interests, including a CBRN attack”,

is the top tier 1 threat. This continues the approach of the previous Government since the 2008 national security strategy outlined measures to tackle the CBRN threat, based around dissuading states from acquisition, detecting acquisition attempts, denying access and defending our borders.

On the military side, the Government intend to expand the role of reservists in our Armed Forces, which will provide an opportunity for greater use of niche civilian skills and expertise in this field in a military setting. However, we will not improve national response and mitigation capacities through small specialised units but through a broad spectrum of capabilities, working across agencies and borders. We support the work of the National Security Council working across government, but any response would need to go beyond Cabinet co-ordination, and co-ordinate the military, specialist rapid reaction teams and public health and civil emergency services.

As our technology develops, and in the light of the extent to which CBRN materials can be found in legitimate commercial or civilian sectors, it is important that we make full use of all those with the relevant scientific know-how. We also encourage education among the medical and scientific communities about the potential for abuse in areas of dual-use. It is not simply those on the frontline or in the higher echelons of the world of science, but those who on a more daily basis handle agents that can be used for malign and hostile purposes who should be the focus of government-led awareness-raising campaigns.

However, of course, it goes beyond governments. We have to share threat information between business, scientists and government, especially since 80% of the UK’s critical national infrastructure which would be a possible target of any CBRN attack is in the private sector. We need to ensure compliance with export regulations and see that there is information exchange on proliferation activity.

In respect of the scientific community, the Institute for Public Policy Research has found that insufficiently secure government laboratories around the world remain a worry and recommends improved international data and knowledge sharing, as well as harmonisation of national standards, and regulatory and best laboratory practices. There is an ongoing debate about how we increase confidence in compliance of existing international regulations, in particular, as has already been mentioned, with regard to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, which unlike the Chemical Weapons Convention does not have a verification system in place, making implementation and monitoring of the treaty’s provisions difficult. Neither, unlike the Chemical Weapons Convention, does it have the equivalent of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. However it is also important to have a discussion on how existing and new threats of proliferation can be tackled, including stockpiling of vaccines.

As has already been said, the threat posed by CBRN—including biological threat—is very real. At best it can cause panic; indeed, the threat of a panic can cause something approaching panic. At worst, the threat posed by CBRN can result in something much more serious. In the UK we have had the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko with polonium-210 in London. We saw the sarin attacks in Tokyo, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, has already referred, and we can appreciate the havoc that there would be should something similar be tried on the London Underground, which carries millions of people a day.

As I understand it, in New York there is a “Securing the City” strategy under which local and regional agencies are equipped with world-leading radiological detection equipment. New York has established a permanent radiological defensive ring through the installation of fixed detection equipment to monitor traffic at all bridges and tunnels that lead into the city. The sensors have been networked to enable them to provide real-time radiation data, so at all times experts can take a reading and know instantly about threat levels or, indeed, the nature of an attack. New York City operates more than 4,500 radiation detectors across the metropolitan area. The deputy commissioner for counterterrorism of the New York City Police Department has called this effort “unprecedented”. While I appreciate that it relates to the radiological side, nevertheless perhaps the Minister could say—if not now, then later—if there is something along these lines that we are looking to develop for detection to help protect our major cities.

The ease with which new technologies can be attained and developed into sophisticated means of alarm and destruction, and the implications which that has, must be regarded as a priority issue for all developed nations, and not least for this country. While the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks involve the use of conventional weapons, the chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials threat transcends national boundaries and should unite nations by necessity as well as in shared interests. Our collective response to the threat should have at its core good intelligence, determined detection, strong international agreements deeply implemented in national policies, robust defences and well-organised response capabilities. As we know, new technologies promise enormous benefits for humanity, and we have a duty to promote scientific advance and exploration. However, that imperative must be coupled with the knowledge that new technologies are also now an inescapable part of our national and international security challenge.

15:20

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for introducing this debate. As he may know, I did not expect to answer this debate until about 11 o’clock this morning and I much regret that I have not been able to phone my son who works in the systems biology group at Harvard on patterns of mutation in transferable RNA—a topic that I am not entirely sure I could explain to the noble Lord. If I had known last week, I would have talked to members of the Bradford peace studies department, most of whom live in or around Saltaire and some of whom share the allotments on which I work at weekends. I understand that Bradford does a lot of extremely good work on some aspects of biological weapons and their control.

This is an important subject, and both a domestic and international one. We are concerned with the potential of a terrorist attack and the very distant potential of a global state attack—that potential has clearly retreated since the end of the Cold War. We are also concerned with the possibility of accidental release from badly secured laboratories. This is an area of domestic and international overlap. I would not discourage noble Lords from pointing out, as we deal with the intensely emotional issue of the defence of British sovereignty from European and other interference, that this is one of many areas where you cannot have entirely different British and foreign issues. We have to have international co-operation and, as far we can, regulation. The Government are deeply committed to protecting the United Kingdom from biological threats. That requires us to have strong measures at home and co-operation abroad.

The British approach is set out in the UK’s counterterrorism and counterproliferation strategies and we have a cross-government programme to prevent terrorists gaining access to the technical expertise and specialist materials needed to carry out biological attacks. Overseas, we are leading efforts to strengthen a rules-based international system, provide technical and financial support to minimise the risk that sensitive science is misused and improve the security of hazardous materials. As noble Lords know, this year the United Kingdom will chair the G8. The global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction is part of that and we will take a major role in that area.

There is resistance to a strong international compliance programme. On the point made by the noble Baroness, it is not simply from the United States, let alone from the American pharmaceutical industry, but from a range of other countries that I will not go through. For many of them it is a question of sovereignty and, for one or two south Asian countries, of suspicion of the West. There are limits to what we can achieve and we have to work as far as we can through education, co-operation and providing assistance. I also note that we are working with our partners inside the European Union through the establishment of centres of excellence with regional centres around the world to build this level of co-operation.

Noble Lords will be aware that this is a low probability but very high impact threat. It is a particularly difficult threat for us to measure. Since it is a very diverse threat, what detection systems are really effective and how far they are effective against every single potential threat are not easy questions either, but we take the threat extremely seriously. We have built capabilities to lessen the impact of a biological attack. We have focused on measures likely to have the greatest effect in reducing deaths and illness and, where possible, which provide the highest utility for other emergencies.

The national chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear response centre, run by the police but available to other emergency services, has a range of CBRN response equipment at its disposal and has trained more than 10,000 police officers to respond to CBR incidents. The noble Lord is, I am sure, highly familiar with all this. In addition, the MoD Technical Response Force provides specialist surge support to the UK police in the event of this sort of emergency. I assure noble Lords that the UK will continue to build capabilities to respond to and recover from a wide range of terrorist and other civil emergencies; improve the ability of the emergency services to work together during a terrorist attack; and enhance communications and information sharing on terrorist attacks.

Working at the international level is of course a great deal more complicated. UN Security Council Resolution 1540 requires states to adopt and enforce controls to keep materials held secure and to maintain effective national export and border regimes to prevent the smuggling of such materials. The UK was active in negotiating the renewal of UNSCR 1540 last year. We have provided the relevant committee with status reports which go beyond the resolution’s reporting obligations and strongly encourage implementation and reporting by all UN members. However, 23 UN member states have yet to implement the resolution, and my noble friend is right to say that the number of states that provide annual reports remains desperately low. We are doing our best, with our partners, to raise that number. If you are dealing with a whole range of other issues—I have just been talking to my niece, who has returned from Southern Sudan, dealing with a whole range of epidemics out there—biological threats do not appear to be so high to a large number of other countries as perhaps they do to us. There is enough out there in the natural world for others to worry about.

Noble Lords all understand, I hope, why, regrettably, there are no effective provisions to verify compliance of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. A range of other states has inhibitions about accepting an intrusive compliance regime. In the absence of an international consensus, we are working with international partners to strengthen elements of the current regime such as national implementation measures, annual confidence-building measures and assistance in cases of actual or alleged biological weapons use. The UK was active in supporting the EU Council decision of July 2012, which provided nearly €2 million for continued EU assistance with implementation of the BTWC.

We provide practical assistance to other nations seeking to reduce the threat from biological weapons, for a range of different programmes. The Ministry of Defence’s UK biological engagement programme funds a number of projects to strengthen international biological security. Again, when we talk about international biological security, we are talking about things from the ground up, from basic work to help laboratories in central Asia improve their security techniques, all the way up to much more complex proposals. We work very closely with international organisations—including the World Organisation for Animal Health, the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation—to promote the highest practicable standards of safety and security for biological agents.

15:30

Through the counterproliferation strategic programme fund, the FCO funds projects which help priority countries improve the security of CBRN materials or which help encourage the political will to do so. For the current financial year, the value of the programme is £3 million.

I have already mentioned the initiation of the European Union’s chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear action plan, which seeks to raise European capability and capacity for handling CBRN terrorist incidents. We are working with the EU to deliver its €95 million CBRN centres of excellence programme which aims to help countries develop institutional capacity and strategies for CBRN risk mitigation.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the preparedness of the emergency services. The Government have built capabilities to lessen the impact of a biological attack. We have focused on measures likely to have the greatest effect in reducing deaths and providing the widest utility for other emergencies. We are keeping under review what we may need for this. We are all uncomfortably aware that until a major event happens, as we discovered both with the Kings Cross fire and the London terrorist attacks, it is difficult to know exactly what one should be planning for.

My noble friend asked about how we enforce compliance at home. The police have powers under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act to enter labs, to issue a notice to improve security measures, to issue direction for the removal of listed substances if improvements are not made in time, and to request details of all personnel with access to substances. Failure to apply these is a criminal offence. We are therefore working very hard to ensure that labs within Britain—I am conscious that there are questions about labs within cities as well, particularly in the developing centre north of Kings Cross—have the highest standards possible. Similarly, we are working with international partners to improve, as far as we can, their standards for the safety and security of laboratories.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also asked how well regulated biological research is around the world. There are some real problems here and the answer is “not well regulated enough by a very long way”. This is an area in which we will continue to work actively with others.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked me about H5N1 and what we as academics know is the delicate issue of whether one can publish all academic research, or if it would be better not to publish some aspects of biological research in this area. This is a very complex area and it would be better if I wrote to the noble Lord.

[Lord Giddens]

The noble Lord will forgive me, but what he said before moving on my point seemed like a bunch of truisms. We are dealing here with issues that are going to be extremely hard to control. For example, we have had no success in controlling the current flu norovirus. If it had been a really noxious virus, one would have seen how vulnerable we are. That is a long way from saying, “We are going to try to persuade other nations to help us”, which, of course, we are. It is a situation of much more extreme vulnerability, one that we have never been in, to a whole range of new global risks. I would like to be convinced that the Government are taking the uniqueness of these risks seriously enough, especially those of which we have no experience. They could come from anywhere.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Briefly, I can only assure the noble Lord that we are acutely aware of how rapidly pandemics can spread around the world and how rapidly a potential biological attack might spread from one country to another. We have seen this with the flu virus and we are certainly aware of it. A lot of research is now under way. The biology profession itself has paid a great deal of attention to it. However, there are tremendous holes in what we are capable of doing. Much of the world is governed by regimes that do not wish to co-operate with this. It is part of the gap between the global governance that the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, would like to see and the national sovereignty under which we have to operate. Her Majesty’s Government in no sense underestimate these risks. Several government departments are putting co-ordinated efforts into combating this risk, and we are working with others through the global partnership.

[Lord Giddens]

I do not want to keep the debate going too long, but it is a short one. The general population and many political leaders are not really aware of the radical nature of new dangers that never existed before because we could not do many of the experiments that we can now do in altering the genetic make-up of human beings. We have never interfered with animal life in the way we are now by destroying their natural environments and forcing viruses to look for a host, the most available of which is human beings. Truisms are not enough; we have to do a lot of thinking about how we handle risks. The obvious thing for the ordinary person to say is, “Well, it has never happened yet”. It only has to happen once, and then it is too late. There are so many new risks around, of which nuclear weapons were the first, that handling them is going to be very puzzling and problematic. We should be thinking very carefully and in depth about how to do so.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we have already seen the Ebola virus and a number of other potential pandemics coming out of Africa. What I should say to the noble Lord is that this is the sort of topic into which it would be highly appropriate for a sessional Lords committee to undertake a detailed inquiry. There is a certain amount of valuable expertise in this House which could look at it and that is a way we could go forward. If a sufficient number of Members of this House would like to have a Government briefing, I daresay that could be arranged, but let us discuss that further. Having, I hope, given a response which in no sense wishes to close the subject—it is something which the noble Lord, Lord Harris has previously brought attention to—I shall finish by saying that we need to keep on challenging our Government and even more so other governments. I thank the noble Lord for opening the debate and I am happy to go on discussing how best we might continue to raise public awareness of this issue.

Committee adjourned at 3.37 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 10 January 2013.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Death of a Member: Lord King of West Bromwich

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Announcement

11:07

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of Lord King of West Bromwich on 9 January. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

World Food Supplies

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:08

Asked by

[Lord Judd]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what importance they attach to the consequences of large-scale commercial land acquisitions in the developing world in their policies relating to the developing world and the prevention of a world food crisis.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, the UK Government are committed to improving food security and nutrition in the developing world. We believe that private sector investment in agriculture is important in achieving that. We are clear that those investments, particularly any that involve commercial land acquisition, must be socially and environmentally responsible.

[Lord Judd]

Does the Minister agree with the estimate that, on average, every six days, investors buy an area of land the size of London in the poorest countries, which are often already facing acute food shortages? Do not those investors too frequently intend to export what is produced, although those countries are facing acute food shortages; and are not those exports often for biofuel, with all its questionable environmental dimensions? Do not such purchases tend to be made without proper community consent and, furthermore, without proper consideration of the economic and social consequences? What does the Prime Minister intend to propose to the G8 summit on land transparency and such purchases at the forthcoming meeting?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord, who has worked in this area for a very long time, is right to highlight this as a potential problem. However, I cannot agree with his first statement about its scale because there is insufficient evidence. One thing that is extremely important and that we are pursuing is supporting the evidence-gathering in this area to see what the scale of the problem might be so that we can better address it. Nevertheless, the noble Lord is right to say that transparency is the key here. If we can promote that, we can see whether the acquisitions that people may have made reference to are simply anecdotal or whether there is evidence of the nature that he is talking about. I assure the noble Lord that we are emphasising transparency and that at the G8 summit the Prime Minister will indeed focus on food security as one of the issues.

[Lord Chidgey]

What proportion of DfID’s aid budget has been allocated to the provision of more support for sustainable small-scale agriculture to help poor—mainly women—farmers feed their families? What measures are the Government taking to ensure that increased private investment in agriculture, as the Minister mentioned, is aimed at maximising poverty reduction and sustainable equitable growth, as highlighted by many NGOs, including Oxfam and ActionAid?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord is right. DfID does support smallholder production, and one of the key issues here is trying to establish land rights. The United Kingdom is working in a number of countries to promote this and has increased the spending in this area. It is working in 13 countries to support smallholder farmers by supplying seeds, fertilisers and access to finance and by making sure that women, who are often the ones running these smallholdings, are particularly supported.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

Do the Government agree that the land reforms implemented in rural Scotland over the past decade have shown the benefit of involving those who live on the land in its future use? That benefits both the wider community and the individual families concerned, and may provide some lessons that could be used in our international development policy to assist those who are currently fighting against their movement from the land or the exploitation of their land in other parts of the world.

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord makes a good point. He will probably be aware that at the G8 last year the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition was set up specifically to take forward that approach of looking at the responsible development of agriculture, recognising its importance in sustaining the poorest communities and making sure that people are engaged in that positively. The UK is continuing to press forward that approach.

[The Earl of Listowel]

Will the Minister look particularly at any adverse impact on pregnant mothers and nursing mothers and their crucial role in the early development of children in terms of their being denied food because their area is being used to grow biofuels or for other uses?

[Baroness Northover]

The United Kingdom is extremely aware of the importance of supporting pregnant mothers and infants in their first days. The noble Earl will be aware that the first 1,000 days of gestation and a child’s life are so important to the future health of that child. The areas that I have just focused on support this, but I also flag up the fact that we have social safety nets. It is extremely important that financial support reaches pregnant women and those who are trying to support their families so that they have enough money to provide for those families.

[Lord Bates]

Is it not part of the evidence that could be considered the vast increase in local food prices in the poorest parts of this world? Is it not basically immoral to take food from countries in the developing world that cannot feed their own populations to feed biofuel incinerators here in the UK? We should be fuelling those biofuels from the massive food waste in developed countries, rather than have food scarcity in the poorest.

[Baroness Northover]

I was listening to the point on the “Today” programme about food wastage and it is extremely dramatic. Within DfID, we are working with other government departments to look at the impact of biofuels. It seems, although the evidence is disputed, that they have played a part in some of the food price spikes that we have seen. We are into the third one at the moment, which is largely because of the drought in the United States. However, the effect of using maize for biofuels is potentially significant and we are looking at this very closely.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that discussions are taking place, or are planned to take place, with the World Bank about a public freeze by the bank of all agricultural investments that involve large-scale land acquisition? Does the Minister agree that such leadership from the World Bank would leverage responses from other investors and developing country Governments in a much needed initiative?

[Baroness Northover]

We do not agree that there should be a freeze in World Bank lending for agriculture, the reason being that to do so could disrupt valuable projects and because the World Bank itself has high standards in place to try to ensure that things are transparent. We are pushing for greater transparency than is already the case in what the World Bank does. However, it is probably missing the mark to aim at the World Bank rather than looking in other directions. It is extremely important that we take forward the World Bank’s engagement in advising Governments to try to make sure that any land acquisition is to the benefit of their communities.

Diabetes

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:17

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to reduce the number of amputations due to diabetes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, foot complications of diabetes are usually preventable. Early identification and prompt treatment prevent amputations. NICE guidelines recommend annual foot checks, which are included in the quality and outcomes framework for general practitioners. NHS Diabetes has established regional diabetes footcare networks. People with vulnerable feet require expert protection, while those with problems need urgent specialist care. Local national health services are responsible for commissioning podiatry services and multidisciplinary specialist footcare teams for people with diabetes according to local needs.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interests in respect of Diabetes UK. One hundred and twenty-five amputations take place each and every week in England alone, and 80% of those are preventable. The record of the Department of Health is not good; the figures are going up, not down. If I asked this question in a year’s time, what progress does the Minister expect that his department would have made to reverse that trend?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that this is a major public health issue and one that impacts very seriously on the health and well-being of individuals, so it is a priority for us. We are committed to reducing the number of avoidable amputations among people with diabetes. In fact, progress is being made: although the number of amputations is going up, the rate is falling. However, we are under no illusion that this will be a growing problem because of the growing number of people with diabetes. All our work on improving completion of the NICE nine care processes for people with diabetes and improving timely access to specialist diabetic footcare multidisciplinary teams will support that aim, and the Diabetes UK Putting Feet First campaign has real potential to improve awareness of foot complications in diabetes.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real way to reduce the number of amputations is to reduce the incidence of diabetes and that the way to do that is to do something about the obesity epidemic, which is the main cause of diabetes and one of the main causes of amputation? What is he doing to try to prevent that quango, NICE, misleading the nation and politicians, as it did, into believing that the answer to the obesity epidemic was to take more exercise when, although exercise is important, the real answer is to eat fewer calories?

[Earl Howe]

I agree with my noble friend about the importance of targeting obesity as a serious public health risk and one which leads to diabetes in many cases. I believe that, if my noble friend were to talk to NICE about its recommendations to prevent obesity, he would find that its line is slightly modified from the one that he has criticised. We should pay tribute to NICE for the good work it has done in the specific area of diabetes. The recommendations and guidelines it has issued have been very positive. There is, of course, a quality standard for diabetes, which is also excellent.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, people with learning disabilities and those with serious mental illness have a higher incidence of diabetes. They have a later diagnosis and are therefore more at risk of complications. Does the Minister agree that one way to reduce the number of amputations associated with diabetes would be to improve access to diabetic care for people with learning disabilities or mental illness?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, yes, I certainly do. There are a number of positive ways in which we can do that. One is the NHS health check, which should, if it is performed correctly, pick up those with undiagnosed diabetes. Early identification of diabetics is key in this area, particularly for those who are at risk of ulceration. Other ways are targeting preventive services at those most at risk, including those with learning disabilities; early management of foot infection and rapid access to multidisciplinary teams; and having good diabetic foot prevention and ulcer management services in local areas.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, the point at issue is surely this: that to prevent the four out of five needless amputations that currently take place, Her Majesty’s Government need to respond to the Question of my noble friend Lord Kennedy by saying how they will ensure that there are those multidisciplinary groups with specialist knowledge of feet and the ability to make sure that there is not a postcode lottery as there is now. They should be properly monitored by the Government to ensure that a proper service is offered to diabetics at a time of decline in the amount of money going into the National Health Service.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, there is no single magic bullet that will solve this problem, but undoubtedly better monitoring in general practice is one answer; the QOF incentivises that. The NHS outcomes framework will also incentivise clinical commissioning groups to ensure that those with long-term conditions—particularly diabetes—are properly looked after. The benefits of multidisciplinary teams are now proven. The evidence is there and, if we can shine a spotlight on the statistics—and there is, as the noble Lord knows, a wide variation in success rates across the country—that will be the key to driving better performance throughout the health service.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem is that while the NICE guidelines, if implemented throughout the country, would reduce the variation rate in amputations, particularly of lower limb extremities, it is not mandatory to implement those guidelines? He may be aware that several nations, including Scotland, have recently reported a reduction of 30% in the amputation rate, following strict protocols in diabetic management.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, there are centres of excellence throughout the United Kingdom, from which I am sure the health service as a whole can learn. The noble Lord is absolutely right. He mentions the NICE guidelines; he is right that they are not mandatory, but they do point to best practice. By highlighting the data, we can ensure that commissioners and practitioners ask themselves the right questions about whether best practice is being followed.

Public Libraries

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:24

Asked By

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many public libraries closed during 2012.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)]

All parts of the public sector are contributing to reducing the deficit, including local government. In the circumstances, it is right and proper that local authorities look afresh at how they deliver library services. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s library statistics reflect that authorities are reviewing and reconfiguring their services with a net reduction of 74 mobile libraries and 76 static libraries in England in 2011-12. Overall, however, there are 3,243 libraries in England, which remains an impressive network.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. In saying that, perhaps I may invite all Benches to regret that the noble Lord, Lord Marland, will be leaving us. With his colour and candour, he offered a lot to us and we will miss him.

According to our information, some 300 libraries closed last year across 40 local authorities. The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 provides the Secretary of State with powers to take action where a local authority is in breach of its duty to provide a comprehensive public library service. But, according to the DCMS website, the Secretary of State is in correspondence with a mere four local authorities. Will the Minister confirm the current situation and indicate whether the Secretary of State will be using her powers to ensure that the country retains a high-quality public library service?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

First, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I am fast learning how to multi-task, as I cover both BIS and the DCMS, but only for the next two days.

Returning to the reality of the question, I would like to reassure the noble Lord that the Government are doing much to support and develop libraries. They have taken a number of actions over recent months, including transferring responsibility for library development to Arts Council England, giving libraries access to significant funding opportunities. In addition, Arts Council England has allocated £6 million of its grants from the arts National Lottery funding. The figures presented by the noble Lord could be disputed and we will need to come back on that, but I stick by the figures that I have given in terms of library closures.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, will the Minister comment on a quote attributed to Winston Churchill in the middle of the war? Churchill was told that there was a plan to close libraries to raise money for the war effort. He said, “No you won’t. What the hell are we fighting for?”.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I am not able to give a particular comment on that, except to say that I reiterate that the Government are very much behind the development of libraries. It is extremely important to ensure that we take note of technological change. There is changing demand for library services and it is important to bear that in mind.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, among the figures recently released, is the Minister aware of the 8% reduction in full-time library staff in the past year? That is almost double the number in the previous year, which will have had a significant effect on opening hours and other library services.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I am not aware of the figures that the noble Earl has given. However, I can say that this is part of the technological changes that are taking place. With his long interest in the arts, I am sure that the noble Earl will be aware that various changes are going on, particularly in terms of the move towards e-book lending, for example, and wi-fi. The issues are changing dramatically in terms of demand and we need to react to that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

Does the noble Viscount agree that the overall number of libraries is not really the significant issue? The issue is where they are and who has access to them. Does he further agree that the people who have most need of access to libraries are those who have very little other recourse to books and the benefits that books bring? What are the Government doing to ensure, whether directly or through the Arts Council England, that provision of libraries is available to the most deprived communities in this country?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I take the point raised by the noble Baroness. It is true that sometimes, particularly in rural areas, individuals have more of a challenge or a difficulty in reaching a public library. However, the actual figures of reduction do not necessarily represent a pure reduction. For example, in North Yorkshire, 10 ageing mobile libraries were replaced with one superior model. The service changes but does not necessarily reduce.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I follow on from the previous question about the closure of libraries, particularly in the most deprived areas where minorities have settled. Does my noble friend agree that when we are emphasising to people the need to learn more about English and the history of our country, to deprive them of that knowledge, at the same time, could be very counter-productive?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I wish to say what I meant to say in answer to the noble Baroness’s question as well. It is very much up to the local authority to decide what type of library service is given. As the noble Baroness and my noble friend are aware, there is a statutory duty to give a comprehensive and efficient service to the community. That is defined as meeting local needs within the context of available resources in a way that is appropriate to the identified needs of the communities that they serve.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

Following up the previous two questions, would the noble Viscount be kind enough to place in the Library a list of where these libraries have been closed? I think that he cited in his initial answer that 76 permanent libraries have been closed. Would he please publish a list of exactly where those libraries are?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The point is noted, and I will look into that. On the assumption that I am able to do it, the sentiment is there that I will put the note in the Library.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, would the Minister—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that libraries are about far more than books? In an age where community life is under great strain, they are focal points for a whole range of activities besides the traditional one. Does that not make the closure of any library a self-destructive act?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Not necessarily. The quick answer is that library services are changing, as I mentioned earlier, as a result of changing demand. It is, however, true that there is an opportunity to use libraries for different services rather than just taking books out. This includes the use of wi-fi and the provision of coffee shops; for example, there are some libraries attached to leisure centres. I repeat, therefore, that the situation is changing.

Welfare Benefits: Women

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:32

Asked By

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the differential impact on women of changes to welfare benefits.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, the Government are supporting women and families, for example by changing childcare support through universal credit and by lifting 2 million of the lowest-paid workers, six out of 10 of whom are women, out of income tax altogether.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. The noble Lord says that the Government are supporting women and their families; however the House of Commons Library analysis suggests that 81% of the £1.065 billion raised from the new direct tax credit and benefit changes will come from women. When the Government decided to make these changes, were they really aware of the specific impact on women? If they were not aware of this, it is a disgrace. If they were aware of this, it is an even greater disgrace.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the impact on women of the uprating changes, in a Bill that will come to this House shortly, is greater; 33% of women are affected, against only 29% of men. The redistribution under universal credit switches slightly and, in proportion, households with women do slightly better in numbers than households with men—40% of households with women are gainers, compared with 39% of households with men.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain how it can be fair that, because of the changes in child benefit, in households with three children where only one partner is working and has a student loan, if their salary goes up from £50,000 to £60,000, they will face an effective marginal tax of 75%? In contrast, households with incomes of £100,000, where both partners are working, will face a marginal tax of 45%. How is that consistent with a fairer tax system?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the reason for the reduction in child benefit for those on higher incomes is so that it could be implemented in this way. As my noble friend will know, it has been adjusted to provide a taper at £50,000 to £60,000 to smooth that transition.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s right honourable friends in the other place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, are waging war on so-called shirkers, in part by cutting their benefits. However, as my noble friend has said, two-thirds of those benefit cuts are falling on women. If you take into account changes in pensions, pay and taxes, more than 80% of the cuts are falling on women who are bringing up children, caring for the elderly and holding down a part-time job at minimum wage. Does the Minister agree with his right honourable friends that apparently the face of a shirker is now that of a mother, a carer and a woman?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as regards the reduction, or potentially below-inflation increase, in benefits, a lot is happening in the economy in relative terms. Today’s article in the Financial Times is one of the best analyses of that that I have seen. I am sure that others have seen that article, which shows how squeezed people are in the middle and upper-middle tiers of income distribution. They have fallen right back to the level of earnings in 2002-03, while real incomes in the bottom 30% were 3% to 4% higher than they were. That is the context in which we are looking at the adjustments to the benefit levels.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the average woman of child-bearing age loses about two eggs per hour, unlike the Minister who is making 50,000 sperm per hour? The consequence is that women’s fertility falls rapidly. Does he want to see equality of women in the workplace by trying to support them rather better during their child-bearing years?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will not go into the detailed figures that the noble Lord mentioned. There is very substantial support for women of child-bearing age as, over the past decade, statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance have moved up from being payable for 18 weeks to being payable for 39 weeks. That is the context in which that support should be looked at.

Information Committee

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

11:38

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Lipsey be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Baroness Pitkeathley, resigned.

Motion agreed.

Administration and Works Committee

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

11:38

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the 1st Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 96) be agreed to.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)]

My Lords, this is a short and straightforward report so I do not intend to detain the House for long. However, given that an amendment has been tabled to the Motion, I thought that it might be useful if I explained to the House how the committee reasoned its proposals.

As explained in the report, last year, under the chairmanship of my predecessor, the committee was asked to consider an alternative location for holding press conferences following the end of the lease on No. 1 The Abbey Garden. The committee agreed that the meeting room in Fielden House should be used for press conferences in place of No. 1 The Abbey Garden, and that arrangement has worked well since April 2012.

The committee was also asked to consider the appropriateness of continuing to use Committee Room G for press conferences. As the report explains, the committee felt that it was no longer appropriate to continue to use Committee Room G for several reasons. First, the committee felt that it would be useful to draw a distinction between those press conferences that are held by an official committee of this House and those that are organised on behalf on an individual Member. Members of the public often do not appreciate the difference between a parliamentary Select Committee, an all-party group and a collection of Members. The committee therefore felt that it would be sensible to amend the rules so that there was some distinction between them. If this report were agreed to, press conferences held by Select Committees would still be held on the Committee Room corridor while press conferences held by other Members would not.

The committee also considered the practical complications of holding press conferences in the Palace of Westminster itself. Members will know that meeting rooms are often in short supply, especially in the Palace. While there is not a large number of press conferences held each year preventing the use of rooms in the Palace, for some of them this will reduce the burden a little.

Although this may be seen as a relatively minor logistical change, it has been necessary to bring the matter before the House itself due to the fact that Committee Room G was originally included in the rules governing the use of facilities agreed by the House in 2010. As a breach of these rules constitutes a breach of the code of conduct, it is important that any amendments to the rules are agreed by the House and are clear and workable.

It is of course right that Members should be able to hold press conferences in Parliament as part of their parliamentary work, and this report is not intended to undermine that work. Indeed, I understand that there has been an informal suggestion that the meeting rooms in Millbank House could be used for press conferences. That would indeed answer any questions on limited capacity, and I welcome that suggestion. If the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, feels at the end of the debate that he does not wish to press the amendment, and if that suggestion on Millbank House is made, I would be more than happy to take the matter back so that the committee could consider that one specific amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Lord Avebury]

To move, as an amendment to the above motion, to leave out “agreed to” and insert “referred back to the Committee for further consideration; and that it be an instruction to the Committee that any future recommendations allow for Members to continue to hold press conferences in Committee Room G”.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, as the report of the Administration and Works Committee says, the House agreed on 16 March 2010 that:

“Members may not hold press conferences in committee rooms on the Committee Corridor, but they may do so in Committee Room G and other meeting rooms with Black Rod’s permission”.

That remains the position up until now, except that when the lease on 1 The Abbey Garden most unfortunately came to an end, it ceased to be available. That room held 40 people if the partition between the two rooms was opened up, and tea or coffee could be provided, a facility which is not available in Fielden House, or in Committee Room G for that matter. Now it is proposed that Committee Room G should not be used for press conferences, so that Fielden House will become the only location available to Members, rather than the three that we had before Abbey Garden was relinquished.

The committee says that,

“this arrangement was in place since April 2012”,

but that decision was not published or reported to the House at the time. I only found out about it after holding a press conference on Bahrain in Committee Room G on 23 August and a meeting on 17 September to mark the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Dr Sadegh Sharafkandi, leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran, and three of his colleagues at the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin by Iranian agents. On the Friday before the second of these meetings, Black Rod e-mailed me at 1522 attaching a paper he had submitted to the committee and the minutes of the committee’s meeting of 27 March, in which it purported to make the decision that we are now debating.

11:45

I telephoned Black Rod’s office at 1550, and when there was no answer I e-mailed him at 1652, saying that I had asked the attendants about transferring the meeting to Fielden House but was told that nobody was going to be on duty there on the Monday evening. In that e-mail I protested through Black Rod to the Administration and Works Committee about taking this clandestine decision without consulting Members. He replied later the same evening saying that as it was too late to change the arrangements for the meeting on Monday, the use of Committee Room G would have to stand. I wrote to Black Rod asking if the committee’s decision would be reconsidered on the grounds that it had been taken without consulting Members and particularly those who hold press conferences, however defined.

The commemoration of Dr Sharafkandi’s assassination was billed as such and the attendance of journalists was incidental to it. I would like to ask the Chairman of Committees whether, if this Motion is carried, it means that Members are not allowed to invite journalists to meetings in the Palace of Westminster that are not described as press conferences. I will come back to that point later. However, it does mean that press conferences have to be held between 9 am and 5 pm, because those are the hours during which attendants are on duty in Fielden House unless special arrangements are made. Fielden House accommodates only 24 people, to the 40 of Committee Room G, and is therefore unsuitable for important events. It is also unsuitable for events that are to be attended by disabled people, because Fielden House is some distance from the main Palace of Westminster.

Part 3 of the report suggests that the House itself might be associated with the proceedings of press conferences. Having held numerous press conferences in Committee Room G, Fielden House and 1 The Abbey Garden, I am not aware that any of them has been reported as an official event of the House of Lords, nor have words spoken at press conferences been attributed to the House of Lords. If evidence to that effect was presented to the Administration and Works Committee it was not thought worthy of mention in its report. I suppose that the risk was purely hypothetical.

In any case, if it suited the editorial policy of an unscrupulous newspaper—non-British of course—the proceedings could just as well be presented as effectively sanctioned by the House if they were held in Fielden House or anywhere else on the Parliamentary Estate. Members of another place have a large number of rooms for press conferences from which to choose. The rooms in which photography and TV are allowed include the Jubilee Room, the Attlee and Macmillan Rooms in Portcullis House, Room C in 1 Parliament Street and the W Rooms. No distinction is made between meetings of a general nature and press conferences.

The risks that are supposed to arise in Committee Room G must affect meetings in any of those locations available to the Commons, although it may be said that it is not for us to compare our decisions with those of another place. Surely it is illogical and perverse to come to a different view from theirs on a matter which is said to have a bearing on the reputation of Parliament as a whole.

The Chairman of Committees wrote to me saying that he would circulate my letter to the Administration and Works Committee for consideration at its next meeting on 23 October last, and after that he wrote again to say that the committee had decided to uphold the decision that press conferences could be held only in Fielden House. In the second letter he noted that the use of rooms for press conferences was contained in the rules governing the use of facilities in the House of Lords, which had been agreed by the House. Therefore the change, to cease using Committee Room G for this purpose, would also need to be agreed by the House. Until and unless that happens the previous rules apply and Committee Room G may continue to be used for press conferences. The suggestions that were made to me during the Summer Recess—that the two meetings to which I referred earlier should have been held in Fielden House—were erroneous, and I should like that to be acknowledged.

It is true that press conferences sponsored by Members often deal with matters that are controversial and of significant public interest. In December, for example, I co-hosted a meeting with Anne Main MP on the outlook for the Bangladesh general election in 2013 and I chaired a meeting on human rights in Gambia. There were no media persons at either of those meetings, as it happens, but on occasion it may well occur that journalists are invited for the contributions that they make to the discussion. For example, I am sure that there must have been meetings on the Leveson report sponsored by Members, in which journalists were invited to participate. Is it permissible for the media to be present at an event as long as it is not described as a press conference? What is the sponsor of the meeting supposed to do if attendees make notes of what is said, raising the possibility that they might give information to the media—or, even worse, take pictures on smartphones that might then be given to the press?

If any noble Lord or honourable Member seeks to use the Palace of Westminster to propagate illegal extremist views such as incitement to racial or religious hatred—as I believe may have occurred in hearings of the committee, although it is not mentioned in its report—the matter should be dealt with ad hoc by the Administration Committee in another place, or by the Administration and Works Committee of this House. We should not shut down the means whereby Members seek to give a voice to legitimate views, particularly of those who are silenced in other countries. This applies also to meetings at which, because of the theme, views may be expressed that would be strongly disapproved of by the majority of noble Lords.

There is a significant appetite among some in the foreign media for the views of oppressed people that are aired at some of the meetings held on the Parliamentary Estate, yet we are now being asked to reduce the number of possible locations of such meetings from three to one—a small conference room at some distance from the Palace of Westminster where you cannot even offer journalists a cup of tea. I suggest that we ought to give thought to ways of expanding the contacts we have with the media, and that reducing the means we now have would be moving in the wrong direction. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a moment. I have great respect for my noble friend and I listened to his remarks with considerable sympathy. However, I make it very clear that I support the refusal to hold press conferences in Room G. It is one of the consequences of the overpopulation of this House that the number of committee rooms available to noble Lords for general purposes is under great pressure. That being the case, it is right that unofficial press conferences, however worthy—I totally understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Avebury—should be held elsewhere.

I asked my noble friend whether he had considered going to Millbank House. I made inquiries about this. The Archbishops’ Room in Millbank House holds a large number of people, and other facilities are available. It was suggested that access arrangements at Millbank House are too difficult if one wants to have a number of people. I do not accept that for one moment. I was very glad to hear the Chairman of Committees say that Millbank House could be another location. I hope that my noble friend Lord Avebury might be prepared to recognise that that is a considerable step in that direction for which he is calling, and may not feel it necessary to divide the House.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, will the noble Lord inform us of the capacity of Millbank House? That would help the debate.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I have held a number of meetings in the Archbishops’ Room at Millbank House. You can get at least 30 or 40 people in there—I do not know the exact figure. It would certainly be big enough to contain any reasonable press conference. It is a very good room with a large table and a lot of chairs around it. You can have an extremely good meeting in that room.

[Baroness Thornton]

With tea?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I do so as the Member of your Lordships’ House who has held perhaps the two most controversial and packed press conferences in recent years—after the Dutch MP, Mr Geert Wilders, was banned by the then Home Secretary from entering this country, and, when he had won his appeal against that decision, after he had shown his film, “Fitna”, privately in Committee Room 4 to Peers and MPs.

The Home Secretary’s decision turned the whole saga into a world media event and both rooms at Abbey Gardens were not nearly big enough to hold even half the number of media outlets wanting to attend both events. For the second conference, I had applications to attend from 92 outlets worldwide, including two Japanese film crews, and spaces had to be severely rationed. From that experience, I fear I have to disagree with the key reasoning in this report, leading the committee to cease using Committee Room G for press conferences.

First, it states:

“Whilst it is right and proper that Members should be able to hold press conferences in Parliament as part of their Parliamentary work”—

as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has reminded us. What has happened to that? I say hear, hear to it, but it appears to have disappeared and been overridden by less worthy considerations. The quotation continues:

“the House as a whole may not wish to associate itself with the views given in such press conferences”.

At no time during or after the Wilders saga was there any suggestion from anyone that your Lordships’ House associated itself with Mr Wilders’s views. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Cox and I made clear that we ourselves disagreed with some of them, but our overall purpose was to secure his right to free speech as an elected Dutch politician. So that part of the report simply does not stand up. Nor does the next sentence:

“the setting of Committee Room G, right within the heart of the Palace of Westminster, means that it is not always clear from a public perspective that the press conference is not an official event being held on behalf of the House”.

Further down in the report, it states:

“Furthermore, press conferences can attract a large number of journalists and other guests, which can be difficult to manage from a security point of view”.

Committee Room G is not “right in the heart of the Palace of Westminster”. It is on its extreme fringe. It shares its public entrance with the Attlee and Cholmondeley Rooms, both of which regularly handle large numbers of strangers. There is a permanent police presence on duty.

On security grounds alone it would have been better to have held Mr Wilders’s conferences in Room G than in Abbey Gardens or Fielden House. I suggest that this may apply to other controversial guests whom your Lordships may wish to entertain in future. Mr Wilders would not have had to go by a circuitous route to Abbey Gardens with his bodyguard and all the rest of it. My noble friend Lady Cox and I would not have had to walk from the Palace of Westminster to Abbey Gardens under threat of what we were assured would be sniper fire. We would not have had to brave the blandishments of thousands from the English Defence League who were gathered—though I cannot quite remember on which side of the argument. Nor would we have had to fear the thousands of Muslims with whom we were threatened, but who did not in fact materialise.

Surely press conferences are usually confrontational events. Did the committee think of that point? If a press conference is controversial, which is what seems to be moving the committee, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the media will test the controversial viewpoint strongly. How does your Lordships’ House suffer from that? I fear that the conclusions of this report do nothing to support freedom of speech or the reputation of this House. Indeed, I fear they impede it.

Finally, there is the matter of capacity. Fielden House is limited to, I think, 30 people—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned 24—but Room G is limited to 45. No doubt more journalists can be accommodated standing, but what about television crews? Fielden House is simply inadequate to hold any but a conference in which the media is not much interested. That cannot be in the interests of your Lordships’ House. Surely we can leave the decision about whether Room G or Fielden House should be used for any particular press conference to Black Rod and the Yeoman Usher. Why would they not get it right? What is wrong with that? I support the amendment.

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I strongly support the words uttered by my noble friend Lord Avebury following the remarks of the Chairman of Committees. It is a drastic suggestion to exclude the only room within the Palace precincts that would be available for the purposes of a press conference, or for use by any individual Member or Members together for meetings on any cause whatever, in the normal system of booking a room. It would be very drastic if it were completely removed because it is quite important psychologically, for a number of reasons, for a Member to be able to make an application for the use of a room within the Palace precincts. It makes a difference.

I declare an interest having done a book launch of my own, with an outside colleague, in February of last year: we used Room G and journalists attended. The idea that that would bind the House and Members as a whole to the content of my remarks in launching the book, and to other questions that arose from members of the audience, both non-media and media alike, is a most extraordinary suggestion. No such problem exists in the other place, where it routinely happens. However, given that MPs are more active Members, in one sense, one would expect that to be so.

However, bearing in mind that often Room G would be booked up anyway by other Members, and therefore not available if someone applied to use it, not having that choice in the Palace itself would be undesirable. Although I do not wish to comment on the more polychromatic and allegorical suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about the content of the meeting to which he referred, the points he made were valid. You must have that option as a Member and, perhaps, to make the choice to go elsewhere, to Fielden House or Millbank House, if you prefer. To narrow down the choice in this way is a strange request in the committee’s conclusions and should be reconsidered very carefully.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I share the concern of other noble Lords who have spoken about this paper but, first, I ought to ask the Chairman of Committees: what is the problem that he and his committee are trying to solve? How many press conferences of the kind which will be banned from Committee Room G are held each year?

I know that there is pressure on rooms. I very occasionally hire a room to help, say, with a campaign, but if a couple of journalists happen to turn up, does that make it illegal? When is a press conference a press conference, rather than a few journalists with other people there? I do not know the answer and the Chairman of Committees may be able to help with that.

I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, but on this occasion I agree about the problems of getting large crowds into Committee Room G, as it says in paragraph 4. Nothing like as many people come into there as come into the Cholmondeley Room for receptions at lunchtime and in the evening. The security arrangements usually handle them fairly well and so the numbers cannot be a reason for excluding people.

The other problem that has been mentioned is the issue of room bookings. If we are to make more use of Millbank and Fielden House, the hours they are available should be appropriate to when the House is sitting. However, surely the booking arrangements for committee rooms should all be done in one place. The booking arrangements for committee rooms in the House are extremely good and efficient now, so why should we have to phone someone else if we want to book a room across there? I know there is pressure on booking rooms but if it is a question of trying to reduce the number of events and press conferences that take place within the House, I would be very surprised if this recommendation would make much difference to the availability of rooms and the demand for them.

I shall be interested to hear from the Chairman the real reason for this and whether he can define what a press conference is that will be covered by this.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Avebury, Lord Pearson and Lord Dykes, have all made an extremely strong case, and the committee would be wise to take us back to look at it again.

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, in my opening comments I acknowledged that there had been an error in the way in which the process had moved toward implementation of the original decision by the Administration and Works Committee, in that its recommendation had not been brought before the House as it should have been. Once that was recognised, the decision of the Administration and Works Committee was not implemented. It has been held in abeyance until we have had this debate today. I freely acknowledge, therefore, that there was a fault in the process, which we have sought to rectify by bringing the report before your Lordships’ House today.

There have been three areas of argument on the basis of the comments that have been made. First, let us deal with what is and what is not a press conference. In about 99.9% of cases, it is obvious whether it is or is not a press conference. If Members are in doubt whether the event they are organising is a press conference, they should seek the advice of Black Rod. If they have sought his advice, they are deemed to have complied with the rules and to be in the clear. That is the way to deal with what is a press conference.

One of the other areas is distinction. Is it right that we draw a distinction between those press conferences that are clearly official parliamentary press conferences, which deal with reports issued by Select Committees or other organisations directly responsible to the House, or those press conferences that are held, quite rightly and understandably, at which Parliament provides in some way a platform for other people to give views? That is the argument on distinction. There is a strong case to say that a distinction ought to be maintained; that official parliamentary press conferences take place along the Committee Corridor, where the committees themselves are held, and that the platform type of press conference is held within Parliament though at one remove from the Palace itself.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am very grateful to the Lord Chairman. As the noble Lord is probably aware, I am secretary of the All-Party Cycling Group. Next week this group will start an inquiry into the provision of cycling facilities, which will consist of between six and eight MPs and Peers, who will produce a report. Do I, as secretary, have to ask Black Rod’s permission to have a press conference to launch that report in the House?

[The Chairman of Committees]

Yes. Not to launch the report in the House; if the noble Lord has a press conference, it would be perfectly possible for him to have it in Millbank House. That would be allowable if the House accepts my suggestion, and if the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, accepts my suggestion, that he does not persist with his amendment, and we take back this report purely on the grounds of enabling the committee to consider the Millbank House option.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, further to that point; if Black Rod can decide what is and what is not a press conference, why can he not be trusted to decide where it should be held, particularly from the point of view of security, which may be vital to the event in question? It may be clearly more in the interests of security that it should be held in Committee Room G than in either Millbank House or Fielden House.

[The Chairman of Committees]

The extent to which we actually move decision-making away from the Chamber and on to Black Rod is a matter of fine judgment. There are some areas where that is perfectly reasonable, and seeking his advice on whether the meeting that was being held was a press conference, if the Member himself or herself was in doubt, would be helpful because it would mean that the Member was able to ensure that they were not breaching the rules by at least seeking the advice of Black Rod and acting upon it.

Clearly, though, with regard to the business of where that press conference should be held, the rule that we are trying to establish is that it is right to make a distinction between parliamentary press conferences, held to discuss and debate a publication, a report, of Parliament, which will be held within the Palace itself, and what are called platform press conferences where Parliament, quite properly and rightly, is being used to provide a platform for views expressed by people from beyond Parliament. The latter, although held within Parliament, would not be held within the Palace; they would be held in Millbank House or Fielden House, and on the whole people will feel very comfortable with that distinction.

The second argument is about capacity.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords—

[The Chairman of Committees]

I have to say that I thought that this was going to be a short debate, but it is in danger of turning into yesterday’s debate.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am very sorry to intervene again, and I am grateful to the noble Lord. Do the same rules about the distinction between official and semi-official press conferences apply in the House of Commons? Do Members of Parliament have to ask the Serjeant at Arms if they can book a room within the building?

[The Chairman of Committees]

I am unaware of the precise rules that apply in the House of Commons, but as I understand it the House tends to deal with this matter by having a very strict rule about recording, photography and filming. That is the way in which it has dealt with the problem. There is a very strong ban, as I understand it, on filming in House of Commons Committee Rooms.

On capacity, I understand the concern that the rooms in Fielden House may not be large enough to accommodate a significantly populated press conference, though I have to say that in my experience that does not happen very often in this House. That is why I am very much attracted to the suggestion that we open up rooms in Millbank House, particularly the Archbishops’ Room, which is a large room that can accommodate events, and I would have thought that this would satisfy all the arguments on capacity. On that basis—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

From what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has informed the House, which is why I put the question to him, the room in Millbank is no larger than the room in Fielden House. It is the same size, so what advantage can there be? We can have two press conferences, but a single large one still cannot be held.

[The Chairman of Committees]

I am reluctant to challenge the noble Lord on that issue. From my somewhat cursory examination of the rooms it looks quite a bit bigger to me, but never mind. As I say, I am more than happy to take the report back specifically on the use of Millbank House if the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wishes to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Howell, whose influence I hope will lead to a favourable decision when we come to the end of this debate. I am not disposed to withdraw my amendment; I wish to press it to a Division, and I would like to explain why. First, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has not dealt with the point that I raised about disabled Members having difficulty getting to Fielden House, and the same argument applies to Millbank House. That has been reaffirmed to me during this debate by a particular disabled Member who says that it is not possible for disabled Members to attend any meetings in Millbank House when there is a threat of a Division because they simply cannot get back from there in time. I suggest that no attention whatever has been given to the argument which I mentioned in my introductory speech: that it is grossly inconvenient and sometimes impossible for disabled Members to attend any meetings in Fielden House and the same applies to Millbank House.

12:15

[Lord Higgins]

If I have understood the situation correctly, the Chairman of Committees has said that he is prepared to take it back to the committee, including the issue of Committee Room G. Is that not right?

[Noble Lords]

No!

[The Chairman of Committees]

If I could clarify, I am prepared to take back the report purely on the limited area of the use of Millbank House. If, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, persists in his amendment, I will maintain the report and the Millbank House option will not be considered.

[Lord Higgins]

In that case, the situation is rather clearer and I had misunderstood. Would it not be more sensible for the noble Lord to take it back to the committee without any restraint on what it can discuss? If we go ahead and, as I think is likely, carry the noble Lord’s amendment, then we are tying the hands of the committee when it needs to take into account the wider issues, including the use of Room G. I should have thought we could proceed on that basis.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, perhaps I might offer a bit of advice. We did think that the Chairman of Committees had said that he would agree to a reference back to consider Millbank House. However, he said it on the basis of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, not pursuing a vote on his amendment. I sense the feeling of the House would be that, even if the noble Lord were to pursue the amendment to a vote—and he were to lose—the committee might still consider the Millbank House option. Might he not just reflect on that?

[The Chairman of Committees]

I am always happy to reflect. The difficulty is that we have a bit of a procedural problem about the nature of the Motion that is before us. I can give the categoric assurance that, if it is withdrawn, I can do it. However, if the noble Lord divides the House and loses, we will have divided on the report and the report will then be carried. I am sure that the committee would wish to take the sense of the House but I cannot give the cast-iron procedural guarantee that I could if the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Avebury]

I am not prepared to accept that undertaking. The argument the noble Lord has advanced that Millbank House is adequate for the purposes of press conferences is spurious. The noble Lord did not even venture to say anything in his intervention just now about the difficulties that disabled Members have in getting to Fielden House. The difficulties they have in getting to Millbank House are no less.

In conclusion, I do not think the distinction between press conferences that are held by an official organ of the House, such as a Select Committee, and those that are held by private Members is fully appreciated. That was borne out by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. No one attributed the views that were expressed at the meeting with Geert Wilders to the House. Nor did anyone think that any sentiments expressed at that press conference either by the noble Lord himself or by his noble friend Lady Cox were attributable to the House. No one has ever said that things that are dealt with at private press conferences are the views of the House. So that was a spurious argument. I believe most people would agree that we should retain the use of Committee Room G and I would ask the House to decide accordingly.

12:19

Division 1

Ayes: 82

---

Liberal Democrat: 36
Labour: 23
Crossbench: 13
Conservative: 5
Independent: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
UK Independence Party: 1

Noes: 163

---

Labour: 63
Conservative: 54
Crossbench: 34
Liberal Democrat: 6
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Bishops: 1

12:25

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, it has been possible to clarify in the intervening period what would be the best procedural method to ensure that the House’s will is properly expressed and acted on. In those circumstances, I think that the best way forward is for me to withdraw the Motion and to take the report back purely on the basis of looking at the Millbank House option.

Motion withdrawn.

Disability Services

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

12:33

Moved By

[Lord Boateng]

To move that this House takes note of the report by Scope, Over-looked Communities, Over-due Change, on disability services for people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.

[Lord Boateng]

My Lords, I rise, somewhat belatedly, to move the Motion standing in my name. To be black, a member of an ethnic minority or disabled is to know what it is to be invisible—to be there but somehow not be seen, or to be heard but simply not heeded. That concept is difficult to explain. It is difficult, frankly, for those of us who happen to be members of the black and minority ethnic community or who happen to be disabled to talk about. Yet it is, for all of us, a fact of life, and this valuable report demonstrates that most effectively, I would argue, because it reveals what a toxic mix it can be to be both black and disabled. You suffer a double whammy of neglect and disadvantage. All too often you find yourself between a rock and a hard place.

The report, Over-looked Communities, Over-due Change, makes salutary reading. Disabled people from black and minority ethnic communities and their families are often left disengaged from the decisions of policymakers and practitioners, disconnected from support systems and services, and disempowered from finding local solutions to the problems that they face. In this House this afternoon we have an opportunity to address that issue. We will have the opportunity to do so again in the weeks and months ahead as the Government take forward their own legislative programme, particularly in relation to the children and families Bill. Today, however, we can ask Her Majesty’s Government to ensure now that the policymakers act not only on this report but on the whole body of evidence that has gone before—a body of evidence that goes back many years, including the period in which I was in government, when we, too, as a Government, had no reason to be complacent about this issue but where some progress was made.

I believe that we will hear the reality reflected in your Lordships’ contributions to the debate this afternoon—contributions that represent a body of unparalleled expertise in this field, for which I am particularly grateful. It is important that we read in the report about the experiences of the black and minority ethnic communities in all parts of the United Kingdom, that we learn about good practice, that we hear and receive the recommendations from the focus groups that contributed to this report, and that we hear and learn from the voices of those people who all too often are unseen and unheard.

We are grateful to Scope and to the Equalities National Council, which is itself a black and minority ethnic voluntary sector body and a centre of excellence in this field. We find from this report that we are confronting, as a country, what amounts to a demographic disability time bomb because the black and minority ethnic population is both growing and ageing. We learn that there are at least 1 million disabled people from black and minority ethic backgrounds in our country. Some 40% of those people live in household poverty, compared with 32% of all disabled people and 17% of the population as a whole. Only four in 10 of black and minority ethnic disabled people manage to find any employment at all, and 40% of those are self-employed or part-time employees. The incomes of those individuals are 30% lower than that of the rest of the general population, with half earning less than £240 a week.

This is not primarily a debate about resources but I would argue that these issues cannot be considered in isolation from the current context of the delivery of services. The issue is not about restraints on resources; we all understand that they are part and parcel of today’s reality and we have to live with that. Nevertheless, the reality is also that these restraints on resources are falling disproportionately on the most vulnerable in our society. We know from the work of, among others, the Afiya Trust that the equality impact assessments on social care budgets are all too often disregarded and that public sector equality duties under the law are flouted. The reality for those small black and minority ethnic voluntary organisations, which play such an important part in the care of the most vulnerable, is that they are suffering disproportionately from the impact of local authority cuts. In 2010-11, £3 million was cut from the sector and £1.5 million from London alone. One in five local authorities does not actually collect any data at all on black and minority voluntary sector organisations.

The question that one puts to the Government today is: will they confirm their commitment to public sector equality duties? Will they reassure the House that the Red Tape Challenge will not be used to water down a commitment to equality? We must also ask ourselves, and ask the Government, what steps are in fact being taken to ensure that their disability strategy reflects the special needs and concerns of black and minority ethnic disabled people. Will the Government meet representatives of the Equalities National Council and Scope to receive their input? A commitment was given on a previous occasion in this Chamber by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that there would be such a meeting. Despite requests from both Scope and the equalities council, no such meeting has yet taken place.

Do the Government intend to respond positively to the UN recommendation, endorsed in this report, that there should be a national equality strategy? All the signs and indications from the Government to date have been that they do not intend to embrace the need for such an equality strategy. However, if an equality strategy is not to be introduced, how are the various strands across different sectors and different government departments to be pulled together? Will the promised disability strategy be backed up by an implementation plan, with a focus on measurable outcomes and a means of monitoring progress?

Will the Government clarify their approach to translation services? There again, we have had conflicting signals from the coalition. On the one hand, the spokesperson in this House very rightly affirmed her belief, based on her considerable experience of local government in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, that translation and interpreting services have a very important role to play in the delivery of care to black and minority ethnic communities, yet the Secretary of State for Communities, no doubt concerned about resources, described such services as “divisive”. How can this be, given all the evidence, which is contained again in the report?

One example given was of a tape to describe the symptoms of and treatment needed for multiple sclerosis. It was given to an elderly, non-English-speaking Asian woman in relation to the diagnosis of her daughter and it created tremendous fear, concern and apprehension because it had not been translated very well. These services are absolutely crucial to ensuring that there is proper diagnosis, care and treatment. Will the Government clarify the situation and give service providers and users the reassurance that they seek?

All these questions speak to an issue that goes to the heart of how we care for one another in society. Yes, of course it is important that special needs are met and that we address those issues, so well articulated in the report we are considering, as they affect black and minority ethnic communities. However, the reality is that when the needs of one section of service users are consistently overlooked, it is the quality of service to all that is undermined. We are genuinely all in this together—whatever our race, colour or language and whatever the level of our abilities or disabilities. Responsive, respectful and relevant services, made accessible and inclusive, are to the benefit of us all, regardless of our race, background or relative abilities.

What the Government will hear today will not be special pleading; it will be a call to action for a decent society, one in which we can justly take pride. Last year, in the Olympics and Paralympics, we celebrated our diversity. We took pride in it; it said something important about us as a nation. Yet the reality is that when the celebrations have subsided, for all too many of our fellow citizens disadvantage and inequality remain a fact of life. There is disadvantage, inequality and an inability to access the services that they so desperately need.

I hope we will see in our House’s response to this important report, and in the Government’s response, a determination in this new year to resolve to translate the evidence, which is there for all to see, into policy and action so that we can celebrate good practice and a society that is truly diverse—and one that recognises the huge potential that is lost when we fail to meet the needs of those who currently are not receiving their due. When we take action to enable and empower all of us in our God-given and precious diversity, then we really do have something to celebrate. I beg to move.

12:47

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, who has brought this very important report to the Floor of the House today. At the beginning, I refer Members to my interests in the register concerning various disability charities.

The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, has outlined in his opening remarks some of the core challenges and problems identified by this report, so in the time available to me I would like to focus on some of the recommendations made by the report. I begin with the recommendations for local authority commissioners. It is suggested that there is a need to redesign commissioning contracts to facilitate collaboration between small and large organisations to allow more consistent, wide-ranging care that meets both personal and community needs. This is a most timely recommendation because of the changes that are taking place, as we debate, in commissioning.

It has been my experience that commissioning, whether it is done at a national level by government, by local authorities or through commissioning structures within the health service, almost inevitably follows a pattern. The pattern is usually one where those who are commissioned tend to be larger organisations, for the reason that they are easier to deal with. Larger organisations cover the ground more and the financial control is easier, rather than if the commissioning is based on a lot of small and more independently, but perhaps more accurately, focused and targeted providers.

That is really the challenge in this recommendation in the report. I do not expect the Minister, who will reply to this debate today, to have all these answers, but I will make this request. This is such a timely report at a time of great change for disabled people that if she does not have specific answers to these questions today, I hope she will consult colleagues—this will often need to be across government—on these various recommendations and perhaps agree to put something in writing in the Library. I think that would be very helpful to those of us who are concerned about how practically the Government are going to address the very timely and helpful suggestions in this report.

I turn now to the recommendations related to policymakers in the report. The report states that,

“BME disabled people’s needs and views have often fallen between the two areas of disability and race equality policy. Finding ways to bring these two policy fields together is extremely important for developing effective support for BME disabled people”.

It is almost self-evident that that needs to be addressed, but I think it is a little more complex than the report suggests, because among the disabled community per se there has for a long time been the big challenge of people who have co-morbidities—people with more than one disability. When you bring into that the additional challenge of a range of ages and, as this report addresses, the BME disabled community, you can see that when you look at how you could try to address the needs of those individuals, it is almost inevitable that you will end up with a generic service.

I say to my noble friend at the Dispatch Box today that it is a real challenge to target the services that policymakers produce on individual needs, which will almost certainly be complex. It is a challenge to provide the strategy through the policy as to how to address the myriad requirements of people who have not just one but often a range of disabilities, where two disabilities might mean, for example, someone with an autistic spectrum disorder who also has either a diagnosed mental health problem or a physical disability and is also part of the BME community. Then there are the age concerns to be taken into account.

Of course, when we talk about disabled people, we must think not just of the disabled people themselves but of their family situation. Siblings and the effect of having a severely disabled sibling are extremely important. When you are providing, commissioning and looking at appropriate services, you have to take a more holistic view at the family, the primary carers and, of course—particularly as far as children are concerned—siblings in the same household.

These are therefore complex issues that are not easily resolved, and they are not resolved well at present. We have to do better for this community. I say to my noble friend that in looking at policy-making, some of the recommendations in this report are absolutely critical. These include, for example, a theme throughout the report: involving disabled people themselves, along with their immediate carers, and the BME communities with experience and background in what the needs and solutions are.

Another recommendation for policymakers is the one to develop a national race equality strategy, which includes the needs of BME disabled people. The noble Lord touched on this in his opening remarks. My noble friend will, of course, reply at the end of this debate, but that recommendation was made in the light of the Government’s announcement that we are to expect a forthcoming disability strategy. If it is not the Government’s intention to develop a national race equality strategy, it would be helpful to know exactly what is being done at present—I assume it is being done at present—under the disability strategy. This would reassure the House that this community’s needs are being considered and will be included when that strategy is made public.

There are also recommendations for service providers. A person-centred emphasis is recommended, and I totally agree with that. One can look at a range of disabilities, and there will be a common purpose in the services provided and commonality in the way in which disabilities affect people and in how some particular disabilities, which might be degenerative, are likely to affect people in the future. One does have to look at the individual; no two people are the same. Service providers should look at the individual and take that holistic look at the individual and their immediate surroundings and life chances.

Employment was mentioned. The figures are appalling for people who could carry out paid work or—and I always emphasise this at this stage—voluntary work. I know this is not the flavour of the month. Everyone is going to be in paid work, but for some people with a disability—and I must emphasise this strongly for my noble friend on the Front Bench—just getting them to the stage where they can maintain independent living is a milestone that many would not have achieved without a lot of support. For some people—and it is only some people—to expect them additionally to take on paid employment could diminish their ability to maintain a standard of independent living that is both safe and acceptable.

We all want disabled people, including the BME community on which this report focuses, to have the opportunity for paid employment wherever possible. However, I am old enough to remember, as I am sure other colleagues in the House today are, when the life chances and quality of life of many disabled people meant that they often lived at home with increasingly elderly parents, the inevitability of which was that at some point there would be a crisis in their care when the parents were no longer able to look after them, so that they, as disabled people, had to face decisions about their future at a point of crisis. That is something which I hope my noble friend will consider.

12:58

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, I, too would like to congratulate both the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this timely debate, and Scope, for producing such a valuable and important report. As president of the National Children’s Bureau—a declared interest of mine—I am particularly keen to draw attention to the compounded disadvantage that children and young people with disabilities in black and minority ethnic communities, or whose parents have disabilities, face to their well-being. Not only do children in general face particular vulnerabilities to poverty, but it is also well documented that disability increases the risk of poverty. When children are additionally members of the black and minority ethnic communities, their well-being risks can soar.

I had a lot of statistics that I was going to go through, but the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, has covered them very well. However, if noble Lords will bear with me, I have one or two points I would like to underline before going on to talk about some more general issues covered in the report. It is vital—the report makes this very clear—that we understand that the disadvantages of disability can be amplified for children from within the black and minority ethnic community. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, talked about a double whammy. However, if you look at children and young people, and the link with child poverty, as well as the links with disability and the disadvantages faced by black and minority ethnic communities—I am thinking particularly of some black or black British households and the nearly 60% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi households which, according to Barnardo’s analysis of DWP statistics, were living in poverty in 2011—we are talking about something which is more like a triple whammy for children.

Scope’s very important report, Keep Us Close, also made it very clear that the children of disabled parents within the black and minority ethnic community fare no better. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, about the very low employment rates for some disabled members of the BME community. Disabled women in this community, who are often the main carers, face incredibly low rates of pay. As we have heard, the median was almost half that of non-disabled adults. None of that will be made any easier with the forthcoming changes to financial support through the new disability addition to a family’s universal credit entitlement. For families receiving the current mid-rate component of disability living allowance, financial support for this group will be halved to £28 a week.

It is against that backdrop that the disabled children we are talking about today will face a range of other problems, which was highlighted well in the report. For instance, in many cases, they or their parents will face language barriers in trying to access the care that they need. Simply put, you cannot know what you do not know. For many in this community, the report has highlighted that language barriers mean that they miss out on services available to them simply because they do not know how to ask for them or what they are entitled to. Scope has also found that members of the BME community are less likely to be represented on some of the forums and committees that make decisions about public services. At these crucial moments for shaping policies and services, the needs of the black and minority ethnic community too often go unvoiced.

A concrete example of a missed opportunity in terms of support faced by disabled children with language barriers can be seen in education. Many young disabled people have a statement of special educational needs guiding their education. However, the report has shown that many black and minority ethnic parents did not know what that was or that they should have the chance to influence their child’s statement at an annual review meeting. Include Me TOO is a charity which specifically supports disabled children, young people and their families from the black and minority ethnic community. It has published a report that found that some parents did not even know their disabled child’s annual review meeting was coming up until it had already happened.

Unavailable, incomplete, or outright incorrect translation services, particularly within medical services, present another challenge to BME parents of disabled children, a point which clearly came across in the Scope report. It highlighted a particular case and asked people to imagine that they were the mother of Anita, a woman who was consulted during the writing of today’s Scope report. Her daughter was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Rather than a thorough explanation of the range of MS symptoms, Anita’s mother was given a CD of translated information that merely laid out the worst-case scenario. Quite understandably, that really alarmed and upset her.

In addition to poverty and language barriers, the disabled children of black and minority ethnic communities also face a number of more subtle disadvantages of social isolation and stigma. Again, I thought that the report was very good in highlighting these issues. Perhaps I may pick up on a couple of other examples. One misconception that some members of the community face is that they will have significant family safety networks on which they can fall, although sometimes that is not the case and, indeed, the opposite can be true. The Scope report found strong evidence that social isolation can be very problematic for disabled people from black and minority ethnic communities. Most notably, it drew attention to the experience of women, who are generally the primary carers. A number of BME women who took part in the research highlighted social isolation as an acute problem that they had experienced. One female respondent to Scope’s survey said that when they ask social services for extra support, they are sometimes told, “No. You can do it yourself because you are from an Asian background”. She said that social services think that they have a close and extended family who can look after them, as well as religious leaders. Her view was that that was an excuse for social services not doing what they are supposed to do.

Parents in the BME community also voiced concerns over social stigma associated with their children’s disability. The Scope report highlights the case of a Muslim woman which demonstrates this very well. She felt constantly that she had to defend her son against her extended family’s constant judgment of him as “just a naughty boy”. She said that she was very grateful when her son was finally diagnosed with autism, which she felt gave her a sort of defence mechanism against her family’s accusations that bad parenting on her part was the root cause of her son’s problems.

As I hope I have demonstrated and as the report demonstrates very well, which is why it is so important that we are giving time to this subject today, more needs to be done to bring about a cultural shift in the perception and provision of services for all disabled children and all children of disabled parents—yes, for everyone, but particularly those from within the black and minority ethnic community. These children start well behind the starting line in the race of life from the triple vulnerabilities of youth, disability and minority community status, which then can be coupled with the higher levels of poverty, the language barriers, social isolation and stigma that I have talked about.

The question is: what can we do? We will have an opportunity to do something concrete in a Bill which will shortly be coming before your Lordships’ House. Scope has developed a “provide local principle”, which is designed to ensure that services in local areas are inclusive and accessible and, where services for disabled children do not currently exist, local authorities must guarantee their delivery and ensure that parents and families are involved in their commissioning.

Today, I ask the Government to consider including Scope’s “provide local principle” in the forthcoming children and families Bill as part of the local offer to which they have already committed. The introduction of this principle would do much to improve the services available to all disabled children, including those from BME communities. Given the will, I am sure that this can be done and I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this point.

13:07

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, on instigating this debate. It is important that this subject is being discussed today. I have spoken to several people who are involved with disability as a whole and, when I mention the services for black and minority ethnic people with disabilities, not much seems to be known. The Scope report presents some of the evidence and I am sure that your Lordships, like me, will look forward to the Minister’s response.

There are so many disabilities, many of which are complex. I want to add something to this debate which I cannot see in this report—namely, the need for prevention of disability, if possible. Disability can be a strain on families, as it can be very costly and time-consuming. Education for women who are so often the people looking after disabled people is so important.

My admiration has no bounds when I consider the bravery of the schoolgirl shot in Pakistan who was campaigning for education for girls. This outstanding girl would now be dead or disabled if it was not for the medical skill she received in Birmingham, her own hard work and will power, and the support of her family and the Government. That shows how important it is that people work together to help people with disabilities.

I mention today in this debate that the Leeds Children’s Heart Unit is fighting for its retention, as there are a high percentage of black and Asian babies born with heart defects in the area of Leeds, Bradford and West Yorkshire. The north is a special case; it needs units in both Newcastle and Leeds. I cannot understand why the consultants who perform the operations cannot travel between the two units to make the service viable. This would save stress and strain to many families with social needs, who would find long-distance travel too expensive and complicated.

Results show a range of variations between black and minority ethnic—BME—groups and white, British counterparts. Most differences are negative, which indicates that BME groups are less likely to report a positive experience. However, many areas show no difference and some show a positive difference. The research findings show that a source of dissatisfaction was that customers struggled to find out about the benefits available for a long time after they had developed their disabling condition. Many participants felt that it was very hard to find out what they were entitled to and that this applied similarly to all benefits available. Many participants felt that they could have applied for benefits and received help earlier on. This triggered some criticism of the Disability and Carers Service.

Information and forms for disability benefits are far too complicated for most disabled people, let alone black and minority ethnic groups. Language barriers often mean that BME disabled people do not know about, and cannot use, services available to others. Therefore, it is often disabled people rather than services that are perceived as hard to reach. Communication is vital in accurately translating someone’s condition or disability. Disabilities in communication can result in inaccurate or inappropriate diagnosis. A lack of information in an appropriate language can significantly hinder or prevent access to services and facilities. This is being stressed in this debate.

We must therefore take great care to send out the right information about services and impairment. This could mean simple measures such as using everyday language wherever possible, testing materials with BME disabled people, and refining these materials before publicising. Given the significance of these language and communication barriers, Scope is concerned about the proposal of the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, to cut translation services by printing official documents only in English as a way for local councils to save money, which claims that it undermines community cohesion by encouraging segregation. The withdrawal of such translation services will increase the already significant barriers faced by people from BME communities in accessing support. Can I ask the Minister if she understands that this will be most difficult for the growing elderly population of BME disabled people?

The Government have acknowledged the need to develop approaches to meet the specific needs of BME disabled people as part of the Fulfilling Potential—Next Steps paper on their approach to the forthcoming disability strategy. When will the disability strategy emerge? The report found that social isolation was particularly acute for women in BME communities. Many women who took part in Scope’s focus groups said that their impairment compounded the isolation effects on their household and children’s roles, with other family members rarely making adjustments to support the management of their condition.

The stigma attached to disabled people can be widespread and acute. It is far from limited to BME communities, yet Scope’s report found that many people in BME communities felt that it was a particular problem for them. The report also found cases where the most acute source of discrimination was from family members themselves, demonstrating the need to improve attitudes towards disabled people within BME communities. There is a lot for these communities to do to improve their attitudes towards their disabled people. It is possible to change attitudes. It has taken a long time to reach the support and enthusiasm which surrounded the 2012 Paralympics—but it happened. Therefore, I hope that better facilities will emerge for the BME population.

13:15

[Baroness Berridge]

I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this debate. I agree with the noble Lord that the Government’s response to the serious issues in this report should be seen as part of the legacy of the Paralympics. It was so wonderful, day after day during the Paralympics, to see the achievements of the athletes and also to see disabled TV presenters such as Ade Adepitan. However, one should not overestimate the effect on our country. In my view, the programming has virtually returned to what it was before. Most notable in this regard was the hugely popular “BBC Sports Personality of the Year” programme, in which Paralympians were nominated for the award but all three presenters were from the Olympics coverage. However, during the Christmas holidays, I was impressed to stumble across the actor Christopher Slater, who has cerebral palsy and appears in “Tracy Beaker Returns”. I assure noble Lords that this was the Christmas choice of television viewing of my niece, not me.

This is, of course, a report about not only disabled people but also those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. As I mentioned in my maiden speech, I have had the privilege of getting to know many within the British black community. Therefore, I am not surprised by stories such as that yesterday about Stuart Lawrence, Stephen Lawrence’s brother, who has been stopped by the police more than 25 times. However, I am surprised by the legacy in this area. Often when I talk about these issues I am met with the comment, “You sound rather like the Labour Party”. The legacy here has been the overpoliticisation of the issues around black and minority ethnic communities and racial equality. It is important that these issues are not seen as a matter of left or right, or Labour or Conservative.

It is vital that politicians show national leadership in this area. These issues are complex and nuanced. Leadership is vital so that everyone has the confidence to contribute to the debate. I have also often met people who talk to me about these issues but suddenly clap their hand over their mouth and say, “Was that the wrong word to use? Have I just been racist?”. Usually, I cannot for the life of me identify the word they have just used to which they are referring. Although language is important and racism still exists, this oversensitisation, which we also saw in a discussion on immigration, is helpful neither to free speech nor to resolving the serious matters outlined in the report.

Of course, I have to admit that, in the past, the understanding of my party on these issues has not been exemplary. However, things have changed and continue to do so. Your Lordships have only to wander down the Corridor to the other place to see the number of black and minority ethnic MPs sitting on the Conservative Benches.

Important decisions and actions have also been taken, notably the Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill of Gavin Barwell MP, the removal of innocent people from the DNA database and the emphasis on the need for adoption and fostering of black and minority ethnic children. These are changes to key areas where black and minority ethnic communities have been disproportionately affected for too long. However, these should not be party political issues. I say cautiously to noble Lords that as a Parliament we may have some reflecting to do on accessibility to parliamentary employment and experience. What if you were to lay out the photos, without any further identifying information, of all those who have a security pass issued by a Member of either House? How would we score on ethnic minority inclusion and disability? I am not overly confident in that regard. If lobby journalists have begun to be self-analytical and concerned, as an article in the New Statesman last year indicated, we as parliamentarians should be as well.

I turn to the specific issues in the report. First, it is important to note that the report was issued before the 2011 census results regarding this community were produced. We have seen a rise in the relevant statistic from 8.7% of the people we are discussing in England and Wales having a black and minority ethnic background to a figure of 14% now, so I think it is correct to say that the 1 million BME disabled people mentioned in the report may well be a case of underreporting.

As regards underclaiming of benefits and access to services, much in the report reflects what was reported by the Department for Work and Pensions back in 2010. It is very worrying to read that there is a reversal of the normal maxim that the very poorest are the most likely to claim. Black and minority ethnic disabled people are often in poverty but are not claiming what they need. I wonder whether the Government have thought about trying to enlist the assistance of religious institutions that understand these issues in promoting benefit and service take-up.

An intriguing finding in the report is that there is a lower prevalence of impairments among black and minority ethnic disabled people of working age, but that over the age of 40 prevalence increases dramatically. What are the reasons, rather than hypotheses, for this increase in impairment among members of the BME disabled community who are over 40? I would be grateful to my noble friend the Minister if she would commit to look at the reasons as we could then look at prevention.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, issues arise around language barriers. The report highlights a further legacy: namely, the effects of having placed insufficient emphasis on the need to be proficient in English. Lack of language hampers the ability not only to access services and benefits but to take up many of the opportunities that are available in the UK. Whatever one’s views might be on spending public money on translation, I hope it is not contentious to say that in the future older people who are less proficient in English, and often therefore less well integrated, will require residential care. The report clearly highlights the increased needs of disabled people in black and minority ethnic communities as they age. Can we suddenly expect every person over the age of 55 who has little or no English to learn a new language at that stage? I doubt that. How will residential care homes adapt, given this ageing demographic of the black and minority ethnic disabled population? As schools cater for children with English as a second language, will we need residential care homes that cater for people who speak English as a second language? Have the Government anticipated this matter and what is their response to this ageing demographic issue? We are in the midst of the assessments for PIP, the replacement for the disability living allowance. Are the Government ensuring that language issues are not a barrier here? Will my noble friend the Minister outline the guidance that has been given to Capita and Atos, the head contractors?

It is easy to forget how difficult it can be for people who feel stigmatised, have language problems and are then faced with the language of bureaucracy and end up not claiming what they need. Before Christmas, I had the privilege of meeting a disability rights campaigner, Jane Young, who I think could give any adviser, even my noble friend Lord Freud, a run for his money as regards knowledge of the changes that we have introduced to welfare legislation. However, what struck me most was how upset she was when her disability meant that she was no longer fit for work, after having always worked up to that point. She exemplified a principle that I think rings true for most people—there are times when you give into the pot and times when you receive. It is a privilege to have paid into a system that supports people such as Jane Young.

13:24

[Lord Macdonald of Tradeston]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boateng for giving us this opportunity to discuss the problems of the estimated 1 million disabled people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. As he has made clear, the Scope report makes a persuasive case in arguing that ethnic communities in particular are underinformed and poorly served. Their difficulties in accessing treatment are obviously worsened by problems with language, form-filling and bureaucracy and by simply not understanding the jargon of well intentioned specialists.

I strongly support Scope’s recommendation that a network of BME advocates be developed to improve the quality of communication that is so vital in defining medical conditions, patient needs and the nature of the support and treatment available from local commissioners and service providers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said, very little is simple when dealing with the range and complexity of disabilities, yet what we may experience as frustration and exasperation can deepen into despair for those most in need, especially if they are also socially isolated. Sadly, many of those questioned during research for this report claimed that they were stigmatised and isolated inside their own BME communities.

Of course, disabled people have been, and still are, stigmatised across our society, despite the progress made in recent years and the extraordinarily positive impact of this summer’s Paralympic Games. The Scope report also rightly stresses that cultural differences must be acknowledged and respected. Certainly, we must be very sensitive to them, but we must also be robust in constantly challenging attitudes that are rooted in prejudice or ignorance, whatever the cultural factors that nurture hostility to disabled people across the UK, whether those people are ethnic or otherwise.

Scope is a national disability organisation providing information and support, particularly to those with cerebral palsy. Cerebral palsy is the most common motor disorder, with two or three cases occurring per 1,000 births. In the UK, that adds up over the years to 100,000 or more sufferers. In perhaps 20% of cerebral palsy cases there is also a related condition generally defined as dystonia. Here I declare an interest as patron of the Dystonia Society.

Dystonia is a neurological condition that causes involuntary and sometimes painful muscle spasms as a result of incorrect signals from the brain. Dystonia can affect many parts of the body. The symptoms include painful twisting of the neck, what we call writers’ cramp, eyes clamping shut, limbs contorting or difficulties simply in speaking or eating. An estimated 70,000 adults and children in the UK have some form of dystonia, of which there are more than 30 different types. The experience of the Dystonia Society may highlight some of the problems that voluntary groups face in relation to those in the BME communities with less common disabilities.

When a disability is little known or rare, the problems of access to treatment faced by black and minority ethnic sufferers are further increased. First, the general lack of awareness of dystonic symptoms is even lower in BME communities. Secondly, since dystonia sufferers often struggle to have their condition properly treated, those from BME backgrounds bereft of support and advocacy risk further marginalisation in the provision of services. However, lack of awareness does not imply lack of importance. Although individual diseases may be rare, collectively they present a major problem for the National Health Service. It is estimated that rare diseases of some kind will affect about 6% of the UK population at some time, perhaps 3.5 million people in total.

On that calculation, perhaps 300,000 or 400,000 people from BME communities will suffer at some point from a rare disease. Unfortunately, many will continue to suffer in silence, undiagnosed and untreated, unless their problems are more actively addressed. Too often we lack the evidence to pin down these problems.

For example, with lesser known conditions, the incidence of dystonia is still uncertain because the epidemiological data are limited. Worldwide there have been some studies that suggest that its prevalence is similar across Chinese, Egyptian and Asian groups studied, but for our BME communities in Britain, such as the Afro-Caribbean community, the data are very limited. It is therefore quite possible that prevalence in some communities is higher than average. For instance, it is known that a gene that causes generalised dystonia—the DYT1 gene—has a disproportionate incidence among Ashkenazi Jews. Despite the good work done by Jewish Genetic Disorders UK to increase awareness of the condition, the Jewish community in the UK is probably not as well informed as that in the United States.

Other problem areas are delays in both timely diagnosis and access to specialist treatment. The average time to diagnosis for dystonia is still longer than three years. For BME communities, we suspect that the delays must be even longer, but again we cannot be sure because no data are available on times to diagnosis. Neurologists who work with groups of dystonia patients also report that participants are very largely white and British born. Similarly, the 3,000-strong membership of the Dystonia Society does not reflect the likely incidence of the condition in BME communities, and ethnic minorities make little contact with our advice line or information website. That is despite the commendable efforts of Dystonia Society staff and the 38 branches to increase awareness and engagement across the country.

The truth is that voluntary organisations like ours, which help those with rare diseases, tend to be too small and underresourced to do effective outreach work with scattered BME sufferers. The Dystonia Society and others like it would therefore welcome the opportunity to contribute their specialist expertise to, for instance, the national race equality strategy advocated by Scope. We are also keen to work within the new structures of the National Health Service, especially at local level, on targeted information campaigns to build awareness of rare disabilities and to develop more comprehensive databases to ensure fairer access to services.

We should support the call on the Department of Health to provide leadership in improving collaboration among local authorities, the new clinical commissioning groups, service providers and ethnic communities on all disability issues. The Scope report, with its extensive research and cogent analysis, includes a series of other recommendations that seem, at least to me, both practical and affordable. I hope that the Minister will agree.

13:32

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, when I originally saw the debate I was not going to speak, but then I had a little thought. I am dyslexic and have talked in this Chamber about dyslexia probably far too often. Vested and self-interests have been declared so often. One thing that people who are dyslexic have in common is the great difficulty we have in accessing forms and form-based information on benefits and access to the next point. That is what drew me in, because 10% of the population are dyslexic, a percentage of whom come from black and ethnic minorities. Suddenly there is a group with a double whammy.

If we have to access something by filling out a form, which is how we do it, we are in trouble if we cannot do it. If people do not get the help that is offered—and let us face it, we can all agree that Governments rarely offer money or support services for any length of time if there is no demand or need—we will have problems. If we do not fulfil these needs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, those who need them most will not get them.

An expression that I am far too fond of using, which I shall use again now, is that if you are a disabled person it is generally reckoned that you will do okay if you select your parents correctly. Articulate people who know how to play the system, have good English written skills and can express themselves well in consultations get through well, on average, thanks to the work that has gone on in this place over time. We have embedded culturally the fact that help should be given and have given it legal backing. That is one of the truths of the system. Hence dyslexia is the middle-class disease. Middle-class people who are dyslexic spot it, and decide to do something about the problem. When they cannot get help from the state they usually buy it from elsewhere. Other disability groups have similar stories at certain levels.

We then get to a group that cannot do that. The problems multiply and we end up paying for that in other places. There is low economic activity and a higher prison population in the case of people with dyslexia, for example. Other groups—the hidden disability groups—share this problem, and the group of people whom we are discussing are all paying for the failure to get them out there. Indeed, it has been suggested that there are more mental problems among people in this group. If we take another group, part of which is in this one, and add the fact that someone cannot communicate well in either spoken or written English, should we be surprised that there is an extra problem when trying to access help that society has decided is beneficial to society as well as the individual? The answer is, of course, no.

The only debate that I had with myself is whether this is an individual cocktail or layers of difficulty each time. That is about as far as it has gone. It is a case of how we get through and how we access help. I am sure that the current Government will not say that we do not want people to access this as it would cost money in the medium term if not the short term, and would be against all principles of fairness. But how will we do it? Translation services are clearly vital to many of these groups, particularly if someone is a new arrival and cannot access the language, either written or spoken. There may be a case for not having translations of every document for everybody.

I would be much more reassured if I heard today that the Government will encourage small, user-led groups to do this work. If cultural awareness and sensitivity are there, they may well do a very good job. Other reports, not even in the pack provided by the Library, show a misunderstanding of what is available and what benefits are supposed to do. Incredibly well entrenched in some of those groups were misunderstandings about benefits, such as: we are not supposed to get them; they are not for us; they will do everything for us; and so on. If that can start to be addressed by using voluntary sectors or the smaller groups referred to, we will start to address the problem reasonably.

We are calling on volunteers to help us on this occasion, but if we can ensure that the Government guarantee that this takes place we will solve many of these problems of communication by making sure that help is there for those who need it and that they get it. This problem is not, of course, totally confined to this group, although the evidence suggests that it is more intense here. Making sure that we identify and bring information to those who need it is very important.

My second point, which will be my last one, is on the Government’s language and the briefing that came from Scope—not the report itself—and the fact that people are very worried about “red-tape equality assessments”, and so on. When sitting on the Benches in front of where the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, sits now, I had to deal with health and safety issues for my party. I came to the conclusion that everybody was against red tape in health and safety until their child was up the ladder. That might be slightly cynical but only slightly.

Something is red tape only when you do not think that you need it—it is just something to deal with. On occasions all Governments tick-box things and all Governments must fight against it. However, if an essential duty is being fulfilled by what is put forward, tick-boxing is necessary. That bit of red tape is needed to hold the bundle together. Unless we can make sure when we talk about this that the regulations are necessary and as simple and as straightforward as possible, we are in trouble.

I am hearing from the disability community an increasing worry about certain statements, such as, “We are going to get rid of these unnecessary regulations”. Can we make sure that we get rid of unnecessary regulations but not the legal duty that is there? That is what we are interested in. We can rewrite and make the regulations simpler and easier to understand, but let us not for one minute suggest that we are getting rid of the legal duty that is required and which most of us agree is essential for ensuring that we have a civilised and fair society.

13:40

[Lord Ouseley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for introducing this debate and giving us the opportunity to consider the excellent Scope report and the issues contained in it, and bring them before the House to enable the Minister to respond. I also thank him for enabling us to pick up on any other related issues in the area of disabilities as they affect black and minority ethnic communities.

The challenge facing policymakers and decision-makers is to understand the multiple disadvantages being faced by black and minority ethnic disabled people, and to collaborate with community-based and community-led organisations to determine appropriate and effective responses. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had to say, this resonates well with how we involve people who are able to relate to those who have needs and how we help them to respond to these needs at the earliest opportunity.

Where available, the data show black and minority ethnic people having disproportionate adverse experiences of access to income, education and essential support services, in the job market and in utilising public facilities. When we add the disability characteristics, we find that the situation is considerably worse. Increasing numbers of BME disabled people are experiencing discrimination and disadvantages because of a combination of factors, including race, ethnicity, class, poverty, status and where they live. The latter is an important discriminatory feature that we must also consider.

The wide range of disabilities requires appropriate responses, whether the disabilities exist from birth, develop through disease or injury, or occur because of ageing and infirmity. My contribution is particularly concerned with two areas of disability. The first is that which is due to ageing and infirmity. The second regards mental illness. As they advance in age, more BME people are experiencing many forms of disability and impairment. My mother, who is 85 years old, disabled and bed-bound, is in the fortunate position of having care provided for her on a 24/7 basis. My siblings and I are able to make that provision without recourse to external involvement. However, many people are unable to experience that support. Many like her, with similar afflictions and who may not be able to obtain the same level of support, will more likely than not experience a diminishing quality of life in their latter years.

Quality of life and quality of care are essential components of growing old with dignity. As a society we are currently grappling to find solutions to the cost implications of making appropriate provision for the care needs of a growing elderly population with multiple impairments and disabilities. I have worked in old people’s and adult care homes with people with severe conditions, and I pay tribute to those who are carers. Occasionally we hear stories of where people have been let down by standards of care but on the whole we see in this situation committed and dedicated people helping others, whether in a professional capacity or on a voluntary basis. In the context of today’s debate it is important to acknowledge the work done by BME carers, both within the family setting and in voluntary self-help settings.

As the previous chair of an organisation called the Policy Research Institute on Ageing and Ethnicity, I had the benefit of observing at first hand for more than a decade the significant contribution of BME-led adult care organisations which reach out to BME elders across the country. Considerable work was done in outreach activities to make them aware of the increasing prevalence of dementia, so that the elders could be referred to services at the earlier stage of the condition. This work also addressed their multiple and complex health needs.

This is a good moment to remind the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, that he was involved in helping to launch a study with PRIAE in 1999, Managing Dementia and Ethnicity, which resulted in a film called “Dementia Matters”. The study has been distributed widely among educators and people in the profession.

Without minority ethnic, age or specialist organisations that cater for such groups directly, BME elders with disabilities would remain invisible and, worse, would still not be supported. The challenge for mainstream organisations, including large equality ones, is whether they are prepared to engage with and invest in minority initiatives and organisations. BME communities are part of British society. BME elders with disabilities are British, yet we see the dangers of parallel but unequal services developing, with different organisational resources, funding, capabilities and life spans.

That trend is even more accentuated in the area of BME mental health sufferers. Undoubtedly, in the area of mental health disability there are outrageous disparities. For example, the life expectancy of people from the UK’s African-Caribbean communities who come into contact with services under the Mental Health Act is reduced by a staggering 25 years, as they are routinely labelled schizophrenic or psychotic. Early intervention and culturally appropriate services remain at best sparse and at worst non-existent. There is an extensive body of evidence cited by Black Mental Health UK that indicates that the UK’s African-Caribbean communities are subject to the most coercive and punitive treatment, often with fatal consequences.

Deaths in custody and reduced life expectancy have blighted many African-Caribbean households. It is known that more than 50% of those who lose their lives in police custody are mental health service clients. The same data from the Equality and Human Rights Commission reveal that 20% of deaths in police custody involve black men, who represent less than 3% of the national population.

What is being done to safeguard BME disabled rights? Effective advocacy provision, particularly led by BME organisations, would be an essential requirement to assist in achieving fairness; this at present is lacking. Individuals being treated under the Mental Health Act, whether in hospital or in the community, have the right to access an independent mental health advocate to ensure that their rights are observed and that they are treated fairly. Black patients in detained settings do not have access to effective advocacy. In far too many cases, they are not even informed of this right.

Black Mental Health UK is deeply concerned about the effects of treatment to BME disabled people with mental health illnesses. Black people presented to the service are routinely labelled as psychotic and given high doses of anti-psychotic medication, which come with a raft of side effects that include irregular heartbeat, cardiac arrest, muscle and joint pain, jerkiness similar to the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, severe sexual dysfunction, rapid weight gain, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and reduced life expectancy. These matters must be addressed as part of any overall strategy, and within the particular context of mental health.

I will raise one final concern: the presence of police, often in riot gear, on psychiatric wards. High-profile death in custody cases have reinforced distrust both of the police and of mental health services. It is necessary that there should be a consistent mechanism for monitoring deaths that occur after police restraint on psychiatric wards. Only in cases where there is a high-profile fatality and the family are vocal about the incident are such matters brought to public attention. It is right that the Minister should respond and say how we will seek to share information in an open and accountable way that will enable those who provide support services for those with mental health illnesses to be made aware of how they can contribute to ensuring that the latter’s rights are safeguarded.

13:50

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing such an important and timely debate. I also thank Scope for the excellent briefings it made available, and the Equalities National Council for its very insightful report and studies.

There are at least 1 million disabled people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds in the United Kingdom. We know that many face considerable difficulties in their daily lives yet are unable to access the services that they need. We heard in the most recent census about the demographic changes in our society that mean that there will be many more BME disabled people in future. It is therefore important that provision and policies are developed in a timely way for disabled people who rely on these services.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, I care for my disabled mother, who is 80 and whose language skills are not very good. She cannot read English very well, despite being in this country for many years. I do not know how she would cope without me. She probably would not be able to remain in her home without my family’s support.

I will talk today about the plight of disabled children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. I declare a personal interest in the issue; I have a grandson who has disabilities and special needs. He receives support from a number of excellent voluntary agencies. The report rightly highlights the problem that BME disabled people’s needs and views have fallen between the two policy areas of disability and race equality. Finding ways to bring these two policy fields together is becoming more urgent and important for developing effective support. This is a classic example of how people from BME communities struggle and face double discrimination.

Yesterday I was in Grand Committee, arguing against proposals to make changes to the Equality Act and to the remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The case was made very strongly by many noble Lords that we need to retain a strong and robust commission that retains its general duty to promote work that enables disabled people, as well as people from other protected groups, to participate in society with dignity. That phrase came across quite strongly yesterday. The commission should also retain a duty to promote and encourage favourable treatment of disabled people and to work towards eliminating prejudice and hate towards disadvantaged groups, which include disabled people from BME communities.

The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, asked an important question about the Red Tape Challenge that I will repeat because it is so important. When it was launched, I was very concerned that the Equality Act, a piece of primary legislation that affects the lives of so many people, was included in its remit. Will the Red Tape Challenge be used to reduce the public service equality duty? This is exercising and concerning many groups that rely on it.

Nearly half of all minority ethnic disabled people live in household poverty, compared with one in five of the population as a whole. Overall, we know that families from minority ethnic groups caring for a severely disabled child are even more disadvantaged than white families in a similar situation. Families’ experiences, needs and circumstances vary across ethnic groups.

Carers for people from BME communities are not always aware of the support that is available to them. A key way of addressing this would be for social care services to develop stronger links with local BME communities. I was struck by the case highlighted in the report of Anwar, a 16 year-old boy with complex physical needs and learning difficulties. It is a very good example, and sadly by no means unusual. For several years, Anwar lived alone in an unadapted flat above his family’s corner shop. He had no wheelchair and no way of getting down the stairs independently. He was not in school or able to access any services, and his only contact was with his family. Although they visited regularly, if he wanted to leave the house he had to be carried down the stairs by his brother. It was not until a neighbour told the family about a local support group, which he learnt about having met them at the local mosque, that Anwar’s circumstances changed. A support worker ensured that he was allocated a social services care package, given a wheelchair and eventually rehoused in an accessible ground floor flat, where he is able to live independently. As I said, this is a typical case.

Stigma is also a big issue that affects many minority communities. It can lead to social isolation, with families and carers struggling to cope behind closed doors for fear that they will be made social outcasts and blamed or in some way held responsible for their child’s disability. During my 16 years as a councillor in inner-city boroughs in Hackney and Islington with high levels of disability among BME communities, I spent much of my time on casework when people came to me to raise these issues. Many Turkish families came to see me because they had got nowhere with mainstream services. Because I could talk to them in Turkish, I was able to act as an advocate and try to get the most basic services for them. It was heartbreaking that they had to come to their councillor to get these services. What would have happened had I not been there? That is the test.

The report mentions that it is more usual for Muslim and Hindu communities to face social isolation and stigma. Recently I heard of a Turkish father struggling with his severely autistic child whose behaviour was extremely challenging. His wife had attempted suicide because of the strain of the situation and the lack of support. The father, whose English was not great, was the main carer and was unaware of the support that was available to him to apply for. Thankfully, he was referred to an excellent charity, Centre 404, based in Islington, where a Turkish specialist worker was able to help him apply for additional services such as much-needed respite support. We have heard how interpreting services and advocacy play a key role in this sort of case and in many others. Are the Government encouraging local authorities to ensure that advocacy is available to BME communities and carers? It can make such a difference in enabling a better and dignified life as opposed to an existence.

The examples I mentioned illustrate the reality that the mainstream social care system—my noble friend Lord Addington touched on this—is effectively adversarial. In effect, people compete for services. The most articulate and assertive—or those whose families or carers are the most articulate and assertive—are more likely to succeed and to get the right services. Specialist knowledge and research is also needed into ways of accessing support. For many families and carers from a BME background, it is incredibly difficult to navigate through the system to get the additional support that can make such a difference to their life chances and to their ability to fulfil their potential. Stigma and social isolation are widespread among carers for the disabled from a BME background, especially women.

The report highlights the importance of services operating at local level having close relationships with community groups such as mosques.

One of the key recommendations, which has already been mentioned, is that following the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination there have been recommendations from Scope and other race equality groups that the Government develop a national race equality strategy. I want to underline the importance of this and ask the Minister if this is being taken seriously. These issues urgently need national leadership. Some of the concerns that I and others have raised are that, going by the proposals to reduce the duties that I mentioned earlier, the present mood music and signals are not encouraging. I will also ask the Minister about equality impact assessments. When producing new policy or legislation, as recommended, will these important matters continue to receive support?

13:59

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, people from BME communities are significantly under-represented in the uptake of learning disability services. This is despite the much higher prevalence of learning disability in certain BME groups. For example, it is up to three times higher than average in some south Asian populations. It is also higher than average in the African and Caribbean community. The number of people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities is predicted to increase substantially over the next 20 years.

Research shows that minority groups have a different experience of mental health services and different outcomes from treatment compared to the white majority, as explained by my noble friend Lord Ouseley. The noble Lord’s comments also apply to people with learning disabilities who also have mental health problems. Valuing People Now, the Government's three-year strategy published in 2009 for people with a learning disability, spelt out the changes needed to make sure that the most excluded groups would benefit fully from health and social care services. I agree with many other speakers that failing to take into account differences in race, religion and cultural identity is the same as ignoring the needs of what can become a vulnerable and excluded group.

Black and minority ethnic groups have been shown to be at increased risk of mental health problems and those from black communities are more likely to be admitted to hospital than those from other ethnic groups. There are various reasons thought to contribute to this increase. For example, for first generation migrants, the actual event of migration is often a traumatic occurrence with major disruptions to family and other lifelong attachments. Many have difficulties adapting to a new culture. Migration is in itself a risk factor for psychiatric illness, particularly psychosis. However, following migration, communities can experience other challenges and insults that can further predispose them to mental health problems and subsequently maintain them.

Some have uncertain asylum status, living in limbo for several months or years while their application is considered, and rejection of asylum may lead to significant mental health problems. Although 90% of asylum applications made in the United Kingdom are rejected, the majority stay on, often because they have no passport or their country of origin will not take them back. Those allowed to stay have the same rights as citizens, but the experience of earlier traumatic events, coupled with new problems related to acculturation, may impede their uptake of services. Several studies, including one by the Leicestershire Learning Disability Register, found that people with learning disabilities from minority ethnic communities have similar levels of mental health and behaviour problems, but that their carers experience significantly more stress and receive less support than their white European counterparts. Low household income and more than one person with a learning disability in the household were also associated with high carer stress. It is perhaps significant that one study found that 19% of south Asian families have more than one child with a learning disability.

Differences in perception of mental health within various cultures and poor knowledge of availability of services can also significantly influence the health-seeking behaviour of people who have mental health problems and individuals with learning disabilities or their families. Some of these barriers are easier to overcome than others. Some take time and dedication and a truly person-centred approach—no two service users are the same. All available research shows consensus in terms of a lack of awareness of services being a major barrier to people from minority ethnic communities accessing care. Mencap and the Institution for Local Government found that families and carers from BME communities knew little about the services they could use or how those services operated and what their rights were. Information about services was so often found to be inaccessible and not in the right language. Language and communication difficulties present problems for potential service users and their families in terms of accessing and using services. Often clinicians have to rely on a family member to interpret and this can lead to further problems in terms of confidentiality and disclosure of information, which may be particularly concerning if there are safeguarding issues.

It may also be the case that family members who interpret select the information they want to disclose, thus withholding important information. When I was acting in clinical practice, I certainly had that experience. Even when professional interpreters are used, families may be hesitant to disclose personal or sensitive information via an interpreter from that same small community. Cultural factors and belief systems may have powerful influences over how families respond and may have significant impact on how or if support is sought. Some cultures may have different ideas about the cause of a disability and choose to seek more traditional healing methods. They may not be interested in exploring western medicine or western educational, psychological or rehabilitative programmes. They may even misunderstand the concept of learning disability and expect a “cure” for their family member's problem.

Research by Mencap showed that many families and carers feel isolated and powerless. A common misconception is that people in BME communities get a lot of support from extended families—which sometimes they do—and therefore need fewer services, such as respite. One professional working in learning disability support within a predominantly Bangladeshi community said:

“The shame and taboo surrounding learning disability makes it difficult for mothers to get help and support. They get little practical support from their families and little emotional support either. The situation is so bad that mothers are more likely to seek help from agencies that are outside their community rather than from Bangladeshi specialist agencies”.

Family roles and dynamics vary greatly across different cultures. Within some cultures, family structures and relationships are hierarchical and women can have a very different role from that in western cultures. Consanguinous unions may be acceptable and commonplace and may contribute to the increased prevalence of learning disability and other severe disabilities. If there are clashes between the views of families and professionals as to which decision is made in the best interests of the patient, a family may subsequently avoid engaging with services. A colleague gave me an example: she was requested by the forced marriage unit to conduct a capacity assessment for consent to be married. The man was a Pakistani gentleman with moderate learning disability who had been taken to Pakistan a couple of months earlier to be married. Although the man was clearly very fond of his wife, he had little understanding of the concept of marriage or of sexual relationships. His parents believed that the marriage was in his best interests and my colleague formed the view that interference by professionals would have caused great conflict between the family and services, and possibly resulted in future non-engagement with professionals.

Currently, many services lack appropriate provision for people from BME groups with learning disabilities. They may be culturally insensitive, not taking into account issues such as the gender mix of services. Many families prefer their disabled female relatives to be cared for in a female environment. Other services perceive BME communities as a homogenous group and may not take into account the many differences found between different communities and fail to identify service users as individuals with their own set of unique needs. There are many incidents of people falling through gaps in the care system. For example, the eligibility criteria used by services mean there must be a clear history of developmental delay. However, such histories are often not available in first generation migrants and problems in language and lack of educational opportunities in their country of origin makes such assessments even more complicated and sometimes invalid. People may be lost as follow-up, due to frequent changes of address during transition from child to adult services. Improving services requires a considerable amount of flexibility from providers in order to engage with the various minority communities effectively.

I want to end by thinking about the importance of cultural competency as an essential component to our services. I hope the Minister will agree above all that a person-centred and culturally competent approach will be key to the success of services in the future.

14:10

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech highlighting disability issues, which are causing major concerns to the black and ethnic minority communities across the country. These concerns of inequality and the lack of understanding of needs are clearly outlined in the Scope report, as we have heard throughout the debate.

I should like to concentrate on one particular area covering those who suffer from sickle cell disorder. I declare an interest as a patron of the Sickle Cell Society. My contribution is based on evidence-based statements from experts, which are the experiences, opinions and views of the Sickle Cell Society’s stakeholders—that is, the professionals, service users and user groups from within the networks of the Sickle Cell Society and the UK Thalassaemia Society.

I was dismayed by the relevant evidence sent to me which expressed the frustration faced within the BME community by those suffering from sickle cell and the challenges posed by the appalling response in addressing the needs of BME people living with disability.

Sickle cell disorder is not a visible disability but its nature affects patients almost from birth and then has a marked social impact, including an inability to work, early death, stigma attached to disability, the need for repeated, unexpected admissions and a severe reaction to opiates, which are often given in error by medical staff, who in many cases are unfamiliar with the condition.

There are a number of key issues that I should like to cover which I believe will show just how necessary it is for action to be taken and for urgent consideration to be given to sufferers with this disability. BME people living with sickle cell suffer from the specialised nature of the disability that is unique to sickle cell sufferers. As I have said, the disability is invisible and varies between and within individuals. Feedback from the sector clearly identifies that those conducting the statutory assessment of disability need to be aware of these issues. A report by those dealing closely with sickle cell sufferers concludes that those with the condition almost always fail the initial statutory assessment that channels candidates through the Government’s Fair Access to Care Services, which is required for most disability welfare support entitlements.

Research has also shown that an inhumanity impact is experienced by sufferers. The loss of welfare entitlements is increasingly reducing people with disability as a result of sickle cell disorder to exist in inhumane living conditions. This social justice failure is a serious indictment of our society. Evidence also shows that such is the stigma of disability that some people would rather not undergo the ordeal of the label, despite the benefits to which it may entitle them, assuming that they are able to successfully brave the challenging FACS assessment.

There is also an NHS cost impact because, as a result of wrongful assessment under the FACS test, sufferers are forced to depend on acute hospital services, with huge cost implications for the NHS budget.

Prescription charges are another big issue that have a profound effect on sickle cell patients. A regular supply of medication is crucial. Evidence shows the beneficial effect of hydroxycarbamide medication in reducing the number and length of hospital admissions in this patient group. This clearly represents NHS cost savings as well as increased patient life expectancy. However, because of high prescription costs, many patients decline medication or frequently run out of supplies, making treatment ineffective and resulting in costly A&E attendances and hospital admissions. This is because the severe nature of the disease and complications may result in prolonged admissions, exchange blood transfusion and costly intensive care.

I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government will consider the idea of all sickle cell patients being exempt from prescription charges. The number will be small as, of the 12,500 sufferers, 60% are children and some of the adults are on welfare benefit, so it will mainly include those in work, who are often low paid or part-time owing to the nature of the disorder and its impact on their ability to study and work full-time.

There is some anxiety among those involved with sickle cell services that the complexity of the services needed effectively places them largely outside the scope of the clinical commissioning groups. Many are concerned about the type of policies that will be in place to ensure that a patient-centred, integrated approach to care engages primary care and community interests across health, social and community care. This is to help to reduce morbidity, needless hospital care and the health inequalities experienced by this seriously marginalised sector.

There are expectations that not only CCGs but local health and well-being boards should aim to reflect the make-up of their respective client communities. So, given that the steady establishment of CCGs and the view that community provision of sickle cell disorder management have a major role to play across the country, especially in high-risk areas within CCGs, can the Minister tell the House what priority is being given by CCGs to people in the sickle cell and thalassaemia community, who are feeling concerned, vulnerable and anxious about the situation and their future?

As yet, there is no cure for sickle cell and more research is needed both for a cure and for the treatment of current sufferers. The existing treatment involves a form of chemotherapy, which can have harmful side effects, such as damage to the immune system. Fortunately, Sparks, a charity which provides funding into research for childhood diseases—I declare an interest as a trustee—is funding a research project that aims to investigate the possibility of a safer, less toxic and more targeted therapy. However, in the mean time, there needs to be widespread education and awareness among those who assess the level of disability of sickle cell sufferers. They need to be made more aware and educated about the situation faced by people living with sickle cell and its associated conditions.

The Government also need to seriously improve the awareness of the wider population about the plight of people living with this inherited blood disorder and the disabilities that they may be facing, quite often invisibly so.

I know that the Sickle Cell Society, the UK Thalassaemia Society and the UK Forum on Haemoglobin Disorders would be more than willing to meet the appropriate government departments and agencies to discuss how they can work together to address the serious concerns that I have highlighted. I hope that this offer will be acted upon.

As the last US election showed, BME communities vote for people who they consider address their needs and concerns. This should be food for thought for us on this side of the Atlantic. I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response, as I know that she is always sympathetic to inequality issues and, like me, strives towards a just and fair society.

14:18

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for initiating it.

When I read the well-researched report produced by the charity Scope, and several others that I have looked up, and the many obstacles that disabled people in the black and minority ethnic communities have to face, it led me to reflect back to the days of discrimination based on colour, how long it took for us to address the issue and the legislation required to get rid of it.

Studies now show that people with disabilities—black, ethnic minority and white—face similar discrimination, but those from black and minority ethnic communities face further discrimination based on a lack of understanding by those who commission and provide services. Other noble Lords have already mentioned examples, such as the need for better and appropriate communication, the lack of understanding of the stigma attached to disability in some cultures, health services both for physical and mental health, and the failure to understand the differing needs of black and minority ethnic people with disabilities.

We have heard on several occasions in this Chamber how people with disabilities are discriminated against, particularly from the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Grey-Thompson. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, described how she becomes invisible when trying to get a taxi or catch a bus, despite being one of the most recognised faces in the land.

The Scope report findings confirm that there is discrimination against people with disabilities in black and minority ethnic groups. It says:

“We found little evidence of direct racism in service provision and encountered no reports of staff being explicitly discriminatory. We did find evidence of discrimination on the grounds of disability … Consistent low-level discrimination can have a serious impact on people’s wellbeing. Non-discriminatory practice is about more than accommodating cultural preferences”.

The Scope study also identifies several issues relating to health—issues that commissioners and providers of health services should be aware of, and I hope that the Government will make sure that the Department of Health notices this report. It goes on to state that,

“black and minority ethnic disabled people are … less likely to access healthcare services. Evidence shows that they suffer from poorer health, have a shorter life expectancy and yet are less able to access care than the majority white population. Despite large amounts of research, and a variety of local and national strategies for change—including the … Delivering Race Equality in Mental Health initiative introduced in 2005—these problems remain.

Research … indicates that only a minority of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi disabled people … interviewed had had any contact with hospitals, physiotherapists, and specialist care”.

The only people who fare well in the report are GPs, who,

“provide a notable exception to this trend, and numerous studies report that GP surgeries provide a key access point to services for BME people … Yet there is … evidence to suggest that … prejudices are alleviated by close contact with medical services. Indeed, western medical paradigms may provide some relief from stress for families burdened by feelings of shame or stigma”,

in some cultures. The report also notes several recommendations for commissioners and providers of health, and, as I said, I hope that the Government will take notice of them.

I should now like to devote a few minutes to allude to the problems faced by black and minority ethnic families with a severely disabled child. Before I do so, I declare an interest as a trustee of the White Top Foundation, which over the years has given tens of millions of pounds to make life better for families with a severely disabled child, and to care for these children. I am pleased to say that this charity continues to carry out this work.

The study I will refer to was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and was carried out by the University of York and the University of Bradford. It used the same methodology that it had used to study white families with severely disabled children. The findings, which were quite salutary, were as follows:

“Families from ethnic minority groups experience even greater disadvantage and difficulties in caring for a severely disabled child than their white counterparts”.

The study was,

“based on interviews with 600 ethnic minority parents of severely disabled children”,

throughout England, and, as I said, it was carried out jointly by researchers at the two universities. They found that:

“Most families had net incomes below £200 a week. Those experiencing the greatest economic disadvantage were lone parent families—a group that included two out of three Black African/Caribbean families … Levels of employment were low, including three out of four mothers who had no work … Fewer parents were receiving Disability Living Allowance or Invalid Care Allowance compared with white families previously surveyed. Although all the ethnic minority parents interviewed were caring for a child with severe disabilities, they were less likely to have been awarded benefit at the higher rates. Parents who understood English well had much higher levels of benefit take-up than those with a limited understanding. Among one in three Asian parents who said they needed translation help when talking to health and social care professionals, a large minority had not been provided with an interpreter. There was little evidence to support stereotypes—

which often develop among social workers—

“suggesting that ethnic minority families generally benefit from extended family support”.

The study found that,

“Fewer mothers received practical and emotional support from partners than white counterparts … Ethnic minority parents reported that their disabled children had many more unmet needs than white families in the earlier survey. Half identified seven or more areas where they needed more support than currently provided. This included help with their child’s learning, communication and physical abilities, access to leisure opportunities and learning about culture and religion”.

As Professor Waqar Ahmad, who was co-author of the report, said:

“We know from the previous national survey that financial difficulties, unmet needs and inadequate support networks are common problems among families who care for severely disabled children.

But this research reveals that there is an added depth and intensity to the problems faced by ethnic minority families which policy makers must take on board as a matter of urgency. Poor communication with professional care services, lack of recognition of parents’ needs, as well as lack of support and high levels of economic disadvantage, have left too many of these families living ‘on the edge’”.

My question to the Minister is: will the Government’s disability strategy include implementation plans involving all the various government departments, and how will the implementation be monitored?

As noble Baronesses speaking in this debate outnumber noble Lords by three to one, I dare say that women in all communities are more likely to be carers of disabled children. However, for BME women, the experience of social isolation is disproportionately high. Reducing social isolation can be achieved through greater community involvement in the design, commissioning and delivery of services. What steps will the Government take to enable greater community involvement, particularly of BME groups, in the co-design, commissioning and delivery of services?

14:27

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the RNIB, and I hold a number of other roles in the disability sector that are declared in the register. I am particularly glad to have this opportunity to make a brief contribution in the gap, because the Minister will recall that only yesterday, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, we debated the Government’s efforts to strip measures and resources that support the equality agenda out of the Equality Act and the EHRC. I cast doubt on the Government’s commitment to the equality agenda. I therefore congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, particularly warmly on securing this debate today, for nothing could demonstrate more cogently that I was on the right track than this excellent report.

It is worrying that the Government seek to review the use of both the public sector equality duty and equality impact assessments, potentially undermining the framework for making progress in addressing the needs of black and minority ethnic disabled people. It is of great concern that the review has been announced as an outcome of the Government’s exercise to cut red tape.

In response to a letter from Doreen Lawrence, the mother of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister stress the need to make the promotion of race equality central to the way that public authorities work. The public sector equalities duty should be seen as a powerful tool for achieving this. The review should happen, as originally planned, in 2015, when there will be sufficient evidence of whether the duty is working as intended. The Prime Minister’s recent statement that it was time to call time on the equality impact assessments reinforces my concern that equalities issues are slipping down the Government’s agenda.

Given the evident need to give more priority to the needs of black and minority ethnic disabled people, it is worrying that the Government are looking to reduce the ability to determine the impact of public policy on protected groups. Although the Prime Minister may consider them bureaucratic nonsense, equality impact assessments are in fact an essential means of ensuring that policies do not adversely affect those groups that were already disadvantaged. This is not about tick-box stuff, as the Prime Minister calls it; rather, it is a means of ensuring that policymakers have the right information to make informed decisions.

The Scope report highlights the fact that the BME disabled population is growing rapidly. In September 2011, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination criticised the Government’s failure to address racial equality and introduce a national race equality strategy. The refreshed disability strategy to be published in May, linked to a race equality strategy and underpinned by a joint implementation plan and bringing together the Office for Disability Issues, the Government Equalities Office and the DCLG, presents an excellent opportunity to address the issues facing BME disabled people that have been rehearsed in this debate.

14:30

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Boateng for bringing forward this debate. I asked a Question about this report in the House when it was first published, so I am very pleased that we have been able to have this debate today. I congratulate Scope on an excellently researched report.

Almost everything that can be said about the importance and urgency of this issue has been eloquently said by most noble Lords; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Low, has pretty much stolen my thunder. I intend to ask three questions about the report, and I am putting them in the context of what the Government are doing to their equality strategy at present, which was also alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece. The Government’s review of the public sector equality duties and equality impact assessments has the potential to undermine the framework for making progress in this area, and we need to be quite clear about that. Indeed, that might answer some of the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, had when she was wondering why this might have become a party political issue. While it ought not to have become a party political issue, this is possibly the crux of why it has become one.

Scope has been very concerned about the potential shift within government to a more watered-down commitment to assessing equality implications as a crucial part of decision-making. The noble Lord, Lord Low, referred to the fact that the Prime Minister said to the CBI that the Government were calling time on equality impact assessments, and indeed a statement from the Minister at the DCLG just this week has said that that department is informing local councils that equality impact assessments are not mandatory. That is the unhelpful context in which this discussion is taking place.

If we see a diminution in the commitment to monitoring, consulting and impact measurement, that also needs to be seen in the context of the impact of the welfare reforms that the Government are pursuing with regard to disabled people. Here is just one fact: disabled people have seen a drop in income of £500 million since the emergency Budget of 2010, and recent reports have shown that cuts have ranged from £200 to £2,065 in a typical disabled household over the past year.

Despite widespread criticism, the Government have refused to monitor the impact of their welfare reforms as they are implemented in order to understand how they affect disabled people and their families and mitigate any adverse impacts where possible. Impact assessments should consider not just aggregated impacts from one specific policy but the cumulative impact of several policies on individuals and their families. It is in that context that I pose my three questions.

First, the Government’s Fulfilling Potential—Next Steps White Paper, on their approach to the forthcoming disability strategy, emphasises the need to build better linkages between government departments and agencies to work together to achieve shared objectives for disabled people facing multiple disadvantages. Will the Minister confirm that this will include the development of a joint implementation plan between the Office for Disability Issues and the Government Equalities Office as well as other government departments, as recommended by Scope?

Secondly, following criticism from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, what plans do the Government have to implement a national race equality strategy? What plans do they have to ensure that the overlaps between different equality characteristics in future equality impact assessments are recognised, given that the needs of BME disabled people are not easily captured in a system designed to assess only one single equality characteristic? Can the Minister clarify the means by which the Government will assess the equality implications of their proposed policies on protected groups, including disabled people, in the light of the Prime Minister calling time on equality impact assessments?

Thirdly, does the Minister agree that in the light of this debate, the public sector equality duty, which is currently under review and includes the race equality duty, is as vital now as it has ever been and should not be equated with bureaucracy and red tape, as the Government are so often seen to do?

14:35

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this debate and the opportunity that he has provided for us to discuss the important issue of how to ensure that all members of society, from all backgrounds, are able to access the services and support that they need.

I am grateful, too, to Scope and the Equalities National Council for the central report that we are debating today. It brings to the issue a great deal of detail and much needed information about the black and minority ethnic communities in particular, and the difficulties that they face in receiving the support that they require.

A wide range of topics has been raised in today’s debate, but what underpins much of what noble Lords have said is that we must provide policies and services developed and delivered based on the individual.

In responding to the debate, I shall provide some context and talk first about the Government’s equality strategy. As a country, we have come a very long way over the past 50 years, but too many people’s life chances still depend on who they are or where they come from. Our equality strategy set out our vision for a strong, modern, fair Britain built on two key principles: equal treatment and equal opportunity for all. We are moving away from the identity politics and categorisation of the past and instead focusing on equal opportunity for everyone—most importantly, recognising individual needs.

I believe that this approach is very much in line with the recommendations in the report that we have been debating today that services delivered locally should follow person-centred principles, delivered in ways that take into account the needs of individuals, utilise community resources and are responsive to the local community.

I shall focus on the disabled strategy. Part of our commitment to removing barriers is about enabling disabled people to fulfil their individual potential and, by right, play a full role in society. As a country, we have a strong record of provision for disabled people. Here I am talking not just about this Government but about this country in the past. We are a world leader for both disability rights and independent living. The recent OECD statistics have shown that UK spending on disability as a proportion of GDP is nearly twice the OECD average—more than the US, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Japan. This Government are proud of that and will ensure that the money that we dedicate to disabled services supports those in the greatest need, as well as in ways that are important to all disabled people: providing them their right to live independently, and to have greater opportunities to work. On that point in particular, in the spending review we have protected the annual budget of £320 million for specialist disability employment programmes. These programmes focus on removing barriers to work and supporting those with extra needs to work. In saying that, I recognise the point made by my noble friend Lady Browning about the challenge that this presents for some people.

Our aim is to open up more opportunities for all disabled people, and although government should provide the strategic leadership needed to achieve this aim, we cannot do it alone. In answer to a point made most recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but also by many other noble Lords, we are working across government and with disability organisations to develop plans for action and mechanisms for monitoring progress which we will publish in the spring. As part of that, we are working and consulting with the widest range of disability groups, such as Include Me Too, the Afiya Trust and the Equalities National Council. We are making sure that the voices of BME disabled people are heard and have input to our disability strategy and, importantly, to the action plan that will flow from it. As part of this, we are setting up a new partnership—a disability action alliance— to bring disabled people and their organisations together with public, private and voluntary and community organisations to help shape and deliver what disabled people want.

I have already referred to the Equalities National Council, as have other noble Lords, and it is the joint authors of the report that we are discussing today. It and others are working with us to establish the alliance and have already identified some potential actions for us to take forward. These include, for example, building on the work they are doing to mentor BME prisoners with mental health conditions. If I may, I shall use the particular point about mental health conditions because I think that it helps illustrate our approach to quite a wide range of different areas. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I am not able to respond on those areas in great detail.

The ENC is working with the Office for Disability Issues on the Disabled People’s User-Led Organisations programme and has been awarded £25,000 to create an ambassador programme. As part of that programme it will raise the profile of good mental health experiences and positive outcomes and help reduce the stigma attached to mental health conditions. The plan is also to give disabled people the confidence to approach mental health services earlier and be treated by GPs and community health teams before they reach crisis point, where interventions are more traumatic and punitive.

The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, spoke at some length about the issue of mental health and BME people. He raised a number of issues, but on his specific point about excessive detention of BME people under Section 136, we are developing a programme of work with the police to improve the experience of people who are removed from a public place to a place of safety by police using Section 136 of the Mental Health Act. We will make sure that this takes account of BME people and that the solutions suggested are evaluated for any differential impact on BME groups. From the briefing that I have had in preparation for today’s debate, I am aware that there is quite a lot going on in this area. So, if I may, I will send the noble Lord a follow-up, because I think that I can provide him with some more information which I hope will serve to address some of his concerns.

The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and indeed many other noble Lords, raised the point about language barriers in a wide range of contexts. We recognise that English language skills are fundamental to people’s ability to participate in our society, to break down barriers and to do the everyday things that we all take for granted—and just basically to get on. It is important that we are clear about the distinction drawn between the automatic translation of public authority documents and the training that is available and the services that might be provided to people with specific translation needs. People refer to comments by my right honourable Friend Eric Pickles, but he was talking about automatic translation of public authority documents and the fact that they can be expensive and entrench segregation. That is separate from the specific issue of translation and cases in which someone has an individual need.

The Government have provided more than £8 million to 35 English for speakers of other languages providers, mainly in FE colleges in areas of England where there is the highest demand. The Government fully fund this provision for those on jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance in the work-related activity group. Under this general heading of translation, my noble friend Lady Berridge raised the issue of language barriers in the provision of PIP—the replacement for DLA—and what guidance was being given to the service providers. As she was kind enough to give me advice warning of that, I am able to respond to her in a bit more detail. I hope that my answer to her question will help give an indication of our approach to other noble Lords who raised the same point but in a different context.

We have committed to making the assessment process as accessible as possible to those with communication barriers. We have built this into our contractual arrangements with both assessment providers. They will make letters and other materials available in other languages on request, and will meet any reasonable request to accommodate claimants with additional requirements, such as provision of interpreters. If an additional requirement is identified on the day of the consultation then the provider will rearrange the appointment.

My noble friend also asked whether residential care homes will adapt to reflect the ageing demographic of BME disabled people and of those who cannot speak English or who have English as a second language. I will write to her specifically on that point. However, it is worth emphasising—and again, I hope that this point will give noble Lords wider comfort—that through the Health and Social Care Act 2012, for the first time ever, there are specific legal duties on NHS commissioners and on the Secretary of State for Health concerning health inequalities. That is something that exists now that did not exist before.

Many noble Lords raised a point which is in the Scope report regarding whether the Government should develop a race equality strategy. We know that particular issues can be exacerbated by race and noble Lords have pointed to some of them, including educational attainment, unemployment and ageing, as we have just been discussing. We do not think that dealing with these problems is easy, but we believe that the best way to make progress is to tackle the root cause and not the symptoms. That requires a new approach and a single equality strategy—one that is based on underlying principles and that moves away from treating people as groups or “equality strands” and instead recognises that we are a nation of 62 million individuals. In saying that I am reinforcing what I said at the beginning and what underpins most of what has been said today—that what we are looking for in our approach to all these issues is individual attention and being able to treat people in that way.

This approach not only requires but forces joined-up work across government and requires us to focus on the problems that an individual is facing. Perhaps I can give noble Lords just one example under the heading of employment. We have done a lot in south London where our Jobcentre Plus provision is working with a group in Brixton to support work experience candidates. In Birmingham, where more than 83% of the population is from a minority ethnic community, Jobcentre Plus and the city council have formed a co-designed project with a range of BME community groups to support local people.

It is worth me putting on record that the number of ethnic minority people in employment is more than 3 million for the first time ever, which is 380,000 higher than the figure in spring 2010. Claims for JSA have fallen faster among young black men than for any other ethnic group over the past year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece all referred to equality impact assessments. Let me be absolutely clear on this. The Equality Act was designed to ensure that the needs of people are taken into account when we change or develop and implement a new policy or service. Impact assessments cannot and must not be a tick-box exercise. Completing these forms has never been a legal requirement. Having due regard to equality when forming policy and services is the legal responsibility on all public bodies; and that is not changing. Neither is the requirement to be able to demonstrate that it has happened.

What we are reviewing, because I believe that we owe it to everyone to keep strengthening our approach in this area, is how the public sector duty operates. We want to ensure that it is delivering, as effectively as it can, what all of us believe in and want: equality, fairness and the elimination of discrimination as policy is made and services designed.

Several points were raised by noble Lords which I will do my best to get through quickly now, although I know that I will have to follow up several of them in writing. If I fail to address them now, I will of course ensure that I follow them up afterwards.

I start by referring to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, about a meeting between Ministers, the EMC and Scope. To be honest, I am somewhat confused here, because I have been advised that the Minister for Disabled People met both organisations last autumn. I will find out what has happened there and, obviously, follow up in writing on that point.

My noble friend Lady Browning talked about local commissioning and suggested that I provide some explanation about what is happening in that area for the benefit of all noble Lords. That I will do. In doing that, I hope that I can address the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, about dystonia.

My noble friend Lady Benjamin referred to sickle cell. Again, I will certainly look into that after the debate and follow that up in writing to her. My noble friend Lady Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in particular, among other noble Lords, talked about disabled children and the impact on those from the BME community. They referred to the Children and Families Bill. As that comes from the Department of Education, which is not a department that I work with, let me look at what is expected in that area and I will of course follow up.

I draw to a close. Another point made in the course of today’s debate was about role models and how we inspire people. Reference was made to young people. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and others referred to the Paralympics and the whole atmosphere and culture created out of that fantastic event back in September. I remember clearly, just as we led into the Paralympics, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, saying that she was concerned that because there would be fantastically successful, brilliant and able Paralympians who would win medals, we should not give the impression that all disabled people could do so. For me, what was so important was that the Paralympians were role models not only to disabled people and people who have a great interest in sport; they were fantastic role models to all of us. We, the able-bodied, those of us who do not face barriers that other people face, should reflect on what we could achieve if we approached life in the way that many of them do.

We are working as a united Government to break down barriers of disability, race, religion, gender, age and social background. We are taking a personalised approach to enable people to reach their potential, rather than assuming that one size fits all. We believe that that mechanism best responds to individual needs, local circumstances and, in our view, is what works best to achieve the equal society that we are all striving for.

We have had a good day. I have listened and learnt a lot. I am grateful for this opportunity to share some information about what the Government are doing. I look forward to your Lordships holding me and my colleagues in government to account for delivering on that vision regularly over the rest of the Parliament.

14:56

[Lord Boateng]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right: there are many role models in the disabled and black and minority ethnic communities. Our concern is that they should be role models for what they are, not for their success in overcoming the barriers that they have had to face because they are black or minority ethnic or because they are disabled. This has been an important debate. Members who have spoken on all sides of the House have demonstrated a depth of experience, knowledge of the subject and passion that is truly inspiring to us all. I am grateful to the Minister for her willingness to write to us to address the detailed questions that many Members of the House have raised with her, and I urge her to adopt the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, of lodging all of those in the Library, so that we have a comprehensive response of the Government to the debate and the report.

Motion agreed.

Northern Ireland

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

14:57

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on events in Northern Ireland.

“Before updating the House on the recent protests and disorder, I wish to report on an attempted terrorist attack. On 30 December, an officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland discovered an improvised explosive device attached to the underneath of his car shortly before he was due to drive his wife and family to Sunday lunch.

The IED was viable and, were it not for the alertness of the officer in checking his car, it is highly likely that he and his family would all have lost their lives. This despicable attack bears the hallmarks of the so-called dissident republicans and looks to be the latest example of the relentless efforts these groupings make to try to murder police officers. It underlines the need for continued vigilance. The Government will continue to do everything that they can to help the PSNI combat the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. The House should also be aware that two individuals have been charged in relation to the murder of prison officer David Black.

Turning to the disturbances in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland, since I reported to the House on 11 December, protests over the flying of the union flag at Belfast City Hall have continued, with only sporadic respite over Christmas. While many of these have been peaceful, even these peaceful protests have seen roads blocked and daily life disrupted. A significant number of protests have led to serious disorder, mainly concentrated in east Belfast. While, thankfully, there were no significant public order incidents last night, the violence during the preceding six days saw masonry, bricks, fireworks and petrol bombs being thrown at police, and in one instance shots were fired. Police vehicles have been attacked with sledgehammers. On 5 and 7 January, water cannon and AEP rounds were deployed. In total, 66 police officers have been injured since these protests first began. Threats and intimidation against elected representatives continue, with the office of the honourable Member for Belfast East still the subject of daily intimidation.

The intimidation and violence are unacceptable and intolerable. The Government condemn those responsible in the strongest possible terms. We reiterate our full support for the chief constable and his officers in their efforts to maintain law and order, and we pay tribute to the bravery and professionalism of PSNI officers, who put their safety on the line every day to keep people in Northern Ireland safe and secure. According to the chief constable, senior individual members of the Ulster Volunteer Force are involved in orchestrating the violence, although the chief constable’s view is that it is not being sanctioned by the leadership of that group.

Since 3 December, 107 people have been arrested and 82 have been charged with various offences. So the perpetrators of this violence should be in no doubt that, as the chief constable made clear on Monday, they will face the full rigour of the law. Those who continue to organise these protests and engage in violence really need to ask themselves what they think they are achieving. The idea that hurling bricks at police officers is somehow defending the union flag or protecting Britishness is incomprehensible. These people are not defending our national flag; they are dishonouring our national flag and our country. What is more, they are being reckless with the peace settlement and all that it has delivered.

The damage that they are inflicting on Northern Ireland’s economy must be considerable. Huge efforts have been made in recent years to project a modern, confident and outward-looking Northern Ireland that is a great place to do business. But the pictures beaming round the world of riots and disorder make it far harder to compete in the global race for inward investment. Jobs and livelihoods are under threat. So it is essential that these protests and this violence stop now.

Since these disturbances began, I have been in regular contact with the chief constable, the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Justice Minister and other political leaders. The Northern Ireland political parties need to work together to find a way forward. It should not be impossible to find a way which sees decisions on flags made in a way that respects different views and takes into account the different traditions and identities present in today’s Northern Ireland. For that to happen, the issue needs to come off the streets to allow local politicians and community leaders the space to sit around a table and engage in constructive dialogue.

I have used recent weeks to highlight the urgent need to make progress on addressing the underlying divisions within the community in Northern Ireland, which can make decisions on issues such as flags so fraught with tension. On many occasions, Northern Ireland’s political leaders have expressed their firm commitment to building a shared society free from sectarian division. It is a theme to which I and my predecessor, along with the Prime Minister, have returned many times.

So much has been achieved in the 20 years since the peace process really got under way. The overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland can lead their lives with a normality and a freedom from fear that would have been impossible back in the dark days of the Troubles. However, we all need to acknowledge that the process is not finished, and the stability delivered by the Belfast agreement should never be taken for granted.

For some, sectarian divisions remain deeply entrenched, and it is time for bold moves by Northern Ireland’s political leadership to address them. We need to build a genuinely shared future for everyone in Northern Ireland. It will not be easy, but Northern Ireland’s political leaders have already shown themselves capable of taking difficult decisions in order to make progress on many matters. They have fixed tougher problems than the ones that we are discussing today. I believe that they can rise to this challenge, as they have to so many others in the past two decades. The UK Government stand ready to work with them and support them in their efforts to deliver a better and more cohesive future for Northern Ireland. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

15:05

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place. With the leave of the House, I will now repeat the response to the Statement made by my honourable friend Vernon Coaker.

“Mr Speaker, I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. I join with her in condemning the disgraceful violence we have seen over the last number of weeks. The serious rioting, the attacks on the police and the threats against elected representatives have been appalling, including that against the honourable Member for Belfast East, who has behaved throughout with real dignity and courage. This violence would not be acceptable in London; it would not be acceptable in Cardiff; it would not be acceptable in Edinburgh; and it is not acceptable in Belfast. People in Northern Ireland need to know that the UK Government are giving this the highest priority and that Northern Ireland matters. So can I ask the Secretary of State what discussions she has had with the Prime Minister about the recent violence and what discussions he has had, or intends to have, with Northern Ireland Ministers about what might be done to support them?

The dissident republican terrorist attempt to murder a police officer and his family over Christmas was sickening. It reminds us, as the Secretary of State has said, of the ongoing threat from those who wish to destroy the peace and progress. It is good that the police have made arrests in relation to David Black’s murder, and it sends out a clear message that the perpetrators of those crimes will be brought to justice.

The public disorder and violence we have seen on the streets began, as we know, when the decision was taken by Belfast City Council that the union flag should be flown only on designated days. In a democracy, you cannot try and change decisions by the use of force. Will the Secretary of State join with me in saying that those who break the law can expect to be dealt with by the full force of the law? Violence cannot be allowed to win.

Once again, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has shown exceptional bravery and courage even at great personal cost, with more than 60 officers already injured. Let us once again commend them for their professionalism and dedication to duty. The chief constable has clearly stated that senior figures from the Ulster Volunteer Force are involved in much of the violence. What assessment has she made of loyalist paramilitary involvement? Does she agree that attacks by paramilitaries on the police and elected politicians are matters of national security, and is she confident that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has the resources to continue this level of commitment without impacting on its other policing duties?

Today, I was due to be visiting a project in Belfast to help young people back to work. I have seen in communities across Northern Ireland, both nationalist and unionist, initiatives to try and ensure that every young person has hope, every community looks to the future, jobs are created and everything possible is done to overcome sectarianism and the divisions of the past. Much of this is devolved but will the Secretary of State ensure that the consequences of any of her Government’s economic and social policies are fully considered with respect to Northern Ireland? Deprivation, disengagement and alienation in any community are a challenge, but one that if not met in Northern Ireland can have particular and dangerous consequences.

I want to close today by saying clearly that although this violence is serious, worrying and wrong, and that it must stop, we will not and cannot let it undo all of the good work being done in Northern Ireland. We have continuing work to do to reassure people outside of Northern Ireland that it is a fantastic place, open for business and tourism. We must do all we can to highlight all that is good—and there is so much that is good.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the scenes we have witnessed in recent weeks on our TV screens do not represent the real face of Northern Ireland? We need to work together to find answers to the difficult questions about how to overcome sectarianism, deal with contentious issues and confront the past. That will not happen through violence but only by dialogue based on mutual respect—a respect of both Britishness and Irishness. There are many people engaged in ongoing work on these issues that is being done quietly and effectively. We must extend and develop that. The majority of people I speak to, especially the young, offer real hope for the future. Let us encourage them and not allow the actions of a few to damn them all.

There has been real progress in the last number of years in Northern Ireland. It is not easy and sometimes there will be setbacks, but these setbacks cannot and must not be allowed to define Northern Ireland and its people, or derail the progress that has been made”.

I commend this response to the Statement by Vernon Coaker to the House.

15:11

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I appreciate the spirit of the response that the noble Lord has made to the Statement, the tributes that he has made to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and indeed the ongoing support of his party and its commitment to the peace process. In answer to the various questions, the Prime Minister has been briefed every day on events in Northern Ireland. He takes a very keen interest in Northern Ireland and has a very strong commitment to the country, as evidenced by the fact that he selected Northern Ireland as the venue for the G8 later this year—a matter of considerable importance to the Northern Ireland economy.

I also want to say how much the Government appreciate the tributes being made to the honourable Member for Belfast East. She has dealt with the attacks on her office, on her and on her reputation by behaving with great dignity and courage throughout. It is important to bear in mind that her staff are also having to bear with these attacks, as indeed are a large number of other elected politicians from across political parties. It is important that we bear in mind that they, their families and their staff are very much under pressure at this time. I would respond to the noble Lord’s comments by saying that the history of Northern Ireland shows that only discussion will work; only by getting round the table and discussing the problems and the differences of view will any solution come. Violence has not been effective in the last 50 years and it will not be effective now.

In relation to the question on the UVF, the Chief Constable has stated that he believed that the leadership of the UVF was not directly involved and has not sanctioned the action that has been taking place. Violence on the streets is not acceptable; it is not acceptable wherever it is in the UK and it is certainly not acceptable in Belfast.

In relation to the issue of whether this is a matter of national security, the response has to be that, whatever label you put on this and whatever category you put these events into, the services involved are working together very closely to deal with the problems. Of course, that leads me on to another question from the noble Lord. This takes resources from community policing and from other aspects of Northern Ireland’s budget. Community policing is so important to progress in the most disadvantaged communities in Northern Ireland, from which many of the protesters are coming. Rioting on the street makes it more difficult for the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver on education, the health service and the development of the economy.

Respect for both Britishness and Irishness in Northern Ireland has been a symbol of the last 20 years and it must continue. I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord on a modern Northern Ireland. It is a country of tremendous opportunities and 2013 will host some exciting and very important events.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions to the Minister in order that she may answer as many questions as possible.

15:15

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for repeating the Statement and for the recognition in the Statement of the great courage of the Police Service of Northern Ireland: the police officer whom the dissident Republicans attempted to murder—actually, just around the corner from my own home—and the dozens of police officers who have been injured in the riots and disturbances created by loyalists.

However, despite what is said in the Statement about flags, do Her Majesty’s Government understand that this is not fundamentally about flags or flying the flag on designated days? Since the time when I was Speaker, starting in 1998, we had an understanding and agreement among all the political parties. The union flag would be flown only on designated days over Parliament Buildings. It was not an issue of contention at that time, or in the decade and a half since that time. This is about other issues. It is about a context being created by some political leaders for their own political interests. That is why I would like to pay particular tribute to the courage of Naomi Long, the honourable Member for Belfast East, and many other Alliance representatives and representatives of other parties who have been standing up for democracy and have been personally attacked and had their lives threatened for that courageous stand. I also pay tribute to the many ordinary people who have been terrified: cancer patients trying to go for treatment; business people trying to keep their businesses open; and ordinary people going about their business and trade who have been frightened and intimidated by what has been going on.

During the time when I was a member of the IMC, we were able regularly to brief the community in some detail about what was going on and who was doing it. That has not been the case. Despite the undertakings of the previous Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, that there would be six-monthly analyses of what has been going on, we are really not getting much detail—for example, of the activities of loyalist paramilitaries like the UVF. The noble Baroness has repeated that “the leadership” did not sanction this. That may be so, but is it the case that the leadership of the UVF in East Belfast has actually been involved in this? This is the kind of detailed question that some of us would like to explore and I fully recognise that the Floor of the House may not be the appropriate place for questions and answers. I ask my noble friend to encourage the Secretary of State to meet those Members of your Lordships’ House who are interested and concerned about Northern Ireland and who feel it is urgently important that we have a meeting with her in the near future to explore these things.

Finally, I ask the Government to recognise that the British and Irish Governments were the drivers of the peace process and without them there would not have been an agreement. Can they understand that they are also the guarantors of the settlement and therefore cannot back off and suppose that those who are there and sometimes have their own games to play will be trusted to deliver the peace that needs to be maintained?

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments, particularly those on the courage of the PSNI. The Government fully appreciate that there are complex issues behind these protests and that it is about more than just flags in many cases, not least about issues of deprivation. Ironically, the more unrest there is in Northern Ireland, the less likelihood there will be of further economic investment, so it becomes a real problem.

The noble Lord referred to the Assembly agreement, with which he was intimately involved, on the flying of flags. I believe that Lisburn city hall uses a similar method. There are a variety of agreements on the flying of flags. However, these decisions must be made in Northern Ireland. They are devolved, democratic decisions to be made in Northern Ireland and cannot be made by the UK Government.

We have to keep repeating the importance of democracy in relation to Northern Ireland. Democracy must be our watchword. I will of course take the noble Lord’s words to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is important that your Lordships are fully involved and fully briefed where possible on issues relating to Northern Ireland. I will ensure that those comments are repeated to my right honourable friend.

Finally, the roles of the British Government and the Irish Government remain crucial in supporting and encouraging the Northern Ireland Executive but it would be counterproductive on many issues for the British Government to intervene on matters which are devolved and must remain devolved.

[Lord Rogan]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I and my party condemn utterly the rioting and the violence and the threats and attacks against elected representatives. I again plead that these stop immediately. Rioting is wrong. It destroys the very position and arguments being put forward by the protestors. Furthermore, some 60-plus police officers who nightly are standing on the streets of Northern Ireland holding the line against violence have been injured. I join the Minister in praising and paying tribute to the bravery and the professionalism of the PSNI officers on the ground in these difficult days. If these riots should continue and escalate, as I fear they might, and the PSNI chief constable asks for further resources, be they financial or police personnel from the mainland, will these resources be readily available?

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I wholeheartedly agree with his thoughts in terms of the fact that rioting destroys the arguments that the protestors purport to be making. The danger of escalation is very real and the situation is very serious. As far as I know, the chief constable has not asked for additional resources but the UK Government have always stood ready to provide what Northern Ireland needs for its security. I am aware that the chief constable will be assessing the impact of these nights of violence on his resources as the year progresses.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most depressing aspects of this very sad situation is, as the chief constable of Northern Ireland said, the number of young people who are involved in these disturbances? Our difficulty, of course, as the Minister said, is that because the powers to deal with these things are mainly devolved, there is very little that we can urge the Government to do. If I were a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I would ask the Executive whether it was time that they dealt with the tremendous disadvantage facing young people in Belfast. It has been there for years and I hope that it is not too late to deal with it. What they ought to do is bring together urgently the teachers, voluntary organisations, the police, the health service, local government and the churches to see what can be done to give the young people of the disadvantaged parts of Belfast some sense that they have a future too.

[Baroness Randerson]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s comments and I agree with him that the outstanding tragedy of recent weeks has been the incredibly young ages at which some of these people are becoming involved. One feels that they cannot fully understand what they are participating in. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that we must all redouble our efforts to deal with youth unemployment, which remains too high in Northern Ireland; to deal with low levels of educational achievement in many of the areas affected among the loyalist community; and to deal with attempts to improve the prosperity of Northern Ireland in general. That is why it is so very sad, when 2013 is a year of opportunity for investment, that this has occurred.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

My Lords, I understand that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, at the opening press conference of the year on Monday morning, were not asked even one question on this topic by the assembled media. That tells us perhaps two things about the situation. First, there is an acceptance of violence in Belfast that simply would not exist in Aberdeen, Newcastle, Cardiff or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Secondly, following devolution—we experienced this in Scotland and it has been experienced in Wales sometimes as well—there is almost a disinclination at the centre of UK government here in London to become involved in the issues that have become devolved.

My question is therefore whether the Government will assure us here today that they will retain a close interest in this. While the Police Service of Northern Ireland may well be devolved to the Assembly, and the issue of flags above Belfast City Hall may well be devolved to the City Council in Belfast, rioting on the streets of any UK city is a matter in which the UK Government must have an interest. The UK media must be interested too.

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I agree wholeheartedly that it is absolutely essential that the UK Government maintain an interest in what is happening in Northern Ireland and that there are very close links between the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Executive. I know that those links exist and that they are very active. The Secretary of State has been in daily contact with the Northern Ireland Executive and Ministers in the last few weeks. We must not accept violence on the streets of any of our cities. What is perhaps most poignant about the recent weeks is that we had almost come to believe that Belfast was entirely stable and secure from the outside. I think it has come as rather a shock to many people how difficult it has been to control this violence.

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this debate and for both its tone and its detail. I would like to focus just on one point: the mode of address of government in these circumstances.

One of the reasons for what has happened and for the many disgraceful scenes that we have seen on our television screens—I come from east Belfast and I have seen them happening right in front of me—is a sense among a wide section of the unionist community that some kind of erasure of their British culture is going on. I do not want to comment on the validity or otherwise of that perception. However, there is no doubt that part of the reason why respectable sections of unionism initially showed some sympathy for these protests is dependent on that feeling. It seems to me that there might be a case for the Government attempting to address it. This Government in particular have made a point of saying that they are not tepidly neutral on the union. This is a complicated question that has to be addressed with balance.

My next point will have no effect on the young people who are rioting, but if the Government remind the people of Northern Ireland that their place within the union, based on the principle of consent, is secure and that the Government are in no sense tepid about this prospect, that would help to draw away support for this protest from respectable sections of unionism. By the way, I believe that that drawing away of support is already happening.

[Baroness Randerson]

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it absolutely clear in her response in the other place this morning—I repeat it here this afternoon—that the union is secure and that this Government are committed to it in every respect, but that does not mean that there can be a lack of respect for people who come from different backgrounds. It is absolutely essential that the future of Northern Ireland is based on respect for those who see themselves from the perspective of Britishness and those who emphasise their Irishness. The two have lived together for the past 20 years as the peace process has developed, and that must continue. There must be mutual respect and respect for democratic decisions. I think that anyone who thought that supporting, or giving tacit approval to, protests on the streets of Belfast now realises that they have dealt with a very dangerous situation.

[Lord Kilclooney]

My Lords, the Question refers to the trouble in Northern Ireland and not Belfast. Can the Minister confirm that there have been hundreds of demonstrations right across Northern Ireland opposing the decision by Belfast City Council to lower the union flag, and that the vast majority of those demonstrations have been peaceful? Will she dissociate herself from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said that peaceful protests should not be allowed? That was an outrageous statement for a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make.

Does the Minister realise that the real cause of this problem was in fact the decision of Belfast City Council to lower the union flag from the city hall, that violence was anticipated by the honourable Member for Belfast East, Naomi Long, and that the Alliance Party, in coalition with its colleagues in Sinn Fein and the SDLP, recognised that there was going to be violence? Would it not therefore have been better for the city council to have delayed its decision until January rather than rush it through before Christmas, thereby damaging the retail trade in the city centre of Belfast?

Finally, since the noble Baroness mentioned democracy, does she recall that when we negotiated the Belfast agreement, it was agreed that democracy varied from one country to another? Democracy in Northern Ireland is not simply majority rule. The lowering of the flag at Belfast City Hall has certainly upset the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, but majority rule does not apply in Northern Ireland. The Belfast agreement made sure that democracy in Northern Ireland meant shared rule in the Assembly at Stormont: in other words, decisions being taken with the consent of the minority. Does the noble Baroness accept that the decision of Belfast City Council was not democratic and did not have the consent of the 45% minority in Belfast?

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord is correct in saying that there have been protests across Northern Ireland. There has been a small number of violent protests in other places, but there has been concentration in the media on Belfast because that is where the vast majority of problems have occurred. The Secretary of State has emphasised the importance of peaceful discussion in a democracy where we are able to protest and gather on the streets, but it is through discussion that we will get change. It is always very important to bear that in mind.

The noble Lord makes a point about the timing of the decision of Belfast City Council. It made the decision according to its own standing orders and established democratic procedures. I agree with the noble Lord that the retail trade is bearing the brunt of these protests and the disruption caused. That was particularly acute in the pre-Christmas period.

Syria

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:16

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows.

“Mr Speaker, with permission I will make a Statement to update the House on the crisis in Syria—a crisis which is still intensifying. Sixty thousand Syrians are now believed to have died, 600,000 people have become refugees, 2 million people are internally displaced and 4 million people are in desperate need.

To illustrate the true horror of the conflict, 1,000 civilians were reportedly killed in one six-day period over Christmas. On Christmas Day opposition activists reported that 17 people were executed at a checkpoint in the Damascus suburbs, nine of whom were from one family. The regime has used SCUD missiles to target populated areas, and deployed cluster munitions. Entire urban districts have been reduced to rubble in cities like Homs and Aleppo.

The House will join me in expressing our solidarity with millions of courageous Syrian people in the face of this appalling brutality. We continue to believe that the best way to end this bloodshed and to protect all Syria’s communities is through a political transition. Our country has a moral obligation to help save lives in Syria, and a national interest in ensuring that the country provides no haven for terrorist activity. We know that to achieve lasting stability we must work with the Syrian opposition and countries of the region and not try to impose a political settlement from the outside. We are determined that all our actions will uphold UK and international law, and support justice and accountability for the Syrian people themselves.

In the coming weeks we will focus on six principal areas. First, we will intensify our diplomatic efforts to reach a political transition. We are actively supporting the efforts of UN-Arab League special representative Lakhdar Brahimi who has travelled to Damascus and to Moscow for talks with the Russian Government, and who is due to hold trilateral talks with Russian and US representatives this week. My ministerial colleagues and I are in regular contact with him and expect to hold further talks with him in London later this month. Our goal remains to persuade Russia and China to join us in putting the full weight of the UN Security Council behind a political transition plan for Syria.

Secondly, we will continue our work to help the Syrian national coalition to develop its plans for the future of Syria. Since I last updated the House I attended the Friends of Syria meeting in Marrakech, where the US and many other countries followed us in recognising the national coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and where $150 million was pledged to support the humanitarian effort. The coalition is enlarging its membership to include Christian, Kurdish and other minority communities. At a meeting in Istanbul this week we saw encouraging signs of the coalition making every effort to broaden its support further and build on its legitimacy, although much work remains to be done.

We are working to strengthen moderate political forces in Syria committed to a democratic future for the country. We have provided £7.4 million of non-lethal support to the Syrian opposition, to civil society and to human rights defenders, and I can announce that we will provide an additional £2 million of support, bringing the total to £9.4 million. Our assistance is designed to help to save lives, to mitigate the impact of the conflict, or to support the people trying to achieve a free and democratic Syria. It includes solar-powered lighting, generators, communication equipment and water-purification kits to help opposition groups, and satellite communication devices for activists to document human rights violations and abuses so that one day the perpetrators of these appalling crimes can be brought to justice.

This involves support for local-level administration councils providing services to Syrian people during the conflict. We have given training to more than 300 Syrian journalists, who are striving to develop alternative sources of media and freedom of the press in Syria, and we are training activists working to create a network of peace-building committees across five Syrian cities. We are also helping the national coalition to co-ordinate the international humanitarian response and have provided a humanitarian adviser to work with them. At all times we urge the coalition to ensure that all opposition groups meet their commitments on human rights.

Thirdly, we will continue to increase the pressure on the regime to stop the violence. In December we argued that the EU sanctions regime on Syria, including the arms embargo, should be rolled over for three months until 1 March rather than 12 months, so that there would be an earlier review of it. We believed that it was important not to freeze EU policy for a whole year just as a new opposition coalition was being launched and the conflict on the ground was intensifying.

No decisions have yet been made to change the support that we provide to the Syrian national coalition or the Syrian people but European countries now have the flexibility to consider taking additional steps to try to save lives if there is no progress in the near future. Clearly the best outcome for the Syrian people would be a diplomatic breakthrough, bringing an end to the bloodshed and establishing a new Syrian Government able to restore stability. However, we must keep open options to help save lives in Syria and to assist opposition groups who are opposed to extremism if the violence continues. We should send a strong signal to Assad that all options are on the table. We will therefore seek to amend the EU sanctions so that the possibility of additional assistance is not closed off.

No one can be sure how the situation in Syria will develop in the coming months. There is no guarantee that Mr Brahimi’s efforts to mediate a political agreement will be successful. President Assad’s speech last week urged the Syrian people to unite in a war against his opponents. Given the regime’s intransigence and brutality there is a serious risk that the violence will worsen in the coming months. If that happens the international community’s response will have to be stepped up. We will not rule out any options to save lives and protect civilians in the absence of a political transition in Syria. We will ensure that our efforts are legal, that they are aimed at saving lives, and that they support at all times the objective of a political transition and encouraging moderate political forces in Syria, and we will keep the House properly informed.

Fourthly, we continue to increase our life-saving humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people. The United Kingdom is the second largest bilateral donor to UN relief efforts, supporting more than 100,000 people across the region with food parcels, blankets and warm clothing. On 21 December my right honourable friend the International Development Secretary announced a further £15 million in humanitarian aid, bringing our total support to £68.5 million so far. Honourable Members will have seen images of Syrian refugees struggling with rain and cold in refugee camps across the region. The latest £15 million of funding will be used to provide food, clean water, blankets and shelter to help Syrians cope with the misery of these winter months. There will be medical supplies to treat the sick and wounded, since so many Syrian medical facilities have been destroyed, and armoured vehicles to enable humanitarian agencies to deliver aid safely inside the country.

The UN has appealed for $1.5 billion for the first six months of 2013. This is the largest ever short-term UN appeal but it remains seriously underfunded. At the donor conference hosted by Kuwait and the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon later this month we will again call on other countries to pledge the additional humanitarian aid that is so desperately needed.

I pay tribute to the 26 humanitarian workers who have been killed in Syria since the fighting began and deplore the rise in attacks on medical facilities in Syria, which are contrary to international law and an affront to basic humanity. We urge all parties to stop the violence and allow humanitarian agencies to deliver assistance safely and without interference, in accordance with international law.

Fifthly, we are continuing detailed planning for how we can help a future Syrian Government deal with the many challenges that Syria will face during a political transition. This process must be led by the Syrian people, but they will need help from the international community as they repair roads and hospitals destroyed during the conflict, and restart their ravaged economy. Today we are hosting leading members of the Syrian opposition, and representatives of 14 countries and international organisations, at a Wilton Park conference designed to advance detailed planning of that support, including in the areas of political reform, security, institution-building and the economy.

Sixthly, we are supporting UN efforts to document and deter human rights abuses in Syria. The UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry on Syria published its latest report on 20 December. It showed that the international human rights violations highlighted in its previous reports were continuing. We will continue to do all we can to support its work. We are providing specific leadership in efforts to confront rape and sexual violence in Syria. We have deployed experts to the region to provide training in how to respond to reports of sexual violence, and how to improve the prospect of future investigation and prosecutions. We will intensify this work as a matter of urgency. We are also urging the Syrian national coalition to commit itself to ensuring justice and accountability for the Syrian people, and are drawing its attention to the right of a future Government of Syria to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court—even though some members of the UN Security Council are blocking that option at present.

This is our approach: intensifying our efforts to forge agreement at the UN Security Council; pursuing a political transition on the ground while ruling out no option to save lives if the situation deteriorates; supporting the opposition and the Syrian people; increasing the pressure on the regime and being prepared to do so in new ways if necessary; working to deter human rights violations and abuses; and planning to help Syria get back on its feet once the conflict comes to an end. The Syrian people are enduring unimaginable suffering. They are at the heart of this crisis, their future is at stake, and our country and the world must not abandon them”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

15:46

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, for repeating a Statement on the situation in Syria given in the other place earlier today by the Foreign Secretary.

It is a matter of profound regret that the biggest single change that we in this House have seen since we last considered Syria is the numbers of casualties. On 2 January 2013, the United Nations estimated that the war’s death toll had now exceeded 60,000, of which about half were thought to be civilians. It predicted that the death toll would increase at a rate of 5,000 a month. Tens of thousands of Syrians have been imprisoned, nearly 30,000 have been reported missing, about 2.5 million are currently thought to be internally displaced, and hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees have fled to neighbouring countries. UN-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi recently warned that as many as 100,000 people could die in the next year if a way cannot be found quickly to end the country’s civil war. He described the situation as nothing less than the descent of a country into hell. I join the noble Baroness in expressing solidarity with the millions of courageous Syrians in the face of this appalling brutality.

I turn to the four central points addressed in the Statement. First, on diplomatic efforts to reach a political transition, the continued stalemate at the UN Security Council is beyond regrettable—it is utterly deplorable. The position of the Russians remains central to this impasse. Recent statements by the Russian Foreign Minister have suggested a possible shift of attitude in Moscow. It is now the responsibility of countries such as the UK and its partners to capitalise on this. I note the trilateral talks with the Russian and US representatives this week. Will the Minister tell the House when the Foreign Secretary personally last spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov, and when he will next discuss the issue of Syria with him?

Secondly, I turn to support for the Syrian national coalition. Any diplomatic support that the Government can offer the SNC to encourage it to draw up a credible transitional plan for Syria is indeed to be welcomed. In this spirit, the opposition welcome the conference being held at Wilton Park aimed at doing just that. Will the noble Baroness set out what she believes are the principal barriers to unity that have so far prevented the Syrian opposition from uniting around a transitional plan for government? I note the announcement today of additional funds to support the SNC, but will the Minister provide further details on how this non-lethal support will be spent? We welcomed the Geneva plan agreed last summer, but do the Government agree that, notwithstanding the support of the international community for the SNC, currently neither side within Syria appears committed to helping to implement it? In light of this, are the Government still in fact encouraging the SNC to accept the Geneva plan?

Thirdly, let me turn to the central issue of EU sanctions on Syria. I note, with some concerns, what the Statement mentioned, but I urge the Minister to provide more detail to the House on the following matters. Will the Minister set out, as much as possible, the latest assessments of the role that al-Qaeda and other extremist groups are now playing in Syria? Does the Minister fully recognise the grave difficulties of guaranteeing the end-use of weapons supplied into Syria, given the uncertainty around the present identity, intent and tactics of some of the rebel forces? Does she accept that if Europe were to decide to arm the rebel forces, it is perfectly possible that that Russians would simply increase their own supply of weapons to Assad? I also ask the noble Baroness—not least given the recent warnings of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the other place—what would encourage the Government to believe that intensifying the conflict at this stage will reduce the present appalling level of suffering of the Syrian people?

Fourthly, I turn to the humanitarian consequences of the violence. For some time, aid workers have been warning of the onset of winter and the worsening conditions on the ground. Their worst nightmares have been realised. Only this week, aid workers in the Zaatari camp were attacked by frustrated refugees with sticks and stones after fierce desert winds and torrential rains swept away their tents. Warnings of a major snowstorm later this week will bring even deeper misery to those already desperate. Latest figures from the UN state that $622 million in aid is now needed to help Syrian refugees in countries around the Middle East, while $312 million alone was required to help refugees in Jordan. The latest figures from the UN Refugee Agency show that 597,240 people have registered or are awaiting registration with the agency in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. Given that by the Government’s own admission the UN appeal “remains seriously underfunded”, what steps will the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister take to help secure those addition funds ahead of the vital donor conference in Kuwait later this month? Will the Minister set out for your Lordships’ House how much of this additional money she expects will be committed and how much of it has been delivered?

To conclude, the principal responsibility for the appalling suffering being endured by the Syrian people rests with the Assad regime. Assad’s latest speech last week once again demonstrated a callous disregard for human life by showing no real intention of helping to bring the conflict to an end or take responsibility for its beginning. However, the burden of responsibility on the international community is also a heavy one. In the view of the Opposition, rather than now directing their efforts towards intensifying the conflict, the British Government must remain focused on building international agreement around an inclusive post-Assad Syria, in which all communities of Syria have a stake.

15:52

[Baroness Warsi]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response to the Statement. As always, I thank the Benches opposite for their strong support in this matter. There is clear unity across the Dispatch Box on what is clearly a continuing and worsening crisis. The noble Baroness raises some specific points. Unfortunately I cannot give her the specific date when the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Russian Foreign Minister, but I do know that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been in constant contact with their Russian counterparts. My own discussions took place towards the end of last year, when I spoke to the Russian ambassador. I can assure the noble Baroness and the House that we use all opportunities, both private and public. Indeed, at the United Nations General Assembly the Prime Minister commented very clearly about our belief that Russia needs to play a more constructive role in achieving progress.

In relation to the opposition and the meeting today at Wilton Park, one of its main purposes is to build further consensus and an action plan relating to political, economic and institutional reforms. It is, of course, planning for a future where it will have a say; where the views of the Syrian people will be expressed through a legitimately elected Government. The further funding and support for the opposition is to ensure that they can continue in that.

A specific addition is the UK humanitarian adviser who has been seconded into the assistance co-ordination unit, which is based in Turkey and is run by the national coalition. It effectively co-ordinates aid going both into Syria and into the refugee camps outside Syria.

The noble Baroness asked for some detail in relation to AQ and other extremist groups, an issue which concerns us. The number of fighters currently in the opposition runs into six figures. It is not, of course, an organised army—people come and people leave—and at this stage it is anticipated that the numbers who belong to an extremist ideology or are fighting on the basis of religious fundamentalism are limited. However, we are keeping a close eye on the matter.

As to the noble Baroness’s question about weapons, at this stage there is no change in the UK’s policy on their supply. We are mindful of our obligations under the EU embargo and sanctions—which we, of course, led—and of our obligations both internationally and domestically. We feel that an escalation of the supply of arms into the region would not help but, of course, we must remain flexible as to what is required to save lives in the future.

The noble Baroness also raised the issue of aid efforts to increase funds. The Foreign Secretary has been in discussions with Nabil al-Arabi. He is building on those discussions, as he is with his opposite numbers, in the lead-up to the conference. I cannot give precise details of the amount of funds that have been collected or pledged but we are urging all nations to play their part.

15:57

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, the Government’s actions are welcome in so far as they go. They will have an effect but, I fear, it will be far less than we might wish. Does my noble friend accept that one of the reasons for that is because many people, especially in the Arab world and the Middle East, do not see this as a conflict within Syria between an oppressed citizenry and an oppressive dictatorship but rather as the front line in a widening war between the Sunnis and the Shia? Does she agree that such an event would be extremely damaging for the Middle East and have grave consequences for stability world wide? Does she understand and know that many rich Saudi businessmen—just as they did in Afghanistan—are now actively funding Salafi and Wahabi tendencies in Syria and throughout the Middle East? They are supported in large measure, with great unwisdom, by the Qatari Government, who are playing with fire. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to advise both the Saudi and Qatari Governments of the hazardous policies that they are following and the very dangerous consequences that they could have?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend speaks with great experience in relation to these matters. I can assure him that we are extremely mindful of the consequences of where this may go. It is for that reason that this crisis—which has now been on-going for 22 months—has left us in a situation where we feel consistently frustrated by the fact that we need to do more to save lives. However, we are not at this stage managing to achieve a consensus within the international community on the direction in which we need to travel to achieve that. We are acutely mindful of the role that other countries from the region could play in Syria.

The noble Lord will be aware of the work that we have been doing bilaterally with Saudi Arabia and other countries to tackle extremist ideologies. I am familiar with the work that has been done in relation to extremist ideologies and deradicalisation programmes; for example, within Saudi Arabia. We always build upon those discussions, not just for people who are radicalised within Saudi Arabia but those who may use that as a basis for fighting in other countries.

[Lord Wright of Richmond]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement, which raises a large number of very serious issues. I will limit myself to three brief questions.

First, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that we are activiely supporting the efforts of Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi. However, will the Minister accept that our recognition of the Syrian national coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people not only amounts to a virtual declaration of war against President Assad’s Government but seriously undermines the already difficult mission which Lakhdar Brahimi is trying to carry out at the request of the United Nations and the Arab League?

Secondly, I am glad to learn that we are the second largest bilateral donor to United Nations relief efforts in Syria. However, does the Minister accept that giving massive assistance—the Statement mentions over £7 million—to a Syrian opposition, of which one of the most effective and murderous elements is the terrorist organisation, al-Nusra, contradicts our alleged efforts to get all parties to stop the violence?

Thirdly, I note that we have given training to more than 300 Syrian journalists. Does the Minister accept that a more balanced and objective assessment of the current civil war in Syria is needed, both of the extent to which President Assad still has the support of a significant part of the Syrian population, and of the extent to which terrorist activities by al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, and other extremist movements have contributed to the distressingly high casualty figures? We may, as the Statement says, have a moral obligation to save lives in Syria, but direct intervention in a Sunni-Shia war, and even the threat of providing military assistance in the future, can only precipitate a further deterioration of this tragic conflict.

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord raises a number of important issues. I understand his concerns in relation to what could be perceived by our recognition of the Syrian national coalition as the legitimate voice of the Syrian people, or the consequences that could flow from that. However, when a regime has inflicted such brutality upon its own people, it is right that we engage with a coalition of those in opposition. I can assure him that al-Nusra is not part of that coalition, and that it is therefore not in receipt of any funding that is being given to the recognised opposition coalition.

With regard to the balance of reporting that is coming out of Syria, it is right that we fund human rights defenders and journalists to take records and keep material for potential future prosecutions. The noble Lord will be aware, as will other noble Lords, that we must not allow a culture of impunity to exist at the end of such crises, and that there must, therefore, be accountability for the actions that took place during that crisis. The noble Lord will also be aware that for access and security reasons, it is very difficult for independent observers to be on the ground in Syria. It is therefore right and appropriate that we fund and support those who are there on the ground to take records.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, the Minister painted a very bleak picture of this appalling civil war, in which there will be no winners and only losers—those being the people of Syria themselves. She described the frustration at the United Nations Security Council, and an underfunded aid effort. Will she answer three questions?

First, the Minister spoke of working with the Syrian opposition and the countries of the region. Presumably those countries include Iran and Russia. Certainly, President Assad’s speech was very intransigent, but is there any evidence of any softening of the position of Russia, and to what extent do we believe that Iran should be brought into the discussions?

Secondly, we know of the Russian naval presence in that area. How do we interpret that—simple sabre-rattling, or worse? Thirdly, quite properly, the Minister spoke of seeking to ensure that the perpetrators of these appalling crimes are brought to justice. What efforts are we making to ensure that those who are guilty of such violations of human rights are aware that we are monitoring their actions and indeed that we intend that ultimately they will face justice? What are the means of communication to such people directly?

[Baroness Warsi]

With regard to working with the opposition and other important allies in the region, we have of course been working closely with Turkey, which unfortunately has had to bear the brunt of taking on the majority of refugees who have come out of Syria. Other partners in the region are playing a constructive role.

With regard to Russia, I think that I made clear when I repeated the Statement that we are using all opportunities to impress upon the Russians, using discussions with our opposite numbers and counterparts in all fora, that there has to be some progress in this matter. Is there a softening of their position? Are we facing a brick wall? At this stage I could describe what we are seeing as a potential crack in the brick wall, but we must continue to ensure that we keep pushing.

With regards to perpetrators of crimes, there is always the possibility—provided that the United Nations Security Council can pass a resolution, which of course would have to be supported by China and Russia—that those crimes could be referred to the International Criminal Court. There is also the alternative option that, at the end of this crisis, these matters could be tried within Syria by a democratically elected Government.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that the aid given to our allies like Turkey—particularly Jordan, which has almost 250,000 refugees, and Lebanon—is not merely a humanitarian issue? Let us recall the destabilisation of Jordan in 1970 by the Black September movement. There is a real danger of countries—not so much Turkey but certainly Lebanon and Jordan—being destabilised by the number of refugees coming in. Do Her Majesty’s Government understand that this is not just a humanitarian question but one of stabilisation?

In discussions with the opposition, are we trying to ensure that we get an undertaking from them that, should they find themselves in a position of governance at a later stage, they will hand over all stockpiles of chemical weapons and nuclear materiel to an appropriate international organisation? Can we get that agreement at this point, rather than waiting until we are bemoaning their being abused, should these folk find themselves in government at a later stage?

[Baroness Warsi]

I agree with my noble friend’s first point; of course our support in the region has both a humanitarian element and a stabilisation element. Countries can find themselves with a large number of refugees and that can lead to internal challenges for those nations. We are therefore supporting countries in the region in dealing with those issues.

My noble friend makes an important point with regard to chemical and biological weapons. We have had these discussions with the opposition coalition. We have asked them to appoint an individual who will be specifically responsible for co-ordinating the discussion of these matters with a view to ensuring, if at all possible during the crisis, that these weapons are safeguarded, and we have urged them, at the end of this, to sign up to the chemical weapons convention and the biological and toxic weapons convention. The opposition coalition is in agreement with us on that.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I am glad to hear from the Statement that the coalition is enlarging its membership to include Christian, Kurdish and other minority communities. With regard to those Christian minorities, as the Minister knows, Christians are particularly vulnerable at the moment because they have been relatively protected under the Assad regime, they are disproportionately represented among refugees and people who are internally displaced and of course they are particularly at risk with the wholesale outbreak of sectarian violence. What are the Government thinking with regard to the particular protection of those minorities?

The second question concerns the Kurds. As we know, since the First World War the Kurdish people have been seeking their own country, which they feel they have been denied. There are reports that they will look for an opportunity to bring this into being now. In what way are the Government bearing this possibility in mind?

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, as I said in the Statement, the inclusion of minorities in the national coalition has formed a large part of our discussions. The president of the national coalition is Sheikh al-Khatib; below him are four vice-presidents, one of whom is from the Christian community. A further two have been appointed from the Muslim community and a fourth position has been reserved for the Kurdish minority. However, that appointment has not yet been made because there are discussions within the Kurdish minority as to who would be the most appropriate person. The rights of all minorities, including the Christians and Kurds, have formed part of the discussions in relation both to the way in which the national coalition has been set up and to how those reforms are to be taken forward.

On the wider question about the Kurds, I hope that, in the discussions that we are having with the national coalition, those are matters that we can move towards resolving, certainly as far as Syria is concerned.

[Baroness Uddin]

My Lords, I welcome this detailed Statement. In the light of yesterday’s discussion in this House on rape being used as a weapon of war and the Minister’s reference to a specialist team being sent to monitor violence against women, what assessment have her Government made of the number of women who may have reported rape and who the perpetrators may be? With regards to the discussions both here and in Turkey, what proportion of women are taking part in these so that a post-conflict Syria is truly representative and equal?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Baroness asks a very important question. She will be familiar with the initiative to prevent sexual violence, to which the Foreign Secretary has given a huge amount of time and energy. Too often, as in the case of Syria and, as we saw, across the Arab world during the Arab uprising, sexual violence is used as a tool of war—sadly not just against women but against men as well. I do not have specific numbers for reports of sexual violence during the Syria conflict. If the office has those numbers, I will write to the noble Baroness and send her those details.

She also asks an important question about the participation of women. Again, the answer is not immediately obvious from the brief that I have here but I will make those inquiries for my own information as well as to ensure that I can send the noble Baroness a detailed response.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, there is widespread concern at what might appear to be unconditional support for the so-called opposition forces, not least because of the treatment of minorities that has been referred to already. Did the Minister see the report in the Sunday Times recently about how a group of Jihadists beheaded a Syrian Christian and literally fed him to the dogs? Did she also see reports concerning links with family members of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda? Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Wright and the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said earlier, should we not be prudent and cautious before feeding a situation where we could simply make bad matters worse? Would the Minister not agree that, in the list of priorities that she mentioned earlier, the treatment of minorities and the upholding of their human rights should be an unconditional issue as far as our support for any opposition group is concerned?

May I also ask her to revisit a reply that her noble friend Lady Northover gave me on 18 December when I asked about support for Hand in Hand for Syria, a British medical charity? She replied that there were no current plans to fund its work. In view of the massive humanitarian needs in Syria at present, will she undertake to look again at that reply?

[Baroness Warsi]

I will look again that reply and I will certainly make inquiries of the Department for International Development. I know that we are currently using international NGOs for the specific work within Syria but if this is an option that could be looked at, and one that DfID feels is appropriate, I will certainly feed that information back to the noble Lord.

I can assure the noble Lord that our support for the opposition is not unconditional. It is very clearly conditional upon the fact that we require reform, we require a plan and we require them to sign up to basic requirements such as the need for equality and non-discrimination towards minorities. We must also be careful since when we make this argument, which has been made before on a number of occasions, it surely cannot be right that we sit here in Britain and feel that the only way that the rights of minorities, including Christians, across the Arab world can be protected is if they are being ruled by a dictator. There surely has to be another way in which Christians and other minorities are protected as part of a democratically elected Government under which all communities feel part of that nation.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

Given the horrors endured by the people of Syria and the impotence of the international community in 2011 and 2012, does this not reinforce the need for reform of the UN Security Council? In their discussions with the newly re-elected President of the United States of America, now starting his second term in office and therefore not facing re-election in four years’ time, do the Government plan to make taking forward reform of the UN Security Council a priority?

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I also have the privilege of being the Minister responsible for the United Nations. Indeed, on Sunday I will be travelling to the United Nations for a full day of talks focusing specifically on the reform of the UN.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, many noble Lords have raised the question of recognition. When Her Majesty’s Government recognised the national coalition some weeks ago, was that on a de jure or de facto basis? Presumably it was the latter because there has been no ambassadorial representation—nor is there any intention of it, as I understand it. Indeed, can the Minister confirm that, if any de jure recognition is contemplated, many considerable and complicated problems of public international law arise from the nature and composition of the opposition that we are talking about.

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, it is at moments like this that I realise why the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was such an institution—I will continue to strive to fill his large shoes. This is the kind of question he would be able to answer immediately. What I can say is that, interestingly, some of the questions around the recognition of the national coalition and the implications of that for us—of course we continue to have a diplomatic relationship with the state of Syria—were questions that I asked in my briefing about an hour ago. When I get those answers, I will write to the noble Lord and give them to him.

Bee Population

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

16:17

Moved By

[Lord Moynihan]

That this House takes note of the decline in honey bees in 2012 and of measures to combat the prevalence of disease in bee colonies.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, in preparing for this debate, I would like to place on record my thanks to Phil McAnespie, president of the Scottish Beekeepers Association; Dr Stephen Palmer, a master beekeeper with over 30 years’ experience; Professor Ratnieks from the University of Sussex; Professor Poppy and Dr Newman from the University of Southampton; the British Beekeepers Association; Dr Peter Neumann from the Swiss Bee Research Centre; David Wootton, whose Bee Keeping: A Novices Guide is invaluable to the beginner and expert alike; and Richard Carlile, Bob Bridle and Robert Stovell, who assist me with the hives we manage for the love of beekeeping and no commercial gain at our home in East Sussex.

First, I have some positive news. Since I had the good fortune of securing a debate on this subject in 2009, in which my noble friend Lord Patten made a memorable and impressive speech, beekeeping has undergone a dramatic increase in popularity. The number of beekeepers has doubled in the past 10 years, with impressive developments in urban areas. There has been a corresponding growth in awareness and public concern regarding honey bees. However, I have tabled this Motion for debate because there is real and serious cause for concern about the plight of bees in recent years, as well as wider concerns about pollinators and pollution.

Before focusing on the situation in the United Kingdom, it is timely to remind ourselves of what is happening elsewhere in the world, summarised best in the findings of the United Nations Environment Programme Report, published as we headed into 2012, and well covered by Michael McCarthy, the environment editor of the Independent. That report demonstrated the decline in managed bee colonies, seen increasingly in Europe and the US in the past decade and now also being observed in China and Japan, with the first signs of African collapses.

The authors, who include some of the world’s leading honey bee experts, issued a stark warning about the disappearance of bees, which are increasingly important as crop pollinators around the globe. Without profound changes to the way human beings manage the planet, declines in pollinators needed to feed a growing global population are likely to continue. The scientists warn that a number of factors may now be coming together to damage bee colonies around the world, ranging from declines in flowering plants and the use of damaging insecticides to the worldwide spread of pests and air pollution. They call for farmers and landowners to be offered incentives to restore pollinator-friendly habitats, including key flowering plants near crop-producing fields, and stress that more care needs to be taken in the choice, timing and application of insecticides and other chemicals. Although managed hives can be moved out of harm’s way, wild populations of pollinators are completely vulnerable, the report states.

The way that humanity manages or mismanages its nature-based assets, including pollinators, will in part define our collective future in the 21st century. The fact is that of the 100 crop species that provide 90% of the world’s food, more than 70 are pollinated by bees. Some human beings fabricate the illusion that, in the 21st century, they have the technological prowess to be independent of nature. Bees underline the reality that we are more, not less, dependent on nature’s services in a world of 7 billion people.

Declines in bee colonies date back to the mid-1960s in Europe, but have accelerated since 1998. In North America, losses of colonies since 2004 have left the continent with fewer managed pollinators than at any time in the past 50 years. Chinese beekeepers have recently faced several inexplicable and complex symptoms of colony losses in both species. It has been reported elsewhere that some Chinese farmers have had to resort to pollinating fruit trees by hand because of the lack of insects.

The report lists a number of factors which may be coming together to cause the decline. They include: habitat degradation, including the loss of flowering plant species that provide food for bees; some insecticides, including the so-called systematic insecticides, which can migrate to the entire plant as it grows and can be taken in by bees in nectar and pollen; parasites and pests, such as the well-known varroa mite; and air pollution, which may be interfering with the ability of bees to find flowering plants, and thus food. Scents that could travel more than 800 metres in the 1800s now reach less than 200 metres from a plant.

“The transformation of the countryside and rural areas in the past half-century or so has triggered a decline in wild living bees and other pollinators”,

said one of the lead authors, Dr Peter Neumann of the Swiss Bee Research Centre. He continued:

“Society is increasingly investing in ‘industrial-scale’ hives and managed colonies to make up the shortfall and going so far as to truck bees around to farms and fields in order to maintain our food supplies. A variety of factors are making these man-made colonies vulnerable to decline and collapse. We need to get smarter about how we manage these hives, but perhaps more importantly, we need to better manage the landscape beyond, in order to recover wild bee populations”.

Moving from the international scene to the United Kingdom, the awful weather of 2012 has compounded the problems. The honey crop of 2012 was dramatically reduced, and there are concerns about how bees are currently over-wintering because of poor queen-mating during last season, leaving some hives queenless or with the real risk of becoming drone laying queens. The incidence of beekeepers resorting to regular feeding is known to have increased to record levels. As the BBKA honey survey found, the productivity of the average hive has dropped by 70% to eight pounds of honey compared to the more typical average of 30 pounds in the past. Losses have also occurred through starvation.

Of course, one bad year can ultimately be reversed, but the trend is disturbing, with a reduction in the British honey bee number of 75% in the past 100 years. Honey bees are in serious decline and that should be a matter of concern to all of us. For with their decline come wider issues around the importance of pollination for food production. It is incumbent on government, working with the beekeepers, to reverse this trend and to maintain high levels of pollination.

Diseases are important, but in my opinion the biggest challenge facing honey bees and much of British wildlife is agricultural intensification. Agricultural land makes up 75% of the United Kingdom. Despite the growth of beekeeping in urban areas and a welcome variety of flora in back gardens, it is on and around agricultural land where bees mostly forage and live. Even if we could cure all bee diseases, bees still have to eat. Of course, food production, at a time of rising demand, meteorological unpredictability and change, is vital, but in the coming decades we have to look for win-win situations in which we can make farming more wildlife-friendly, yet still satisfy growing consumption. One way we can do this for bees is to have more flowers in grazing land.

The use of pesticides has long been recognised as a serious problem. The neonicotinoid group of chemicals is widely used and may be having a serious and deleterious effect on honey bees, as was highlighted in the report provided for your Lordships before this debate. There will be those contributing to this debate who have far more expertise on this subject than I, but I would proffer one observation. My reading of the situation is that the use of insecticides in the UK is probably not the principal cause of the decline in honey bees or bumblebees. The increasing loss of biodiversity also affects the state and health of the insect population. Despite the greater awareness among the farming population, farming practices remain which are highly damaging to the welfare of honey bees. Widespread monoculture is a vector for disease and decline.

The diseases and pests of bees are also on the increase and the use of medicaments may be becoming less effective as the result of resistance. In addition, the British beekeepers have much to learn from a new generation of pests and parasites, previously unknown to these shores, which are making their way here. In the past few decades some additional pests and diseases of honey bees have been transferred from an Asian honey bee species, Apis cerana, which is very similar to the western honey bee, Apis mellifera. The best known of these is the varroa mite, but, even with varroa, existing diseases are not fully understood, and problems such as CCD—colony collapse disorder—are as yet not fully explained or resolved.

The solution to these challenges comes through research and education, and that is my key point today. In this context, the report of the Public Accounts Committee, published soon after our debate in 2009, is telling. It states:

“Despite their importance to the agricultural economy the Department has given little priority to bee health”.

In 2007-08, research expenditure in this field was just £200,000. In 2009, the department announced that this sum was to be supplemented by an extra £2.5 million over the following five years. However, this additional work to support the department's new bee health strategy will be diluted by including research into other pollinator insects as well as honey bees.

Regular inspections of colonies are also very important and enable the department to monitor the health of colonies and the incidence of disease and parasites. Nearly 80% of cases of notifiable disease in England are identified through such inspections, but the effectiveness of these inspections is hampered because around half of the estimated 37,000 active beekeepers in England have not joined the department's voluntary register, BeeBase. In marked contrast to registered beekeepers, very few reports of notifiable disease are made by previously unregistered beekeepers.

I ask my noble friend the Minister to provide an update on the current position and to confirm that the Government attach priority to ensuring that UK research councils and government-funded initiatives continue to support research into the health and welfare of both honey bees and other classes of pollinators. For example Professor Ratnieks, who has been undertaking considerable research on the Sussex Plan for Honey Bee Heath and Well-Being at the Laboratory of Apiculture and Social Insects at the University of Sussex, and who inspired me to keep bees as a hobby, is looking at ways to control or reduce honey bee diseases. In particular, he is working on hygienic honey-bees.

The word “hygiene” in this context requires a brief explanation. Hygiene is a natural disease resistance mechanism in which the bees themselves remove dead or sick brood, thereby reducing the incidence of brood diseases in a colony, including varroa. Hygiene occurs in British bees but is rare, so we have to look for hygienic colonies and breed from them. Hygiene is inherited and, as at least 92 noble Lords therefore understand, it is in the genes. Bees do not learn to do it; they do it instinctively if they have the genes. Only 10% or less of British bees are hygienic, so with focused research there is substantial potential to increase their contribution to healthy hives.

I hope the Government will look favourably on supporting research of this type, for such research is not a cost on the Exchequer. It is an investment in the future—an investment which will see returns well in excess of the sums under consideration. Healthy pollinators are the building blocks for high-quality food production. The seasonal bee inspectors do a great job and this is not the time to cut back their numbers or their workload.

As Tim Lovett of the British Beekeepers Association wrote in preparation for this debate, in general the BBKA and its member associations are cautiously optimistic about the future of the honey bee here in the UK. It believes there remains much practical applied research to be done to give beekeepers better tools to improve their bee husbandry skills and funds should be provided to fill these data gaps. It is hoped that the planned Defra public consultation on honeybee disease legislation and control will emphasise the need for effective measures to help the beekeeper to manage the health of their colonies and provide the necessary resources. Education and training are high priorities in the work of the BBKA and its member associations and it is hoped that the current modest contribution of funding from the public purse will improve the skill of bee-keepers and will continue.

However, poorly maintained hives can compound the problems we are considering today and well informed beekeepers are critical to the future welfare of honey bees. Relatively inexperienced beekeepers may also be a factor as diseased colonies, if not dealt with effectively, may act as reservoirs of infection. Current evidence is that, rather than there being a single smoking gun underlying bee declines, the cause is multifactorial. Factors include availability and a lack of diversity of forage crops. There is evidence that the immune systems of honey bees are impaired if they do not forage on a sufficiently broad range of flowers. This in turn may contribute to the prevalence and impact of particular pests and pathogens, such as the varroa mite and deformed wing virus.

While no single factor is, in my view, the cause of decline or poorer honey bee health, steps to control and understand the impact of the individual factors will contribute to improved hive and colony health. I urge my noble friend the Minister and the Government to redouble their efforts to support research in this sector and reverse the trends which are decimating populations of honey bees in this country and abroad.

16:33

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, the House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for such a well informed and expert speech. A honey bee beekeeper is prized indeed in this kind of debate. My interest in bees goes back to the long, hot summer of 1976, when the Liberal candidate for Winchester told me that his bees had collected four times more nectar than usual in May, as if they knew what was coming. Honey from the wild flowers of the Hampshire chalk downland is second to none, and I hoped there would be a limitless supply. However, we now know that things are very different today in the bee world, with fewer flower-rich meadows, unpredictable weather, the stranglehold of the varroa mite, and the possible weakening effects of even small amounts of the widely used systemic insecticides known as neonicotinoids.

As we have just heard, the importance of bees is not just because of the honey they produce, but because of their vital role as pollinators. They are the most efficient pollinators in the insect kingdom and the crisis in the bee world, if it is not halted, could have devastating effects on crops worldwide. In this country, it is estimated that 39 commercial crops rely on insect pollination, although there are wildly different estimates of how much this is worth. The figure seems to vary between £400 million and £500 million per annum. Perhaps the Minister could give us the latest estimate.

Although pests and diseases, as we have heard, are still thought to be the main threat to honey bees, it is significant that the UK has lost a staggering 97% of its wildflower meadows since the 1930s. The evidence is mounting about the possible harmful effects of systemic insecticides. The many research findings now in existence simply cannot be ignored, particularly those that are field-realistic rather than just laboratory findings.

Last month I tabled a Written Question asking the Government what assessment they had made of the impact of these insecticides on bee colonies, at the request of another beekeeper I know in Hampshire. Reading between the lines of the Answer from my noble friend, I got the impression that although Defra is very cautious in its approach, it nevertheless is taking seriously some new studies published last year which suggest that even low doses of neonicotinoids could have sub-lethal effects on bees: that is to say, they do not kill the bee, but alter its physiology or behaviour. In particular, research from the University of Stirling concluded that there was a clear need to re-evaluate the safety of these chemicals. Professor Dave Goulson, who supervised the work, said:

“Our work suggests that trace exposure of our wild bees to insecticides is having a major impact on their populations. Only queen bumblebees survive the winter to build new nests in the spring, so reducing the number produced by 85% means far fewer nests the following year. Repeated year on year, the long-term cumulative effects are likely to be profound”.

As we know, this is not just a British phenomenon. Last month, the European Environment Agency and MEPs issued a policy document, in which the first of the key findings was:

“Although bee declines can be attributed to multifarious causes, the use of neonicotinoids is increasingly held responsible for recent honeybee losses”.

The European Food Safety Authority, on behalf of the European Commission, is carrying out a review on bee health and insecticides which should provide new insights into the issue and may recommend a reassessment of EU regulatory guidelines. Some countries, most notably France and Italy, have taken action to mitigate the use of some of these insecticides, but I do not think any country has yet banned them altogether. However, some research carried out in France is, perhaps, significant. This is research by a team led by Professor Mickael Henry at INRA Research Centre in Avignon which analysed the effect on honey bees of a new generation of systemic insecticides called—I hope I have the pronunciation right—thiamethoxam. They fitted tiny electronic tags to over 650 bees and monitored their activity around the hive. Those exposed to commonly encountered levels of this insecticide suffered high mortality, with up to one-third of the bees failing to return. Professor Henry said:

“They disappeared in much higher numbers than expected...Under the effects we saw from the pesticides, the population size would decline disastrously and make them even more sensitive to parasites or lack of food”.

Therefore, what are we to make of the conflicting evidence of the chief causes of the decline in bee health? Is it the widespread use of these systemic insecticides, or is the picture more complicated than that? On the one hand, many beekeepers and concerned members of the public find some independent studies on the sub-lethal effects of these insecticides on bees very worrying. On the other hand, many farmers quite understandably say that if there were to be a ban on, for example, the planting of oilseed-rape-treated seeds, far less oilseed rape would be planted, which could mean that many bees would starve. Of course, fields planted with ordinary oilseed rape seeds would then have to be sprayed. What are we to make of the evidence from Australia where, apparently, these systemic insecticides are widely used but where there is no varroa mite to weaken the bees’ immune system? Australian bees are thought to be the healthiest on the planet.

We have to look for help to independent scientists whose job it is to carry out trials and publish the results in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The scientists at the Rothamsted Research station in Hertfordshire are old hands in this field. Yes, a small proportion of its work is funded by agrichemical companies—it is quite open about that—but most of it is publicly funded. It has always been committed to sustainable agriculture by improving and developing novel methods of pest and disease control while ensuring minimal harm to wildlife, including pollinators. It says that the management of pesticide use is not as simple as “use it” or “don’t use it”. If the concentrations used and the methods of application were strictly adhered to, the risk to insect pollinators would be minimal, which has to be balanced against the risk of not protecting farmers’ crops. It also acknowledges some of the evidence linking neonicotinoid use with sub-lethal effects on pollinators.

Therefore, the scientists, the public and beekeepers, including, I think, the British Beekeepers’ Association, want this research to be done as speedily and effectively as possible, otherwise the calls for neonicotinoids to be banned altogether will grow louder and louder. Perhaps my noble friend could help me with whether any of these pesticides are licensed for use domestically or by local authorities for use perhaps on roadside verges.

Turning to the role of Defra, I hope that it will continue to work closely with the farming community to encourage more bee-friendly measures, such as the planting of flower-rich field margins and wildflower meadows, particularly through agri-environment schemes. I believe that the funding of those schemes is due to end in a few months’ time. Will the Minister tell us what will happen then?

Perhaps the Government will also consider encouraging all those who have gardens, however small, to plant nectar-rich flowers, shrubs and even trees, to help bees obtain the nectar that they need for survival. This is especially true in big cities such as London, which is home to many beekeepers and whose bees need as much help as they can get from ordinary garden owners. We hear that bees in urban settings are often flourishing better than their rural neighbours, possibly because they are not so exposed to pesticides. However, before the expansion of beekeeping in big cities, we have to make sure that there are enough nectar-rich sources. I applaud the mayor of Runnymede who I have just heard is encouraging primary schools in the area to plant nectar-rich flowers.

Defra is to be congratulated on spending more money on research into insect pollinators in recent years, but I hope that it will continue to act vigorously in trying to get to the bottom of the very alarming decline in the health of honey bees, and will be fearless in pursuing the goal of a healthy and sustainable bee population.

16:44

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Moynihan on returning to this important subject today and reminding us of the disease affecting our native honey bees, which is even more acute than it was when he had his debate in 2009. He spoke about the importance of biodiversity, which I totally support, and the seriousness of the honey bees’ decline. At the time of that debate, the Government pledged some £10 million to research projects. I hope that the Minister, in winding up, will be able to tell us more about the outcome of that and what the work has produced.

I pay tribute to the British Beekeepers Association, bee farmers and others who promote good beekeeping practice and are willing to share their knowledge. As we have heard, finance is limited and, therefore, the amount and quality of the help available for those starting up in beekeeping is rather patchy. It is better in some areas than others.

We do not keep bees at home but our lime trees attract wild bees, although there were noticeably fewer of them around this year. I know that they do not fare very well in cold, wet conditions and we all know what has happened this year. The Met Office has provided statistics to remind us of the preponderance of abnormal rainfall over the past decade. We also have flowers and a vegetable patch and we grow fruit at home. We have a few beehives on the farm in Suffolk, which we believe makes good sense. I think that it was estimated in 2009 that the bee contribution to commercial crops was worth between £150 million and £300 million. The last figure I had for this year was £500 million but, again, the Minister can clarify that for me. We grow oil seed rape and cereals on the farm. Indeed, I can tell the noble Baroness that we are members of the entry level scheme and that we try to have areas that allow for biodiversity. I think that more farmers are increasingly aware not just of their responsibilities in producing biodiversity areas but of its importance, particularly for bees.

In January, Natural England announced changes to the regulations affecting the importation of bumblebees for commercial pollination which are designed to safeguard the health of the native bee. Non-native bees are important and are used for pollination in commercial horticulture in England. I believe that some 10,000 colonies were imported last year. One of the questions raised is whether it is possible that long-distance transportation also affects their health. I do know the answer to that at all. The new licensing regime requires all growers wishing to use non-native bumblebees to register their premises with Natural England. I am not in favour of lots of regulation but I am sure that this is a very essential step. The rules include a requirement to follow improved disease-screening protocols, to restrict the use of these bees to polytunnels or greenhouses, taking all reasonable steps to prevent them escaping, and, finally, to destroy them to prevent them establishing in the wild.

We have heard that disease can wipe out colonies very quickly. The Food and Environment Research Agency has a bee unit, which is responsible for the enforcement of statutory disease and pest controls. It also runs programmes giving training and advice to beekeepers. I welcome the voluntary surveillance studies initiated by the European Commission and currently undertaken by 17 member states. The first results are due in the spring and we await their analysis with interest later this year.

For many years, it has been suggested that treatments applied to plants and the land to improve the quality and quantity of agricultural produce were the cause of deaths among birds, small animals and wildlife. We now know that many things that are recommended for the lessening or eradication of one problem may well worsen another. It is therefore surely right that the research continues. In September last year, a Defra report stated that the use of pesticides was not unequivocally linked to bee deaths. Continuous review of research is essential if we are to reduce this infection in the bee population. Looking at Parliamentary Written Answers over recent weeks tends to make one feel that climate change is not the sole or even the main cause of bee deaths. If it were, there would be a chance that nature might adapt and find a new balance.

On 29 November, the Minister referred to the publication on 18 September 2012 of a study on honey bees and bumblebees and a subsequent study on bumblebees that was discussed on 13 November by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. He did not have any resulting recommendations. Is he able to update us on that? In December last year, the Minister stated that the Government are,

“currently considering a range of evidence on the state of bees and other pollinators in order to determine what action is required”.—[Official Report, 3/12/12; col. WA 97.]

I understand that this will be completed early in 2013. If the underlying research is successful, we should then know whether the actual levels are abnormal. I also understand that the Government have commissioned work into the exposure of wild bumblebees to sub-lethal insecticide doses, to which my noble friend referred earlier.

On 11 December last year, the Minister wrote about the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, which was published in 2012. It concluded that wild bee diversity had declined in most landscapes, as had many insect species with specialised feeding or habitat requirements. The Minister drew attention to a recently begun review by Natural England on the status of invertebrates in England. What is the timetable for that? Has the Minister any news on it?

I also wonder whether we are looking in all the right places. Over the past decade there has been an increase in the number, nature and variety of diseases affecting plants and trees. Has there been any research into the effect of such disease on the insects that visit them? Is there any evidence that insects can recognise when a plant or tree is affected and, if so, do they avoid it? Is there any possibility that diseased plants or trees are more attractive to insects? We continue to import huge numbers of trees and plants into this country. One has to pose the question whether that is bringing in disease as well.

I read with interest the POSTnote of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on insect pollination, which stated that there have been large-scale honey bee losses over the past 200 years, and that those had occurred some 30 times in 200 years. It would be interesting to know how many have occurred in, say, the past 50 years because, if a lot of them occurred prior to that, the use of herbicides might be questioned and the changes in the way that farming has been carried out in recent years might also be taken into account. I had not got my mind round that interesting issue and was very grateful for that document.

As other noble Lords have said, honey bees are hugely important to us as individuals but this issue is a global phenomenon. If we in this country could be part of research and development that managed to resolve this problem, we would do the world a great service.

The NFU briefing reminds us that our investigations need to be based on science rather than accepting the claims of people who say that this problem is all due to pesticides. I know that the Government are very focused in their approach to the whole question of the bumblebee and bumblebee research. I congratulate my noble friend on his past three years of work and on his work as a beekeeper. As I say, my family do not keep bees but we know how valuable they are on our farm.

16:54

[Lord Rea]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, very much for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue again, and for the very clear way in which he presented the wide extent of the problem. He emphasised the importance of honey bees as pollinators, as will all speakers, but, of course, several other wild insect species are also pollinators, and there is evidence that some of these, such as bumblebees and butterflies, are also in decline. The topic has been raised on a number of occasions over the past few years in both Houses, most recently in a series of Questions for Written Answer by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and answered in fact by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, perhaps in a warm-up exchange for this debate.

I am no expert on apiculture but I have chosen to join this debate since I have had personal experience of keeping bees—admittedly in a very amateur and unregistered capacity—for a number of years. I confess that I have never been on a formal training course in bee husbandry and have learnt what I know from talking to other beekeepers and through reading around the subject. But most of all I have learnt from experience through trial and error. Over the years I have lost several colonies which failed to survive the lean winter months. This was due to various identifiable causes, such as raiding of the hive by mice and even by woodpeckers, harvesting honey too late in the season for the bees to collect winter stores, not feeding the colony with enough sugar, and other errors that could be attributed to incompetence or inexperience.

However, I have always managed to keep the hives free from varroa and, as far as I am aware, other infestations, although wax moths have sometimes been a nuisance. In good years I have collected, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, about 30 pounds of honey per hive, which is a good yield that is enough to keep family and friends in honey for a year or so. I keep only one or two hives. In the past three years, though, I have lost two colonies for no explicable reason. There were more than adequate winter stores of honey but the bees did not use them. In one case the colony simply died and in the other the surviving bees in March or April appeared disoriented and unable to forage. The old queen had died but the colony had not replaced her, as would normally be the case, and it soon dwindled in strength and numbers and perished. Perhaps an expert would have spotted this early enough to requeen the colony but it was too late in my case.

This unusual behaviour alerted me further to reports, which I was already aware of, describing how low-dose, sub-lethal amounts of certain pesticides—especially the systemic neonicotinoids—have been shown experimentally to result in damage to bees’ central nervous system, with subsequent aberrant behaviour. For instance, in one study affected bees appeared to become disoriented and a higher proportion than usual, as the noble Baroness said, failed to find their way back to the hive from foraging flights, due possibly to memory failure or loss of communication skills. It has also been shown recently in several studies that neonicotinoids can increase the severity of infections—for example, from the common fungal infection of bees, Nosema apis. A study of bumblebees given low doses of a neonicotinoid showed that the number of new queens produced fell markedly compared with control colonies. These findings seemed to me to be quite relevant to the fate of the two lost colonies that I described. The loss of bee colonies may not be due to the direct lethal effect of the high doses of pesticide on bees; rather, it may be due to the reduced resistance to other pathogens and maladaptive behaviour caused by quite small doses.

There is a recent report from the policy department of the European Parliament, published last month. I am not sure whether this is the document circulated by the noble Lord, but I am afraid that I did not receive it anyhow. It is entitled Existing Scientific Evidence of the Effects of Neonicotinoid Pesticides on Bees and it gives a very up-to-date picture of current research. It has 48 references to scientific papers, mostly published between 2009 and 2012. These describe the evidence on which the descriptions of the effects on bees, including bumblebees, of low doses of what I am going to call “NNs” are based. I have described these effects. The case seems to be clear that the use of these chemicals should be reduced and/or further controlled. Those that are shown to be most damaging should be banned. There is enough evidence, I feel.

This is already the case in Italy, where bee health was seen to recover after the use of some NNs was forbidden, and also in certain German Länder, and in France and other countries. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, can fill us in on the whole international picture. In the UK, Defra has until very recently taken a very cautious position on the effect of NNs, as has the British Beekeepers Association. Many of us wonder how much influence the agrochemical and farming industries are having on the Government’s position. The use of pesticides can certainly increase crop yields, so I can understand that evidence of the damage that they also cause to pollinators needs to be robust. However, I hope that the Minister will now recognise that the scientific case for action is becoming stronger all the time.

As other speakers have pointed out, not only are beekeepers losing their livelihood but the health of our horticulture and natural environment are at stake through the loss of pollinators. There are reports that insectivorous bird numbers are diminishing in some areas because of the decreased numbers of insects due to agricultural pesticides. It is not yet Silent Spring in the UK but there is a strong case for tighter regulation of pesticides and increased research to develop new, less harmful ways of obtaining good crop yields. This could be done through plant breeding, for example, and—dare I mention it?—genetic modification, and the development of plant-pest predators so that harmful pesticides can be phased out. However, I am of course aware of the useful nostrum, “For every complex problem there is a simple solution and it is wrong”. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that many factors may be responsible.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister whether he agrees with one of the recommendations of the report from the European Parliament which I mentioned that, as long as there are uncertainties concerning the effects of neonicotinoids on honey bees, the precautionary principle in accordance with the EC Regulation 1107/2009 should be applied when using neonicotinoids.

17:02

[Lord Patten]

My Lords, it is not all bad news for bees. It is truly paradoxical that at a time when, as my noble friend pointed out in his introductory and wide-ranging speech, there are so many major threats to the health of our honey bees, the number of people taking up beekeeping is surging, with the numbers of those seeking membership of the British Beekeepers Association having doubled in the past three years. After listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I do not know whether he may also be seeking membership of that great organisation.

It is, however, equally paradoxical that at a time of challenge to our honey bees the numbers of bee inspectors have plummeted. I have never seen one of these great public servants, a bee inspector. I have been looking out for them but I have never spotted one. I do not know whether perhaps they wear a uniform. I do know that in statute they have more or less unfettered and police-like powers of entry in the matter of hive-patrolling. So my noble friend Lord Moynihan and other noble friends—such as, in his beekeeping activities in Wiltshire, my noble friend Lord Marland, who is sad not to be taking part in this debate—should watch out for the thud on their drive of the boots of the bee inspector, if such a person still exists. I wonder whether they are in as much decline as our honey bees. I ask the Minister what their role now is. Are they of any help or are they in fact extinct? I look forward to hearing more about them later.

All that said, the problem that we face is Europe-wide, just like the ash tree issue. That is complex, but the threat to honey bees and bumblebees is even more complex. In the matter of bees, as in the matter of ash trees, I assure the Minister—a countryman himself—that I do not blame the Government for every lack of foresight or lack of action. That is too easy to do. It is a very complex problem and we are all—farmers, beekeepers, the agrochemical industry and others—up to our necks in the issue.

I know that up to one-third of our domestically produced diet is bee dependent; it needs pollination, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out. Of course, bees do not have a monopoly on this activity—there are other pollinators—but they are certainly the nation’s prime pollinators both for legumes such as peas and beans and for top fruit such as apples and pears, for which they are absolutely vital. Overall, the impact on our rural productive economy of substantial failure in the pollination cycle has been estimated—as my noble friend Lady Byford pointed out—at many hundreds of millions of pounds. That was pointed out also by my noble friend Lord Moynihan.

That the problem is not fully understood is self-evident. It cannot be explained, otherwise, with the expertise of your Lordships’ House, we would have had the explanation by now in the debate. Just as there are cyclical changes in climate, with the Met Office recently “fessing up” that there has been little global warming since 1998, so there are sometimes extraordinary population explosions in the animal world, mirrored by equally extraordinary population declines on other occasions, generally but not always self-regulating after a period of mutation. There is an unpredictable asymmetry to these swings of nature, in which mankind is sometimes potentially a damage-doing participant—as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out—but sometimes merely a puzzled spectator, as are many of us in your Lordships’ House today. We are unclear about the root cause or causes of the problem.

Good science will one day reveal whether what we are discussing today is simply one of those cyclical swings, willingly working itself out over time, or whether this time there is some terminal quality to what is going on in this country. I do not know the answer but I suspect that the trend is not down to a single cause. A consensus seems to be emerging from noble Lords on both sides of the House that there is probably not one single cause but a mixture, from the spread of the varroa mite, to which my noble friend Lord Moynihan first alerted me in 2009, to the currently fashionable suspicion that we may be having a Silent Spring for honey bees because of new “killer pesticides”. I simply do not know. That would be an easy explanation but, as I understand it, it is not clear scientifically. The only assurance that I seek today from the Minister, in addition to confirmation of the existence or non-existence of bee inspectors, is that the Government and our European partners are doing all they can, as quickly as they can, to deal with the issue through good science of the highest quality. In the end, that is what we who are not scientists must depend on.

In the mean time, I have two suggestions of a rather pragmatic sort. First, there is a need for ever-improving pest and hive management that not only strives to find ways of dealing with the mite but involves better treatment of gut diseases by antibiotics, ever-closer attention to hive hygiene and particularly to the introduction of new forms of hygienic bees—pinpointed by my noble friend Lord Moynihan—and very careful temperature control in winter. It is a matter of integrating all measures to sustain our colonies—easier said than done in your Lordships’ House but critical to their preservation.

Secondly, much can be done by farmers and landowners in the smallest of ways by sustaining wild plant species that provide nectar for bees. The cumulative effect of changes to relatively small patches of land over a number of years could well be one of the factors in the decline of pollinating insects such as bees. This has occurred not just because of monocultural clearances in the agricultural landscape but because of nectar-producing plants in patches here and there being effectively crowded out by the growth of more competitive plant species, encouraged by airborne nitrogenous compounds being deposited around them just like fertiliser. Undoubtedly we need food and good agriculture, but it is also a fact that intensive monocultural agriculture offers little forage to pollinators—QED. That is just a simple fact.

So let us hope that with the Government having done all they can, the honey bee will bounce back like its relative the bumblebee, having drunk too freely of the flowers of that beautiful lime tree tilia petiolaris. It is a magnificent tree. It is highly floriferous and is wonderful for human beings to smell, but it is deeply narcotic to the bumblebee, as anyone who has stood underneath tilia petiolaris, as we do in our West Country home, has seen. After a short period of sniffing—or perhaps I should say snorting—by the bumblebees, they generally fall intoxicated to the ground, on their backs, legs twitching. There is a short recovery period, then they generally bounce back, although some, like humans, often return, recidivist-like, to the scene of their earlier intoxication. They are rather like the old habitués of the Bishops’ Bar in the old days of legend in this House—a long time before I came to join your Lordships and naturally much before the time of anyone represented in the Chamber today. One can only hope, as I do, that the honey bee turns out to have the same bounce-back resilience of the lime flower intoxicated bumblebee, recovering from the damage that, alas, both bumblebee and honey bee have had because of nature and self-indulgence.

17:12

[Lord Jones of Cheltenham]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on his wonderful introduction to this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I must get a lime tree from somewhere. I first became aware of the serious nature of the decline in the population of honeybees and other pollinators when a campaign began in my former constituency of Cheltenham some years ago. It was started by some keen environmental campaigners who wanted to protect a meadow from development. I went to see the save the meadow campaigners to hear their case and was impressed by their knowledge—and somewhat alarmed by what they told me. As we have heard, there has been a massive loss of wild habitat for bees and other pollinators.

According to Buglife, 3 million hectares of flower-rich grassland has been lost since the end of the Second World War, leaving only 100,000 hectares remaining. Plantlife says that only 2% of wildlife meadows and grasslands that existed in the 1930s survive, with over 7 million acres lost. I commend to noble Lords Plantlife’s Saving Our Magnificent Meadows campaign, which aims to save 75,000 acres of the most vulnerable habitat. I would be interested to know from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the effect of loss of habitat on bee populations. The Open Spaces Society has concerns about this too. It points out that open spaces in town and country are crucial to the nation’s health and well-being. Unfortunately, it says that the Growth and Infrastructure Bill threatens people’s ability to protect their rights to land which they have long used and loved. The Bill outlaws the registration of land as a town or village green once it is threatened with development. It hopes that the Bill will be amended to ensure that people can still protect their precious open spaces. Will the Government consider protecting meadows—and indeed village greens—in any future planning legislation?

We have heard that honeybees are only part of pollination: wild pollinators are crucial, too. Hoverflies and other fly varieties, butterflies and moths, bumblebees and other wild bees all play their part in pollination. However, these species, too, as we have heard, are in decline. Buglife tells me that scientific evidence suggests that in the UK only between 5% and 10% of pollination is done by honeybees and 90% to 95% by other pollinators. Does the Minister agree with Buglife that, while important, honeybees form only a small part of the insects which pollinate crops?

Honeybees are generalists that do not and cannot pollinate many plants. For example, bumblebees and flowerbees use buzz pollination—their wings must vibrate to ensure pollination. Many wild flowers have very specific relationships with certain insects which have long tongues or corollas. Because solitary bees carry pollen loosely on their abdomens and not packed tightly in bags, they are 300 times as effective at pollinating apple flowers compared with honeybees.

There is some scientific evidence that increasing the number of honeybees reduces the fitness of bumblebees in the local area. The last thing we want to end up with is a monoculture pollination system relying on one species that has been, and will be, subject to cycles of devastating disease. Six of 25 species of UK bumblebees have declined by at least 80 per cent in the past 50 years; short-haired bumblebees have been extinct since the early 1990s; 72% of butterfly species are declining; and two-thirds of larger moth species have declined. In the past 35 years, 75 species have declined by more than 70% and more than 250 UK pollinators are in danger of extinction and are listed on the UK BAP priority list.

If these losses continue unabated, there could be the loss of up to 80% of plant species and 13% of agricultural production, which would limit future food production options and add considerable costs to the agricultural industry. In the context of a global population that is predicted to reach 9.5 billion by 2075, this is very serious.

The Bumblebee Conservation Trust points out that 84% of European crops and 80% of wild flowers rely on insect pollination. Soft fruit pollination is carried out predominantly by bumblebees. The trust suggests that in the absence of bees, food prices would rise. For example, the farm gate price of strawberries would increase from a 2009 price of £2.21 per kilo to £4.06. There are many different estimates, as we have heard, of the costs to British agriculture. What assessment have the Government made of the cost of the decline in honeybees and other pollinators? Do they agree with the highest figure that I have seen, from Friends of the Earth, that the decline in pollinators could pose an annual cost to British agriculture of £1.8 billion to pollinate crops?

Let me turn to professional beekeepers and their most wonderful product—honey—for which I have a particular weakness. Noble Lords will know that honey products from around the world can be bought in British shops. Indeed, a visit to Fortnum & Mason’s will be rewarded with the opportunity to buy honey from Pitcairn Island, where the human population is around 50. The island must have the highest ratio of beekeepers in the world. My particular favourite is honey from Botswana—I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register. I believe that the beekeepers of Botswana have applied for approval to export their honey to the European Union and I hope that they are successful.

I asked Mr Chris Broad, the secretary of the Worcestershire Beekeepers, for his view on the decline in the population of honeybees. He currently manages around 350 hives and has some interesting views. His main concern is that the Government’s policy should be driven by a good understanding of the true state of affairs and he believes that in recent years there has been a lot of misinformation and spin on honeybee health. He paints what he believes to be a more accurate picture.

He says that honeybee decline has been badly misunderstood. Population has only ever been measured by estimating the number of beekeepers and the average colonies per beekeeper. Even when beekeepers lose colonies in winter they can easily double their hives in summer using the bees’ urge to reproduce.

The beekeeper population has approximately trebled in the last five or six years. This has resulted in a trebling of the measurable honeybee population. It also means the average beekeeper is inexperienced.

In 2005, for example, Worcestershire Beekeepers had 170 members. Now they have 524. The umbrella organisation, the British Beekeepers Association, has shown a similar percentage growth over the same period.

Mr Broad says that honeybee health is a different thing entirely. He is expecting poor survival statistics this winter as a knock-on effect of the atrocious summer, combined with the relatively low skill level of the average beekeeper. My noble friend Lady Walmsley told me yesterday that she had lost all her bees this summer, and I have been trying to imagine her in full beekeeper’s outfit, tending to her hive. I must also now add the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to that picture.

There are a number of major health threats to honeybees, Mr Broad tells me, primarily varroa, nosema and foulbrood, but he believes that all these are manageable by competent beekeepers. However, he points out that we are struggling to deliver adequate training to novice beekeepers while also attempting to train waves of brand new beekeepers each year. Virtually all training is given by volunteers. Pesticides are a concern because they could potentially cause localised beehive deaths. However, Mr Broad knows of only one such incident in the last 10 years in Worcestershire and says that it would be nice to have some kind of compensation scheme in case of big kills but that practically speaking no knowledgeable beekeeper would treat this as a priority. He believes that our short-term priority should be to increase the skill level of beekeepers by any means possible. Mr Broad criticises the overreliance on the bee inspectorate—FERA—service, which in its current form acts as a very expensive crutch to inexperienced beekeepers, and could be regarded as a disincentive to them to learn to manage honeybee health on their own.

Do the Government have any plans to encourage new beekeepers, to improve training for those who have started beekeeping recently; and what measures are available, for example, on capital allowances to help those setting up and maintaining hives?

This morning Mr Broad informed me that he had received something from Defra regarding the consultation “Improving honeybee health”, which runs for two months from today. After skimming through it, he says that it looks very positive; you might say that the consultation has received broad approval. The consultation includes a list of consultees. I suggest that the Government also invite responses from Buglife, Plantlife and the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, which have been very helpful to me in preparing for this debate.

We have heard a lot about insecticides from noble Lords more experienced than me. My contact at Plantlife, Adrian Darby, is particularly concerned about the effect of neonicotinoids. What assessment have the Government made of research by scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health into colony collapse disorder?

In my view, the population decline of bees and other pollinators needs to be treated as a national emergency. The public needs to be more aware of the problem and encouraged to play a part in solving it.

The Bumblebee Conservation Trust has a section on its website where individual gardeners can assess the bee-friendliness of their current garden, and it suggests the right plants to grow. The top 10 recommendations are mahonia, pussy willow, viburnum, lavender, scabious, borage, comfrey, pink allium, bell flower, and yellow aquilegia.

Do the Government agree with the Bumblebee Conservation Trust that encouraging individual gardeners to grow particular bee-friendly plants would be beneficial to bee populations and other pollinators? In addition, do the Government have any plans for an awareness campaign to inform the public of the importance of bees and other pollinators? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

17:23

[Lord Selsdon]

My Lords, one of the great privileges of being in your Lordships’ House is that when one speaks late in the list, one gets the feeling of being an outpatient at some form of university college hospital where you are bound to learn. You also get a dry feeling in your throat while you are waiting to speak. The answer to that is very simple: you should wiggle your toes, and just before you come into the Chamber you should have a small spoonful of liquid honey. Then you will not have that problem.

I am probably the least qualified person to speak today, and I do so mainly because I have a great regard for my noble friend Lord Moynihan. We had two great mentors: Lord Jellicoe was one, and for me the other was Lord Shackleton.

My involvement in beekeeping is rather strange. All I can do is to explain what happened to me rather accidentally in my life. At the start of the war I was exported, to be kept out of the way so I would not be knocked off. I came back as a five year-old to be put on my grandfather’s farm, and I had no coupons or sweets. I was told that my job was bees, and that I should move the beehive at night to put it near the chickens so that no one stole the eggs.

I was introduced to the bees as a small boy by someone who today we would call a beekeeper but was actually a German prisoner of war, who had great knowledge of such things. We had a whole range of people on the farm. I got quite interested in honey but I had been brought up in Canada with maple syrup. I was not quite sure how you got honey, and I thought it was probably illegal to try to do so because I did not have any coupons. When I was introduced to the bees, they became my friends. It was one of those strange relationships that you have as a child; I could not quite understand why, but I had a feeling that they got to know me.

I move on to many years later, during which I went into various activities. When I was in the banking world, one of the jobs that I had was to help to advise the Government of Jamaica—I suppose because I was conceived on the beach there during my father’s honeymoon, which is as good a reason as any. I was asked by Eddie Seaga if I could help with bees. I said, “I don’t know anything about bees”, but then I remembered Winnie-the-Pooh’s line,

“Isn't it funny how a bear likes honey?”.

When I first met the bees on my grandfather’s farm, I had a small teddy bear called Marmaduke, and I thought that by using that teddy bear I might possibly get a larger allowance of honey. That stuck in my mind when I was in Jamaica, and I was officially asked to help to reinstitute Jamaica’s logwood honey business. I have to say that I had not heard of logwood honey but I knew that it was quite important. I did not realise that Her Majesty had been given a patch of it, as well as a patch of Blue Mountain coffee. Together with the high commissioner, John Drinkall, I thought, “What do we do? They need some honey equipment”, but I had no idea where to get it. We formed the Wild Flower Honey Company of Jamaica and I managed to arrange export credit from Her Majesty’s Government, with the guarantee of the Wild Flower Honey Company of Jamaica, which had 10,000 Jamaican dollars. I did not know that I had put in half of that sum; indeed, at the time I had not, but I was soon asked to make the payment.

So you arrive back here, and then Mr Seaga arrives here on a visit and you get invited to go to Downing Street for the first time for lunch because you are an important investor in Jamaica. The Prime Minister gets up and says, “We are very happy to have some big investors in Jamaica here, particularly Lord Selsdon, who has a substantial investment in the honey business of 5,000 Jamaican dollars”.

Those are the sorts of things that stick in the back of your mind and suddenly come to the fore on occasions such as just before Christmas, when the wax chandlers brigade invited me to go and speak at their annual dinner where they would introduce a new master. Although I introduced the Powers of Entry Bill and the Bees Act was within that, I knew only roughly what I was talking about—but they gave me some help.

Your Lordships will know that under the powers of entry in the Bees Act, if you happen to see a bee on your property supping nectar, you may follow it wherever it goes to take a share of what is in the hive. The Home Office confirmed that that provision is still extant, which is an interesting point for noble Lords who are beekeepers and feel that their bees may be roaming.

As I roam around, I come back to perhaps the more serious issue here. By various accidents, I happen to be a peasant farmer in Provence. We have an ancient vineyard: my neighbours have all been there since the Templiers or even before and, of course, you have the normal combination of honey, olive, wine and fig. If one goes back into the mists of time, it is not all about eating locusts and wild honey, but you realise the importance of the history of honey throughout the whole of the Mediterranean. It was more than just a product—it was a culture. We do not have bees, but we have commuting bees. I look after about 15 hectares of vines for other people, and I have a fairly rough team down there, who will be longing to get the full translated text of this debate today. I will try to arrange this, perhaps through the Information Office here, because it is an important cult.

In general, what we deal in is mono-floral honeys. That means that you want the bees to sup off the chestnut trees or the lavender, so they commute. They come in on a lorry in hives painted in different colours, because I am told they can recognise colours and know where to go. These are placed in strategic positions and then later they are moved on up to the Haut Var when the lavender harvest starts. It was suggested that I should have a whole range of hives and become a beekeeper myself. However, the instructors there—as I call them, because they are pretty switched-on—said that I would have to spend at least half the year there for the bees to trust me. I said, “Even if they are commuting bees?” They said, “Yes, because they do get to know you”.

Normally, every year I bring back a bit of olive oil in small bottles to the important people who make decisions—who are not Members of this House—either olive oil or lavender bags or honey, but this year we had no honey. The problems were partly on account of the weather because we go from plus 40 degrees to minus 20, but the bees survive. There is very little varroa disease, and I cannot quite work out how it all fits together.

One of the projects I was involved with previously was with Lord Shackleton. He said to me, “Ah, you know a bit about bees and honey, can you help with the Noah’s Ark?” The Noah’s Ark was the project to reinstitute agriculture and other things in the Falklands. What they wanted were some more bees that could effectively increase pollination. I always used to be given these strange tasks in your Lordships’ House when no one knew anything; they thought that neither did I, but I had to find out. The idea was that we should get a bee that would take off into the wind, rather than flying downwind to take off, and would go short distances, load up and be blown back down.

Now, often when there are many things to deal with, I go to the church and I go to the monasteries. In the end, I got Brother Peter from a monastery—or monkery as I call it—up in Cyprus, who said, “No problem, you want the Braemar bee. Ask the Queen Mother”. We got hold of the Queen Mother’s office and found that the Braemar bee had come from there, so we got a whole lot of bees put in a basket and off they went. But effectively we had to produce some queens as well, because queens can cost quite a lot of money. I did not know what the monks did, but you just make a bigger hole in the comb and the worker bees feed it and you get a bigger bee and therefore a queen bee, but that is beyond my competence. They went out there and, needless to say, it worked.

Over time, I have found that I have gained such affection for this particular subject and topic, but I did not realise that there are certain things that are helpful because of where I am in France. You need a jolly good fire every so often, and we have them in abundance. They clear everything up and, within months, the spring flowers are back as never before. You are not able to clear the sorts of forest that we have otherwise. One trick is to watch the tortoises because, when a fire is coming, the tortoise knows and goes to the side of the tree away from the fire and slowly digs down. He survives, whereas all the small birds fly around. The bees know the fire is coming long before anyone else; they move off and out and then come back.

I have found this an interesting subject. I think it is important and I would like to know more about it. The Bees Act will give you an introduction to it—but above all we should promote the bee and we should promote honey. Honey has medical abilities, for bruises and everything else. At the moment we are all talking every day about health. Every single problem in the health world is being announced on television, and scare ads are put in—but the medical contents and abilities of honey are considerable.

I support my noble friend and I believe that we should advance upon a major bee promotion business: have yourself named after a bee.

17:34

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to my noble friend on having given us the chance to debate this important topic this afternoon. I am the eighth speaker on what is a fairly narrow subject, so I will endeavour not to re-plough the ground that has already extensively been discussed.

I grew up in a bee-focused household. After the war, my mother began to raise and look after a few bees. We reached a peak of about 60 or 70 hives, which represents a tonne of honey. In my teenage years my pocket money was supplemented by having to look after these beastly things. I had to carry the heavy supers out of the fields back to decap them, extract them, strain them clean, bottle them and label them, and to do so in the height of summer in a room that was completely sealed and therefore roasting hot, because if it was not sealed you had some angry bees joining you very quickly indeed.

In addition, the local authority pest control department quickly gets to know that you are the source of bee collection, so when there is a problem with a swarm and a householder rings up you are sent to pick up the swarm. My noble friend Lord Patten talked about the dangers of being under the tree with inebriated bumblebees. Up the tree, on a ladder, trying to scoop a swarm into a box is a challenge of a different kind.

More seriously and most importantly, we used to get calls from local farmers asking us to move our hives to the edge of their fields to improve pollination. My noble friend Lord Patten referred to apples. The area I am talking about, south Shropshire and north Worcestershire, is a big cider apple-growing area and bees are the major pollinators of these fruits. Moving hives is also a challenge because it has to be done at night: you seal up the hives, strap them together, put them into the back of your pick-up truck and drive them to the edge of the field. Invariably, from time to time one of the straps comes loose, the hive breaks open and the result is not attractive for the driver.

Despite all this, I admired the determination and single-mindedness of bees. When I was about 18, I was told by a doyen of the British Beekeepers Association that to make a pound of honey the bees would fly 24,000 miles around the world and would visit, depending on the size of the flower, between 3 million and 9 million flowers. I thought that was a pretty impressive achievement. Clearly, bees also did an enormous amount in improving crop yields and increasing biodiversity.

As for my personal experience of bees, I liked bees but they did not like me. I was stung so many times during those years that I now have an extreme allergic reaction to bees and therefore have to carry an Epipen antihistamine injector with me as my reward for having stolen all that honey.

My family’s bee colonies have experienced the familiar story that has been described earlier in this debate; that is, weakening and dying colonies. A lot of focus has been put on varroa and similar diseases that kill outright. Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I wonder if that is not too simplistic an approach. Yes, we have seen hives dwindle and die and sometimes it has been because of varroa, but more often there appears to be a gradual diminution of the health of the hive, which precedes complete collapse. The diseases that weaken hives include the chalkbrood fungus, which kills the larvae, and nosema apis, which causes dysentery in the hive. These and similar diseases cause enormous stress.

Stress and bees may seem an unusual combination but when you move hives, even if you take them to the edge of a field where the pollen collection opportunities are very great, it is two or three days before the bees settle down and start to fly normally. It would be very helpful if the Minister could spend a minute or two explaining to my noble friend and me what is the wider view of colony susceptibility. We could usefully spend some time trying to pick apart the different strands of that problem.

As my noble friend also said in his excellent introduction, there have been attempts to increase the number of hygienic honey bees. He gave the figure of 10%; I am told that it is about 15%. Nevertheless, as he pointed out, it is important to see whether we can increase those strains to tackle those diseases in a different way.

As an alternative approach to improving the health of a hive, there is the facilitation of food collection. Research has shown that, in spring and early summer, bees, on average, fly only about 700 metres to find food. By March, that figure has risen to nearly 4,000 metres. That is another type of stress for a hive and, as many noble Lords have said, is a direct result of the intensification of our agriculture. We need to find ways to increase pollinated habitats. Perhaps the Minister could update the House on developments in that area through the environmental stewardship schemes or similar policies. We need not just to increase the pollinated habitats, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, said, certain plants in the pollinated habitats can be particularly effective and helpful to bees, and we need to focus on them.

That takes me to the important point: who is in charge of all this? My research, via my mother, found a range of bodies involved. Of course, there is Defra. There is the 10-year healthy bee strategy referred to by my noble friend Lady Byford. That covers England and Wales, but not Scotland. There is a five-year insect pollination initiative, which is led by the research councils, also includes Defra, and covers Scotland. There is the Natural England environmental stewardship scheme and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, covering the licensing of honey bee medicines. Are those bodies, plans and programmes properly co-ordinated to best effect, and, if so, by whom?

The debate has, understandably, focused on honey bees, but I add my support to those noble Lords who have talked about the importance of alternative pollinators: bumblebees, moths, which have not been mentioned in the debate so far today—67% of common species have declined in the past 40 years—and butterflies, which are making a comeback in ordinary species, but specialist species appear to remain in decline. There is work to be done. Research and assistance is needed if we are to reverse those trends, which broadly follow the decline of the honey bee.

To conclude, it is easy to see this issue as one of the availability of honey—the Rupert Brooke romantic vision, “Is there honey still for tea?”—but it has a much wider dimension. A 2009 study by Reading University suggested that a total loss of pollinators would drastically cut the yields of oilseed rape, orchard fruit, soft fruit and beans. The Reading estimate of the cost was £400 million, or 13% of UK farming income. That, in a nutshell, is why my noble friend Lord Moynihan has performed such a valuable task by introducing the debate today.

17:43

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I apologise to the House that I am not my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth. I should have spoken earlier in the debate and I am sorry for the shock that that caused the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who had to come in early. My noble friend Lord Knight could not stay and I offered to stand in on the Front Bench for him.

I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for securing this debate and for his excellent speech, which gave a wonderful tour d’horizon of the issues, and to all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been interesting that we have had contributions not just from the amateur beekeepers—of whom I am one—but from the profession. I was very interested in the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Sometimes, policy in this area seems to be dictated by the large number of amateurs, to the possible exclusion of the interest of those who have to make a living out of this operation. It must be difficult for Defra to come up with coherent policy in this area, but that should not stop us criticising its efforts to date, which I shall do later.

As I said, I am a beekeeper. I got into it because my grandfather, who was a doctor in the north-west of Scotland, kept bees. He had about nine hives at one stage. I got fascinated by it. I can still remember the excitement of lifting the heather honey and the effort it took to carry all the supers away, even as we were being pursued by large numbers of bees. I have two hives, sometimes three if I am lucky and capture a swarm. As we have heard, it is a rather odd industry. You can have a good year and have no honey and you can have a bad year and still get honey because you have managed to prevent your hives from swarming.

I am obviously not very bright about this stuff because in my research for this speech today I discovered all sorts of things that I thought I should have known. For example, I had spent a lot of time in my garden trying to align my beehives and my greenhouse in order to make sure that my tomato crop was properly fertilised, only to discover when I did my research that honey bees are absolutely useless at fertilising tomatoes. You need bumblebees because they vibrate at the right frequency and the pollen somehow shakes itself off and does the necessary. I wish I had known that because it would have saved quite a lot of effort. I also did not realise that the masonry bees that were in our house when we first moved in and which I carefully had excluded at great cost by professional insect killers would have been a blessing for my orchard; but you live and learn.

I am very enthusiastic about my bees. I am not very knowledgeable but I am quite good at talking about them, and that got me into trouble. I will indulge the House very briefly with a short anecdote. A few years ago, when I was working in No. 10, there was an initiative to think about ways in which we could look at environmental issues, including bees. I had been talking up my highs and lows in relation to bees and I got saddled with doing something on the bee front. I will not go though all the details, but eventually we decided that there was one thing that would be interesting and perhaps of long-term value. Chequers, although not owned by the Government or indeed by the Prime Minister but by a private and separate trust, had lost its bees some years ago and there were no bees there. It seemed a pity because such a wonderful estate—those who have visited it will know—could easily support a large number of hives. So I was charged with trying to get bees back into Chequers. It took a bit of time but, working with a local beekeeping association, I found a willing beekeeper, who helped with the negotiations with the trustees, who were very hard task masters. I discovered a fundamental flaw, which was rather surprising for that part of Buckinghamshire: Chequers has no natural water. As any beekeeper will tell you, bees need three things: a secure base, access to forage—particularly to the stuff that they use to gum up the insides of their hives so that they protect themselves again rain and wind—and water. Water is the element or the chemical that they use to get the nectar that they collect from the flowers to the right consistency so that it will stay in the comb and not ferment—you see how one can get carried away with these things and start boring people to death. Anyway, I got involved in that project and we ended up with two hives just as you approach the back of Chequers from the road. You can actually see them against the former orchard. They have been moved this year partly for weather reasons. I mention this only because it illustrates the problems that a beekeeper has. Two hives were put in four years ago. There was no honey in the first year, which is quite common. There was some honey in the second year, just at the change of government. I leave noble Lords to speculate what we felt about that. There was good honey last year, but over the winter one hive went queenless. We are now back to one hive and we are trying to recover. That is the story, in a nutshell, of what happens in beekeeping. I am sure that the Prime Minister now and in the future will have access to Chequers honey for himself and guests, should they wish to do so.

We have heard about the substantial challenges during this debate. We have touched on the weather, pests and diseases and loss of habitat. We have touched on how agriculture impedes the way in which bees operate, pesticides and the need to train better our beekeeping force—that is really important. We have talked about the need to register and keep a record of not only our beekeepers but our beehives. We had a good example from my noble friend Lord Rea about those who are operating outside the system. They are having a perfectly good time and doing all the things that we would want from our beekeeping activity but are not part of the formal systems.

All these issues, including the question mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about leadership and who is in charge here, interact in a complex and varying matrix—compounded by the fact that there is an ongoing and chronic lack of research to help us understand all these issues and put in place appropriate measures to respond to the challenges. The only real research is the insect pollinators initiative. The IPI is centred on nine projects, each receiving about £1 million. Of those nine projects, only four are related to honey bees, yet there are real problems in honey bee health and numerous questions to be answered.

One good example is of the lack of effective medicines to treat the diseases that we already know bees face. The varroa mite not only debilitates bees, mainly through attacking the larvae of the drones—the males—but allows worker bees to be attacked by viruses because it weakens their strength. There are no effective medicines for that. We can add nothing except palliatives, which seem to have some effect in reducing the ability of the varroa mite to thrive. However, there is no killing of them. That simply reduces the numbers rather than destroying them. Why can we not get some research going on that? It seems absolutely vital to make sure that we can do that.

The foul broods, European and American, are terrible things to have happening to your colony. They effectively kill it off, yet they are very difficult to eradicate. Again, we are not on top of the chemistry there. Then there is nosema, which is likely to become much more prevalent following an absolutely ridiculous decision to permit the EU to withdraw the only known effective medicine on the grounds that it was affecting other animals and things, not bees.

I think I have eight questions to pose to the Minister. Some of them are obviously more detailed and I would be happy for him to write to me at the end of the debate if that is a better way of doing it. The first is about agriculture, which was touched on by many noble Lords. Clearly, the use of our landmass in relation to the production of food and the way in which it interacts with bees is important. The way that agriculture is operated has a significant impact on bees. It affects the quality and diversity of habitat within the landscape. Can the Minister say what the UK Government could do to further “green” farming in the UK and provide much needed support to fruit and vegetable growers, perhaps by encouraging and supporting environmentally friendly farming systems? Here again, research would be important because we simply do not know the pollination requirements of crops, so if there was more information that was better disseminated to farmers and better applicable to bee keepers, that would certainly help.

A number of speakers mentioned pesticides. They clearly are having an adverse impact on bees. Why would they be used if they did not? What is worrying is how they may be affecting the breeding success of our bees and their resistance to disease, which is a component of that. Will the Government commit to introducing a targeted reduction of pesticide use by 2020? Perhaps that could again be with funding for research on the impact of all these pesticides on bees, not just honey bees but others which are available to pollinate.

Agri-environment schemes, which have been mentioned, have great potential to provide forage and nesting sites for bees but the uptake of the most beneficial options has been limited. What support will the Government give to Natural England to improve the uptake of those options and develop more targeted objectives for agri-environmental schemes? I think that would help.

Many habitats of national conservation priority provide important forage and nesting resources for bees, yet despite protected designations they are in decline. Can the Government strengthen protection for these sites by designating more sites with priority habitats for bees, reforming environmental impact assessment regulations and improving cross-policy co-ordination to deliver the strongest benefits to bees over the whole landscape?

One of the earlier speakers mentioned planning. Despite the importance of bees to the economy—and of course to human well-being—the new planning guidelines do not provide detailed information for local authorities so that they could develop green infrastructures that might benefit bees. I am thinking here of things such as allotments or flower-rich road verges. Why would it not be possible for the Government to introduce new guidelines for local authorities that integrate these beneficial options and ensure that environmental damage is reduced?

There is also the question of whether we should make a special priority for bees. Several bee species are recognised as national conservation priorities but, as a group, bees have never received very much formal monitoring. Will the Government include bees as a priority species, for example, in the new England biodiversity strategy? Will they establish a network of experts to advise local authorities on developing bee-targeted action plans?

A policy on bee health is limited by a lack of research on possible cures. We really must change that. There is also a rather adverse regulatory structure, which does not take the needs of bees into account. Can we have some initiatives in that area? Perhaps there should be a trial period, within which restrictions on veterinary medicines, which apply largely to animals and not to insects, could be lifted.

Finally, will the Government take steps to create a statutory beekeeper register? Again, without the actual knowledge of how many beekeepers we have, how many hives, and what effect they are having on the environment, we will not be able to make progress on this. That goes alongside a cause which I absolutely endorse for national standards for education and training. Like a number of other noble Lords, I was trained by a local volunteer. It was a terrific exercise—heavily weather-dependent, so I got only two out of the four possible slots, but it was enough to get me going. There is no national accreditation for this, and it really would help if we had a common standard to which everybody was working.

In that context, I just wanted to make one other important point that has not yet been raised. We are talking about the bees we know—the bees we can identify as being related to the hives that we ostensibly organise, although the truth is that we are not very good at running them. There are probably at least as many wild bees about which we know absolutely nothing. I am almost certain that my bees are bred and crossbred with the wild bees in the area. What do we know about their disease resistance, their capacity or their livelihood?

A few years ago a book entitled A World Without Bees was published. It was written by Alison Benjamin and Brian McCallum. A number of noble Lords will know about it. It was an interesting book, but the most interesting thing about it was its starting premise. It was a quotation attributed to Albert Einstein, no less:

“If the bee disappeared off the surface of the Earth, then man would have only four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man”.

It probably reads better in German. It seems to be the case that Albert Einstein never actually said it, but that should not devalue the message it gives across—a message which has been running through this debate and is something of which we must take account. Bees matter: we must do something about it.

17:56

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for initiating this debate and for giving me this opportunity to highlight what the Government have been and are doing to improve honeybee health and to outline our future plans for this important area. I would like to thank all noble Lords for their fascinating contributions. They have almost talked me into developing a healthy conflict of interest.

Honeybees are extremely important for pollination, yet, as almost every noble Lord who has spoken has said, they are facing a growing number of threats from pests and diseases that pose a significant challenge to beekeepers. Noble Lords will also be aware of the very poor summer we experienced in 2012 and the effects that this had on agriculture and the environment. Last year was described as the most difficult beekeeping year ever, even by experienced beekeepers, and the annual honey crop is estimated to be down—as I think my noble friend Lord Moynihan said—by more than 70% compared with 2011. Therefore, we are taking this very seriously and are taking action to improve honeybee health and support beekeeping for the future.

Let me first explain the work we have already got under way. The main focus of our efforts in protecting bee health is through the work of the National Bee Unit, which is acknowledged as having one of the best bee health surveillance programmes in Europe, with a global reputation for excellence. The first of the unit’s main activities is inspection and enforcement. We have a team of professional bee inspectors out in the field, about which my noble friend Lord Patten asked and to which I will return, controlling notifiable diseases and surveying for exotic pests. I am pleased to report that, because of their work, we are able to say that the incidence of the two notifiable diseases—European and American foulbrood—remains low, with infection rates around half of those observed during the 1990s. Most importantly, no evidence of exotic pests, such as the small hive beetle, has been found and fortunately these pests remain absent from the UK.

Secondly, the unit provides advice to beekeepers, which was particularly important in view of the very poor summer weather, and specific advice was published to help beekeepers during this period. Thirdly, among the unit’s main activities is research development, such as developing control methods for small hive beetle. Fourthly, it contributes to evidence-based policy development, including quantifying risks to bee health from current and emerging threats, diagnostic services for pests and diseases, and contingency planning against the arrival of exotic pests and diseases.

Fifthly, the unit helps beekeepers to become more self-reliant in controlling pests and diseases through training and education programmes jointly run with beekeeping associations. The National Bee Unit was involved in nearly 500 training events last year, which were attended by more than 22,000 beekeepers. Feedback from those attending has shown that beekeepers have valued and benefitted from these events.

The Healthy Bees Plan, which has now been under way for more than three years, was initiated by the previous Government and has been enthusiastically pursued by this Government. Let me set out what has been achieved so far and our plans for the future. A first priority of the plan was to get a more accurate picture of the numbers and distribution of beekeepers and the health of their colonies. Between 2009 and 2011, the NBU visited and took samples from around 5,000 apiaries in England and Wales, which was one of the biggest surveys of its kind ever undertaken.

As the results on the health of our bees became available, we began a review of our pest and disease control policies. This was undertaken by the Food and Environment Research Agency, the Welsh Government, the NBU, representatives from beekeeping associations and an independent scientist. The review considered how best to manage pests and diseases in the future to ensure that effective policies and support are in place; that priorities for future collective action by government and beekeepers are clear; and that we are making the best use of public funding. I should like to take this opportunity to announce to your Lordships that today we are launching a consultation seeking views on the proposals which emerged from this review. These proposals build on current policies and, importantly, set the future direction for pest and disease control.

The second priority of the Healthy Bees Plan was to improve beekeeper training, about which several noble Lords have asked. We have co-funded initiatives with beekeeping associations, of which an example is 400 new beekeeper trainers and a suite of new training materials and courses. These jointly funded programmes will continue during the next phase of the plan to 2015. One of these programmes is the development of an apprenticeship scheme to be launched shortly to encourage young people to become bee farmers and we are working with the Bee Farmers’ Association to take this initiative forward.

The third priority of the plan was to increase the number of beekeepers registered on the NBU’s BeeBase database. BeeBase is an important tool in the control of bee diseases and pests, and the chances of successful control are significantly improved if the location and contact details of beekeepers and their apiaries are known. I am pleased to report that the number registered has increased from around 18,000 when the plan was launched to nearly 29,000 now, which is a tremendous achievement.

We are also working to improve the availability of medicines for the treatment of bee diseases and have developed an action plan involving manufacturers, beekeepers and bee inspectors. Details of bee medicines which veterinarians can import from other member states are available on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s website.

Turning to the ongoing issue of the effect of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees, which my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned, as did several other noble Lords, perhaps I may stress to your Lordships that I take very seriously any threat to bees and other pollinators. We have kept evidence on neonicotinoids under close and open-minded scrutiny and will restrict the use of these products if the evidence shows the need.

Government scientists and the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides advise that, while the potential for toxic effects has been shown, the evidence currently available does not indicate harmful exposure in the field. Nevertheless, my noble friend Lady Thomas referred to the fact that we are working rapidly to fill crucial knowledge gaps. We have research under way which is nearly finished to look at field effects of neonicotinoids on bumble bees. We are studying historic data on bee health and neonicotinoid usage. We are analysing the implications of possible restrictions for the environment and for agriculture. These work streams will deliver very soon. We will consider the results and the action required as a matter of urgency.

I turn now to research funding, about which several noble Lords have asked. We have joined some of the UK’s major research funders to tackle the decline in insect pollinators. Understanding the causes of this decline will help us to identify the best possible action to support and sustain these species for the future. This is important given the role of pollinators in local food production and in our overall food security. The initiative’s total spend is up to £10 million over five years. Nine projects were announced in June 2010 that will look at different aspects of the decline of insect pollinators and bring together researchers from many disciplines, including ecology, molecular biology, mathematics and computing. Some will focus on specific species and/or diseases; others will look broadly at factors affecting the health and survival of pollinating insects more generally. Two of these projects focus specifically on honeybees and six will benefit both honeybees and bumblebees. We look forward to seeing the results of these studies over the next two years.

My noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Hodgson asked about progress on developing a bee strain resistant to Varroa. Many attempts have been made both in this country and worldwide to breed Varroa-resistant or Varroa-tolerant bees. This includes work carried out at the University of Sussex since 2008. I understand that, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary, this has so far been unsuccessful. This is in part due to the genetics of honeybees. Other novel molecular approaches are currently being developed for the control of Varroa. The recent sequencing of the genomes of Apis mellifera and Varroa destructor could aid the identification of tolerant strains in the future by targeting relevant genes and traits more effectively.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan, among others, stressed the importance of education. A key priority of the Healthy Bees Plan is to deliver an enhanced training and education programme for beekeepers, driving up husbandry standards and the management of pests and diseases. Defra has so far co-funded education and training initiatives with beekeeping associations and I referred to that a little earlier.

My noble friend Lady Thomas asked whether neonicotinoids were used by local authorities on verges and, indeed, in private gardens. Agriculture and horticulture is by far the largest market; although they are also authorised for use in other situations including, for instance, use on high-quality turf on golf courses. They are unlikely to be used by councils on roadside verges where herbicides are more likely to be used. They are authorised for amateur use in private gardens but these products are authorised at much lower doses than are allowed in professional applications and are used on a much smaller area. Furthermore, they are only authorised if they can be used without harmful effects on human health or unacceptable risks to the environment. No product is authorised for home or garden use if its correct use requires training or protective equipment.

My noble friend Lady Byford asked about the results of the IPI—the Insect Pollinators Initiative. I can tell her that all projects within it are progressing well and we look forward to seeing the results in 2014. She also asked whether research has been carried out into the nature and variety of diseases affecting plants and trees and whether there is any evidence that diseased plants or trees are for some reason more attractive to insects. In fact, a considerable amount of work has been carried out by Defra, Fera, Forest Research, universities and research institutes into the nature and variety of diseases affecting plants and trees. That may be, perhaps, a subject for further debate. However, specifically in respect of whether diseased plants or trees are more attractive to insects, it is true that certain studies have indicated that this can sometimes be the case. For example, a recent paper shows that a plant pathogen can make the host more attractive to insect vectors and there is, of course, a risk that they further spread the pathogen.

A paper published in 2005 suggested that the pathogen causing Dutch Elm disease makes host trees attractive to insect vectors. However, a recent Dutch paper showed that white clover mosaic virus infection can decrease the attractiveness of white clover plants for female fungus gnats. I hope that my noble friend is aware of the expert task force set up by Defra’s chief scientist specifically to see what can be done to enable us to be on the front foot in anticipating plant diseases from abroad that pose a potential risk to us. The interim report of that expert task force is very welcome.

My noble friend Lady Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke about restrictions on neonics in other countries. There were several incidents in May 2008 in which these pesticides killed bees in Germany. As a result, the circumstances in which they can be used have been restricted in Germany although the products have not been banned. According to the German authorities, the incidents resulted from the inadvertent exposure of bees to one of the neonic products applied as a seed treatment to maize seed. We have assessed the risk of the German situation being replicated here as negligible for a variety of reasons. Three other EU member states, France, Slovenia and Italy, have introduced some restrictions although all have neonic products authorised. Slovenia took action following incidents similar to those in Germany. Italy has restricted the use of these pesticides in the wake of the German incident as a precautionary measure and in France Imidacloprid has been suspended for seed treatments on sunflowers since 1999, and on maize since 2004. The basis for the recent French action is not entirely clear. They cited a review by the French agency ANSES. However, ANSES did not in fact call for a ban and its review does not appear to support one. The UK is therefore in step with most other EU countries and, most importantly, we are acting in accordance with the evidence.

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked whether we agree with the use of the precautionary principle. We fully accept that the precautionary principle is applicable in considering the appropriate response to the potential effects of pesticides. The principle guides decision-making when a serious potential risk has been identified and where, following the best possible risk assessment, there remains scientific uncertainty. It does not dictate the appropriate decision.

My noble friend Lord Patten asked about bee inspectors. I assure him that they exist. I have met them, or many of them, on a course on my visit to Fera in Yorkshire. There are about 60 National Bee Unit inspectors. They are an extremely important component of the bee health programme and they are gearing up for another busy year. I can tell my noble friend that, far from reducing, their numbers have increased since the 2009 launch of the Healthy Bees Plan. He asked whether the inspectors have a uniform. It is grey and has the Fera logo on it.

My noble friend also asked about the quality of science obtained by Her Majesty’s Government and our European partners for any decisions on pesticides. The Government have made clear their determination to act on the evidence. We have therefore commissioned a number of research projects to fill gaps in what is known. These include, among a number of other projects, a study of real exposure of bumblebees in the field to oilseed rape treated with neonics and a study of the significance of pesticide residues in disease levels in healthy honeybees. This work is being taken forward as rapidly as possible and is nearly ready for consideration by the independent experts of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. In Europe, the focus is on using the new science to update the standard process for assessing the risks of pesticides to bees, and UK experts are actively involved. My noble friend referred to the need to improve pesticide management and hygiene. I absolutely agree with that. That is a key aspect of the consultation we are launching today.

My noble friend Lord Jones of Cheltenham asked what assessment the Government have made of the effect of the loss of habitat on bee populations. In 2011, the UK National Ecosystem Assessment concluded that since 1980 wild bee diversity has declined in most landscapes. It identified land use change and habitat loss as key drivers of the decline in wild bees as well as other pollinating insects alongside disease and the use of some pesticides. We have lost 97% of our flower-rich grasslands since the 1930s. This is why the focus of our conservation effort for pollinators is the protection and management of habitats through protected site policy, agri-environment schemes and new initiatives such as nature improvement areas.

He asked whether the Government would consider protecting meadows in any future planning legislation, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised questions in that area as well. Protection for meadows is in place. Flower-rich grasslands, including lowland and upland meadows, are already recognised in the list of habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity in England, published by the Secretary of State, under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. The National Planning Policy Framework, published in 2012 requires planning authorities to promote the preservation, restoration and recreation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations. The Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 protect uncultivated or semi-natural areas, such as hay meadows from being damaged by agricultural work, such as planning, draining and use of fertilisers and herbicides where the uncultivated land or semi-natural areas directly affected are two hectares or more in area. I could go on, but I am conscious of the time. Perhaps I might suggest that a detailed debate on the Bill, to which my noble friend referred, could be conducted when it comes before your Lordships’ House.

My noble friend Lord Jones asked whether the Government agree with Buglife. While important, honeybees are only a small part of the insects which pollinate crops. Of course, we agree. Recently published research from Reading University suggested that managed honeybees were responsible for about a third of pollination in the UK, noting that this was after a decline in managed bee populations. The national ecosystem assessment suggested that wild pollinators contribute a significant proportion of that total. My noble friend also asked what the Government were doing to conserve wild bees and other pollinators. Perhaps I will write to him on that because I have covered it a little already and can expand on it. He asked whether the Government will invite responses from Buglife and other organisations to the consultation. The Government would welcome responses from any individual or organisation with an interest in protecting our bees.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson asked who is in charge. Well, my Lords, I am. I am the Minister responsible for bees. To be slightly less glib, Defra has the co-ordination role and collaborates closely with the Welsh and Scottish Governments who also fund Fera in part. I will write to noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, invited me to do so. I think that I have rather good answers to some of his questions but I have simply run out of time. There are continuing challenges for bee health that need to be addressed and there are no signs that these are likely to diminish. Although the number of colony losses noted by the National Bee Unit inspection during the beekeeping season has fallen from 12.5% in 2008 to 5% in 2012, the poor summer weather could see this trend reversed, so the challenge continues. I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to continue to play their part in working with beekeepers to sustain the health of honeybees. Our successes in recent years provide a clear platform for determining the priority actions necessary to achieve that important goal.

18:17

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, it would be invidious and inappropriate for me to comment individually on the many contributions to this important debate. Suffice it to say that the quality of all contributions could not have been of a higher standard. We have achieved our collective objective, which is to provide the Government with an agenda, to keep them busy at least until our next debate which on current form comes round, like the Olympic Games, once in a quadrennium.

My sincere thanks to all noble Lords who participated in this debate; there is urgent and important work to be done, and I am grateful to my noble friend for his support as the new self-appointed chief bee inspector. We will hold him to that role, but I am particularly grateful once again to everyone who contributed today to what I believe has been a very useful and informative debate.

Motion agreed.

Gender Balance among Non-Executive Directors (EUC Report)

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

18:19

Moved By

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on the Commission proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures (COM(2012)614, Council Document 16433/12) (9th Report, HL Paper 97).

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, in moving this Motion I invite the House to agree with the proposal of the European Union Committee that a reasoned opinion should be issued. Our report concerns a proposal for an EU directive on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures. This proposal was examined in great detail by our sub-committee on the internal market, infrastructure and employment, which is chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. I should make it clear, first, that we are very grateful to her. Secondly, while I am moving these Motions that relate to subsidiarity, I will be looking to her to answer any detailed points about the underlying policy issues, for her committee has heard the evidence. I have merely had the opportunity of studying it.

Before I explain our thinking on this proposal I want to make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that we fully support the aim of increasing gender diversity on boards. There is no backtracking on that. Having studied the report of the debate on a related Motion in the House of Commons earlier this week I was delighted to see that Her Majesty’s Government were of the same mind. In this debate it would be helpful if the Minister could respond by giving us an update on the current position in relation to women’s participation on boards and also, in particular, on Her Majesty’s Government’s initiatives in taking this further forward. I sense that the House is absolutely at one on the strategic objective.

Equally we applaud the achievement of the European Commission Vice-President, Viviane Reding, in bringing this issue to the forefront of political debate in Europe. However, our report is about whether the Commission’s proposal is the right way to respond to this important issue and we have come to the conclusion that it is not. Our view is that the Commission’s proposal is inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

We are frankly not persuaded by the Commission’s suggestion that a figure of 40% should be imposed in order to ensure a so-called critical mass of women on boards in member states where boards are traditionally smaller. The proposal fails to take into account the rate of change and the board structures within each member state, and does not adequately make the case that measures taken at national level are not working. In the UK in just over a year and a half, from February 2011 to November 2012, the proportion of FTSE 100 board members who are female went up by 4.8% and by 4.2% in the case of FTSE 250 board members. There have been concomitant improvements in a significant number of other European member states, though not in all.

A key test under the subsidiarity principle within the Lisbon treaty is whether the European Union can add value. The Commission suggests that its proposal is necessary for the practical and competitive functioning of the internal market. We feel that this justification is weak when balanced against the administrative burdens of the proposal and the varying cultural contexts and practices within differing member states.

As I mentioned earlier the European Union Select Committee, which I have the honour to chair, fully supports the aim of increasing gender diversity on boards. I have a personal interest in this subject and can echo my own support of it. We believe that the European Commission can still usefully complement this by monitoring individual member states’ action and in cases where individual member states fail to comply with their general, pre-existing obligations to combat discrimination the Commission should then consider further action. However, it remains our view that the European Union-wide legislative action at the present time would be unnecessary and could be counterproductive to the Commission’s aim of increasing gender diversity on boards. Action at the member-state level to address these issues would be more effective. We therefore believe that the proposal is inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity. Under the treaty, we as Members of Parliament have an obligation to consider that and to issue an opinion accordingly if that is our view. In that spirit and context, I beg to move.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am a strong supporter of women on boards but I offer only qualified congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and to his committee on opposing their imposition on our boards by Brussels. Of course, it is all that we as a national Parliament can do—but we must not make the mistake of thinking that somehow we are taking part in anything resembling a worthwhile democratic process.

The report put its finger on what has always been the fundamental flaw in the whole fraud of subsidiarity. It has always applied only to those areas of our national life that are not already controlled by Brussels. It has never been applicable to the single market and so to commerce and industry, agriculture, fishing, foreign trade and much else. Under the Lisbon treaty, a democratic fig-leaf was delicately placed on this unseemly state of affairs by introducing the procedure that we are using tonight. The transparently unsatisfactory nature of that fig-leaf can be found in Protocol 2 of the treaty, on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. It is worth quoting from that protocol to show just how pointless this whole exercise is.

Article 7 of the protocol states:

“Where reasoned opinions on a draft legislative act’s non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least one third of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments … the draft must be reviewed … After such review, the Commission”—

or, where appropriate, other proposers of legislation—

“may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft. Reasons must be given for this decision … Furthermore, under the ordinary legislative procedure”—

that is, qualified majority voting—

“where reasoned opinions on the non-compliance of a proposal for a legislative act with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least a simple majority of the votes allocated to the national Parliaments … the proposal must be reviewed. After such review, the Commission may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal”.

I will not bore noble Lords further. The treaty goes on to say that in the final crunch, you need 55% of the members of the Council or a majority of the votes cast in the European Parliament before you can stop the Commission doing what it wants.

That is how democratically weak this whole procedure is. If the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, does not agree, will he tell me how many Commission proposals have been withdrawn under the procedure that we are now using? What hope does he hold out for this one? In other words, have we got on our side at least one-third of all the votes allocated to national Parliaments? Will the Commission even have to review this proposal, never mind whether there is any chance of seeing it fall?

I hope that we succeed, because I strongly support the presence of women in the boardroom. However, their presence should be a matter for shareholders, perhaps with a little gentle persuasion from national Governments. It should not be just one more morsel of national sovereignty devoured by the corrupt octopus. To that extent, I support the noble Lord’s Motion and look forward to his answers.

18:29

[Baroness O'Cathain]

My Lords, I support the Motion. Before giving my reasons for doing so, I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, whom I greatly admire, particularly for his assiduousness in pursuing all the nooks and crannies of European legislation. As far as we know, eight member governments and parliaments are against this draft directive, which is just under a third. As there are 27 members and about a third of them are yet to be clear about their position, it looks quite likely that the proposal will be withdrawn. I will not say very likely and I will not bet on it because I am not a betting woman. However, the response we had wholeheartedly in support of this has been remarkable. It has made me very proud to chair Sub-Committee B, which did this exercise. We received so much goodwill and the whole point is to say that the Commission is right to highlight this. This Government have benefited from the actions undertaken by the previous Government in asking the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to look at this whole area. That was the spark that ignited a great flame of interest, for which all credit is due both to the previous Government and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Davies.

Anybody who reads the newspapers now realises that there is huge support for this. I am not saying that our committee started it—not at all—but the reality is that the time is right. When it is said that the European Union will not do this or that, we think the European Commission has a strong role to play in highlighting the issue. However, it also has to get itself attuned to what is likely to be best practice. Unfortunately, there is quite a lot of confusion at the moment about non-executive directors, executive directors, listed companies and private companies. I read the debate that took place in the other place on Monday. So many Members there just do not understand what is going on. What we really need to do is encourage the Commission to look at the whole thing before it even thinks about going down the regulation route. Instead of legislating, we need to encourage. I am convinced that there is an open door which needs very little pushing at the moment.

As anyone who attended the debate on our report in November will realise, the Commission came up with this draft directive—at least, it was going to issue one, but changed its mind, obviously because of some problem within the Commission. We issued our report, the Commission then issued its draft directive, which was a lot less regulatory that we thought it was likely to be. However, it still has the idea of mandatory quotas. By persuasion and by discussing it quite widely, we are now trying to clear people’s minds about what we are talking about: encouraging boards to look at the real problem of gender inequality at the top level. That is not because we just want women on boards but because we absolutely believe that they would make a very positive contribution. There is no question about that.

I want to take issue with some of the things that have been said, including in the debate. It has been said that there is evidence that business would be better and that there would be more profits. We have been rigorous in examining this and we cannot find evidence that there is a direct link between putting more women on boards as non-executive directors and better financial performance by the company itself. That is why we stated it. We do not want to make any statement at all which has not been proven by the evidence. I assure noble Lords that if they go back to the original report, they will find that it is all evidence based and we can all stand up and support it.

We need to get away from the confusion. At the moment this is only a start. People are now saying, “What about executive directors? Why are there no executive directors on the way up?” Having women as non-executive directors on boards acts as a stimulus for women within organisations to say, “If she can get there, why can’t I?” I know of two specific cases where that happened to me as a non-executive director of two different FTSE 100 companies. I used to go and talk to the senior women and they all thought it was a great example. Both those boards now have several women directors on them.

We are starting from a very low base and people say that it is not going to be achieved. However, there were no other women on the first board that I was on in 1984, and in the FTSE 100 companies at that stage there were six women directors. Now around 17% or more of the people on boards are women. That is a huge increase. People say that it is not happening fast enough—of course it is not happening fast enough—but at least we are getting there. We have highlighted these issues and formulated this reasoned opinion so that the European Union can think again, moderate its demands and not be so entrenched about legislative quotas. Those will turn women off. Women will say that it is tokenism and patronising.

I hope that we can achieve all that we want and that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will come round to our way of thinking. I support absolutely what my noble friend has said.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Boswell for his sanity and good judgment. I want to speak about the gap between the last two speakers because this proposed directive is an example of the most irritating and frustrating way in which the European Commission sometimes behaves. It is alienating and irritating and it maddens individuals who are more open-minded than some might think about the whole European endeavour.

A quota is alien to the British way of thinking. We believe in voluntary principles, in persuasion, in best practice and a bit of naming and shaming. Our approach is a voluntary one wherever possible and quotas offend. A target, a goal, an objective, but not a quota.

In any event, why a quota for non-executives? I want a quota for the number of male teachers in primary schools because a great number of primary schools do not have a male teacher. That is a much more serious problem for disadvantaged children growing up with no male role model at all. To introduce a quota for non-executive directors is ludicrous when we all know that the serious issue is what happens to female executive talent as women go up through an organisation.

Seeing the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in her place reminds me that my experience goes back 20 or 30 years to the issues in the health service. It was overwhelmingly a female workforce, overwhelmingly used by women, taxpayer funded, and yet somehow it was led by stale, pale males. In that case, introducing targets and goals, particularly in a taxpayer-funded service, seemed extremely sensible. I think that we managed to get non-executive appointments up to where something like a third were women.

The reason that business invests and flourishes in this country is precisely that our corporate governance structures are principles-based, not rules-based. How many realise that in the top 15 companies in this country 23 different nationalities are represented? I challenge anyone to find any other member of the European Union which has 23 different nationalities represented on its top 15 companies. In other words, diversity in its true sense is a goal which is celebrated in Britain and we have a great deal to be proud of.

I turn now to the report of my splendid colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, who was a pioneer for women on some of the most senior boards. I celebrate this report and believe that it is excellent reading for a great number of people interested in the cause. The only minor area of dispute is that I am sympathetic to her point that there are not demonstrable results from having a gender-diverse board, but I want her to lock horns with McKinsey, because it is verboten to disagree with McKinsey in this day and age. However, it asserts that gender-diverse boards achieve superior financial returns, both in their net profit margins as well as the higher returns on equity each year.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

The fact is that we were determined that it had to be absolutely evidence-based. Do not worry—we went to McKinsey. We do not have firm evidence for that; in fact, figures were floating around which were withdrawn when we started to pursue that assertion.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone]

I am more sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s argument than I am to people who go excessively far in arguing for the financial returns. Frankly, enlightened businesses have gender-diverse boards, so it is very hard to tell what the variable is. However, there is evidence that where governance is weak, female directors exercise strong oversight. They are very good at managing and controlling risk. When you talk about women and cost control, there is not a household in the country where family members will not immediately nod their heads and say “Yes, it’s the women who are in charge of cost control”.

I am absolutely certain that the evidence about female directors enhancing board independence is valid. Females are more resilient and resistant to groupthink, and that has so often been the case in discussions and debate, whether in politics, in business or in many other enterprises. If part of the causes of our corporate disasters has been groupthink, then I have no doubt that women, with the competence and necessary skill, make a great addition. Their management style tends to be much more appropriate to the modern forms of management than the more didactic, autocratic patterns of the past.

The real issue, of course, is that he who pays the piper calls the tune—and by 2025 there will be more female than male millionaires in this country, and 60% of the private wealth will be managed by women. It is enlightened self-interest to take this topic seriously. Nobody doubts the Government’s commitment in this area. Since the report of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, 49% of non-executive appointments have been women. As I have said, the noble Lord has done a great job and we are all indebted to him, but there are so many architects and investors in this policy, and no one person can be thought to have achieved that change. However, being led by a man—regrettably—has probably been a factor in achieving the necessary results. We are now on target for women to constitute 40% of board membership by 2020.

This is, therefore, a success story, but it is important that it is not a passing fad. It needs the tenacity, the long-term approach and the monitoring. I congratulate my noble colleagues on determinedly resisting the idea that this is an area of EU competence. It will simply be counterproductive in our context. We endorse the importance of this principle and congratulate the Government on the progress to date, and I support my noble friend in his Motion.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, my support this evening for the Motion does not in any way detract from my absolute commitment to the need to have more women on boards, for a whole range of reasons which have already been given, but not least because not to have women on boards is an absolute waste of the talent and education in which the country has invested.

The question before us this evening is not about the merits of women on boards, and it is not even about the Commission’s proposals. This evening’s debate is about the question of subsidiarity, and I will focus my remarks on that. This is the second time in a month that the House has been asked for a reasoned opinion. Both requests have come from Sub-Committee B, and as a Member of both that Committee and the EU Select Committee, I can tell the House that we have spent a lot of time not only discussing the specific issues but the general nature of subsidiarity.

I thought that I had a pretty good idea about what was meant by subsidiarity. Indeed, the paper that we are looking at today defines it as acting at EU level where it genuinely adds value to do so and where objectives cannot be met without action at EU level. I think we would all understand, even if we do not agree with it, that there are times when the pursuit of EU objectives such as the single market or the free movement of people clearly requires legislation. However, I do not believe that the Commission’s proposals for gender quotas on boards have met these tests. No one, during the evidence that we took in our inquiry, argued that it was a single-market issue. It was portrayed as, and indeed is, a matter of gender equality, but we already have EU legislation that outlaws gender discrimination, and it seems that we should be looking to the Commission and to member states to take action on that front before bringing in new legislation. I even wonder, although I am not a lawyer, whether a statutory 40% quota would comply with the EU’s own gender equality legislation, since it would enshrine an imbalance.

18:45

In parenthesis, I would add that the Commission itself has a very poor record of gender balance at its highest levels, but perhaps we should gloss over that.

The evidence that has been quoted by the Commission is very much at odds with the evidence that we took in our recent inquiry. Even the strong supporters of improved gender diversity on boards told us that there was no evidence of improved financial performance. The one report which had shown that there was had subsequently been withdrawn by the writers because it had been discredited and its methodology was flawed. The rumour machine seems to have gathered pace and it seems impossible to stop, but there was no evidence.

The Commission asserts that:

“Self-regulatory initiatives in a number of Member States have not yielded any similarly noticeable changes”.

That is simply not true. It misses the point that in countries like the UK, where we have become much more engaged with the matter in recent years, changes are happening as a result. The Commission has argued that this is a single-market issue and that the current state-by-state approach,

“poses barriers to the internal market by imposing divergent corporate governance requirements on European listed companies”.

Not a single large company or the representative organisations that we spoke to saw this as a problem. From subsidiarity’s perspective, I am very concerned that what the Commission appears to be saying here is in essence that member states are not permitted to have separate regimes but, in pursuance of a theoretical single-market principle, member states must lose all power of autonomous action. This issue today goes much further than the issue itself, and it is for that reason that I support the Motion for a reasoned opinion. I hope that the House agrees.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I, too, support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, and declare my interest as a member of your Lordships’ European Union Sub-Committee B, which has considered this issue.

This is a particularly important and sensitive political issue at this time. Across Europe there are real concerns about the future role of the EU, and indeed recognition that there will be a need for renegotiation of European treaties to deal with the Europe that has resulted from the recent financial crisis. It is therefore vital that both national Governments and the Union itself respect the principles and concepts already enshrined in existing treaties, if the respect of the citizens of European nations is not to be lost because there is a disregard by either party for what is already recognised, appreciated and enshrined in those treaties.

The question of competence and subsidiarity, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, has been reviewed in some detail in the work of Sub-Committee B in considering the issue of women on boards. There is no doubt that, as we have heard, the sub-committee and the European Union Committee have arrived at the same conclusion, as has the other place, with regard to recognising that gender equality on boards is vital on boards and should be respected. However, on the question of competence and subsidiarity, it is also recognised that there are certain areas in the work of the European Commission where the Commission alone is able to act, and therefore competence is reserved to the European Union solely. There are other areas where there is definitely no need for the European Union to act and where competence is retained solely with national Governments. There is a middle area, such as in matters dealing with the internal market, where competence lies both in the hands of national Governments and at the level of the European Union. Here it is important that the principle of subsidiarity is applied with absolute clarity.

On the question of the internal market and gender equality on boards, we can ask—and indeed the sub-committee did ask—a number of simple and straightforward questions. The issues and the answers to those questions were rehearsed during its debate on its main report in November of last year.

With regard to the simple question, “Are national Governments able to act to secure greater gender equality on the boards of publicly listed companies?”, the answer is clearly yes. In this debate we have heard that since 2010 our own country has acted in a most definite and precise manner to encourage the appointment of more women to boards of publicly listed companies and is on target to achieve a 40% figure by 2020.

The second question is: will action at European Union level add value to what national Governments are currently doing? No argument has been made by the Commission in this area. If a single, coherent argument had been made in the directive, it would be right for this national Parliament to consider it and then potentially not be in the position where it had to offer a reasoned amendment. However, no such coherent argument has been made by the Commission and so that particular test and question fail.

The third question is: would the internal market function more effectively if the European Union, the Commission, were to act rather than national Governments? Again, the answer is no. No argument has been made by the Commission that suggests, in any way whatever, that the internal market would function better if the European Union were to legislate with regard to membership of boards, rather than national Governments.

I come back to the very sensitive time in which this question of subsidiarity must be considered. As we know, Her Majesty’s Government will return to Europe and the institutions of Europe shortly to start describing their negotiating position with regard to future treaty amendments. So it is important that the people of our country feel confident in the treaties that currently exist and that the European Commission will respect the principles and bases that form our national understanding with regard to our continued participation in Europe.

I believe that this reasoned amendment is vital. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, the matter was discussed in the other place on Monday of this week and the other place took a very clear and definite view on it—a view shared by your Lordships’ European Union Committee. I hope that this House will endorse this important Motion.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Boswell of Aynho and to carry forward a little what the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said about subsidiarity. When one examines the case put by the Commission, one is left wondering why it was so confident that it would work. Indeed, one is left wondering why it wanted to do it. It seems to me that one finds in the Commission an ambition to govern rather than to guide, whereas from where we sit we feel that the default position should be guidance and that the governing should be done by such a large central body presiding over such different, diverse and distant peoples only when it is essential so to do. I therefore ask your Lordships to bear in mind the points made so cogently by my erstwhile noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and also so courageously, because he is always in danger of boring your Lordships. Nothing makes one less popular in this House than boring people, yet it is something about which we need to be not bored but alert. The weight is already so preponderantly in favour of the central Commission and so heavily against national parliaments that we really cannot afford to let one iota of it that we are able to keep slip through our fingers. Therefore, I support the Motion.

[Lord Wilson of Tillyorn]

My Lords, I, too, will speak very briefly and not delay the House too long, partly because I am a relatively new member of Sub-Committee B, at least in its present incarnation; I was a member of a previous incarnation some time ago.

The inquiry into women on boards was the first one that I attended as a member of the present Sub-Committee B and it was a very impressive process. The evidence, witnesses and written submissions that came before us were all very thorough, and everything pointed very clearly in the direction in which the committee itself reported. In other words, it is highly desirable to have more women on boards. It is an underutilised resource. Efforts must be made to increase the number of women on boards. In the UK this is happening steadily. There is no sustainable case for doing anything further by legislation rather than by encouragement. Indeed, most of the female proponents of more women on boards very strongly did not want that to happen. For me, it was a very interesting learning process.

With regard to this directive, the Commission is surely right in saying that it is desirable to have more women on boards. It is an underutilised resource, which is putting it rather mechanically, but it is absolutely true. But it is very strange indeed that the Commission goes on to say two contradictory things. First, it argues—although the arguments against have been quite strong—that there is a direct and positive advantage simply to having more women on boards, rather than the more subtle version that a good company gets women on boards and it is successful because it is a good and open-minded company. At the same time the Commission argues that we need a European-wide directive because there will be some countries that do not want to put themselves at a disadvantage by having more women on boards. It is a bit difficult to square that particular circle.

I do not think that the Commission’s proposals really stand up. Of course, what we are discussing this evening is whether they offend against the rule of subsidiarity. The points have all been made by others so I will not labour them. It seems absolutely clear that European-wide legislation does not add an advantage and that such is the diversity within Europe, with different types and structures of boards, that one size fits all simply does not meet the need of the moment. Therefore, I, too, support the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, that we should put in a reasoned opinion saying that what the Commission proposes offends against the procedures for subsidiarity.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, this is the second debate we have had about this issue. I realise that this is the second report, which deals with a different matter, but it is important that we recognise that as we debate the need for gender balance in positions of leadership in business, this Parliament and this Government should acknowledge their own failings in this area. We have no room to be self-satisfied. With just 22% of our current MPs being women, and just four women—that is, 18%—in the Cabinet, we are on a long road.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. This same argument came up before. This has nothing whatever to do with the place of women as non-executive directors on boards of listed companies. The opposition spokesperson in the other place went that way in his opening statement as well but then came firmly down against quotas and for the reasoned opinion.

18:59

[Baroness Thornton]

If the noble Baroness would let me continue, she may find that I will do the same, but there should be no complacency about this matter. That was the only point I was making; and I am sure that she would agree with that. I was about to pay her a great compliment, so perhaps she would like to wait for that, too. It is late, and I do not intend to speak for very long. My honourable friend in the other place was right to raise the issue. The subject of gender balance is important, but we have an underrepresentation on company boards in other respects, which we also need to address. The fact that only 5.7% of FTSE 100 directors are drawn from ethnic minorities is, I think, a problem. That is not the first time that that has been mentioned.

As I have said in the House before, we welcome the report of my noble friend Lord Davies on women’s representation on boards. My noble friend has made it clear that there is a moral imperative to change the state of affairs. There is a very strong case for that. We on these Benches also believe that we should regulate or legislate only as a last resort, but we should not rule out the need to take further action if we do not reach the target set by my noble friend, which we all seriously support—25% of female representation on boards by 2015. I acknowledge that we are on the right trajectory to get there, but more action will be needed.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, on two things. The first is the excellent report that we discussed in November; and the second is her personal role in encouraging women to come forward to positions of responsibility, not just on boards but in other places. In all my time in your Lordships’ House since 1998, I have seen her as a very good example of what women can and should aspire to and could achieve. Whether we reach those aspirations through the Davies report will become clearer during the next year. We will probably need to return to the subject towards the end of this year, to see where we are and what further needs to be done.

I will not rehearse what action has been taken by the Commission at European level, but a point that I have raised with the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, is that the problem that I have with these Motions is not to do with the arguments about the draft directive and the committee’s reasoned opinion, it is to do with how we in the UK should work constructively in other ways to advance the cause of equality in company boardrooms along with our European partners. We must be very careful not to send the message through this action today that it is in any doubt that we should be doing that.

The Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, in her response to the House of Lords European Union Committee, said that she agrees that the European Union has an important role to play in improving the representation of women on boards. If that is the case, I hope that the Government will say how that should happen, how we should give a lead and what our involvement should be. That debate presents a golden opportunity—although Viviane Reding has raised the issue in the way that she has, we should not get drawn down the road of European protocol and subsidiarity. We have to say what we need to say, but we should also make it clear that the UK wishes to be in the forefront of debate in achieving greater equality in this matter.

19:04

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, as this is a debate on a Motion from a Committee of this House, my contribution is purely to set out the Government’s position, not to respond to the debate; I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. As other noble Lords have described what the Commission is proposing and explained eloquently the general principles of subsidiarity, I will not take any time on that but get straight to the matter, which is the Government’s position on the directive.

We set that out in the Explanatory Memorandum, which was sent to the European Scrutiny Committee by my honourable friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer Affairs, Women and Equalities. We gave the Government’s assessment of whether the Commission’s proposal meets the principle of subsidiarity. Since submitting that memorandum, the Government have had an opportunity to further analyse the directive from the Commission and we have concluded that its proposals do not meet the test of subsidiarity. We believe that there is no reason why member states cannot achieve these objectives acting alone, and there is no evidence of any value added by the involvement of the EU in the way put forward in that directive.

However, the Government are committed to increasing the number of women on boards; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and other noble Lords have said, it is very important that we, as a Government, make it absolutely clear that the fact that we do not believe that the Commission’s proposals meet the test of subsidiarity in no way dilutes that commitment. We believe that increasing the number of women on boards is the right thing to do because it is the right thing for women, for business and for our country’s wider economic success.

We pledged to promote gender equality on the boards of listed companies in the coalition agreement. An independent review in 2011, led by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, identified the barriers preventing women from reaching senior roles in business and recommended to the Government a business-led strategy to bring about the necessary change. We have been working with business to implement this strategy and we believe that the results already demonstrate that national-level solutions are working.

The Government believe that this voluntary business-led approach is right for the UK. We need to see a real culture change taking place at the heart of business if progress is going to be sustainable and long-term. Companies need to understand and believe that diverse boards are better boards. We want a business environment where women can and do take their seats at the boardroom table on merit and without the spectre of tokenism. I have always believed that, to attract not just more women but the best women with a wide range of experience, businesses need to show that they want them to join the team for what they bring, not because of who they are, and certainly not just because they have been told they have to.

The Government believe that member states must retain the flexibility to respond to their own individual circumstances. Likewise, businesses need to be able to respond to the varying needs of the sector, size and type of business. None the less, the Government agree that the EU has an important role to play in improving the representation of women on boards, which is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, my noble friend Lady O’Cathain and others. We share the Commission’s view that in the member states and throughout Europe, fair chances and opportunities for women in executive posts should and must be promoted. The EU has done a good job of highlighting the issue and raising member states’ awareness of its importance. As a result, many countries are developing their own individual programmes of initiatives. The Government agree that the EU should continue to show leadership on this issue, shining a light on and disseminating good practice across member states.

However, in line with the subsidiarity principle, it is first and foremost up to member states to find their own national approach to achieving this goal. Many member states are considering, or have implemented, various differing national measures on a voluntary basis to facilitate raising the proportion of women in boardrooms. Some have decided that domestic legal action is appropriate for their own circumstances. It is our view that these efforts must be granted more time in order to establish whether they can achieve fair female participation in economic decision-making on Europe’s company boards.

In the case of the UK, the Commission has projected that only 17% of UK listed companies would have at least 40% women directors by 2020. The Commission’s analysis is based on extrapolating the increase in the number of women on boards between 2003 and 2011 forward to 2020 using a linear progression. Of course, 2011 is when the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, published his report on increasing the number of women in British boardrooms. Since his work started, we have seen nearly a 50% increase in the number of female non-executives in the FTSE 350. While we have therefore not forecast the number of individual companies that might have 40% female directors by 2020, we would expect it to be significantly in excess of the 17% projected by the Commission. Indeed, research by the Cranfield School of Management shows that should the current pace of change be maintained, we are on a trajectory to achieve 27% on FTSE 100 boards by 2015 and 37% by 2020.

As I have said, we believe that we need to see a real culture change taking place at the heart of business if progress is to be sustainable and long term. Companies need to understand and believe that diverse boards are better boards. Voluntary measures that businesses can truly buy into, such as the business-led approach that the UK is taking, can help to bring about this change in a way that blunt legal measures never can. We believe that prescriptive measures such as quotas or binding targets run the very real risk of undermining women and their contribution at the most senior levels in our economy. They will more than likely be counterproductive to our overall aim of seeing more women reach the boardroom. We do not want to see the spectre of tokenism.

We agree with the Committee that all parties need to work together to achieve gender-balanced boards via measures that focus on bringing about real, lasting change for the benefit of women, business and the economy in a way that is sustainable and achievable. The negotiations in Brussels on the Commission’s proposals have not yet started but we are already discussing them with a number of stakeholders. Clearly, today it is a matter for the House to decide whether to send a reasoned opinion to the Commission but the Government welcome this debate and the support expressed for our approach to addressing the very important matter of women’s reputation on corporate boards. This is clearly something on which we will continue to focus and seek to make good and strong progress.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this debate and for the general message of support for this reasoned opinion. I am also grateful to the Minister for reiterating the Government’s support. The support has not of course been unqualified and it is right that the reasoned opinion be questioned but, if nothing else, it at least provides a mechanism for sending a message to the Commission to reconsider where it is and to look at the difficulties within its own proposals.

Perhaps I may take two points of substance from the report and the debate. One, which is in the substantive report prepared by Sub-Committee B, is on how there can be a distinction between executive and non-executive directors. There is none in English law, as I understand it. To meet the obligations being suggested by the Commission, it would be necessary to introduce one. The other, which I think did not get considered by the committee—although I am prepared to stand corrected on that—would be on the relations between subsidiary companies and the main company. The proposals from the Commission bear on the main quoted company, so one could have a situation where it was entirely compliant but where every single subsidiary had a ridiculously skewed structure without apparently breaching the proposed obligations. I mention those only as points of example on the substance of the matter.

Given that there has been strong support on what might be termed the constitutional or procedural issue about the reasoned opinion, I think I can turn my remarks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. His views on the European Union are perhaps well known to the House; he is, shall we say, not too keen on it. By extension he may therefore be, and is reasonably entitled to be, sceptical as to the use of a reasoned opinion procedure. He asked me first a specific question, which I will do my best to answer, on the progress of this proposal. As I understand it, as of yesterday the score among national Parliaments was 7:7. If we were to accept this Motion, those wishing a reasoned opinion would take a short-head lead on the matter. Whether the magic number of 14 would be reached in time to trigger the formal yellow card is of course still open to speculation and by no means certain.

I should perhaps explain to the House for completeness that it is complicated by the fact that roughly half the Chambers or the Parliaments of the member states are unicameral and the other half are bicameral. In fact, one requires to produce a third of 14 votes, one of which will come from the other place and one of which will come from our House, whichever way we choose to cast our decision or to abstain from doing so, which amounts to not playing a reasoned opinion. That is the state of play on this particular matter.

There is one case so far in what is still a relatively untried procedure—and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, referred to this—in relation to the Monti issue and the right to strike, which has resulted in the Commission withdrawing its proposal on the presentation of a reasoned opinion. I just say to the House and to the noble Lord by way of advice that, whatever view he may take on the merits of this procedure, it is the best weapon we have. To borrow a motto from another context, we should either use it or lose it. I think it is right that where the circumstances so well set out in the report and by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, demonstrate the argument, we should say so. It is our constitutional duty to say so; that is what tonight’s debate is about.

As far as I am concerned, I am relaxed and very much support the committee’s approach for the issuing of reasoned opinions as and where they are appropriate. If passed tonight by the House, this would be the fifth reasoned opinion which this House has issued. I claim no credit for the fact that two of those would have been in the past three weeks. Equally, I do not wish to speculate that we are likely to produce a strike rate of anything like that amount. It very much depends on what comes forward from the Commission, but it is important.

I also point out to the noble Lord that when he suggests that the Commission might, in some cynical way, retire from this and come back with the same thing in a different form, in my view the formulation of policy within Europe is not a binary exercise—is neither one thing nor another. It is very much a matter of influencing opinion. The fact that, if this Motion is carried tonight, eight Parliaments within the European Union have said, “Hang on a minute—we are not happy about this”, is a very important political factor in the circumstances.

Finally, from the meetings I have had with colleagues in other countries, I think that there is a growing interest and appetite among national Parliaments to rebalance the policy debate, both within the remit of the Lisbon treaty and anyway because of the size of the European Union and the complexity of the issues it deals with. Picking up the points that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made, we need to look very seriously at irredentism by the centre. We need to make sure that things that do not have to be decided by the centre—even if they are desirable as objectives—can be dealt with by the member states and by a process of dialogue and iteration rather than by the imposition of a centralised solution. It is on that—the constitutional issue, rather than the merits of women on boards or greater diversity generally, where I think there is a unanimous view across the House—that we should concentrate tonight.

Motion agreed.

Gender Balance among Non-Executive Directors (EUC Report)

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Resolve

19:18

Moved By

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

That this House considers that the amended Commission proposal for a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures (COM(2012)614, Council Document 16433/12) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the 9th Report of the European Union Committee (HL Paper 97); and, in accordance with article 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the Parliaments to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European institutions.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 7.18 pm.