House of Commons
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
1. How much financial support the Government gave to civil society organisations in (a) 2009-10 and (b) 2012-13 to date.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is estimated that the Government committed £13.9 billion to general charities in 2009-10. As the hon. Gentleman will know, data for 2012-13 are not yet available.
Hugh Bayley
Thousands of people in every one of our constituencies depend on the services provided by voluntary bodies. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that funding for the sector will fall by £3.2 billion during the current Parliament, while the Charities Aid Foundation says that private giving to charities has fallen by 20%. The big society is shrinking. How are the Government going to give it the resources it needs to provide services for our constituents?
Mr Hurd
The Government are doing a great deal to support our charities. We are encouraging giving, volunteering and social investment, and we are trying to make it easier for charities to help us to deliver public services. There is less money around as a direct consequence of the actions, and the fiscal incontinence, of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman did not adorn. We all have a role and a responsibility to support our charities, but this Government are doing their bit.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
That very same research by the Charities Aid Foundation clearly showed that 85% of respondents were concerned about the future financial viability of charitable giving. In view of the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), may I ask why he does not share those concerns?
Mr Hurd
I do not need any lectures from Labour Members about the extent of the pressure that the charitable sector is under. At a time when resources are very constrained, the Treasury has introduced new tax incentives for giving, including the gift aid small donations scheme. Between them, those incentives will be worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the sector during the current Parliament. We are providing match funding for giving, and investing in new and innovative ways of encouraging it. The Government are showing a great deal of creativity in trying to connect people with the chance to give to and support charities in their communities.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Kent Air Ambulance, the Pilgrims Hospice in Canterbury and homelessness charities such as Porchlight and Catching Lives demonstrate that there is a healthy sector in Kent? Does he also agree that the most successful elements of the charitable sector are those that raise the bulk of the funds themselves—with some help from the state—rather than the client organisations whose number increased under the last Government?
Mr Hurd
My hon. Friend, who is a tireless supporter of charities in his constituency, has raised an important point. It is worth reminding the House that 75% of charities receive no income at all from the state, and that 80% of the public funding that goes to charities goes to organisations with incomes of more than £1 million. We are actively trying to encourage more charities to live within their means and raise their own money by promoting the kind of giving that I mentioned earlier.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
2. What recent progress he has made in increasing capacity in the voluntary and community sector.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
The Government are doing a great deal in trying to increase the capacity and capability of the sector. One of the most important things that we have done is launch the world’s first social investment institution, Big Society Capital, which will have £600 million on its balance sheet. That will enable it to increase the social investment market and make it easier for charities and social enterprises to gain access to capital.
Penny Mordaunt
Will my hon. Friend congratulate the newly formed Wymering Manor Trust in my constituency on securing the manor as a community asset? In stark contrast to the smooth running of that transfer, the obstacles that the community have encountered in trying to buy out Portsmouth football club, and the culture that they have encountered in the world of football, have been dreadful. What more can be done to help fans to own and govern their local clubs, and to stop football being a big society-free zone?
Mr Hurd
I am delighted to congratulate the trust, not least because I understand that it is chaired by Conservatives. Let me also wish the supporters of Portsmouth football club well in their endeavours. The Government are trying to help communities to realise their dreams, and if there is anything that our Department or Big Society Capital can do to support that community, my hon. Friend must let me know.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
I think that there is a different story. I visited the office of Fairplay in Derbyshire the other Friday and met the people there who look after, for instance, disabled teenagers. I have also visited various other voluntary organisations. Their story is that they are being cut left, right and centre, and are having a job making ends meet. When will the Government support the voluntary workers who are trying to rescue those people, and to help all kinds of individuals? This really has reached a chronic stage. Get something done!
Mr Hurd
We are doing a great deal. I totally accept what the hon. Gentleman says: there is a lot of pressure on charities in all our constituencies. We all know that there is less money around, but I would like to hear a little more honesty and recognition from the Opposition Benches as to why the cuts in public expenditure are necessary. They are the direct result of the fiscal incontinence of the hon. Gentleman’s party’s Government.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister reflects on the capacity of the voluntary sector, he will surely consider in particular the capacity of the Charity Commission—which has been cut by a third on his watch—to prevent charities such as Cup Trust from being used for huge levels of tax avoidance. Is the Minister convinced that the new head of the commission understands the seriousness of the situation, and is a cross-Government plan now in place to prevent such a repeat?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
3. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on ensuring that companies in receipt of Government contracts do not engage in tax avoidance schemes.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
In the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that the Cabinet Office and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would examine how the procurement process can be used to deter tax avoidance and evasion. I expect an announcement to be made on this matter shortly with a view to new arrangements coming into effect from 1 April.
Simon Hughes
That is very welcome news, and I hope that friends of the Cabinet Office will be able to make sure that the Chancellor announces in the Budget that we will end once and for all the possibility of taxpayers’ money funding people to avoid paying their corporate taxes. That has to end at both national level and local government contract level.
Mr Maude
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. Our primary concern in public procurement is value for the taxpayer, but it is entirely legitimate to be concerned about ensuring that companies that are—rightly—profiting from Government contracts should be paying the proper amount of tax.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Is not the answer simply to put out a message to all companies that if they do not pay their taxes they will not get the contract?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
4. What plans he has to achieve greater value for money from the Government’s management of information technology.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Days after the coalition Government came to office, we introduced strict controls on ICT spend that saved the taxpayer £316 million last year alone, a figure verified by the National Audit Office. We have opened up procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises, we are moving towards open standards and interoperability, and we are reopening some of the incredibly expensive and burdensome ICT contracts that we inherited from the previous Government, with a view to making significant further savings. There is much more that can be done, and much more that we will do.
Duncan Hames
I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome those actions. I also thank him for visiting Ark Continuity in my constituency, a company whose data centres make cloud computing possible. There are myriad data centres in local and national Government and in the wider public sector, and there are huge savings to be made. Will the Minister target this area in searching for ways to save the taxpayer money?
Mr Maude
I enjoyed my visit with my hon. Friend to Ark Continuity. It was very illuminating. There is a huge amount we can do. Data centre capacity across Government is massively underused. A huge amount of overcapacity was left in place by the outgoing Government, who had no interest in these subjects at all. We are getting to grips with it, however. We need to do more, and we will do so; there is much more money we can save.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The fact is that the NAO did not verify the savings. According to the NAO, the Department overstated its claimed IT savings probably by tens of millions of pounds. The Minister has form on this: he predicted £20 billion of savings from his quango review, but the NAO showed he barely saved a tenth of that. Perhaps the Department should propose a new ministerial baccalaureate in adding up and taking away. Since the Minister cannot get his figures right, will he now at least agree to brush up on his maths?
Mr Maude
The hon. Gentleman is talking total nonsense. We inherited a massive Budget deficit left by a Government who were fiscally incontinent and made no effort to deliver any efficiency savings whatsoever. Through our efficiency programme, we have already delivered £12 billion of savings and there is much more that can be done. The outgoing Government left the public finances and Whitehall efficiency in a shockingly sorry state.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
5. What his policy is on the cyber-security partnership.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
8. What his policy is on the cyber-security partnership.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
On 25 January, the Foreign Secretary signed the World Economic Forum’s new set of principles on cyber-resilience. The UK was the first country to join that cyber-security partnership, alongside more than 70 companies and Government bodies across 15 sectors and 25 countries. That is an important step in demonstrating our leadership role on the international stage in combating cyber-threats.
Eric Ollerenshaw
I thank the Minister for that reply. Has she seen the recent report by Lancaster university, which is a centre of excellence in cyber-security and she is more than welcome to visit? The report highlighted the lack of investment by so many small businesses in even the simplest systems to protect their IT systems.
Miss Smith
I very much welcome Lancaster university’s report, which I have seen. It does show the university’s place as an academic centre of excellence for cyber-security. That research gives us valuable insights into how business is responding. I understand that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be supporting a further small and medium-sized enterprise conference with Lancaster university. The Government are bringing forward a cross-government cyber-security awareness campaign, which is aimed at SMEs. I ought to quote from the report, because I agree with its statement that small businesses should be able to
“embrace technology and prosper without exposing themselves to unwanted business risks.”
Sir Tony Baldry
Cyber-security should be a growth area for UK industry. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what she is doing to help promote cyber-security for the UK industrial sector?
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. When we published the cyber-security strategy we made it clear that there are important opportunities for UK businesses. Our country has long-standing expertise in cyber-security, which makes us well placed to capitalise on the commercial opportunities on offer, both domestically and overseas. I can confirm to him that we have put in place measures to help promote UK products abroad, particularly through setting up a cyber-growth partnership.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
If only the Minister’s warm words on international partnerships were matched by her Government’s actions. In October, the Home Secretary announced that the UK would opt out of cross-border co-operation on tackling crime—cybercrime is, of course, predominantly cross-border in nature. Will the Minister confirm that position? Specifically, will we be part of the new European cybercrime centre, or are her Government more obsessed with damaging Europe than strengthening our cyber-security?
Miss Smith
First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her place in the Opposition Front-Bench team, although I hope that the Labour party has updated its website, as I do not believe its cyber-skills showed her in her correct place at the time she asked that question. Of course, I can offer my reassurance that the UK Government are doing all they can on tackling cybercrime, where there is much to be done. There is also much to be done in Europe.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
In developing the cyber-security strategy, will the Minister consider forming a civilian cyber-security reserve, so that people working in the IT security sector can back-fill those positions that are very specialist and where the work perhaps cannot be carried out by the Ministry of Defence?
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend makes correct points about the need to ensure that we have robust skills across both the public and private sectors in respect of cyber-security. There is much to do to build our country’s capability. He will know that the MOD is taking forward the development of a cyber-reserve, and he makes sensible points about a civilian version.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Contracts Finder website.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
The Prime Minister launched Contracts Finder two years ago to make Government procurement opportunities more accessible for small and medium-sized enterprises. That is precisely what that site does.
Tom Greatrex
I thank the Minister for her reply and her letter, which I received this morning in reply to my question to her and her colleagues last September about the number of contracts with Atos. We know that the Government have about £3 billion-worth of contracts with Atos and in her answer she referred me to the Contracts Finder website, but a significant number of contracts were not on that site. Now that she has provided those details, will she tell me why the Cabinet Office does not include contracts renewed since 1 January 2011 given that they are renewed and extended by her Department?
Miss Smith
Of the contracts identified in response to the hon. Gentleman’s inquiries, only seven are required to be on Contracts Finder and each of them is there. We are publishing more contract opportunities and more contract information than ever before and we are seeing an increase in the amount of business going to SMEs. Contracts Finder was designed to help suppliers, particularly SMEs, to find contract opportunities, whereas the hon. Gentleman’s Government did nothing on that in 13 years.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Minister has just referred to what happened three years ago. Has she had an opportunity to assess why small businesses were winning such a small share of Government procurement contracts when the Government came to power?
Miss Smith
We are absolutely serious about opening up Government business to SMEs, and it is a shame that the previous Administration appeared not to be. We have made progress: we have posted information about the opportunities, as I said in response to the previous question; we have removed bureaucratic pre-qualification processes; we have given SMEs a voice at the top table; and we have made Government more accountable through the mystery shopper service. My hon. Friend knows that it is a shame that the previous Government did not do any of those things.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
7. What estimate he has made of the potential savings to the Exchequer from the Government’s proposed reforms to civil service pensions. [R]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that this Government’s reforms of public service pensions will deliver more than £430 billion of savings over the next 50 years.
Richard Graham
The Minister’s answer is good news for taxpayers, who include many of the 13 million people in this country without a pension at all, but it is also important that public sector workers receive a good pension. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the revised structure is still a defined benefit one and that it is fairer to part-time workers, who are often women, and to lower-paid workers?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
What discussions are the Government having with trade unions representing civil servants to ensure the smoothest possible transition?
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
9. What progress he has made on his plans for the National Citizen Service.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
I am delighted to say that we think that almost three times more young people took part in NCS this year and I hope that the whole House will join me in congratulating those young people, who between them contributed some 750,000 hours of community service in their local areas. The number will grow again this year and teenagers can sign up at www.ncsyes.co.uk.
Kris Hopkins
In an era when young people must take every advantage to give themselves a competitive edge, does my hon. Friend agree that the NCS furnishes graduates with the skills that will attract future employers?
Mr Hurd
Yes, I do. Young people and employers are telling us that. They recognise that the NCS helps young people develop the character skills, leadership, communication, teamwork and self-confidence that will help them succeed in the workplace. That is why we are so proud to support it.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that the NCS ought to go hand in hand with paying attention to first-class citizenship in our schools? Is he aware that citizenship in schools has been run down to almost nothing?
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
10. I was delighted to attend Royds Hall school last year to see dozens of youngsters who had been inspired to sign up for the National Citizen Service. Can the Minister assure me that this fantastic scheme will be rolled out not only across my constituency, but across the rest of the country this year?
Mr Hurd
My hon. Friend is a tireless champion of NCS in his area, and I am delighted that we will shortly announce plans to expand the service this year. It will expand considerably in his constituency and other areas, and I encourage colleagues to tell parents and young people about it, and to direct young people to the website, ncsyes.co.uk.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
My responsibilities as Minister for the Cabinet Office are for the public sector Efficiency and Reform Group for civil service issues; industrial relations strategy and the public sector; Government transparency; civil contingencies; civil society; and cyber-security.
Toby Perkins
The Government expect to increase debt by £212 billion more than they originally predicted, and our youth services are being cut to the bone. Study after study has shown, however, that the National Citizen Service, worthy as it is, has reached a tiny number of children. Is it not time that the Government either reformed the NCS to ensure that it provides better value for money or changed it altogether?
Mr Maude
It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to lecture this Government about debt and deficit, given the state of the public finances when his Government left office; there was reckless incontinence. The National Citizen Service, which we expect to expand, provides an incredibly valuable experience for growing numbers of young people, and I would be grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for it.
Mr Speaker
There is plenty of scope for an all-day debate, I think. I call Mr Peter Bone.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
T2. To the coalition Government’s great credit, four months ago they started to tackle the scandal of civil servants being given paid time off to do trade union work. The TaxPayers Alliance has worked out that that costs £90 million a year. How many savings so far have the Government made on that £90 million?
Mr Maude
One of the difficulties is that under the previous Government no one even monitored how much time was spent on trade union activities and duties. There is a statutory requirement to provide paid time off for trade union duties, but that was roundly abused. We now have in place a proper system of control and monitoring, and the cost will be cut right back.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
T3. It is estimated that 71% of over-55s do not have access to the internet at home, so will the Minister explain exactly what support has been put in place to enable them to access Government services for which it is compulsory to apply online?
Mr Maude
The hon. Lady will know that we have in place an assisted digital strategy, so that as we roll out our digital by default approach, which will provide services on a much more convenient basis for the citizen at much lower cost to the taxpayer, there will always be available a place where people can go so that the digital transaction can be carried out with the support of someone to help the citizen. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It would be helpful if the House listened to the questions and, indeed, to Ministers’ answers.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
T7. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) about small and medium-sized enterprise procurement, does the Minister agree that it is not just a question of giving contracts to small firms but that it is essential that the public sector pays its bills on time?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: not only are hundreds of contract opportunities being made available for SMEs, but the Government are a fair payment champion, recognised by external bodies for their behaviour, just as he said.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T4. Research published by the Charities Aid Foundation found that one in six charities feared having to close this year, putting at risk the services on which many vulnerable people rely. Will the Minister tell the House what action the Government are taking to prevent charities from going to the wall?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
The Government are doing a great deal to encourage giving in this country. The Treasury has introduced new tax incentives for giving, and is working hard to make gift aid work better for the charity sector. The small donation scheme is looking at how gift aid can work with digital giving, and we are looking at how we can make payroll giving work much more effectively. Across a range of areas, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office are working hard to make sure that charities get the support that they need in these difficult times.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
T9. What monitoring arrangements for taxpayer-funded trade union representatives did my right hon. Friend discover after the general election, and what is his policy on this matter?
Mr Maude
Rather surprisingly, we found no arrangements whatever in place for monitoring the cost to the taxpayer of paid time off for trade union representatives. It had been allowed to spiral completely out of control under the previous Government and we are at long last bringing it under control.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
T5. The Cabinet Office seems to have left out its responsibility for the Office for National Statistics when it listed its responsibilities. When it is clear that the country is facing a major problem of addictive gambling, why have the Government not carried out the gambling prevalence survey provided for in the Gambling Act 2005, so we do not know how much addictive gambling there is in the country?
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
T10. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Cabinet Office keeps a proper record of all the circumstances in which collective ministerial responsibility is set aside, so that we can have some transparency in relation to that process?
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 February.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Chope
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I have given him notice of my question, which he may find particularly useful in the sense that it is fair and transparent and also very modern. In response to the many concerns expressed in yesterday’s debate, will he ensure that civil partnerships are open to heterosexual couples on an equal basis with homosexual couples?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of his question. I will obviously listen carefully to what he says, but frankly I am a marriage man. I am a great supporter of marriage. I want to promote marriage, defend marriage, encourage marriage, and the great thing about last night’s vote is that two gay people who love each other will now be able to get married. That is an important advance. We should be promoting marriage, rather than looking at any other way of weakening it.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I want to ask the Prime Minister about the bedroom tax. Alison in Middlesbrough has 18-year-old twin sons who are both in the Army. The Prime Minister’s bedroom tax means that while her sons are away, she will be charged more for their bedrooms. She says:
“I resent the fact that both my sons are serving and protecting their country, and in return will not have a home to come home to when they are granted their much needed leave.”
What is the Prime Minister’s answer to Alison?
The Prime Minister
First of all, let me make it clear that this is not a tax; it is a benefit. I would make two points in respect of the specific case that the right hon. Gentleman raises. First, all the time Labour was in government, if somebody was in a private sector rented home and were in receipt of housing benefit, they did not get any benefit for empty rooms. That is important. So it is only fair that we treat people in social housing the same way. The second point is that if anyone is away from home, obviously their earnings are not counted, so the benefits of that person are likely to go up.
Edward Miliband
I look forward to the Prime Minister explaining to Alison why her paying £25 a week more from April is not a tax on her. As for his point about the private rented sector, I think he misunderstands the point of social housing. Part of its purpose is to protect the most vulnerable. According to the Government’s own figures, two thirds of the people hit are disabled. Let me tell the Prime Minister about an e-mail that I received last week, which says:
“My wife is disabled, has a degenerative condition and is cared for in bed.”
The gentleman goes on:
“Due to her illness and my own medical conditions I usually sleep in the spare bedroom.”
Why is it fair for him and hundreds of thousands of other disabled people like him to be hit by the bedroom tax?
The Prime Minister
As with every hon. Member, if the right hon. Gentleman wants me or the Department for Work and Pensions to look at a specific case, of course I will, but let me again make some detailed points to him. First of all, there is a £50 million fund to deal with difficult cases. But let me also make the basic argument of fairness that he seems to miss. If someone is in private rented housing and receives no housing benefit, they do not get money for an extra room, and if someone is in private housing and do get housing benefit, they do not get money for an extra room, so there is a basic argument of fairness. Why should we be doing more for people in social housing on housing benefit than for people in private housing on housing benefit? There is one additional point that, frankly, he has got to engage in. The housing benefit bill is now £23 billion a year. We know that he is against capping welfare and we know that he is against restricting welfare to below the rate of increase in wages. We know all the things he is against; we are beginning to wonder what on earth he is for.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister is spending more than £8 billion more than he planned on housing benefit because of his economic failure during this Parliament. I say to him that the whole point of social housing is to protect families, including the disabled. It does not sound like he is going to do anything for military families or the disabled, but let us talk about a group of people he is moved by. I have here a letter sent on his behalf by the Conservative party treasurer about the so-called mansion tax. It says:
“We promise that no homes tax will be introduced during the course of this parliament”.
It goes on:
“To keep the taxman out of your home…please help by donating today and supporting the ‘No Homes Tax’ campaign.”
Can the Prime Minister explain what it is about the plight of those people that he finds so much more compelling than that of those hit by the bedroom tax?
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of a mansion tax, why did he not introduce one in the 13 years he was in government? If he is so passionate about social housing, why did he not build any when he was in government? If he thinks we are spending too much on housing benefit—he has just said that the bill is going up—why does he oppose each and every attempt we make to get the welfare bill under control? The fact is that the public can see that we are on the side of people who work hard and want to do the right thing; all he can ever do is spend more money.
Edward Miliband
I say to the Prime Minister that he should not get so het up. After all, he has got nearly half his parliamentary party behind him.
The policy is not just unfair; it is not going to work either. In Hull, for example, 4,700 people are going to be hit by the bedroom tax, and there are just 73 council properties for them to move to. Can the Prime Minister explain how exactly that is going to work?
The Prime Minister
What this Government are doing is building more houses and controlling welfare bills. Frankly, the question is one that the right hon. Gentleman has to answer, too. If he opposes the welfare cap, if he opposes restrictions on increased welfare, if he opposes reform of disability benefits and if he opposes each and every welfare change we make, how on earth is he going to get control of public spending?
Edward Miliband
The clue is in the title: Prime Minister’s questions. He is supposed to try to answer the question.
The Prime Minister clearly does not understand his own policy, but I thought that he might say, “Move to the private rented sector,” because there are not enough council properties for people. This is where—[Interruption.] When he gets up I would like him to say what those people should do. The policy is supposed to save money, and that is where it is not going to work out. Another woman who wrote to me, Diane, says that
“my rent for my family home”—[Interruption.]
I do not know why Government Members are groaning—thousands of their constituents are going to be hit by this policy. Diane says that
“my rent for my family home is at present £65.68, whereas a one bedroom”
in the private sector “would cost over £100.” How can it possibly make sense to force people into a situation where they cost the state more, not less, by moving into the private rented sector?
The Prime Minister
What this Government are doing is building more homes. If the right hon. Gentleman supports that, will he now support our changes to the planning system and the new homes bonus? Will he support the things that will get more homes built and more people into jobs? We have 1 million extra people working in the private sector—that is what he has to engage in. He has absolutely no suggestions for how to get on top of welfare, to get our deficit down, to get our economy moving or, frankly, to do anything else.
Edward Miliband
So today we discover that the Prime Minister has not even got a clue about his own policy, which he is introducing in April. His answers today remind us of what his party and the country are saying about him. The only people he listens to are a small group of rich and powerful people at the top. That is why he has come up with a policy that is unworkable and unfair. He is a Prime Minister who is weak, incompetent and totally out of touch.
The Prime Minister
That is the totally pathetic, pre-scripted rubbish that we get used to every Wednesday. On the issue of who listens to whom, I have a very clear idea of who the right hon. Gentleman listens to, because we heard it in the LSE lecture by Len McCluskey, who said of the right hon. Gentleman:
“I met him and he asked me—‘Len, if you had three wishes, three things that you’d like us to do if we got back into power, what would you like them to be’”?
Len McCluskey’s answer was
“trade union freedoms, trade union freedoms, trade union freedoms.”
That is who the right hon. Gentleman wants to be the fairy godmother to.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
At the time of the strategic defence and security review two and a half years ago, my right hon. Friend said:
“My own strong view is that this structure will require year-on-year real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 799.]
Does that remain his view and has he heard any similar view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister
It does remain my view, but I am afraid to say that, as far as I can see, I am the only party leader who believes that, in the years beyond this Parliament, we should increase defence spending in the way described by my right hon. Friend. The good news for all those who care about this issue is that it is agreed Government policy that the defence equipment programme needs real-terms increases up to after 2015. It is very important for us to be able to plan our exceptional equipment programme, which will give us some of the best-equipped armed forces anywhere in the world.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q2. The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that the bankers will pay £500 million less for the bankers tax than the Prime Minister promised last year, yet in April he will inflict a £500 million cut on the poorest through the second empty bedroom tax. How can he justify taking from the poor and giving to the rich?
The Prime Minister
I say to the hon. Gentleman—this is an important point—that we have introduced the bank levy. We think that that is a better answer than a one-off bonus tax. The bank levy will, of course, be paid every year, so it will raise considerably more than a one-off bonus tax. What my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done when the bank levy has not come up to the figures that we require is increase the bank levy to make sure that they do.
Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I remind the House of my declared interests.
Tomorrow the Prime Minister will go to Brussels to argue, rightly, for a substantial reduction in common agricultural policy funding. Will he ensure that any reduction applies to farmers right across Europe, not just those in the UK? Will he also make sure that he does not fall into the same trap as his predecessor did last time around in 2005? When pressing for cuts, his predecessor ended up with a cut to the one part of the CAP that everyone thinks is worth while—the rural development programme and the environment.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend speaks very knowledgeably about this matter. These will be extremely difficult negotiations. Obviously, our aim is the significant cut that I have spoken about. The point that he makes about agriculture is important, particularly in respect of the flexibility that we require to ensure that things such as the rural development programme continue to succeed.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Q3. We know that the Prime Minister has met lots of millionaires, but has he ever met anyone who will lose their home because of his bedroom tax?
The Prime Minister
I hold constituency surgeries and listen to all the sorts of cases that the Leader of the Opposition has brought out today. I have RAF Brize Norton in my constituency, and many forces families live there. What they say to me is that they want a Government who are on the side of people who work hard and do the right thing. They support the fact that we are capping welfare, getting on top of immigration and clearing up the mess left by the hon. Lady’s party.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
Today is the United Nations international day of zero tolerance to female genital mutilation. Does the Prime Minister agree that Britain should be doing all it can to combat this dreadful abuse of the human rights of women and girls overseas and here in the UK?
The Prime Minister
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She is right to raise this matter. The Government have made progress by chairing a forum to look right across the piece, including at what we do overseas through our aid programme to prevent the horrific practice of female genital mutilation and at what we do here to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service and others are aware of the law and do everything they can to ensure that it is properly prosecuted.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
Q4. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Atos has declared that Richard III is fit for work?
The Prime Minister
That is not a constituency case that has come my way. All I can say is that I hope it will engender a great historical understanding of these events among all our people and provide a great boost to the great city of Leicester.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
This week’s announcement that the work of the Insolvency Service at Stockton is moving to Newcastle is the latest in a long series of similar announcements affecting the Tees valley, including the closure of Middlesbrough’s HMRC office by the previous Government. Will the Prime Minister look to bring extra work to the HMRC office in Stockton and to move another public sector agency to the Tees valley?
The Prime Minister
I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. We want to ensure that public sector jobs are fairly distributed around the country, but we have to be frank and say that the real need is for a rebalancing in the economy, with growth in the private sector to make up for the decline in public sector jobs. Over the past two and a half years, the million extra private sector jobs have more than offset the decline in public sector employment. That is why unemployment is falling around the country.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Q5. The Prime Minister may not be aware of an opinion poll by the BBC in Northern Ireland showing that in all Six Counties there is now a clear majority in favour of the Union. People right across Northern Ireland recognise that when it comes to being part of this United Kingdom, we are better off together.
The Prime Minister
I sometimes try to avoid opinion polls, so I have not seen that one. It sounds as if it is one that will lift the spirits of almost everyone in this House, because we believe in a United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland being part of that United Kingdom.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Q6. Can the Prime Minister reassure this House that he still believes in increasing spending on the NHS and in ensuring that those funds go to the doctors and nurses at the front line of our service?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is why we made a commitment to increase NHS spending in each year of this Parliament. We are on course to do that. Crucially, we want to ensure that the money goes to the front line. That is why the number of managers and administrators in our NHS is right down and the number of clinical staff right up.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Q7. Was it the double-dip recession, the slow-down in deficit reduction or the projected 60% increase in national debt over the next five years that led the Prime Minister to state that he had full confidence in his Chancellor?
The Prime Minister
I have confidence in the Chancellor because the deficit is down by 25%, there are a million extra private sector jobs and we are cleaning up the mess made by the Labour party.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
In Dover, plans are moving forward for the building of a new hospital, after a decade in which local hospital services were decimated. May I, too, say that we need to increase investment in the NHS and focus on the front line?
The Prime Minister
This day, particularly when we are about to discuss what happened at Stafford hospital, is a day to talk about the importance of care in our health service, the importance of the front line and, above all, the importance of really looking at quality and listening to patients. Under this Government, of course resources have been constrained, for all the reasons we discuss across the Dispatch Box, week in, week out, but we made a conscious choice to put more money into the NHS and get that to the front line. That is why there are 5,900 more doctors and 19,000 fewer non-clinical staff. The money is going to the front line, but the focus needs to be on quality and the patient.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Q8. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of the Democratic Unionist party about suicide levels in our society? In the light of the debate later in this House, will he assure me and my party of the Government’s support to raise awareness of that issue and work with the devolved Administrations to tackle this scourge across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
First, I commend the hon. Gentleman and the Democratic Unionists for tabling this motion and bringing forward the issue. We often do not talk enough or address the whole issue of suicide in our society and country, and it is absolutely right to do so. It is a shocking statistic that in Northern Ireland almost six times the number of people killed in road traffic accidents are lost to suicide. Raising awareness of the issue and ensuring a proper cross-Government strategy to help people deal with it is vital, and the DUP is right to raise it.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Q9. As a result of the financial mess the Labour Government left the country in—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must calm down. We have a lot of questions to get through and I intend to get through them. Let us have a bit of order for Mr John Leech.
Mr Leech
Local councils have faced as tough a budget settlement as most other Departments. Does the Prime Minister share my dismay that Manchester city council is choosing to close libraries, leisure centres and the Mersey Valley Countryside Warden Service, while at the same time it was happy to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on an Alicia Keys concert and leave £100 million in reserves sitting in the bank?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course councils face difficult spending decisions, but in many cases the level of spending and grant they are still getting is equivalent to what they received under the last Government. Obviously, the economy has declined since then and we have to cut our cloth accordingly. Councils should be held accountable for the decisions that they make, and in some cases there can be little doubt that they are making high-profile cuts to try to make a point. They should not be damaging people’s livelihoods; they should be doing the best for their cities.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister confirm for the record that thanks to his cuts to the child care element of the working tax credit, families with children are losing up to £1,500 a year?
The Prime Minister
What has happened with child tax credit is that we increased it by £390 in this Government’s early Budgets. If we look at the benefits for a two parent, two child family, we see that that family will be getting more than £1,500 extra this year—that is £30 a week—compared with 2010. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Q10. Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to the new President of Somalia, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, whose Government have made remarkable progress over the past few months? Although there is still a long way to go, does the Prime Minister agree that the Somali peace process is a good example of Britain combining aid and development with energising the neighbouring states and the diplomatic community worldwide, and will he tell the House what role he envisages for the Somali diaspora here in the UK?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and to anyone wondering about the relevance of Somalia to us here in the UK, we must remember that that country has been the author of huge problems with terrorism, piracy and mass migration. Even to the most hardened sceptic of our aid budget I would say that Somalia is a really good case where engagement, aid and diplomacy can help that country to mend itself for the future. I hope that the diaspora will give full support to the new President, who is demonstrating a huge grip in his country on mending the problems that have bedevilled it for so long.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s career probably peaked when he was a Back-Bench member of the Home Affairs Committee in 2005. Will he revive his progressive courage of that time when he looks at the report from the all-party parliamentary group on drug misuse on the awful problems of new drugs that are on the market but not controlled in any way?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s view of my career trajectory. I will not ask him about his—perhaps we can agree about it afterwards. I learned some important lessons from the Home Affairs Committee report I worked on, including on the priority we give in tackling drugs to education and treatment. Those are the two key arms of what needs to be done. However, I do not believe we should be legalising drugs that are currently illegal. On current legal highs and problems relating to substances such as khat, which was mentioned in a previous question, we need to look carefully at the evidence on what will work best.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
Q11. In Solihull, more than 80,000 people have benefited from our policy of raising the threshold at which people start to pay tax. This morning, the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that that policy is right, and that those who have the broadest shoulders are bearing the greatest burden of tax. In the light of that, will the Government commit to raising the threshold at which people pay tax to £10,000 in the Budget?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her question—she is absolutely right about raising the threshold before which people start to pay tax. It means that the tax bill for someone on the minimum wage working full time has been cut by one half. That is a huge change to help people who work hard and want to do the right thing. This Government are rewarding them. She mentions the IFS green budget, which came out this morning. I have not had that much time to study it, but one thing stood out. On fairness, it states:
“The whole set of tax and benefit changes introduced between the start of 2010 and 2015–16 will hit the richest households hardest.”
This Government are fair, and we are helping the hardest working.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
Q12. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister a very simple question to which he gave no adequate reply, so I will ask it again. What is the difference between a bedroom tax on the disabled and a mansion tax on millionaires?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept that the bedroom tax is a tax—it is about benefit. The fact is that, as a country, we are spending £23 billion on housing benefit. We must have a debate in this country about getting on top of housing benefit—the previous Government said that. Indeed, it featured in the Labour manifesto on which all Labour Members were elected. Since they have moved to the Opposition Benches, they have given up all pretence of responsibility.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Can the Prime Minister reconcile his recent comments on the need to accelerate major infrastructure projects with the Government’s decision to postpone forming a policy on airports until after the next general election? Will he reconsider and bring that review forward?
The Prime Minister
I listen very carefully to my hon. Friend, but Sir Howard Davies says in his review that this is a complicated issue that merits proper examination, which will take time. We need, as a country, to make major decisions on airports and airport capacity. We should aim as far as possible to try to make those decisions on a cross-party basis. I hope the Howard Davies report helps that to happen.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Q13. Last night’s vote on same-sex marriage is widely regarded as a historic vote. Does the Prime Minister agree that the vote is a tribute to the people down the decades who have worked—in all parties and no party, behind the scenes and in public—for such equality? Does he also agree that the vote proves that the arc of history bends slowly, but bends towards justice?
The Prime Minister
I agree very much with the hon. Lady. Last night’s vote will be seen not just as one that ensured a proper element of equality, but one that helps us to build a stronger and fairer society. Many of the speeches made last night were very moving and emotional. I pay tribute to all those people who have made the case—some have made it for many years—that they want their love to count the same way as a man and woman’s love for each other counts. That is what we have opened in this country, and why I am proud this Government brought it forward.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
For years, young people in Goole and Brigg have had some of the lowest per pupil school funding in the country. This is now becoming critical for counties such as the East Riding of Yorkshire. Will the Prime Minister look closely not just at the 40 authorities, but specifically at the low level of per pupil funding that the East Riding of Yorkshire receives?
The Prime Minister
I will look closely at what my hon. Friend has said, but I will make a couple of points. Within the education budget we have prioritised per pupil funding, so there has not been a reduction in per pupil funding. It is very important that schools can see forward to future years to the sorts of budgets that they will have, given the roll of children coming to their school. The second thing we have done, through the academy programme, is to encourage the devolution of more of the schools budget to schools directly, and I still think there is more we can achieve on that agenda.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Q14. The Prime Minister said that he would give the public a strong voice in the NHS, and his former Health Secretary said that he would put patients at the centre of the NHS. Why then was a motion to strengthen patient and public involvement in the new patient watchdog rejected by the Government in the other place last night?
The Prime Minister
We do want to see patients have a stronger voice in the NHS, and we are about to debate, at some length in terms of the Mid Staffordshire inquiry, how that is done. One of the most important ways of doing that will be to make sure that the NHS Commissioning Board mandate has at its heart quality nursing, quality care and the voice of patients. We also need to look at how HealthWatch will work to ensure that it is truly independent. We have to understand that some of the ways we have tried to empower patients in the past—the report we are about to discuss goes into this in some detail—and give them a better voice, always with good intentions from Governments on both sides of the House, just have not worked, and we have to listen to Francis when he says that.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
With more women in work than ever before, with more men in work than ever before, and with more jobs created in the private sector, does the Prime Minister agree that not only is the Chancellor’s plan A working, but that the economy is beginning to turn the corner?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We should listen very carefully to the Governor of the Bank of England. He has said that growth is slower than we would like, but that the economy is moving in the right direction and that rebalancing is taking place. The things that need to be fixed in our economy, in terms of bank lending and the housing supply, are being fixed, and that is what the Government are determined to do.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
One of my constituents has learned that when the bedroom tax is introduced she will have £24 a week to live on. She is so anxious about how she will manage she is receiving cognitive behavioural therapy. Her anxiety is totally understandable. Does the Prime Minister agree that those who should be receiving cognitive behavioural therapy are the ones—namely his Ministers—who think that she could live on £24 a week?
The Prime Minister
The Opposition have to address the fact that for 13 years in government they were perfectly content to have a housing benefit system for people in private sector housing that had no extra benefit for empty rooms. I cannot understand why they cannot see that it is unfair to have one rule for people who have the benefit of social housing with lower rents and another rule for people in private sector accommodation. Week after week, Labour MPs and the Labour leader come here opposing this benefit change, that benefit change and everything we do to deal with the mess they left to fill in the deficit they left us. Until they learn to take some responsibility for the mess they left, no one will ever listen to them.
Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (Inquiry)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
Today, Robert Francis has published the report of the public inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.
Mr Speaker, I have a deep affection for our national health service. I will never forget all the things that doctors and nurses have done for my family in times of pain and difficulty. I love our NHS. I think it is a fantastic institution and a great organisation that says a huge amount about our country and who we are, and I always want to think the best about it. I have huge admiration for the doctors, nurses and other health workers who dedicate their lives to caring for our loved ones. Nevertheless, we do them and the whole reputation of our NHS a grave disservice if we fail to speak out when things go wrong.
What happened at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 2005 and 2009 was not just wrong; it was truly dreadful. Hundreds of people suffered from the most appalling neglect and mistreatment. There were patients so desperate for water that they were drinking from dirty flower vases. Many were given the wrong medication, treated roughly or left to wet themselves and then lie in urine for days, and relatives were ignored or even reproached when they pointed out even the most basic things that could have saved their loved ones from horrific pain or even death. We can only begin to imagine the suffering endured by those whose trust in our health system was betrayed at their most vulnerable moment. That is why it is right to make this statement today.
An investigation by the Healthcare Commission in 2009, a first independent inquiry by Robert Francis in February 2010 and, long before that, the testimony of bereaved relatives, such as Julie Bailey, and the Cure the NHS campaign all laid bare the most despicable catalogue of clinical and management failures at the trust. Even after those reports, however, important questions remained unanswered. How were these appalling events allowed to happen and to continue for so long? Why were so many bereaved families and whistleblowers who spoke out ignored for so long? Could something like this ever happen again? These are basic questions about wider failures in the system, not just at the hospital, but right across the NHS, including its regulators and the Department of Health.
That is why the families called for this public inquiry and why the Government granted one. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our thanks to Robert Francis and his entire team for their work over the past three years. The inquiry finds that the appalling suffering at the Mid Staffordshire hospital was primarily caused by a “serious failure” on the part of the trust board, which failed to listen to patients and staff and failed to tackle what Robert Francis calls
“an insidious negative culture involving a tolerance of poor standards and a disengagement from managerial and leadership responsibilities.”
The inquiry finds, however, that the failure went far wider. The primary care trust assumed others were taking responsibility and so made little attempt to collect proper information on the quality of care. The strategic health authority was
“far too remote from the patients it was there to serve, and it failed to be sufficiently sensitive to signs that patients might be at risk.”
Regulators, including Monitor and the then Healthcare Commission, failed to protect patients from substandard care. Too many doctors “kept their heads down” instead of speaking out when things were wrong. The Royal College of Nursing was
“ineffective both as a professional representative organisation and as a trade union”
and the Department of Health was too remote from the reality of the services that it oversees.
The way Robert Francis chronicles the evidence of systemic failure means that we cannot say with confidence that failings of care are limited to one hospital, but let us also be clear about what the report does not say. Francis does not blame any specific policy, he does not blame the last Secretary of State for Health and he says that we should not seek scapegoats.
Looking beyond the specific failures that Francis catalogues so clearly, we can identify in the report three fundamental problems with the culture of our NHS. The first is a focus on finance and figures at the expense of patient care—he says that explicitly—underpinned by a preoccupation with a narrow set of top-down targets pursued, in the case of Mid Staffordshire, to the exclusion of patient safety or listening to what patients, relatives, and indeed many staff members, were saying. Secondly, there was an attitude that patient care was always someone else’s problem. In short, no one was accountable. Thirdly, he talks about defensiveness and complacency. He finds that, instead of facing up to and acting on data that should have implied cause for concern, all too often there is a culture of only explaining the positives rather than any critical analysis. Put simply, managers were suppressing inconvenient facts in favour of looking for comfort in positive information. This is one of the most disturbing findings. It is bad enough that terrible things happened at that hospital, but what the inquiry is telling us is that there was a manifest failure to act on the data that were available, not just at the hospital but more widely. As Francis says:
“In the end, the truth was uncovered…mainly because of the persistent complaints made by a…determined group of patients and those close to them.”
The anger of the families is completely understandable. Every hon. Member in this House would be angry—they would be furious—if their mother, father or loved ones were treated in this way, and rightly so.
The previous Government commissioned the first report from Robert Francis. When he saw that report, the former Secretary of State—now the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—was right to apologise for what went wrong. This public inquiry not only repeats earlier findings, but shows wider systemic failings, so I would like to go further as Prime Minister and apologise to the families of all those who have suffered for the way the system allowed this horrific abuse to go unchecked and unchallenged for so long. On behalf of the Government—and, indeed, our country—I am truly sorry.
Since the problems at the Mid Staffordshire hospital first came to light, a number of important steps have been taken. The previous Government set up the National Quality Board and the quality accounts system. This Government have put compassion ahead of process-driven bureaucratic targets and put quality of care on a par with quality of treatment. We have set this out explicitly in the mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board, together with a new vision for compassionate nursing. We have introduced a tough new programme for tracking and eliminating falls, pressure sores and hospital infections, and we have demanded nursing rounds, every hour, in every ward of every hospital, but it is clear that we need to do more. We will study every one of the 290 recommendations in today’s report and we will respond in detail next month, but the recommendations include three core areas—patient care, accountability and defeating complacency—on which I believe we should make more immediate progress. Let me say a word about each.
First, let me address how we put patient care ahead of finances. Today, when a hospital fails financially, its chair can be dismissed and the board can be suspended, but failures in care rarely carry such consequences. That is not right, so we will create a single failure regime, where the suspension of the board can be triggered by failures in care as well as failures in finance, and we will put the voice of patients and staff at the heart of the way in which hospitals go about their work. In Mid Staffordshire, as far back as 2006, there was a staff survey in which only around a quarter of staff said they would actually want one of their own relatives to use the hospital that they worked in. Over the following two years, bereaved relatives and campaigners produced case after dreadful case and campaign after chilling campaign, but these voices and these horrific cases were ignored. Indeed, the hospital was upgraded to foundation trust status during this period. We need the words of patients and front-line staff to ring through the boardrooms of our hospitals and, frankly, right beyond, to the regulators and the Department of Health itself.
So from this year, every patient, every carer and every member of staff will be given the opportunity to say whether they would recommend treatment in their hospital to their friends or family. This will be published and the board will be held to account for its response. Put simply, where a significant proportion of patients or staff raise serious concerns about what is happening in a hospital, immediate inspection will result and suspension of the hospital board may well follow. Quality of care means not accepting that bed sores and hospital infections are somehow occupational hazards—that a little bit of these things is somehow okay. It is not okay; they are unacceptable—full stop, end of story. That is what zero harm—the jargon for this—means. I have therefore asked Don Berwick, who has advised President Obama on this issue, to make zero harm a reality in our NHS.
Francis makes other recommendations. Today it is possible to give hands-on care in a hospital with no training at all. Francis says this is wrong and I agree. There are some simple but quite profound things that need to happen in our NHS and in our hospitals. Nurses should be hired and promoted on the basis of having compassion as a vocation, not just academic qualifications. We need a style of leadership from senior nurses that means that poor practice is not tolerated and is driven off the wards. Another issue is whether pay should be linked to quality of care rather than just to time served at a hospital. I favour this approach.
Secondly, on accountability and transparency, the first Francis report set out very clearly what happened within Stafford hospital, and it should have led to those responsible being brought to book by the board, by the regulators, by the professional bodies and by the courts. But that did not happen. Most people will want to know why on earth not. We expect hospitals to take disciplinary action against staff who abuse their patients. We expect the professional bodies—the professional regulators—to strike off doctors and nurses who seriously breach their professional codes. And, yes, we expect the justice system to prosecute those suspected of criminal acts, whether they take place in a hospital or anywhere else. But in Stafford those expectations were badly let down. The system failed, and that is one of the main reasons we badly needed this public inquiry.
Now that the recommendations about systemic failure are public, the regulatory bodies in particular are going to have some difficult questions to answer. The Nursing and Midwifery Council and the General Medical Council need to explain why, so far, no one has been struck off. The Secretary of State for Health has today invited them to explain what steps they will take to strengthen their systems of accountability in the light of this report, and we are going to ask the Law Commission to advise on sweeping away the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s outdated and inflexible decision-making processes.
The Health and Safety Executive also needs to explain its decisions not to prosecute in specific cases. Indeed, Robert Francis makes a strong argument that the Health and Safety Executive is too distant from hospitals and not the right organisation to be focusing on health care and criminal prosecutions in such cases. So we will look closely at his recommendation to transfer the right to conduct criminal prosecutions away from the HSE to the Care Quality Commission.
Thirdly, we must purge the culture of complacency that is undermining the quality of care in our country. This requires a clear view about what is acceptable and what is not. In our schools, we have a clear system of deciding whether a school has the right culture and whether it is succeeding or failing. It is a system based on the judgment of independent experts who walk the corridors of the school and analyse more than just the statistics. The public therefore know which schools near them are outstanding and which are failing. They have a right to know exactly the same about our hospitals.
We need a hospital inspections regime that does not just look at numerical targets but examines the quality of care and makes an open, public and explicit judgment. So I have asked the Care Quality Commission to create a new post, a chief inspector of hospitals to take personal responsibility for that task. I want the new inspections regime to start this autumn, and we will look at the law to ensure that the inspector’s judgment is about whether a hospital is clean, safe and caring, rather than just an exercise in bureaucratic box-ticking. In the meantime, I have asked the NHS medical director, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, to conduct an immediate investigation into the care at hospitals with the highest mortality rates and to check that urgent remedial action is being taken.
Complacency in the system has meant that, all too often, patient complaints have been ignored. So I am today asking the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the chief executive of South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Tricia Hart, specifically to advise on how NHS hospitals can handle complaints better in the future.
I have talked today about some of the systemic failures, but at the heart of any system are the people who work in it and the values they hold. It is worth quoting in full what Francis says, early in his report:
“Healthcare is not an activity short of systems intended to maintain and improve standards, regulate the conduct of staff, and report and scrutinise performance. Continuous efforts have been made to refine and improve the way these work. Yet none of them, from local groups to the national regulators, from local councillors to the Secretary of State, appreciated the scale of the deficiencies at Stafford and, therefore, over a period of years did anything effective to stop them.”
What makes our national health service special is the simple principle that the moment you are injured or fall ill, or the moment something happens to someone you love, you know that whoever you are, wherever you are from, whatever is wrong, and however much you have got in the bank, there is a place you can go where people will look after you and do everything they can to make things right again. The shocking truth is that that precious principle of British life was broken in Mid Staffordshire.
We would not be here today without the tireless campaigning of the families who suffered so terribly, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their incredible courage and determination over those long and painful years. When I met Julie Bailey and the families again on Monday, she said to me that she wanted the legacy of their loved ones to be an NHS safe for everyone. That is the legacy that together we must secure, and I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the tone in which he made it. The NHS represents the best values of this country, and what happened at Stafford was an appalling betrayal of those values. We all think that when our own loved ones—our mother or father, grandmother or grandfather—go into hospital, we are placing them in the trust of the NHS and we expect hospitals to be places of utmost compassion and the highest standards of care. At Stafford, patients became victims and their relatives who pleaded for assistance were ignored or even made to feel intimidated.
Let me join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all those former patients, relatives and staff who came forward to speak out, including those who gave evidence to this and to previous inquiries. Let me also thank Robert Francis for his work on this and on the previous inquiry.
Let me also say, as was reflected in the Prime Minister’s remarks, that what happened at Stafford was not typical of the NHS. Day in, day out, the vast majority of those who go to work in our NHS deliver great care to patients up and down the country. They are as horrified as all of us by what happened in Stafford.
The previous Government were right to apologise on behalf of the Government and the NHS to the patients and families that suffered so badly at Stafford hospital. I reaffirm that today. We on the Labour side are truly sorry for what happened. What happened has no place in any NHS hospital. We must ensure that it does not and cannot happen again.
As the Prime Minister makes clear, today’s report says that the primary responsibility for what happened lay with the board of the hospital, but there are wider lessons that politicians on all sides must learn, including a lesson for all parties about the dangers of frequent reorganisations of the NHS, which Francis mentions.
The Prime Minister says it will take some time to digest the report in full, so let me ask some specific questions. First, on the patient voice, effective regulation is essential, but the reality is that regulators cannot be everywhere spotting every problem. Patients, their families and staff are everywhere in our NHS, so we must ensure that they are properly heard.
The challenge is to change the culture of the NHS and to support rather than shut out people who complain. The NHS constitution offers protections for whistleblowers, and we support moves to strengthen that. The Francis report, however, also highlights criticisms and concerns about both previous and current arrangements for patient bodies. Does the Prime Minister agree—from something he said earlier, I think he does—that whatever bodies we choose to represent patients, they need to be independent and have the powers to be an effective voice and challenge to the system.
Secondly, on staffing, the basic requirements of any NHS hospital are that there are sufficient staff to look after patients and that they act with compassion. In too many cases at Stafford, that just did not happen. Compassion should always be at the heart of nursing, and it needs to be at the heart of nurse training, so we support the moves that the Prime Minister announced.
As Robert Francis has said previously—I quote from the first report—in explaining what went wrong:
“the overwhelmingly prevalent factors were a lack of staff, both in terms of absolute numbers and appropriate skills”.
Does the Prime Minister accept the report’s point that we need to consider benchmarks on staff numbers and skills throughout our NHS?
Thirdly, on regulation, the problems at Stafford should have been picked up much earlier. Monitor and the Healthcare Commission should have worked together much more closely. We will look at the Prime Minister’s proposals around the chief inspector of nursing care, but does he support the move to a single regulator, which is in the Francis report? On health care assistants—the Prime Minister mentioned them—who do such important work in our hospital wards and communities, does he agree that we need training and registration for them to improve standards and safety?
Fourthly, on foundation trust status, the enthusiasm for foundation trusts has been shared on both sides of this House, and the journey to foundation trust status has clearly been a beneficial process for many trusts. In the case of Stafford, however, it clearly was not. For the future, has the Prime Minister made any reassessment of the current timetable for other trusts to achieve foundation status and of whether more flexibility is needed?
Fifthly, on waiting time targets, today’s report clearly states that
“it is not suggested that properly designed targets, appropriately monitored, cannot provide considerable benefit to patients”.
In other words, targets have their place, but they must be kept in their place. Does the Prime Minister accept that, as the Francis analysis suggests, the problem at Stafford was how the A and E target was managed by that hospital, and that many hospitals up and down the country have delivered excellent care while meeting the A and E target? Neither he nor I want to go back to the days when people were left waiting 12 hours on trolleys and 18 months for an operation.
Finally, let me turn to the issue of integration. I believe that there is a bigger overarching issue here, which applies not just in Stafford, but elsewhere in our NHS. It is something that my right hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary has talked about recently. The ageing society is bringing a whole new set of demands on the NHS. A group of elderly and infirm patients require not just physical treatment for their immediate illness, but need much greater care and attention for their basic needs. As the Francis report says, we must address this new challenge that the NHS faces to make sure we avoid a repeat of what happened at Stafford.
Does the Prime Minister agree that in every hospital we need to put in place the right support for the whole of a person’s needs, including those of the elderly population? Does he further agree that that means breaking down the barriers that still exist in much of the country between health care provided by the NHS and social care provided by local authorities?
We cannot turn the clock back and undo the damage that happened at Stafford, but we owe it to those who suffered, to the people of Stafford and to the country as a whole to work together to act on this report and to prevent a scandal like this from happening elsewhere. We in the Opposition will play our part in making that happen.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the tone in which he made them. I apologise for not getting my response to the report to him a little earlier this morning. That was a technical mistake rather than anything more sinister. The right hon. Gentleman is right to thank the relatives and to thank Robert Francis for his work. Let me try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions.
On the issue of reorganisations, Francis says:
“The extent of the failure of the system shown in this report suggests that a fundamental culture change is needed. This does not require root and branch reorganisation—the system has had many of those—but it requires changes which can largely be implemented within the system that has now been created by the new reforms.”
I hope we can agree that the best thing to do now is to learn the lessons and put in place what needs to be done.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of listening to patients. As he said, we have got to make sure that whatever organisation we have—we have established HealthWatch—is independent, credible and has power. It is interesting to note what Francis finds on page 46:
“It is now quite clear that what replaced”
community health councils, and there were
“two attempts at reorganisation in 10 years, failed to produce an improved voice for patients and the public, but achieved the opposite.”
We need to learn the lessons and try to make sure that HealthWatch becomes everything we all want it to be.
As for supporting complaints, what Francis and the right hon. Gentleman said is that when there are complaints, they have got to be given a bigger voice and be taken seriously. Here, Members of Parliament have a role to play. Somewhere, buried in the report, there is a passage that is mildly critical of MPs. Like others in the community, we love our local hospitals and we always want to stand up for them, but we have to be careful to look at the results in our local hospitals and work out whether we should not sometimes give voice to some of the concerns rather than go along with a culture that says everything is all right all of the time—sometimes it is not.
On the issue of staff numbers and benchmarks, we think it important that there should be some benchmarks. We believe that because of the funding commitment we have made, there is no excuse for understaffing or for staff shortages, but that obviously requires good management.
On having a single regulator, the right hon. Gentleman made a lot of points about Monitor and the Care Quality Commission and whether there was confusion between them. When he talks of strengthening the CQC and giving it greater powers, that is in principle, as I said in my statement, the right direction to go in.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about trusts, and both sides of the House have supported the idea of foundation trusts, making sure hospitals are more accountable, more responsible and able to take more decisions. The problem is not with creating foundation trusts, but arises if the move to create them means that other things that matter more than trust status—such as patient care—are pushed to one side. We must all learn the lesson and ensure that for the next round of trust creation, they must not be rushed and they must happen only when they are ready and on the basis that patient care comes first.
The point about targets is important. I believe that there is a place for targets in our NHS, but I think that under the last Government they became too tight and too obsessive. I also think that the last Government recognised that themselves, and started to change the approach.
The public have a right to know that waiting times in A and E will not be too long and that treatments will be carried out quickly, so there is an importance in targets. I think that what Francis is saying is that it was not the targets that were to blame, but a culture in the hospital—and perhaps in other hospitals, although he does not inquire into that—in which targets and their achievement were placed ahead of patient care. Again, the two should not be alternatives.
What the right hon. Gentleman said about the ageing population and the challenge facing our NHS was absolutely right. A key part of our dementia challenge is raising the standard of, in particular, the way in which we treat elderly people in our hospitals. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to break down the barrier between health and social care.
I hope that the report will provide not an opportunity to try to find scapegoats or to fire up some phony political debate, but a moment when everyone in the House can agree. We all love our national health service, and this afternoon’s discussion shows that we have the same ideas about patient care, about quality, about bringing health and social care together, and about ensuring that a good, rational system has patients at its heart. I hope that this can be a moment when the country comes together over our NHS, rather than seeking divisions.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Today is a day on which, first of all, we think of those who suffered in Stafford and of their loved ones. I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the tone that they have adopted. I also pay tribute to Julie Bailey and Cure the NHS, to Robert Francis, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister for the way in which they have championed the cause of this inquiry.
I know how passionate the Prime Minister is about the NHS and the work that goes on day in, day out, and I share that passion. Does he agree that the most important thing that we can do for the patients and their loved ones who have suffered is implement the recommendations that we are able to implement as quickly as possible, so that they can result in an NHS that is safe for all and is known for the highest standards of compassion and care?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that my hon. Friend, who has spoken up about this issue for many years, spoke for everyone in Stafford and throughout the country when he said that we should put the victims up front and centre. They are the people we should be holding in our thoughts today because of how they have suffered.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about implementing the recommendations. There are 290 of them, so we must examine them carefully and see how we can best implement them, and the Department of Health will lead that work. Let me make two additional points. First, the recommendations are not simply for the Government or the Department; they are for every hospital, every nurse and every doctor to consider. I think it very important for that to happen. Secondly, as I tried to make clear in my statement, for all the changes in the system and all the corrections of regulatory failure that may be made, a system is only as good as the people who work in it. I think that at the heart of what Francis is saying is a cry from the heart that this is about quality, vocation and compassion, and that those are the values that we need to put back at the heart of the NHS.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that there has been a public inquiry, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement.
What has happened in Mid Staffordshire affects the whole of Staffordshire. In view of the emphasis that is now to be placed on compassion as well as on targets, and in view of what the Prime Minister has said about the role of social care, may I ask whether he will arrange for local Members of Parliament to have some form of oversight in Staffordshire so that the collaboration that will be needed to introduce this culture change can be put into practice on the ground, particularly in the light of closures that involve social care homes as well?
The Prime Minister
I think it very important for the voice of local Members of Parliament to be listened to. The Secretary of State has said that he will ensure that Staffordshire Members of Parliament, and Members of Parliament representing Stoke-on-Trent, can advise him on the issue. Let me refer again, however, to one of the things that may need to change in our political debate. If we are really going to put quality and patient care upfront, we must sometimes look at the facts concerning the level of service in some hospitals and some care homes, and not always—as we have all done, me included—reach for the button that says “Oppose the local change”. I know that that is what the hon. Lady was saying, but I think that this is a moment when we may be able to ensure that our political culture is more in line with what is required in our health culture.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Many of my constituents died unnecessarily at Stafford hospital between 2005 and 2009. Given Monitor’s continuing review of the future of Mid Staffordshire’s foundation trust, I remain astonished that it was given foundation trust status in 2009, when all these problems were going on.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the biggest lesson that can be learned is that when front-line professionals who love and care about the NHS are genuinely concerned about standards of care, we should have a system that allows them to speak out without fear of exposure or victimisation?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak up for the victims from Cannock and their families, whom he represents properly in the House. He is right to say that we must listen to the voices of victims and patients, and he is also right to talk about the reform of regulatory bodies, although, as I said earlier, we should be careful about thinking that just reforming regulatory bodies will be enough.
My hon. Friend specifically mentioned the importance of whistleblowers. It should not be necessary to rely on whistleblowing to deal with problems of quality, but sometimes it will be. We have taken measures to fund a helpline to support them, to embed rights in their employment contracts, and to issue new guidance in partnership with trade unions and employers. So we are taking the issue of whistleblowers seriously.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
As Health Secretary, I changed the law to provide protection for whistleblowing and to make hospital boards responsible for the quality of care. I am sure the Prime Minister accepts my disappointment that those changes were clearly not sufficient to avoid the things that happened in Mid Staffordshire.
May I issue a warning? I greatly welcome the proposal to make openness, transparency and candour a legal requirement, but if we are to do that in a litigation-obsessed society, it will need to be matched by the introduction of a system of no-fault compensation. Otherwise, it is possible that in some hospitals the doctors will be outnumbered by ambulance-chasing lawyers.
The Prime Minister
I will consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has said about no-fault compensation. The cost of litigation in the NHS is clearly a rapidly rising part of the budget, and that is of concern.
The right hon. Gentleman’s point about the laws that he changed is important. What I think we have observed in Governments of all parties is the belief that changing the law to make it clear that quality is important as well as cost, and that patient care matters, does not necessarily lead to a change in the culture.
That returns me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). The report makes it clear that when the issue of foundation trust status arose, those who were judging it did so on the basis of a whole series of metrics that were mainly financial, and on the basis of targets, rather than looking behind those for the quality. It is a culture change that will ensure that, when a hospital board meets, the first things that it considers are clinical standards, quality and patient care. That is the first stuff: that is actually what the organisation is meant to deliver. The board can think about the finances, the targets and all the rest of it afterwards. It is that culture change that needs to take place.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On behalf of my constituents and the victims and relatives who have been so grievously traumatised by these tragic events and the lack of patient care, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on realistically listening, as Leader of the Opposition, to my repeated calls in Parliament for a real public inquiry, which he established under the Inquiries Act 2005, I also congratulate him on his statement, and on his praise for the inquiry itself and for Cure the NHS—in particular, Julie Bailey, my constituents Debra Hazeldine and Ken Lownds, and all the others who have campaigned so effectively and with such passion for patient care.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. He did call repeatedly for a public inquiry, and he was right to make such a call. That is reflected in the report, and he can read it today. What was required was not an investigation of the failure in the hospital, but an investigation of the wider systemic failure. For instance, why was this not brought to light more quickly? What was the role of the regulator? What was the role of the Nursing and Midwifery Council? All that is laid out in the report.
However, I think that there was another very profound reason for holding a public inquiry, although I know that it will not satisfy some of the victims. They feel incredibly strongly, and rightly strongly. These terrible things happened to their loved ones, but where is the criminal prosecution? Where are the people who have been struck off? There has not been proper accountability, and there is not proper accountability in our system. A public inquiry can look to the future and say, “Here’s what needs to change,” so if this ever happens again—I hope to God it does not—there will be much better accountability than the people of Stafford have had.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The tragic events at Stafford are having a continuing impact on both management and care at the University hospital of North Staffordshire. A and E closures at Stafford have caused major strains, for example, and our new hospital was already struggling as a result of bed closures ordered a few years ago by Sir David Nicholson’s travelling troubleshooter, Antony Sumara. For reasons of patient safety, our hospital’s chief executive last year rightly reopened many of those beds to cope with the added A and E pressures. That has only added to the financial pressures, however. When rather distant bureaucrats at the Department of Health and the regional health authority play their part in responding to those pressures, will the Prime Minister ensure that they do so with sympathy and local understanding and put patient safety and care at the heart of the response?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when those above and beyond a hospital are making decisions on questions such as whether the hospital should become a foundation trust, they must look very closely at quality of patient care, not simply financial and other metrics. That is at the heart of what Francis is saying. The CQC believes that the hospital is currently providing an adequate standard of care. Only last week it carried out an unannounced inspection and it was content with what it found. Recent reports have been disturbing, however, and there is important work still to do in this hospital as in others, because “adequate” is never good enough; they have to strive to be better, and I know that that is what is going on.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Whatever the abject clinical and management failings, this was at heart a truly disgraceful failure of leadership at all levels. Indeed, too many inadequate and failing managers in leadership positions are repeatedly recycled through the NHS. Accordingly, will the Prime Minister consider establishing a national health service staff college to which senior managers may go, and ensure that no senior manager may take command of a hospital trust or any higher post unless he is a graduate of such a college?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. When he has a chance to look at the report in more detail, I think he will be pleased to see that Robert Francis suggests something along those lines: he suggests some form of leadership college. We think that has merit and will look at it carefully. I am nervous about committing instantly to creating more NHS organisations and institutions as there are a lot already, but the point my right hon. Friend makes is a good one.
The other point my right hon. Friend makes is vitally important in terms of the accountability issue: all too often when something has gone wrong in one of our hospitals, managers or overseers are recycled and reappear, as if by magic, in another part of the NHS. We need all those responsible for accountability—the CQC, Monitor, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the General Medical Council—to take a clearer view about whether someone is up to the job or not.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the manner in which he made it. Does he agree that our biggest challenge is to make quality of care the central organising principle of the NHS? That was recognised by Lord Ara Darzi, although I am not sure whether we were particularly successful at pursuing it. We can all say that that is the challenge, but addressing it creates a series of problems, including—as I was saying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson)—the problem of productivity. If nurses and GPs and other doctors are to spend more time with patients and focus on care, there will be ramifications for other ways in which we measure how the health service is working. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree that the challenge that Ara Darzi sets is about how to make care truly the central organising principle of the NHS?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge of, and affection for, the NHS, and I, too, am a fan of Ara Darzi and think he has a huge amount to offer. He had a big hand in giving priority to quality at the end of the last Government’s term. Francis is saying that there needs to be a culture change in respect of quality, but we must also look at what we are currently measuring. If hospital managers are measured on financial metrics and target metrics, rather than on quality of care—that is what we see flowing through the report—all the words we say and laws we pass on quality of care will not have sufficient impact. We need to look at that.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I welcome the report and the Prime Minister’s response, including on the hospital inspectorate proposal. Will he ensure that the Government’s full response includes giving special consideration to trying to change the culture of calling for the lawyers, which is what often currently happens when there are complaints? Instead, everybody should know in advance who is responsible for the ward, who is responsible for the clinical care and who is responsible for the management, and that they will be held to account. We must also ensure that the best practice in clinical care—which we often see in our wards—is used to judge what works and we are very tough on those who have failed.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes two points. First, I agree that we need clear lines of accountability so we can see who is responsible for standards of care on the ward and in the hospital, and they must be held to account for that. Secondly, I have a lot of sympathy with the point that sometimes people making a compliant are not seeking financial redress, and I think all constituency MPs would agree with that, too. They just want to be taken seriously. They want to be listened to; they want an acknowledgement. They will not go off and hire lawyers. They want an acknowledgement that their elderly relative was not treated properly, and they want it soon. I hope this report launches a debate in the NHS about how we can deliver that.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
There remains real trauma and anguish in Stoke-on-Trent about the abuse, poor treatment and unnecessary deaths of relatives and friends in Stafford hospital. I welcome the focus on delivering a culture of care in the management of hospitals and on the accountability of boards, and I also welcome the questioning of nursing and medical bodies about the absence of accountability. I have two questions, however. What elements of the new NHS reforms make it less likely that a Mid Staffs will occur again, and are we absolutely sure that HealthWatch will be fit for purpose in April? On the north Staffordshire health care economy, the University hospital of North Staffordshire is taking a lot of slack from Mid Staffordshire. Can we ensure that the Department of Health supports North Staffordshire in addressing any problems?
The Prime Minister
Let me go directly to the important question about the reforms, the status quo once they are in place and how that will help deliver what Francis talks about. As I said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, Francis says he is content this can be delivered:
“it requires changes which can largely be implemented within the system that has now been created by the new reforms.”
I hope the reforms will help in a number of ways. I hope HealthWatch can be created as a robust independent organisation that is taken seriously by those in the health service and more widely. I hope that having clinical leadership of the clinical commissioning groups, with local GPs and others in charge, will mean they will reach further into their hospital and perhaps ask better questions than the primary care trust put. As I said at Prime Minister’s questions, I also hope that the Department of Health sets a mandate for the national Commissioning Board and that we put quality and care for patients at the heart of it. While I accept that we need some process targets because things such as waits in A and E matter, I hope that the move towards judging outcomes rather than processes will reinforce the importance of quality, because if we do not get quality care, we will not get quality outcomes.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that since the closure of the A and E at Stafford, Queen’s hospital in Burton has been dealing with some of the patients that would have gone to Mid Staffs. Will he join me in thanking all the staff at Queen’s and the other hospitals across Staffordshire who have worked so hard to try to deal with the consequences of the Mid Staffs fallout? Given that he understands the genuine concern that is felt in my constituency and across Staffordshire about health care, will he assure my constituents that never again will ticking boxes be put ahead of caring and compassion in the NHS?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that guarantee. The whole tenor of this report is that quality patient care must come before anything else, including targets, no matter how important they can sometimes be. I join him in praising those in his own local hospital who have been working hard and delivering accident and emergency services. If anyone wants to understand just how badly the target chasing and obsession got at Stafford hospital, they can see on page 108 in volume I some chilling evidence that staff just felt they could not complain about quality because they were being chased so hard on the targets that everything else was put to one side.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that the concerns of patients’ families were ignored, but in fact they and representatives were lied to. One consequence of what happened at Mid Staffordshire is that, despite nobody suggesting that there is a widespread problem throughout the NHS, people have a real fear: whenever there is a case of poor care in one of our hospitals, people immediately jump to conclusions and ask, “Is this a wider problem?” I look forward to hearing the Prime Minister’s comments in a moment, but I hope that this report will go some way to alleviating people’s very real fear that when they see one of their loved ones treated in a way that falls way below or slightly below the standard they were expecting, they can have the confidence to know that it is not Mid Staffs all over again.
The Prime Minister
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I am sure he is right; I do not think we are looking at other problems across our NHS of a Stafford-style scale, where this went on for year after year and potentially hundreds of people lost their lives prematurely. However, we do know that there are problems in parts of our NHS and problems in individual hospitals. One of the things we have to learn from this report is that when that happens we must not say that everything is fine and we must not have a culture of complacency. Instead, let us have a proper way of dealing with the problems. That is the big change that needs to come out of this.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
Many of my constituents both use and depend on Stafford hospital. Will my right hon. Friend assure them that future nurse training will all be focused on care and compassion, and not on an obsession with targets?
The Prime Minister
The Care Quality Commission has said that Stafford hospital is providing adequate care. There was a recent inspection to check up on it, and obviously more work needs to be done as it recovers from this. We need to be absolutely clear that nurses not only provide amazing care, but are also well trained and can carry out some quite complicated medical procedures, and they are proud of that. They are often—dare I say—better sometimes than the junior doctor at putting in the cannula or whatever. We should praise that and we should want to have professional nurses. The key thing that needs to change as we employ and train nurses is that we make sure that at the heart of their reason for wanting to do the job is not just access to the qualifications and the career, but a real belief in compassion and caring, and that it is a vocation.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Apart from addressing the training of nurses, we need nurses who do not mind wiping people’s bottoms or holding the sick bowl under somebody’s face, but there are not enough of those any more. I am glad that the Prime Minister talked about compassion and care. I have received more than 1,000 letters and e-mails since I first spoke out from people who echo some of the points he has made today and which we all know about as constituency MPs. There must be an opportunity for whistleblowers to act without fear of reprisal. There must be freedom for people to make complaints, to speak out and to say when they see that something is going wrong. I only wish that I had spoken out and shouted, instead of thinking that I was leaving somebody in the hands of professionals, which, I am afraid, did not extend to the care and compassion we would all expect somebody to be treated with in hospital.
I just wish to pay a quick tribute to the campaigners, as the Prime Minister has done. I pay particular tribute to Julie Bailey, whom I have also met. I have met dozens of those people, and I think we would all applaud their tenacity in speaking out and sticking to their guns. I look forward to helping to make the system better because, as the Prime Minister has said, we all love the NHS, but we know that there are systemic faults in it at the moment.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady for what she says, and I am delighted that she is going to be helping us with this piece of work to really set out how complaints should be properly handled. I think she speaks for everyone when she says not only that she loves the NHS, but that when we see the best level of care handed out to loved ones, it is one of the most inspiring things in the world, and that is why it is so disturbing and so hurtful when we see poor standards of care and people let down. We have to get a balance right in this debate: we must continually and rightly praise nurses, health care assistants and doctors for the care and compassion they provide—for what they do every day—but we must marry that with a determination that where there is bad practice we should join them in pointing it out. There has been a culture of complacency that we have all been part of—MPs are to blame here, too—for too long.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I note that the Prime Minister shares the shock and incredulity of the people of Staffordshire, the county where I was born and which I represent, that such terrible things can happen in one of their local hospitals. I am pleased that he says he will make it easier for whistleblowers and for patients to put on record their experience of care. Will he say a little more about the speed with which he expects those data to be put in the public domain, so that patients, the public and hospital managers can make quick and informed decisions about what is going on in their hospitals?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Like others, Staffordshire MPs have spoken with great passion about their care for their local health service and what it can provide.
On the timing, Robert Francis says that he wants all parts of the NHS to respond to him on what they are going to do right across the NHS, and that should be done over the next year. The Department of Health will be looking in the coming months at all the recommendations and responding. Specifically on the inspections, which are so important, as I said in my statement we are going to look at these changes to the CQC, but even before that Bruce Keogh is going to run this set of inspections into hospitals that have high rates of mortality and make sure that they are being dealt with properly.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
It is quite clear that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was supposed to encourage and protect whistleblowing, has failed in this case when faced with the culture of the NHS. On the lessons that could be learned, the Health Committee published a report in 2009 on patient safety and recommended that the Government should look at how whistleblowing was handled around the world, particularly in New Zealand. There, it is handled by an independent person, who carries out the inquiry, often anonymously from the complainant, and gets a far better reaction from institutions than we do here in the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about whistleblowers and how we handle them, and I am sure that Health Ministers will listen to that. I just make the point that supporting whistleblowers is one thing, but we also have to respond to what is being said. There were whistleblowers in the case of the Stafford hospital, but the problem was that the response to the complaints, the campaigns and the whistleblowing was completely inadequate.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I do not necessarily share the enthusiasm of others for hospitals to gain foundation trust status, particularly those serving less than half a million people. I note with interest that the chief executive of Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, who oversaw the foundation trust status being secured a few years ago, has now retired with a healthy pension and so on. That trust is now £80 million in debt and unsustainable. I also note with interest that the chief executive in this case cited the old chestnut of stress-related illness in order to avoid contributing to the report. When are we going to draw up contracts so that people get sacked for poor performance, be it financial or clinical? As far as I am concerned, the same should apply to hospital managers as applied to bankers.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge of the NHS, and he is absolutely right to say that it is depressing to look down the list of those responsible for the Stafford hospital at the time and see what has happened. It reads “Left on compromise agreement”, “Left on compromise agreement”, “Stepped down” and “Now working somewhere else”. As I said, the accountability mechanisms in the NHS are not good enough, which is why this report is so important. I now want to see all the organisations—the trusts, the CQC, the Department of Health, the General Medical Council and so on—answering the question: why is bad practice not punished properly? That is one of the key things that has to come out of this report. That is not everything that those campaigners from Stafford want to hear; they want more accountability from the people involved in this problem. I can understand absolutely why they want that, but I think that what we can get out of the Francis report is a sense that there are going to be proper rules to deal with failure in the future.
Mr Speaker
Order. These are extremely serious matters being treated with great knowledge and sensitivity. I want to accommodate everybody who is interested in the subject, but we would now benefit from slightly shorter questions and I need therefore look no further than to a specialist in the genre, Gisela Stuart.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Further to the Prime Minister’s previous answer, what precise steps will he take to force trusts not to accept early resignations or moving on? What will he do to stop that recycling, which has been going on for ever?
The Prime Minister
There are two answers. The first relates to the contracts that are signed in the first place; every trust board needs to read the report and think about how it will put in place those contracts. The second is to make sure that when there are failures, proper action is taken. That is what needs to happen.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister ensure that the chief inspector of hospitals has access to all the information that he or she needs from the General Medical Council and all the other bodies? Does he agree that wards for the elderly in particular need regular inspections by nurses?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. My view—we can debate this over the coming weeks—is that quite a lot of transparent information is available in the NHS, but it is not properly acted on. What we need from the chief inspector of hospitals is a sense that, as in schools, you consider the data, walk the wards, look at the quality of care with a professional team and then reach a judgment. People do not necessarily need all the data; they need a judgment. They need to know whether the hospital is okay, whether it is clean and whether it cares for people. That is what is required.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The report is clear that at the heart of this dreadful series of deaths was a failure to pursue the concerns and complaints of patients and their families vigorously and properly. The Prime Minister mentioned the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Does he know that unlike other professional regulators that body does not have the power to review, reopen or revise disciplinary decisions, even when there is fresh information or when it thinks it has got it wrong? Will he fix that flaw without delay?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is why we asked the Law Commission, as I said in my statement, to consider sweeping away the council’s current rules and putting proper rules in their place.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Is there not always a role for concerned community oversight? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that members of local health and wellbeing boards, members of HealthWatch and constituency members of Parliament should always be welcome visitors at their local hospitals?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Members of scrutiny councils or any of the other bodies he mentioned should be able to walk the wards and have a look around, and that is vital. It is worth looking in detail at the report’s findings on scrutiny committees and the rest of it. It has some pretty good recommendations on how they need on occasion to sharpen their act.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The executive summary of the Francis report states on page 45:
“There was an unacceptable delay in addressing the issue of shortage of skilled nursing staff.”
The CQC tells us that 17 hospitals are operating with dangerously low levels of nursing staff, resulting in poor care. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is now time to do something about levels of nursing and those ratios rather than leaving it to hospital boards or individual trust boards to decide them?
The Prime Minister
What the hon. Lady says about the importance of having clear benchmarks for what is acceptable is right. Over the past few years, the ratio of nurses to acute beds has improved. The paragraph to which she refers is interesting, as it states:
“There can be little doubt that the reason for the slow progress”
in dealing with the shortage of nurses
“and the slowness of the Board to inject the necessary funds…was the priority given to ensuring that the Trust books were in order for the”
foundation trust application. This is absolutely what Francis is saying: finances and targets were put ahead of patient care, so that is the big change that needs to take place.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I have here the executive summary to the report; it alone is 100 pages long. The Prime Minister has acted swiftly in appointing an inspector of hospitals and exacting the help of a number of specialists in the industry. Does he agree that we also need political will and scrutiny, and will he ensure that all the findings can have full cross-party parliamentary scrutiny to drive the changes and ensure that this will never happen again?
The Prime Minister
I hope that we can have not just scrutiny but a proper debate. I am sure that the Leader of the House—who played a key role in ensuring that the inquiry happened, for which I pay tribute to him—will be able to make time for a debate at some stage to consider the report in detail. It is absolutely enormous, and I have the three volumes of it here, but helpfully volume 2 goes through the key areas—the strategic health authorities, the primary care trust and what the regulator did—so that we can see an outline of the concerns about the lack of focus on patient care that flow through it so clearly.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I compliment the Prime Minister on his statement and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on his response. I have not had a chance to go through the recommendations, but the Prime Minister mentioned the failings at trust board level. Will he agree to consider a recommendation from the health service section of my union, Unite, that a national intelligence unit linked to a national telephone hotline, which could be answerable to the chief inspector of hospitals under the CQC, could analyse the information coming in and identify where the problems were so that the chief inspector could take corrective action?
The Prime Minister
I will consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that colleagues in the Department of Health will, too. My sense is that there is quite a lot of transparent information about mortality and morbidity rates, through Dr Foster and the rest of it. In too many cases, there has been an unwillingness to act and to act with enough clarity. We should focus on that, too.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Of the three main failings highlighted in the Francis report, may I point out particularly to my right hon. Friend the third—that of the defensive culture in the NHS? Historically, clinical negligence cases continually highlight the fact that it is the recognition by hospitals that something has gone wrong that often blocks the issue being addressed. My right hon. Friend was absolutely correct to say that often families are not looking for financial remuneration but for a clear apology. May I impress on him and the Secretary of State my request that any future inspection regime should put that at the heart and the centre of any inspection?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. That was why I mentioned in my statement the importance of trying to have a transparent and frank inspection system, such as that in schools, because that challenges complacency. If a report is received that says that a school is not up to standard, the community knows and the teachers know. Yes, it can be depressing for a while as it is sorted out, but it is much better than leaving problems to fester.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and I am sure that he will agree that care cannot and should not be measured as a chargeable unit. May I draw his attention to a report by the Health Committee, published in June 2011, on complaints and litigation? How will he ensure that it is not just the front-line overstretched staff who must listen to patient voices but, more important, the senior management?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right. What strikes me as I meet hospital managers is when they say that at their board meetings they take patient care, clinical standards and safety standards first. That is the right thing to do because if a hospital is not safe, if it is not clean and if it is not caring for people, it is not doing its job—never mind whether it is meeting its targets or whether the numbers add up. That is absolutely at the heart of this question and that is one of the things that needs to change.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Crucially, the report identified the problem of inadequate staffing levels, which often lies at the heart of care problems in the NHS. However, only recommendation 163 of the 290 recommendations mentions any action on that. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government bring forward stronger guidance to benchmark registered nurse to patient ratios on hospital wards to address that fundamental basic problem?
The Prime Minister
I have said that I think there is a role for benchmarking and considering those issues, but we would be missing something if we thought that this was all about systems and figures. Quality of patient care, vocation and compassion must be at the heart of all this.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister mentioned that Members of Parliament should be involved and I think the report mentioned it, too. When I first came to this place more than 20 years ago, I was stuck on a Committee called the parliamentary Select Committee for the ombudsman, who has the power of a High Court judge. We used to look at health service cases very regularly and bring the board members and chief executive in front of us. Why was the ombudsman not involved in this case?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about how things have changed, and perhaps we should look at that. As Members of Parliament take an interest in this, let me read what the report says on page 47. It is not good news, I am afraid:
“Local MPs received feedback and concerns about the Trust. However, these were largely just passed on to others without follow up or analysis of their cumulative implications. MPs are accountable to their electorate, but they are not necessarily experts in healthcare and are certainly not regulators. They might wish to consider how to increase their sensitivity with regard to the detection of local problems in healthcare.”
I join others in pleading guilty: sometimes we can be too defensive of our local institutions, and sometimes we need to dig deeper into particular issues and complaints. It is important, as I have said, that everyone considers the report, and that is one for all of us.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
As part of the Government’s response to the report, may I urge the Prime Minister to look at the use of compromise agreements and gagging clauses when NHS managers leave the organisation?
The Prime Minister
I certainly think Health Ministers should look at what my hon. Friend says. One of the outcomes should be a discussion about what sort of contracts are appropriate for board members, both for their service in the NHS and if anything goes wrong.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I would like to speak from my recent experience of being a chief exec of a children’s hospice. The CQC is a very good organisation, but in my own area, each officer is responsible for up to 40 organisations, so the attention they can give each one is not that much. I was pleased that the leaders of both parties have said that they would support more funding for the CQC and support strengthening it.
All nurses have to register with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is a disciplinary body, but it can take up to 18 months for the disciplinary process to go through. The NMC is the investigator, the judge and the jury. I am supportive of the Royal College of Nursing, which genuinely seems to be trying to help and support its nursing staff to give better care. It is prioritising care but, again, it is under-resourced.
To try to end on a positive, I urge the Prime Minister to look at examples of good practice. Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust has an exemplary service of putting patients first. It has 12,000 members who select a governing body, and the board is responsible to that governing body. It seems that one of the problems with Mid Staffordshire was that the public were not right at the heart of the organisation.
The Prime Minister
I am sure the hon. Lady is right, and I agree that there are many examples of excellent practice, not only in health care and patient care but in responding to complaints and involving the local public; I see that across the country.
I have just read out what the report says about MPs, and this is what it says about the Royal College of Nursing:
“At Stafford, the RCN was ineffective both as a professional representative organisation and as a trade union. Little was done to uphold professional standards among nursing staff or to address concerns and problems being faced by its members.”
That is uncomfortable for the RCN to read, just as it is uncomfortable for us to read what it says about MPs, but it must be acted on. Likewise, the Care Quality Commission is improving, but more work needs to be done. Francis is pretty excoriating, and says on page 931 of volume 2:
“The CQC has an unhealthy culture, in which senior managers are more concerned about public image than delivery, which is hostile to internal and external criticism, and in which staff feel under pressure and unsupported.”
There is real work to be done in all these organisations to get this right.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
“Systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.” That is T. S. Eliot, but it is a slightly pithier version of many recommendations in the Francis report. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a tragedy that it has taken a tragedy to produce the report? My dad, as president of the British Orthopaedic Association in 2006, gave a lecture entitled “A New Professionalism” to reflect the alarm of clinicians at the changing culture in the 2000s, with a burgeoning management system and management priorities, tick boxes and targets taking precedence over clinical priorities. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that systems cannot replace professionalism, but will he listen to current professionals, who say that professionalism, which is what keeps the NHS afloat, is being eroded by things such as the working time directive?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend packed a lot into her question, but I agree that we need greater clinical leadership across the system. When we look at Francis carefully, what he is saying is that things such as targets and better financial management were important. We cannot have an organisation such as a hospital, which is a multi-million-pound organisation with thousands of staff, without proper management, proper finances and the rest of it. We have to make sure that there is proper clinical leadership, and that the focus is on care and quality, as her father said.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister agree that what happened at Mid Staffs was not just a failure of regulation but a failure of basic humanity? Apart from a few whistleblowers, ward sisters, nurses, doctors and consultants must have seen what was happening on those wards day after day, and did nothing, although their professional duty obliged them to speak up for their patients. Will he therefore look at any issues that need to be addressed in the regulatory bodies to enable such failures among staff to be tackled, because people who do that should not be working in the NHS?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady speaks for everyone in saying that, which is why all these organisations, including the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the Royal College of Nursing and the General Medical Council have to think about taking action when behaviour is not appropriate or professional codes are seriously breached. People should be struck off and should not be able to work again.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Page 1312 of volume 2 of the report describes a meeting that took place on 14 May 2008 between the chair of the Healthcare Commission investigation, Sir Ian Kennedy, and Sir David Nicolson before the investigation reported. In that meeting, the report states that Sir David Nicholson said that a local campaign group against Mid Staffordshire had been in existence for some time. He added:
“Clearly patients needed to express their views but he hoped the Healthcare Commission would remain alive to something which was simply lobbying or a campaign as”
opposed
“to widespread concern.”
I find those comments from the head of the NHS at the time utterly unacceptable. Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will he investigate Sir David Nicholson’s comments?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. We should be clear, however, that David Nicholson has apologised publicly and repeatedly for the failure of the strategic health authority of which he was in charge for some important months during this whole approach.
The report makes it clear that we should not try to seek individual scapegoats, and I believe that Sir Robert Francis said this morning that too often that is what happens after a report is published: find someone to take responsibility, fire them out the barrel of the gun, then the job is done. That is not the case: in my view, David Nicholson has a deep affection for our national health service, does a good job on the NHS Commissioning Board, and he has thoroughly apologised and recognised his responsibilities for what went wrong in Stafford. The trust board was overwhelmingly responsible. Clearly all the other organisations, including the strategic health authority, need to learn the lessons, and I think that Sir David Nicholson has done so.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Speaking as a former care worker and president of Unison, which is the biggest trade union representing people in health and social care, I am convinced that members of that union and other health workers will welcome the commitment today on developing a culture of zero harm and quality care as the priority, and they will not be frightened of a new inspections regime. However, unless we have a system alongside that which makes sure they have time to do the job and spend time with patients, as well as the resources, both physical and financial, to make that work properly, unfortunately we will have this debate again about another situation in a decade’s time?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Clearly, a health service facing growing demands requires growing resources. We are growing those resources, but they are limited, so at the same time we must meet the challenge of increasing productivity and cutting waste in our NHS, which we are doing. I do not believe that that should impact on patient care. Every public sector body has to look at how it can become more productive and efficient, but that must not be at the expense of patient care, and that is important for the future.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all those NHS staff who go to work with great care, compassion and vocation, but will he look in particular at one staff group—health care assistants, who deliver much of the day-to-day personal care in the NHS, yet have relatively poor access to training and development? They have no regulatory body, so if individuals are not acting with care and compassion, they can move on to another institution, and perhaps work unprofessionally there too.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about the NHS, with her long years of experience as a GP. On health care assistants, the Government have said that Robert Francis’s idea of proper training standards needs to be looked at. I tend to agree with that. The issue of registration is more complicated and potentially more bureaucratic. We will certainly look at it, but I think that needs some close examination.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Hospitals do not exist in isolation. Will Professor Sir Bruce Keogh’s immediate investigation into the care in hospitals with the highest mortality rates look at the role of primary, adult and community care in relation to those mortality rates, and the relationship between them?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am sure he will do that. These things do not exist in isolation, but I hope we can do such investigations in a more frank way, because we do not want to fall into the culture of complacency or, as Francis says, into seeing the responsibility for quality as lying somewhere else.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
With increasing local clinician influence and with the increasing influence of local councillors and local patients over the commissioning of health services, what is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of how we can increase that culture of care in our local NHS settings?
The Prime Minister
There is everything that Francis says in his report about the importance of quality and a culture change. Under the new dispensation in the NHS and with GPs having a more leading role, I hope they will be very inquiring about the standards of care that their patients get when they go to hospital. In the past there was too much division between primary and secondary care. I hope that we are bringing them closer together.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Reports received by trust directors, governors and others are packed full of data, but in order for people to make sense of that information so that aggregate data in big organisations do not serve to mask problems, rather than shed light on them, do not trusts also have a duty to help people analyse those data?
The Prime Minister
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That is why the role of chief inspector of hospitals could be so important. There is no shortage of data, as the hon. Gentleman says. Francis says:
“There . . . are a plethora of agencies, scrutiny groups, commissioners, regulators and professional bodies, all of whom might have been expected by patients and the public to detect and do something effective”,
but it did not occur. We need to make sure that there is one single body that has the power, the ability and the judgment to say good practice/bad practice.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in praising the brave staff in the community and in the hospitals in Cornwall who have been speaking out about poor quality patient care, and reassure me and them that the Care Quality Commission will have the resources to make sure that quality care will be delivered in hospitals, in communities and in social care settings throughout the UK?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to health care professionals in Cornwall. I am particularly grateful to them, as they delivered my daughter two and a half years ago. I am ever grateful for the brilliant service that they performed for me, and it was a very caring environment too. The CQC has the resources it needs. It is a new organisation and has faced many challenges. A big reform of it is under way. Being asked to scrutinise everything from the dentist’s waiting room to the largest hospital in the land is challenging, and we need to work on the organisation and make sure that it can deliver what we need.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I commend the Prime Minister for his words and work on the issue. In the culture that he seeks, it is important that hospital chaplains and chaplaincy networks know what observer standing they might have and how and where they should channel any pastoral concerns or compliments that they have. On his important proposal for the chief inspector of hospitals, can the Prime Minister tell us whether that telling new faculty would be available to the devolved hospital services as well?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the role of chaplains. If those who are closely involved with hospitals see anything going wrong, they should feel a duty to speak out. That could be groups of hospital friends or chaplains. With reference to the devolved Administrations, I expect there are similar issues in terms of culture, which Francis examines, and in terms of complacency and putting patient care above targets, and I am sure that they, too, will want to learn the lessons from the report.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
To tackle the culture of complacency that my right hon. Friend spoke about, will he take this opportunity to give a clear and unequivocal message to the board members of foundation trusts throughout the country that they are accountable for the performance of their hospitals and that if there is persistent poor care, the buck stops with them?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to do that and to clarify that they are responsible for standards of care, clinical safety and the cleanliness of hospitals, as well as for meeting financial and other targets, and the buck does stop with them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Thousands of people outside the Chamber will be worried about what is going on in their own local hospital: could the same things be going on there? Part of that problem would be the willingness of NHS staff to make the best of a bad job. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as part of the cultural change, it is important that staff say, “We will not put up with poor standards,” and that as part and parcel of that, board management specifically must enforce the highest standards of patient care?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is lots of fantastic practice in our NHS right across the country, but there are problems. That is why I am so passionate about the friends and family test. I saw this in the hospital in Salford, where people are so proud of the fact that they ask the staff, the patients, everybody, “Would you have your friends and family treated in this hospital?” They put it up on the front of the door of the hospital and it is on every single ward. Of course there is no one magic bullet answer to the whole problem, but if there is a problem in a hospital or on a specific ward, it would be picked up quite quickly if there was that sort of very open and publicly available test.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in implementing the recommendations of the report, he will seek to break down the culture of some in the NHS who close ranks to close down complaints, rather than dealing with them in a proper, open and transparent fashion, so that they and the rest of the NHS can learn from any failure that has taken place?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a sense sometimes that when problems occur, there can be a closing of ranks. This clearly happened at Stafford. It is not acceptable and I am sure all hospital trusts will want to learn the lessons from that.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I welcome the greater focus on care as well as finance in assessing performance that the Prime Minister has outlined. Does he agree that this will be welcomed by clinicians throughout the country, who have fantastic ideas about improving care and getting more from their budgets, but currently cannot get the management to listen to them?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the aims of the reforms is to give greater clinical leadership. With greater clinical leadership, particularly in the commissioning groups, which are the ones tasking the hospitals, there is a much greater chance that what she talks about will happen.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
A legal duty of candour would have ensured that the serious and systemic failures at Mid Staffordshire hospital came to light far earlier and ultimately would have saved many lives. On that topic, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents, Frank and Janet Robinson, who tragically and needlessly lost their only son, John Moore-Robinson, at that hospital?
The Prime Minister
It is right for my hon. Friend to speak out for the victims and to raise a specific case. The Health Ministers here with me today will look carefully at the issue of a duty of candour to see whether that would make a difference in the way that we want for this hospital and for others as well.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
One of the clear causes of the tragedy, according to Francis, is a
“failure to appreciate…the…disruptive loss of corporate memory and focus resulting from repeated, multi-level reorganisation.”
What lessons does the Prime Minister draw from this about NHS reorganisations?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. What Francis says is:
“A failure to appreciate until recently the risk of disruptive loss of corporate memory and focus resulting from repeated, multi-level reorganisation.”
He also says, though, that he thinks the changes required
“can largely be implemented within the system that has now been created by the new reforms”,
so I hope we can allow the changes that Francis is talking about to be made within the proposed structure. Everyone—all parties, all Governments—should learn from this report. I hope we can then allow the structure to bed down and to deliver the changes that everybody wants.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s statement was hard listening for those of us who care about the NHS and respect and value the work of the vast majority of those within it. Changing a culture of targets and a focus on process is an enormous task. Does he agree that one of the ways to improve care is to unlock the innate compassion of those who work in our NHS and our caring professions?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember going to the Royal College of Nursing conference at Harrogate in his constituency. Ministers are not saying this to nurses; nurses are saying to Ministers that, as they told me, they want to have this sense of compassion and vocation at the heart of their training. Nurses themselves think that some of the training systems have got too far into the classroom and too far away from the hospital ward, and they are the ones asking us to get that right. It is good to see Health Ministers nodding in agreement as I say that.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I welcome the proposals for the CQC to make public judgments about the quality of care, but those judgments must be in a form that is accessible and understandable to the public. Will my right hon. Friend take care to ensure that they are not too general, so that if a specific problem in our wards is rightly identified, it does not cloud the otherwise excellent care that the hospital might be providing?
The Prime Minister
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very important point. If we are going to challenge complacency and have more frankness and openness about potential failure, we also need to have the more grown-up attitude that failure in one part of one hospital does not necessarily mean that the other parts are failing.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Like the Prime Minister, I have a personal debt to the NHS: it saved my life when I had cancer as a child. As a constituency MP, I regularly deal with concerns about the quality of care at Croydon University hospital. With that in mind, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly his focus on the key measure of how well a hospital is serving its community—that is, the proportion of people working there who would be happy for a family member to be treated there.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I am not claiming that the friends and family test is the only change that needs to happen in the NHS, but if we are looking for something that will provide a pretty effective traffic light, then having that test, and having its results plastered over every ward in every hospital in the country, will be a pretty good start. The chilling statistic that only a quarter of staff members at Stafford would have been happy for their relatives to be treated in the hospital that they themselves worked in should have been the moment—publicised on every ward, in the local newspaper, and on the door of the hospital—when everyone said, “Hold on a minute: we’ve got to take some action here.”
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
My right hon. Friend compared the new inspection regime to that in schools. However, is not the challenge that whereas in schools service users—pupils and parents—are all too willing to speak up, in hospitals service users often feel that they are a burden to the service or are voiceless? Will he therefore ensure that any new inspection regime measures what protocols are in place specifically to monitor the care of patients who have nobody to speak for them?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend, who has great experience of being at the sharp end of inspections in schools, speaks with great knowledge and expertise. Because patients in hospitals often do not want to say anything bad about the hospital while they are in it, it is important for them that the friends and family test is carried out once they get home. I have listened carefully to his point about carers and others.
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to the Prime Minister and to colleagues. I think that everything has now been said and, indeed, that it has been said by everybody.
Financial Services
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
I would like, Mr Speaker, to update the House on the investigations of the Financial Services Authority, the US Department of Justice and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission into the attempted manipulation of the setting of the London interbank offered rate, or LIBOR, interest rates. As Members will be aware, LIBOR is a major benchmark reference rate that is fundamental to the workings of the UK and international financial markets. Barclays and UBS have previously been fined by the authorities for attempted rate manipulation. Other financial institutions are under investigation, but today’s reports relate specifically to RBS.
Findings published today by the FSA show that certain individuals in RBS sought to manipulate LIBOR submissions. This is an extremely serious matter, motivated by greed. The FSA found that RBS breached two of its principles for businesses. First, between October 2006 and November 2010 it repeatedly breached the proper standards of market conduct required by the FSA’s principle 5. It made LIBOR submissions that took into account its own derivatives trading positions or took into account the profit and loss of its money market trading books; and it sought to manipulate the submissions of others by colluding with panel banks and broker firms. The breaches of principle 5 relate to LIBOR rates in three currencies: Japanese yen, Swiss francs and US dollars.
Secondly, from 2006 to as recently as March 2012, RBS failed to have the necessary risk management systems and controls required by the FSA’s principle 3. There was a failure to identify and manage the risks of inappropriate submission, an absence of any submissions-related systems and controls until March 2011, and inadequate transaction monitoring systems throughout. Furthermore, in response to a specific request by the FSA as a result of its inquiries into LIBOR, RBS attested to the FSA in March 2011 that its LIBOR-related systems and controls were adequate. It transpires that RBS’s systems and controls were inadequate, and so RBS’s statement to the FSA was incorrect.
These findings are grave. At least 219 requests for inappropriate submissions were documented, and at least 21 individuals, including at least one manager, were involved in the inappropriate conduct. In the light of these findings, the FSA has rightly imposed a fine of £125 million on RBS, reduced to £87.5 million for early payment. This figure is less than the £160 million fine imposed on UBS but greater than the £59.5 million fine imposed on Barclays, in proportion to the scale of the offences committed.
Also today, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has announced that it has found RBS guilty of similar offences in the US and has imposed a fine of $325 million. The US Department of Justice has announced a fine of a further $150 million and, in addition, has reached a deferred prosecution agreement with RBS plc; and RBS has accepted one criminal charge for wire fraud relating to its Japanese securities subsidiary.
The Government are clear that any organisation or individuals found guilty of this sort of wrongdoing must take full responsibility and should be punished, if appropriate, by both the civil and the criminal law. The FSA’s report identifies that at least 21 individuals were actively involved in the misconduct, including derivatives traders, RBS’s primary LIBOR submitters and one manager. Of these, eight have resigned, six have been dismissed, and all the remainder are facing disciplinary proceedings.
In the light of the findings at Barclays last year, the Serious Fraud Office has launched a criminal investigation into attempted LIBOR manipulation across a number of financial institutions, to which it is rightly committing a large amount of resource, including a 40-strong team. As the Chancellor has previously said, where laws have been broken in this country, the Government and the relevant authorities will continue to make sure that the authorities have all the resources they need to make sure that those who are guilty are brought to justice.
But this action against the perpetrators is clearly not sufficient. It is right that in the face of misconduct of this scale, responsibility is taken at senior levels. That is why, although the report clears senior management of any involvement in, or knowledge of, the misconduct, it is right that John Hourican, the leader of the investment bank since 2008, will leave RBS after handing over his responsibilities. He will receive his minimal contractual entitlement of 12 months’ notice and other contractual entitlements. He will forfeit 100% of his unvested bonus and his long-term incentive plan awards that are subject to clawback, totalling some £5 million, as well as, of course, forfeiting any bonus that he would have received in 2012.
This still leaves the question of the very substantial fines that RBS will have to pay. While it is right that RBS faces the full force of regulatory action in the light of its misconduct, the Government believe that it would clearly be wrong for the taxpayer to foot the bill. In the case of the FSA fines, the Government have changed the system so that all revenue from fines will be used to the benefit of taxpayers. In the Financial Services Act 2012, which received Royal Assent just before Christmas, we have made provision for all such fines, net of enforcement costs, to go to the Exchequer. So when RBS pays the FSA £87.5 million in fines, everything after enforcement costs will flow directly back to the taxpayer. Thanks to this reform, the Government have been able to announce previously that £35 million of fines imposed during 2012 will be used to support Britain’s armed forces community, with an additional £5 million going to the Imperial War Museum.
Money raised by British authorities from banks for their misdemeanours and recklessness in financial markets will be used as a force for good and go to people and causes that demonstrate the best of British values. This will include military good causes, which provide lasting support to servicemen and women, who provide invaluable service to this country, as well as their families and veterans. We will announce specific details of further disbursements in due course.
In the case of the US authorities’ fines, I am insistent that the taxpayer should not foot the bill. That is why these fines must be met in full from past, present and future reductions in the bonuses and pay of RBS. The Government support the action that Stephen Hester and the RBS board have rightly taken in response to the very serious issues that have been identified. The House should know that this has been a complex, meticulous and co-ordinated investigation between the international regulatory authorities. I wish to thank all three parties for their diligence and co-operation in identifying and punishing those responsible.
The Government have made it clear that the Royal Bank of Scotland must take every step necessary to ensure that this scandal never happens again. The structure and culture that allowed these events to take place must be changed fundamentally. This also requires ensuring that RBS is focused on the right priorities. That is why the Government support RBS’s statement that it will continue to shrink its investment banking operations and focus on serving its core business customers. This smaller, more efficient markets business will be good for RBS customers, particularly UK businesses.
Today’s findings are a further demonstration of the importance of the tough and swift action that this Government took in response to the first findings of attempted LIBOR manipulation concerning Barclays in June 2012. LIBOR manipulation happened in many countries, but no country has responded as quickly or as decisively as Britain has now done. The Chancellor commissioned Martin Wheatley, the chief executive-designate of the Financial Conduct Authority, to review LIBOR and the corresponding criminal sanctions regime. His review was published 13 weeks later and the Government accepted his recommendations in full last October.
The Government and the House proceeded immediately to implement those reforms through the Financial Services Act, which received Royal Assent in December. As colleagues will know, secondary legislation has been published in draft and will be debated in this House in the coming weeks, introducing the new regulatory and criminal sanctions regime underlying LIBOR and other benchmarks.
LIBOR activities will be within the scope of statutory regulation, including the submission and administration of LIBOR. Where people have broken the law, the Government will ensure that the authorities have all the resources they need to make sure that they are pursued and punished. The British Bankers Association is being replaced as the operational LIBOR administrator. Baroness Hogg is chairing an expert panel that will identify an appropriate successor.
The Government strongly support the various international initiatives taking place on wider benchmark reform. To restore trust, it is essential that any reform proposals are co-ordinated at a global level to ensure consistency in how benchmarks are governed and regulated. More broadly, this case reinforces the need for the changes already put in train by the Government to rebuild confidence in our banking system overall, and to ensure that such events cannot be repeated.
The previous regulatory regime failed. No institution was clearly enough focused on financial stability or conduct issues. The Financial Services Act establishes a new system of focused financial service regulation, including the Financial Policy Committee to oversee macro-prudential regulation, the Prudential Regulatory Authority to ensure the stability of individual banks, and the Financial Conduct Authority, a new, independent and specialist conduct regulator capable of focusing on exactly the types of issues that we will be discussing today.
There are also broader issues to be tackled in relation to the culture and professional standards of the banking system. The commission on banking standards, comprised of expert representatives from this House and the House of Lords, has been established to do precisely that—to identify ways not only of raising professional standards, but of protecting the consumer from the inherently more risky world of investment banking. I thank members of the commission for the important work that they are carrying out.
In conclusion, this is another day of shame for Britain’s banks and it is vital that we recognise it as such, not because Britain stands alone in this and similar scandals—which, as we know, is very far from being the case—but because Britain must stand out in the way that we put things right.
Let there be no excuses. Instead, let us have enduring, fundamental reform—and yes, let us have justice, too. Any organisation or individuals found guilty of a crime must take full responsibility and should be punished by the law, while the ordinary taxpayer must not and will not pay the price of their misdeeds. If, in the process, we hold our financial sector to higher standards than elsewhere in the world, that is nothing to shrink away from. Indeed, it is something that we must not only welcome, but actively pursue. That is why we have put in place a vastly stronger system of regulation so that misconduct can be prevented, not just punished. It is also why we look forward to the further recommendations of the parliamentary commission.
“My word is my bond” is the motto on which the City was built, and we must rebuild that bastion of confidence here in Britain—the best place in the world to do business, but the worst place in which to abuse the trust on which free enterprise depends.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a very serious setback for RBS on its road to recovery, and another stain on the reputation of UK banking. It is not just a case of excessive risk-taking by investment bankers; it is about the corrupt manipulation, until quite recently, of what should have been a trustworthy and independent index determining the inter-bank interest rate.
How much more evidence does the Chancellor need before he can agree to truly radical reforms for our banking system? Yet again, we have seen an appalling saga of interest rate fixing—not confined to one bank, but across the whole industry—but the Government still refuse to take a back-stop power for full separation in case ring-fencing does not work. Just what will it take for the penny to drop? Why will the Financial Secretary not accept fully what we have been saying since last year, namely that the Government must implement both the letter and the spirit of the Vickers recommendations and that we must see fundamental culture change? If that does not happen, the banks will need to be fully split up.
Those doing business with the banks will be astonished by these revelations. Will the Financial Secretary explain in simple terms how ordinary companies and customers with mortgages or savings linked to LIBOR will ever find out if they have been fleeced as a result of this fraudulent activity? If those customers have lost out because of LIBOR rate rigging, how and when will they get their money back?
Despite the Financial Secretary’s claim that the Government reacted swiftly, does he regret not getting ahead of the scandal as it emerged last year? On LIBOR, I asked his predecessor, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), during a Financial Services Bill Committee sitting last March whether the Government had a view about whether there was manipulation and whether changes needed to be made to the regulatory arrangements. He stood up and answered with the single word: no. The Treasury has, of course, come to regret that stance and, several months later, this tremendous scandal began to leak out.
Will the Financial Secretary update the House on the process for extricating the LIBOR setting process from the British Bankers Association and when an independent and more transparent arrangement will be secured? Was not the 2012 Act a missed opportunity, not just because it failed to widen the regulatory perimeter to cover LIBOR, but because it left doubt over whether regulators can prevent benchmark rigging in other trades, such as the gas and electricity markets, commodities, metals and oil? Rather than wait for Europe to legislate, the UK Government need to wake up and take preventive steps now. We will table amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill in the coming weeks.
Does the Financial Secretary agree that we also need new rules to protect whistleblowers who highlight failures inside the banks, and that we must ensure that offences created to punish misleading statements also properly cover the foreign operations of our UK banks? The Financial Secretary has said that the large fines for RBS will be clawed back in part from the bank’s bonus pots, but is it not now clear that fundamental changes are needed to the pay and bonus culture across the banking sector, including a repeat of the banker bonus tax to pay for opportunities for young people across the country? The Business Secretary said this morning that he has a plan for the RBS shares owned by the taxpayer. Does the Financial Secretary agree or disagree with that? What exactly is the Government’s policy on the future plans for the RBS shareholding?
Taxpayers and bank customers are growing sick and tired of being let down by the banks day after day. Does this not all boil down to a question of trust—a question not only of whether British customers can trust their banks, but of whether investors across the world continue to trust their money with the City of London more than with other financial centres? Britain’s financial services reputation is on the line. Our economy needs a healthy and sustainable banking sector, so we must rapidly clean up the system and put UK financial services on the path towards respectability, integrity and professionalism.
Greg Clark
It is, of course, right that we do that. I have been very clear that we are taking the steps that we are taking to restore the international reputation of the City and to make it pre-eminent in the world as a place in which people have confidence.
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have taken this opportunity to reflect on the contribution that the previous Government made to the decline in the reputation of the City. It is not as if the chaotic regulatory regime was not foreseen. In November 1997, during the passage of the legislation that set up the flawed Financial Services Authority, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said:
“The coverage of the FSA will be huge; its objectives will be many, and potentially in conflict with one another. The range of its activities will be so diverse that no one person in it will understand them all.”
He went on to say that the Government of the day
“may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day.”—[Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 732.]
That was the warning that the Conservative party gave the Government at that time, but it was ignored comprehensively for their 13 years in office.
We have moved quickly, as most reasonable people would concede. We already have a Financial Services Act on the statute book and we have set up an eminent commission chaired by Sir John Vickers to recommend far-reaching changes to the financial services system. The previous Government’s contribution to the eminence of the City was to knight Fred Goodwin, for heaven’s sake. The Opposition spokesman brags about the reforms to the regulatory system that he recommended in a Public Bill Committee, but it was the shadow Chancellor, when he had my job, who said that
“nothing should be done to put at risk a light touch, risk-based regulatory regime.”
We are making the reforms that it falls to us to make.
I will answer some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made. We will have discussions about the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. Most reasonable people would conclude that the reforms that we are making, with the advice of the Vickers commission and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, lead the world in this area. The Liikanen report, which is being recommended at a European level, explicitly refers to the reforms that we are contemplating. It is right that we should be ahead on this.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the Financial Services Authority must investigate whether any individuals or firms lost out as a result of the attempted manipulation. I call it attempted manipulation because we are talking about the rates that were submitted and it is not necessarily the case that the LIBOR reference rate changed in response. However, it is right that the FSA should make that assessment.
The process that Martin Wheatley recommended to replace the BBA is under way. It will become a regulated activity as soon as the statutory instruments are passed. Baroness Hogg and her committee are setting up a process to invite tenders, which will not include the BBA, to administer that process. As Martin Wheatley said, it is necessary that that is done in a way that does not undermine confidence in the rate-setting process during the transition, because it is fundamental to many contracts, as the hon. Gentleman implied, including people’s mortgages.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned other benchmarks. The powers that we took in the amendments that we made to the Financial Services Act 2012 before Christmas allow us quickly to specify any other benchmarks that might be subject to such abuse. Our response has been co-ordinated with the international authorities and nobody regards the powers that we have as inadequate to the task of dealing with other abuses.
On whistleblowers, the hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that people within banks and financial services should have the confidence to report abuse. A very small number of people are responsible for something that is besmirching the reputation of many millions of people up and down the country who work hard, day and night, for banks. Those people have had reason, over the years, to be proud of their career. It is important, not least for those people, that the institutions for which they work recover their reputations.
On the shareholding in RBS, it is of course the Government’s intention to return it, at the appropriate time, to private ownership. It is not right that we should own such a significant stake of a high street bank. It was necessary for us to do so because of the crisis that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues know all about. As soon as it can be returned to independence, the better.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that the US fines will be clawed back from bonuses. LIBOR, serious though it is, is just the tip of a large iceberg of banking malpractice that is now being exposed to view. The Minister ended his statement by pointing out that we should not shrink from imposing higher standards than other countries. Does he agree that if we impose high-quality regulation, it will not only be morally right, but may attract good business to the UK and be in the UK’s economic interests overall?
Greg Clark
I do agree with that. The work that my hon. Friend’s commission is continuing to do on the culture of banking is important and will inform the further reforms that we need to make. I do not think that we should be shy of setting high standards in this country; in fact, it is necessary to do so. At a time when trust is in flight across the world, there is an opportunity for the City of London to establish itself as a haven of probity and safety in a volatile world. High standards, far from being a threat or a danger to our financial institutions, are necessary for their continued prosperity, which I and the whole House want to see flourish.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Minister has referred to a need for cultural change. One culture that it is necessary to change is the banks’ unwillingness to lend to small businesses. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has spoken today about RBS and the lack of lending to small businesses, even with the recent initiatives. Have the Government given any thought to using the 350 RBS branches that they have to dispose of for the business bank, thereby giving it a regional and local presence so that small businesses can go to it, discuss loans and hopefully agree them?
Greg Clark
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should have more local, business-focused banks in this country. I hope that we can recover the personal knowledge, service and understanding of the needs of business that branches used to have in abundance. RBS is not nationalised, so we cannot direct it in the way that he suggests. However, the reforms that we are making, particularly in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, emphasise the importance of increasing competition and of having new entrants. As he knows, some of the divestments that have been required recently have brought entrants into the market that have concentrated on lending to small and medium-sized businesses. That is a force for good, but we need—and I want to see—much more of it.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
May I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement? I also associate myself with the words of the Treasury Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie).
The City of London should have nothing to fear from arbitrage, although it is sometimes said that it should. If we have a regulatory system that is robust and fair, it will pass the test of time and, in the medium to long term, will become a great attraction of the City of London.
Whether we like it or not, we need our banks more than ever, whether we are small businesses or individuals. There is a danger that with 20:20 hindsight, we are finding ever more scandals and examples of mis-selling, whether with LIBOR, interest rate swaps or payment protection insurance. Will the Minister make it clear to the banks that we need to draw a line under these scandals? There is a danger that we are falling further and further down a slope and that it will be extremely difficult for banks to regain the trust of the public at large. Without that trust, the broader economy will suffer
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise. He has worked in and represented with distinction the City of London over the years, and more than anyone he recognises the importance of it re-establishing its prestige. Part of doing that and of sending a signal to the current generation working in financial services is to say clearly that the misdeeds of the past need to be put right. Where people or small businesses up and down the country have suffered detriment, we should not turn a blind eye. We should be rigorous in holding people to account, and acknowledging the harm done to businesses that have suffered from past mis-selling, and when we do that we should look—as in this case—to recover the costs of such mis-selling from the perpetrators. The Chancellor has set out that principle and I expect the banks to follow it in the months and years ahead.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I welcome the statement and particularly the fact that the fines will be paid by the banks and not the taxpayer. I also welcome the fact that the British Bankers Association will no longer have anything to do with LIBOR. However, this is not just about who calculates the LIBOR rate, but how it is calculated. Will the Minister update the House and say how we will have transparency and the confidence to know that rates submitted by the banks are those at which they can borrow money, rather than the acts of fiction, fixes and fiddles that we saw over many years with many banks?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. One recommendation of the Wheatley review was that the setting of LIBOR benchmarks should include objectivity. That will require a reduction in the number of benchmarks because some do not have the volume of transactions to establish that, but the new regulated conduct of LIBOR setting will include a requirement to route the reporting of rates through transactions that are visible to the Financial Services Authority. The opportunity to parlay the commercial interest of particular banks into what is supposed to be an objective rate will therefore no longer be there.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
My right hon. Friend has delivered his statement in his usual calm and moderate way, but his constituents in Tonbridge and mine in Bristol West will be absolutely disgusted and furious when they discover that a lot of these abuses took place after the £45.5 billion taxpayer-funded bail-out of the Royal Bank of Scotland that saved those jobs. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is clearly still working, but surely one outcome of such abuses should be that any individual involved is struck off—whatever criminal and civil sanctions could be taken against them—and never allowed to work anywhere else in British financial services. If they were a doctor, lawyer or accountant, that is precisely what should happen. That is the real culture change that we need in banking.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right. The constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) might be concerned if I sought to represent them, but my constituents in Tunbridge Wells do, I think, share the fury that has been described. For a bank that has caused the taxpayer to bail it out to such an extent to then engage in practices that could—had we not taken action to require clawback—have resulted in further cost to the taxpayer, is outrageous. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) that the individuals implicated in such practices should leave the financial services and find a better living, rather than working in an industry in which trust and confidence is required.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I hear what the Minister says about the highest standards of regulation for the City of London, but how does he explain the fact that once again, American regulators have imposed fines that are three times higher than those from the FSA, thereby appearing much more robust in their investigation of LIBOR and other issues? Now that we are having a “twin peaks” model, what discussions is the Minister having with the regulator to ensure that it imposes appropriate fines and undertakes proper investigations to ensure that we root out the difficulties of the past?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He will know that there is a long-established culture of very high fines in the US. Fines in this country have increased markedly in recent years, although none of the institutions subject to FSA fines in recent months would regard them as anything other than exacting. It is right for us to follow the practice of other jurisdictions, including the US, in having a more explicit criminal code. Our amendments to the Financial Services Act 2012 mean that criminal sanctions explicitly for the manipulation of benchmarks are available that were not there in the past. It is right to take what the hon. Gentleman says seriously and strengthen our enforcement powers, and we are doing that through the legislation that has been passed.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the tough and swift action that he has taken on this matter, but I have a more general question about the culture change that will be required. The extent of the culture change seems to be enormous. Why does he have confidence that it is achievable?
Greg Clark
There are a number of reasons why I think it is achievable. The first is the contribution that regulation can make. As Members have said, it is important to have a more exacting set of regulatory standards that are intolerant of the kinds of abuses that have taken place. Secondly, it is in the commercial and strategic interests of banks to restore the reputation that they used to have for trust. Financial services depend on trust. If people do not trust the banks, they will not do business with them. I think the penny has dropped across the City, and most of the new generation of chief executives understand the connection between their future profitability and performance, and the need to provide decent services to their customers.
The third reason is a matter being investigated by the Treasury Committee and concerns a failure or subversion of the culture of banking. Banking was always associated with high standards of probity; it was a vocation for people who were thought to be of a rather conservative disposition and inclined not to take excessive risks. That was subverted by exposure to some of the practices of recent years, and because that was inadequately regulated it distorted what should be the right culture in the industry. We need to make changes to all three of those areas, and that is precisely what we have done and what we have embarked on for the rest of the Parliament.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Following the point made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), let me urge the Minister that there can be no drawing a line in the sand and no amnesty given until corruption is rooted out. My constituents now look on the City of London as a fetid swamp of corruption. They see only people forgoing bonuses but no one being imprisoned for the swindles that have taken place. There can be no amnesties at all. Will there be any investigation into allegations—I have raised this point previously—of attempts to manipulate the auctions associated with the quantitative easing exercise undertaken by the previous and current Governments?
Greg Clark
I am not aware of those allegations but I will look into them. Any criminal activity in any part of the financial services industry ought to be prosecuted and pursued with the same degree of vigour as in any other walk of life. The hon. Gentleman overstates the case in his reflection of the City. Hundreds of thousands of people work in the City and do a decent job working hard for their clients and businesses up and down the country. They are as outraged as any of us in this House about the damage done to the City’s reputation. The future for us and for our interests is to see that reputation restored and root out the corrupt individuals—corrupt is the word in this case—who have done disproportionate damage to the reputation of a set of institutions that should be one of the prides of this country.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
In the light of the report, I urge the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and his commission, to look carefully at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s highly successful whistleblower incentive scheme, which gives whistleblowers a cut of fines, and at how we begin to replicate that model.
Greg Clark
The discount in fines given for co-operation is one reason for organisations to co-operate, but I will look at my hon. Friend’s point on individuals.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The report indicates that, so arrogant were some bank workers, they treated themselves as masters of the universe to whom normal rules of fair play did not apply, which has impacted on banks and their reputations. The banks rather than the taxpayers will pay the fines, as they are required to do, but how will the Minister ensure they do not simply pass on additional charges to customers to recoup the costs?
Greg Clark
It is essential that the banks do not do that. They need to be transparent as to the source of the payment to meet the fines—that is essential. Far from those people being masters of the universe, they are culpable of doing a great disservice in falling way short of the standards of behaviour by which most decent people up and down the country would expect to live their lives.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome the statement and its robust and vigorous tone, which sets the scene for the appropriate direction of travel, but does the Minister agree that we need an influx of professionalism to the banking sector? That would be enhanced and made more likely by strong accountability mechanisms and more transparency. That is what I hear from small and medium-sized businesses who struggle to contact banks at all.
Greg Clark
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The commission led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) is looking at how such professionalism, which can be found in financial services, can be bolstered and further recognised.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The public, who after all own more than four fifths of that bank, will be appalled at the duration and extent of the greed and corruption that has been exposed by the FSA today. Does the Financial Secretary agree that that strengthens the argument made by the Financial Services Consumer Panel that the banks ought to be subject to a fiduciary duty to their customers, as lawyers and company directors are, so that savers and investors have maximum protection?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that will be considered by the commission, which is looking into the culture. It is important that banks recognise that they exist to serve their customers—that is their purpose and the reason why they operate. My recent experience of speaking to some bank boards leads me to believe that they recognise the commercial imperative for that, but he makes a suggestion that I am sure our colleagues will consider.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister firmly for his statement. In particular, I thank him for the £35 million of fines imposed on the banks that will go directly to the armed forces community; £5 million will go to the Imperial War Museum. Will he confirm the criteria by which charity groups such as the Royal British Legion, the Army Benevolent Fund, SSAFA and Help the Heroes can qualify for financial assistance through the fines on the banks?
Greg Clark
As I said in my statement, we will make further announcements on the disbursement of the funds, but they have been earmarked and reserved for the military community.
Point of Order
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a lack of recent Government statements on the deployment of British forces in Mali and other parts of north Africa. Last weekend, the Prime Minister undertook an arduous visit to the area, which included serious discussions with the Algerian Government and others. When the initial statements on Mali were made, we were promised that the House would be regularly updated. Nearly 400 British service personnel are now involved in the operation and we have not had a statement in the House for almost a week. I believe we deserve one.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank you for the point of order, Mr Corbyn. I have received no notification that any statement will be made on that issue today. Should that alter, the House will be notified in the usual manner, but I am sure those on the Treasury Bench have heard your request.
United Kingdom Membership of the European Union (Referendum)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a referendum in the next Parliament on the question of whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union; and for connected purposes.
We, the promoter and sponsors of the Bill, and all those who have expressed support very much welcome David Cameron’s commitment to hold a referendum in the next Parliament and his initiative. I have been overwhelmed by support for the Bill—indeed, there were so many potential sponsors that we had to draw the names out of a hat—and I thank the many people who have contacted their MPs. It is much appreciated.
David Cameron is now in step with the British public—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot refer to the Prime Minister by his name.
Mr Baron
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Prime Minister is in step with the British public. A referendum is only right. The EU has fundamentally changed since we first joined in the early ’70s and it continues to change because of the eurozone crisis. The answer to the crisis from the eurozone capitals is more Europe—more political and economic integration. They have realised somewhat belatedly that they cannot have monetary union and save the euro without fiscal union, but that is not why we joined the EU. We joined for trade, not for politics.
No one can deny that the EU’s role in our daily lives, which some would describe as meddling, has grown over the decades and continues to grow, and yet we have not stopped to ask the fundamental question of whether that is in our best interests. The timing of the referendum is sensible in that it allows for a renegotiation so we can know what the “in” part of the referendum question is. I wish the Prime Minister well—it will be a hard road because the direction of travel is in the other direction—but I hope he can renegotiate a looser agreement or arrangement with the EU that focuses on trade and not on politics. He might well be able to do so, which would appeal to a great number of people in this country. I hope he does more than Prime Minister Harold Wilson did in 1975. He claimed he had renegotiated and repatriated a lot of powers, but under close scrutiny, it appeared to be a thin claim—it did not amount to a tin of beans.
Delaying the referendum a touch allows the eurozone crisis to play out and for a proper debate on the merit of membership. All in all, it is a sensible policy. It is right for the country. The British people will finally have their say, having been barred from having a genuine choice by the political establishment for probably more than 30 years, because all the main parties have looked in one direction.
That is good news, and we welcome it, and yet the policy is dependent on a Conservative victory in the 2015 general election. The Prime Minister made his promise as leader of the Conservative party. Legislation will be introduced immediately after a Conservative victory, so this has become a party political issue. As such, many are concerned that there is deep public mistrust of politicians who make promises about EU referendums, because too many have been broken in the past. We question whether the promise will be believed.
Many people remember Tony Blair’s promise on the EU constitution on the Lisbon treaty. We were promised a referendum and he failed to deliver. Instead, the EU constitution was copied and pasted into the Lisbon treaty and rammed through the House using the Labour Government’s majority. Even Gordon Brown knew—
Mr Baron
Even the then Labour Prime Minister knew the sham of the situation. He refused to join the photo call and signed the treaty in the privacy of a darkened room—[Interruption.] An hon. Friend suggests a darkened room was the right place for it, and I do not disagree.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently offered a referendum, but have failed to deliver, even in coalition. [Interruption.] I see the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), nodding in agreement from the Front Bench. [Interruption.] He turned around then. Scepticism about promises made on EU referendums is such that many are critical of the Prime Minister for not delivering on his promise of a referendum in relation to the Lisbon treaty, despite the fact that the ink on the treaty had dried before he came to power. Legislation in this Parliament would therefore address the deficit of trust. A Bill is far more believable than an election manifesto promise, and a referendum would not be dependent on any one party. Any incoming Prime Minister would find it difficult—not impossible, but certainly difficult—to repeal popular legislation.
Perhaps there is another reason to bring the Bill forward. Legislation now would oblige all parliamentarians to declare their hand and the electorate would then know where they stood. In the past, there has been far too much obfuscation on this issue—no wonder the public have become cynical.
I am delighted that the Conservative party has adopted this policy, and I suggest that it is now more united on Europe than it has been for a very long time. Apart from a number of principled hon. Members across the House, the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches seem confused. The Labour leader says one thing and the shadow Foreign Secretary says another. The Liberal Democrat election manifesto says one thing, and in coalition the party does another. I suggest to both parties that their positions are untenable. Let us bring forward this Bill and force them to declare their hand.
To my own Front Bench, I say that the argument that we cannot bring forward legislation—I am delighted to see the Minister on the Front Bench and I thank him for that—in this Parliament because it would contravene the coalition agreement does not hold water. Same-sex marriage was not in the coalition agreement, yet we voted on it yesterday. I am afraid that that is a very thin argument indeed.
Let us not forget that I and my colleagues can see no downside to this. It would be a simple piece of legislation. There is no need even to detail the question, as the 2014 Scottish referendum has proved and which is being drafted in this Parliament. There is, therefore, no downside to introducing the legislation in this Parliament.
In short, a referendum will give the British public an opportunity to have their say, something they have been denied for too long. It is about time we had a more positive relationship with our European neighbours. For too long, it has been a strained relationship. In part, I think that is because the British people have not been happy with the EU’s direction of travel, and in part because they have been frustrated that they have not been able to express their view through the political system, because the three main political parties have all faced in one direction on this issue. That must now come to an end.
A referendum would lance the boil and, whatever the result, I hope would allow a more positive relationship with the EU based on either trade and co-operation or political and economic union, yet this matter of singular importance to the UK is dependent on one party winning the general election. This issue is far too important for party politics. As such, I urge the House to support the Bill and bring in legislation in this Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr John Baron, Mr James Clappison, Mr Nigel Dodds, Richard Drax, Mr Frank Field, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Dr Julian Lewis, Jim Shannon, Bob Stewart and Mr John Whittingdale present the Bill.
Mr John Baron accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March, and to be printed (Bill 133).
Opposition Day
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Suicide Prevention
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that the number of suicides in the UK, particularly amongst young people, represents a major challenge for government and society; acknowledges the work that is taking place to address the issue; calls for even more urgency to be shown in seeking to reduce the rate of suicides; notes the danger posed in particular by websites which promote or give information about harmful behaviours such as suicide; and calls upon the Government to adequately resource and promote child and adolescent digital safety.
For years this subject has been swept under the carpet. I believe it deserves a mature and thoughtful debate. Suicide is a significant problem in our society. Its impact is often sudden and shocking. While we can to some degree prepare ourselves for the death, through ageing, of elderly parents or the loss of loved ones through chronic illness, suicide catches us by surprise. Often there is no warning and we are left with a feeling of utter bewilderment. We ask: was it preventable? Were there warning signs that we failed to recognise? Was it simply a cry for help that went wrong? All of those are questions to which we will, regrettably, never receive an answer.
It can be seen that suicide touches the lives of many people and is, in every case, a tragedy both for the life that has ended and for the family, friends and community left behind. We must always remember that each person who has been lost to suicide has been someone’s child, someone’s parent, brother, sister or friend. Their passing leaves a wound that does not easily heal, even with the passing of time. In addition, those bereaved by suicide have special needs and require special support, for bereavement by suicide is itself a risk factor for suicide.
We cannot afford to ignore or be complacent about the prevalence of suicide and self-harm in the United Kingdom. Preventing suicide presents a serious socio-economic issue, as well as a political challenge. It is a problem that we all have a duty to address. There is a great need to change public attitudes and to increase awareness and understanding about suicide as a major public health problem that is largely preventable. Globally, almost 1 million people die from suicide every year. In the past 45 years, suicide rates have increased by 60% worldwide. Suicide is one of the three leading causes of death among those aged 15 to 44 years in many countries. Although suicide rates have traditionally been highest among the male elderly, rates among young people have been increasing to such an extent that they are now the group at highest risk in a third of countries worldwide.
In 2011, 289 deaths by suicide were recorded in Northern Ireland, with the male suicide rate approximately three times greater than that of females.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his party on securing this important debate on the Floor of the House. He references male suicide. Does he not agree that one of the more worrying statistics is that people who have just come out of prison are at a very high risk of committing suicide in the first two weeks of their release? Does he not agree that we should make better use of community and health care pathways to ensure that we can prevent and protect people who are very vulnerable, such as those coming out of prison?
Dr McCrea
I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of those pathways. It is vital that every effort be made to ensure that persons at a vulnerable moment in their lives—this is what the hon. Lady was talking about—receive the best possible support. I will develop that point later.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as prison leavers being vulnerable to suicidal tendencies, one of the groups at most risk are young males involved in the drug culture, and is it not odd, therefore, that some people are still campaigning to legalise drug use?
Dr McCrea
That is very true, and I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend’s comments. Again, I will seek to develop that point later.
The figures I gave a moment ago represent a welcome reduction on the highest-ever recorded figure of 313 suicides in Northern Ireland in 2010. Nevertheless, Northern Ireland continues to experience higher rates of suicide among adolescents and young adults, particularly young men, than any other part of the UK.
Deliberate self-harm is also a significant problem, with a growing number of cases being seen in hospital accident and emergency departments. Statistics from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety suggest that almost 500 patients presented at the hospital emergency department in Belfast with deliberate self-harm between April and June 2012. Many more incidents never come to the attention of health services at all. In 2011, the highest rate of registered suicides was recorded in the parliamentary constituencies of Belfast West and Belfast North. In my constituency, 18 lives were lost to suicide, 16 of them males.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Is my hon. Friend aware of an international study highlighting the fact that Northern Ireland has the highest incidence of post-conflict trauma of any post-conflict region across the globe, and that this contributes to the high level of suicide? That is evidenced by the fact that much of it is concentrated in the parts of Northern Ireland where the conflict was fiercest, and it is added to by the fact that many of the people suffering trauma served in the armed forces. What we need in Northern Ireland, under the military covenant, is a specialist centre for the treatment of trauma for those who have served our country.
Dr McCrea
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I trust that the Minister will take those points very seriously.
Between January and September last year, 223 deaths by suicide were recorded in Northern Ireland, again with socially deprived areas in Belfast North and Belfast West worst affected. However, although we must concentrate particularly on Belfast North and Belfast West, where the rate is highest, suicide has, worryingly, been spreading not only in urban communities, but into rural Northern Ireland—into those areas where people feel isolated and vulnerable to thoughts of suicide.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea whether there is a link between suicide and past membership of illegal organisations, and whether those who were inclined to carry out such violence have become so depressed that they take their own lives?
Dr McCrea
Once again, I hope to touch on that point. I believe that that link needs to be considered. Certainly, for many people who were involved in such activities—perhaps they were drawn into them and now, unfortunately, must live with the consequences for the rest of their lives—guilt can be a leading factor pushing them towards suicide.
The Bamford review on mental health promotion, published in Northern Ireland in May 2006, reinforced the need to prevent suicide. It found that in the 25 years from 1969 to 1994, more people died by suicide than as a result of the troubles in our Province.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his party on bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House. He talks about the factors linked to suicide. Will he accept that mental health issues are another key factor linked to suicide and that MPs and others need to remove the stigma attached to mental illness so that people feel able to ask for the help they badly need?
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of research carried out by Louis Appleby, the suicide tsar, showing that 75% of those who commit suicide have had no connection with mental health services, and that it is dangerous to focus suicide help and support only on mental health teams? If we do that, we risk failing to protect many of those who need our help.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I hope the hon. Gentleman realises how much appreciated his colleagues’ choice of subject is today. I declare two interests: I am joint president of a Samaritan branch, through past family links, and I am involved with the organisational charity, Papyrus, which campaigns to prevent suicide among young people in the UK. May I accentuate what he has said? People can feel as depressed in rural areas as they do in urban areas, and there can be no presumption about the reason. Teenagers can be very depressed because of medication—I have had family experience of that—and university students because of the pressure of their studies and relationships. It can be for anybody at any time, and organisations such as the Samaritans and Papyrus ought to be known abroad, so that anybody can reach them on the phone.
Dr McCrea
I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I have found a lack of knowledge in the community about the help available through such agencies.
We community leaders must be willing to say, “This is not a taboo subject. We can talk about this.” The country must be willing to open up. We tell young people to open up when they have a problem or feel isolated, but we legislators must be willing to do the same, and not run away from the issue, treating it as something to be hidden or pushed aside.
I am delighted that my right hon. and hon. Friends have brought this debate before the House today—I know that I have support on this issue from across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland—but I really feel that this is a problem right across the United Kingdom. As I pointed out at the beginning, in one year, 1 million people across the world reached the point where they took their own lives. That is very serious and we are not immune to it—not one part or region of the United Kingdom is immune and I can assure hon. Members that not one family is immune either. This issue can touch every family, no matter how rich or how poor. Every family can experience the very same pain and hurt that has been expressed to me. That is why we have secured this debate.
The report also found that, on average, deaths due to suicide since 2000 have exceeded deaths on the roads and concluded that suicidal behaviour places a heavy human and financial burden on society in Northern Ireland, with an annual cost to the economy of £170 million owing to work days lost and hospital admissions for attempted suicides and suicidal behaviour. Research undertaken by Mike Tomlinson of Queen’s university in 2007 found that the Northern Ireland suicide rate had grown since the mid-1990s, which was attributed to younger people, particularly men, taking their own lives.
Rehman Chishti
The hon. Gentleman talks about young people. Does he know whether there have been any discussions between the devolved nations about preventing young people from accessing suicide websites? Such prevention work is crucial.
Dr McCrea
Once again, I am deeply appreciative of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with him. We will endeavour to take up that point as the debate continues.
Tomlinson found that about 150 suicides were recorded annually between 2000 and 2004, but by 2006 that figure rose to 291. He argued that the end of the conflict in Northern Ireland might have brought its own problems. Figures released by the Office for National Statistics show that in 2011 there were 6,045 suicides among people aged 15 and over in the United Kingdom—an increase of 437 compared with 2010. The UK suicide rate increased significantly between 2010 and 2011, from 11.1 to 11.8 deaths per 100,000 of the population. That trend was further reflected in Wales, which recorded 341 suicides—its highest rate since 2004. Scotland also saw an increase, from 781 deaths by suicide in 2010 to 889 in 2011.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend for setting the scene so clearly for everyone in the Chamber. The suicide rates over the last few years, which he has outlined, cover the period of the economic downturn. Does he feel that, at this time especially and for that very reason—the economy and the downturn in jobs—there should be a greater focus on suicide across the whole of the United Kingdom?
Dr McCrea
I thank my colleague for his intervention.
Although I have given a lot of statistics—I will come to some of the causes in a moment—they can be very cold things. I want to draw the House’s attention, very earnestly and gently, to the fact that behind every statistic is a personal tragedy—a personal tragedy that a person reached the point where they felt that there was no other way to go; a personal tragedy because no one can fully understand the loneliness or desperation that a person feels trapped by whenever they reach the point at which they think that the only way out is suicide.
There is no one reason why people take their own lives. It is often a result of problems building up to the point where that person can see no way out to cope with what they are experiencing. Factors that have been linked with suicide include unemployment; economic decline; personal debt; painful and disabling illness; heavy use of, or dependency on, alcohol or other drugs; children and adults dealing with the impact of family breakdown; the loss or break-up of a close relationship; depression; social isolation; bullying; and poor educational attainment. Those experiences have been shown to make people more susceptible to suicide. It may be that a seemingly minor event becomes the trigger for them attempting to take their own lives—on many occasions not to die, but simply to get relief from their unbearable pain. Low self-esteem, being close to tears and not being able to cope with small, everyday events are all signs that someone is struggling to cope with overwhelming feelings. Yet it is often difficult to tell whether someone is suicidal or depressed, as people in crises react in different ways. Uncharacteristic behaviour can often be a sign that something is very wrong.
One of the main problems that I want to address in this debate is: where do people turn to for support and help? Let me first acknowledge the work done by our front-line health and social care professionals, and the effort that has gone into the development and delivery of suicide prevention strategies, which aim to identify regional risk factors, establish key objectives via a cross-section of organisations, and seek ultimately to reduce rates of suicide and self-harm throughout the United Kingdom. For example, in Northern Ireland, I appreciate our ministerial co-ordination group in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It was established in 2006 to ensure that suicide prevention is a priority across relevant Departments and to enhance cross-departmental co-operation on the issue. I was delighted by the changes made by Minister Poots, so that instead of the group meeting on a needs basis, it meets regularly to provide the sustained effort and leadership needed to reduce the high rate of suicide in Northern Ireland. I commend him for taking a long-term, upstream intervention approach to the problem.
However, in addition to Government-led initiatives in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, credit must be given to the agencies and voluntary organisations working at the heart of our communities to provide a vital lifeline when one is needed most. I acknowledge the excellent work done by many Church organisations, which give spiritual counselling to many who feel that life is so burdensome that it is not worth the struggle. These organisations—whether Government agencies, voluntary agencies or Church agencies—have a vital role to play in complementing local mental and public health services. This work at the coal face is truly inspirational. I pay tribute to the men and women who dedicate so much of their lives to helping others.
I said earlier that people needed to know about the availability of those who are willing to help. I say that because about three weeks ago a conference was held in my constituency in Antrim after two suicides had taken place—it was not called by politicians, but by the community, because of a desire in the community to do something. I was delighted and honoured to be part of that occasion, but what I found out that day was that although a multitude of organisations deal with the problem, many in the community do not know about them. Many do not know where help can be got at the moment it is needed.
Over the past year I have had the pleasure of working closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) with PIPS—the Public Initiative for Prevention of Suicide and Self-Harm—a not-for-profit organisation in Belfast North that has been delivering suicide prevention and awareness training since 2008. Through my association with PIPS, I have come to understand how it believes that, through training local people to be more aware of the risk of suicide and of the sources of help available, our communities will be safer and more people will be saved from taking their own lives. Surely this must be all about prevention, because, unfortunately, there is no cure when suicide takes place.
Bob Stewart
I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. Does he think that there is anything the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Government could do to provide publicly funded advertisements on this matter on television in Northern Ireland, for example? Does he also believe that priests could raise the matter when they are preaching, to alert their congregations to the problem? Perhaps he will come to those points in his speech.
Dr McCrea
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I will come to those points. I certainly have endeavoured, when speaking in congregations, to remind them of the loneliness that people experience when they are in that vulnerable situation. No one knows the depths of that valley; no one knows how dark is the night that they are walking through. There must be greater understanding, and we can gain that understanding if people talk to each other and express their own experiences, as is happening in Antrim. That is helpful not only for them but for our understanding and for that of the community.
Members will also be aware that I have spoken recently in the House about child and adolescent internet safety, following horrific reports in the media of young people taking their own lives as a result of cyber-bullying.
Mr Donaldson
My hon. Friend referred to support groups. I have recently met members of Horizons, a local support group in Lisburn. It is doing excellent work on a voluntary basis, but it is struggling to get the funding that it needs. Many of its members have had family experience of losing a loved one in these circumstances, and they are well placed to provide the support that our communities need, because they have walked through that dark valley. Greater priority for the funding of such groups is essential.
Dr McCrea
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. In fact, the motion
“calls upon the Government to adequately resource and promote child and adolescent digital safety.”
The motion goes wider than that, but resources are certainly a problem that such organisations need help with.
The internet and new media are prominent features in youth culture nowadays. Young people see the use of technology as a vital part of their social lives, and the online environment has created unique opportunities for learning, connection and communication. Almost 99% of children aged between eight and 17 access the internet, and 90% of children aged five to 16 have a computer at home. Although the risks created by the internet and new media have yet to be properly assessed, there is growing concern over the use of the internet for cyber-bullying and for normalising and encouraging suicide and suicidal behaviour.
The Byron review, conducted in 2008, entitled “Safer Children in a Digital World”, found that
“there is a range of material on the Internet that may present particular issues for specific groups of children and young people. This includes content or sites that promote or give information about harmful behaviour such as suicide and self harm”.
The report found that, although some children might be deterred from harmful behaviours by witnessing such content, or might find emotional and social support from others experiencing the same feelings, it was clear that for some children there were major risks. Sites providing information about suicide techniques, for example, could increase the chance of a suicide attempt being successful and decrease the chances of a young person receiving help.
Mrs Moon
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the hosting of such sites is illegal in the United Kingdom, thanks to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The problem is that many of those sites are hosted outside the UK, where they are not illegal. Internet providers need to block access to the sites. They move them down the access chain when people google them, but they do not block access to them altogether. How can we ensure that access to those sites is blocked?
Simon Hughes
The hon. Gentleman is covering lots of bases. One of the issues that we face as a society is that young people can become isolated from contact with other young people, other than through the internet or texting. That is a real danger zone. They retire to their bedrooms and they are not seen from one night to the next. Their communication with others is limited. The exercise of parental and family responsibility, to ensure that youngsters are out and being monitored so that people can pick up signs that they might be led to suicide sites, is as important as dealing with the sites themselves.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I point out to Members, in relation to those last two interventions, that such interventions should come through the Chair? Instead, they have been focused on the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), whom we all wish to hear.
Dr McCrea
I agree with the point that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) makes. I was talking to folks at the weekend about how young people isolate and withdraw themselves. If we set our minds back to just a few years ago, we remember that we used to see children playing football on the streets, and little girls out with their prams. If we look at our streets today, we see very few children out there. So where are they? They are in their rooms. They are not with their families. In many cases, the internet has taken over their lives, and that leads to the isolation that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
When online discussions or communities emerge around harmful behaviours, there is a risk of what the Samaritans describe as an “echo chamber”, in which users reinforce each others’ behaviour and negative feelings about themselves. In a communication to me, the Samaritans stated that
“there are some aspects of the ways that individuals interact with one another online, through social networking sites or online chat rooms, that can place vulnerable people at risk by exposing them to detail about suicide methods or conversations that encourage suicide ideation. Indeed in recent years there have been several widely reported cases of individuals taking their own lives having used websites that have provided explicit information on suicide methods or have been used to facilitate suicide pacts. Restriction of access to information about suicide methods is an established component of suicide prevention. However, this is particularly difficult to achieve online not least because suicide related websites hosted abroad are legal in most other countries”.
The Samaritans have worked in partnership with major companies to develop practical initiatives to support people at risk from suicide online. In November 2010, an initiative was launched in partnership with Google to display the Samaritans helpline number and a highly visited telephone icon above the normal Google search results when people in the UK use a number of search terms related to suicide. The Samaritans also worked closely with Facebook to allow users to get help for a friend they believe is struggling to cope or feeling suicidal. We must express our appreciation to the Samaritans for doing this excellent work.
These pioneering initiatives are to be commended, but more must be done. The Department of Health suicide prevention strategy in England recognises the need to continue to support the internet industry to remove content that encourages suicide and to provide ready access to suicide prevention services. In Northern Ireland, the refreshed “Protect Life” strategy includes a new objective to develop and implement internet guidelines that seek both to restrict the promotion of suicide and self-harm and to encourage the circulation of positive mental health messages.
Online risks must be managed more effectively, and advertisements with hyperlinks to support services must be displayed whenever users discuss or search for information about harmful behaviour if we are to ensure that people in distress can access useful resources quickly.
I acknowledge that the Byron review calls for a shared culture of resilience with families, industry, Government and others in the public and third sector all playing their part to reduce the availability of potential harmful material, to restrict access to it by children and to increase children’s resilience. There needs to be a greater understanding of how young people use modern technologies and communications if they are to be engaged in respect of suicide awareness and prevention, and mental health and well-being.
In conclusion, the causes of suicide are multiple and complex, and they cannot be addressed by any one Government Department working in isolation. Recent years have seen a commitment by Government to deliver suicide prevention strategies throughout the UK, but these must be adequately resourced on a sustainable basis if the progress already made is to be maintained. While we must acknowledge the good work already taking place, there is, of course, always room for improvement, and I believe that efforts must be concentrated on making the internet a safer place for our young people.
I recognise that this is a particularly complex matter and that the challenges it presents are indeed multiple. None the less, they are challenges that must be overcome, for children have the right to be protected from all forms of abuse, violence and harm. Enhanced internet safety is only part of the solution to the growing problem of suicide and self-harm. Through a co-ordinated approach, we must effectively address the issues impacting on emotional health so that we reach a point where so-called “suicide” sites will no longer be attractive to vulnerable individuals and will be made naturally obsolete or unattractive to view. We need to think innovatively about what more can be done across government and the community to reduce the rate of suicide in the UK.
I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will deal not only with the issues I have touched on, but with the families of those who have experienced suicide, because they also need help.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the speech he is making in leading this debate and on the tremendous work he is doing to highlight the issue in this place. He has mentioned the refreshed “Protect Life” strategy, and it is good to know that that strategy is developing under devolution. He may just about remember that I was the Minister with responsibility for health at the time when that was launched in 2006. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, I emphasise and ask him to emphasise how important it is for the families of those with direct experience to be at the core of that strategy because they better understand the issues at stake and can inform us all about the best way forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I wish to be helpful to the Chamber, and point out that Members are meant to speak through the Chair rather than to the individual Members concerned. I know that some Members have not been on the Back Benches for a while, but I hope that they are back into the swing of being in opposition and will remember to speak through the Chair.
Dr McCrea
I concur with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). I can honestly say that there was no better person than himself to introduce and bring in this sort of measure from the beginning. He certainly did sterling work on it, and we in Northern Ireland appreciate what he did, and want to carry it forward to the next step. Thus families in their grief, bewilderment and loss need help and should be at the very heart of whatever next step is taken. The emphasis on suicide prevention must remain, for as the Stamp Out Suicide! website plainly notes:
“once a suicide is completed, very sadly, there is no cure.”
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
I shall try to behave, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to address the Chair, as you rightly instructed us to do.
We in the House of Commons frequently find ourselves at loggerheads, and common ground is often hard to come by, but we unite—as a Parliament and as a country—in lamenting the number of people who die by suicide every year. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and his colleagues for selecting this issue for debate, because it is so easy to go for other less difficult issues. The hon. Gentleman has done the House a service by choosing this subject and giving it a proper airing so that we can debate it and demonstrate to the country that we are focusing on things that matter a great deal. I thank him genuinely for that.
I noted what the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) said about the importance of families and their role. As he said, it is important to listen to them, to understand their perspective, and to recognise what they go through. Once someone has taken his or her own life, the impact of that lost life lasts with the family for the rest of their lives. We owe it to families to listen to them, and to do better in preventing suicide.
The hon. Member for South Antrim produced the shocking statistic that 1 million lives are lost globally, and told us that in many countries young people are now the highest-risk group. He also told us that males are more susceptible to suicide—both middle-aged and young men—and that suicide is the biggest single killer of men under the age of 35. That in itself is deeply concerning. We need to stop and think about the turmoil that is often associated with individuals in the lead-up to the moment when they make their decision. We have a responsibility to do all we can to address that.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of recognising the prevalence of self-harm and the disturbing trends that we are seeing. That is of real concern, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is a serious problem in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) wondered whether it was sometimes a post-conflict issue. I know that a lot of work has been done in relation to post-traumatic stress following conflict, wherever it takes place in the world, and the risk that young men and young women may take their own lives as a result. I join others in paying tribute to organisations such as the Samaritans and Papyrus for their work in helping people at moments of real risk.
Simon Hughes
I think it is important to provide signposting, so that young people, from secondary school onwards, know where they can go for help. It should not necessarily lead to teachers, family or pastoral care workers, because young people may not want to share their problems with them, especially when the first signs of self-harm appear. We should also do much more to ensure that university health services provide cognitive behavioural therapies and similar services much more quickly than many are able to at present, because the lack of such services has been a real cause of crisis, tension and, indeed, increased suicide risk.
Norman Lamb
One of the things that I am determined to do while I am in this job is give mental health services, and access to them, the real priority that they deserve. Our first mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board gives mental health a much higher priority than it has ever had before. In establishing the principle of parity of esteem, we have asked the board to pay particular attention to access to mental health services in order to ensure that people with those problems have the rights of access that people with physical health problems have had for some time. Every life taken by suicide is one too many.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention so soon after the first. He has rightly paid tribute to the work of the Samaritans, who undoubtedly prevent a huge number of people from taking their own lives and who do tremendous work in Northern Ireland. What public funding do groups such as the Samaritans, who do such tremendous work, receive from the Government?
Norman Lamb
I cannot give the hon. Lady precise figures here and now, but I will write to her and make sure she gets a full response to that legitimate point.
This debate serves as a timely reminder that suicide continues to be a major public health issue, particularly at a time of economic and employment uncertainty. The suicide rate in England is relatively low on international comparisons, and good progress has been made in reducing the rate in England over the past 10 years. That is something to be proud of, but it must not be the end of the struggle. We must be vigilant. About 4,500 people took their own lives in England alone in 2011, an increase on the previous year of about 6%. Although the three-year average suicide rate has remained steady since 2005-07, the rise in the number of people dying by suicide in 2011 is deeply worrying.
We know that suicide rates vary across the UK, and the hon. Member for South Antrim made the point that the suicide rate in Northern Ireland is higher than in England. In fact, it is the highest in the United Kingdom, and Scotland and Wales also have their own very real challenges. The coalition Government are working with the devolved Administrations to share evidence on suicide prevention and effective interventions. Suicide is still a major taboo. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the importance of our collectively speaking up about the subject. The way to reduce the number of suicides is not to comply with that taboo and keep it under wraps; on the contrary, we must tackle the problem and the surrounding issues head on.
We published a new suicide prevention strategy for England in September last year. It was written to help to reduce the suicide rate and it prioritises the importance of supporting families, so that those who are worried about a loved one know where to go for help, and supporting those who are bereaved as a result of suicide. They must receive help. There are excellent organisations such as Cruse Bereavement Care—I should declare an interest as my wife works for it—that provide support for people who are bereaved.
The strategy is backed up by up to £1.5 million for research, and it highlights the importance of helping the groups at highest risk of suicide by targeting interventions in the right way and at the right time. In-patient services are getting better at that. The most recent national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide shows that the long-term downward trend in patient suicides continues.
Giving greater priority to mental health services is also critical. We are championing parity of esteem for physical and mental health, and through our improving access to psychological therapies—IAPT—schemes we are treating more people than ever before for mental health problems. Through the Government’s NHS mandate, we have gone much further than ever before in emphasising the priority the NHS must give to mental health. The mandate also makes specific reference to the need for mental health services to seek to reduce the suicide rate among users of their services, although I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon): we must also be acutely aware that many people—I think she gave the figure of 75%—who take their own lives are not known to the statutory services. It is very important that the statutory services do everything they can, but that is not the whole problem; there is a very significant issue beyond that.
We also need to make sure there is enough information about treatment and support, and that it is freely available to those who need it, including those who are suffering bereavement following a suicide. A lot of that planning and work will happen locally, with local agencies deciding on how best to reduce the suicide rate and support families. Our recent strategy is not an instruction manual; it is more a tool to support local agencies in working out what is needed.
Suicide prevention will also be a priority for the new public health system. The public health outcomes framework has the suicide rate as an indicator. That is a horrible piece of jargon, but this project addresses what outcomes and results the whole system is trying to achieve, and one of them is the need to reduce the suicide rate. A shared indicator with the NHS outcomes framework also focuses on reducing the number of premature deaths of people with serious mental illness—such deaths also, of course, include suicides.
We are tackling stigma in relation to mental health, which the hon. Member for South Antrim rightly mentioned, with the brilliant Time to Change programme led by the charities Mind and Rethink Mental Illness, which is designed to reduce stigma and break isolation. A few months ago, we had a brilliant debate in this House when Members talked about their own experiences of mental health. That, in itself, was very important in bringing the issue out into the open and recognising that successful people, as well as many others, suffer from mental health problems and it is nothing to be ashamed of.
Children and young people have an important place in the new suicide prevention strategy. The suicide rate among teenagers is below that in the overall population, but that does not mean it is not a problem. For example, suicide is still the most common cause of death in young men, as I mentioned earlier. In addition, about half of mental health problems begin to emerge by the age of 14.
Bob Stewart
I apologise for intervening, as the Minister was perhaps going on to deal with this matter. We have now heard four or five times that the level of suicide among young men is much higher than that among young women, but nobody has said why that might be. Is there an answer to that question?
Norman Lamb
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I would not want to indulge in cheap speculation about that. The statistics are clear on the prevalence of suicide among young men and clear that it is significantly higher than among young women. It is important that we carry out the research, which is why the Government have also committed to that as well; it is so that we gain a better understanding.
Mrs Moon
The Minister will be aware that research suggests that women and young girls are less vulnerable to suicide because they are help seekers, whereas young men are not and they will not articulate the problems they are facing. That is the major difference. Women and girls will go to their friends and talk about their problems, whereas men bottle things up so that they grow and grow and they can no longer manage them.
Norman Lamb
I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention. What she says makes sense and I am most grateful to her for coming to my rescue on that—
Simon Hughes
I am always ready to try to rescue, but on this occasion that was not necessary. If sufficient research does not exist on the extent to which people know where to access services, it would be really helpful if the Minister worked with local government and the health and wellbeing boards to try to ensure that such research was carried out. I have a strong feeling that lots of young people, including young men, do not yet know where to go. If they did know, there would be a much better chance that they would do something about their problems and not keep them all inside, with the worst consequences.
Norman Lamb
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is right to say that ensuring that youngsters know exactly where to go to find help is really important. Gaining a better understanding of that must be a priority.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I wish to support the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) a moment ago about the reasons why suicide is more prevalent among men. It was backed up for me by a recent piece of work carried out in my constituency that showed it is much more difficult to get young and middle-aged men to visit a GP or confide in someone about their health problems than to get women to do the same. The work showed exactly the same problem: a lack of willingness to seek out help early enough. That is a major problem and it needs to be dealt with by more education and information, particularly for young men.
Norman Lamb
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that constructive intervention, and he is absolutely right.
The suicide prevention strategy also recognises that the media have a significant influence on what children do and think. As well as promoting responsible reporting in the media, the strategy emphasises the importance of working with the industry to tackle websites that encourage suicide. That is, in a sense, at the heart of the motion and of the points raised by the hon. Member for South Antrim.
Misuse of the internet to encourage vulnerable people to take their own lives is utterly wrong. It is deeply worrying that young people can easily be exposed to such pernicious material, but we should not dismiss the internet as a source only of harmful material. It also provides an opportunity to reach out to vulnerable people who might otherwise refuse support or information, including those young men who might not come forward. It is worth remembering that when used well the internet can be an incredibly valuable way of helping vulnerable people.
Only last week, I convened a meeting bringing together internet security companies, charities and Departments to explore how to protect children and young people from harmful suicide-related internet content. The industry representatives at the meeting told me about some of the good work they are already doing. For instance, McAfee informed me that it has valuable learning to share from its work with the Australian Government on an online safety campaign in schools. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) will be interested to hear about that. McAfee has campaigned to get the message out to schools in Australia so that youngsters have information about how to seek help. There is a lot we can learn from that.
At that meeting—
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; it was terribly rude of me to interrupt and I apologise. Will he reassure us that when he convened that critical meeting with those who provide internet services, representatives from the devolved Administrations and from the Health Departments in Northern Ireland and Scotland were invited to attend? When we debate the United Kingdom, even though we have a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland I like to know, as someone who feels passionately about remaining in the United Kingdom, that we have joined-up government.
Norman Lamb
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. Those representatives were not invited to the meeting, but let me make a clear commitment that we will work with the devolved Administrations. I mentioned that earlier and it is in all our interests that we tackle the problem together.
At that meeting, I urged the security companies, such as McAfee and Symantec, to work collaboratively with interest groups who were present, such as Samaritans and BeatBullying, and internet service providers to sign up to a concordat that would help to speed up the process for reporting harmful content and the blocking of harmful websites. They gave me positive assurances that they would explore such a concordat, and in turn we as a Government would be willing to facilitate and support such an initiative however we can.
The UK Council for Child Internet Safety is already making parental controls more accessible so that children can access less harmful content. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who is the Minister responsible for children and families, will explain more about the work his Department has been doing when he sums up.
As I said at the outset, this is one of the issues that unite us all.
Tracey Crouch
I thank the Minister for giving way, as he has been very generous in doing so. We have heard that there are a host of reasons why people are driven to suicide, one of which is alcohol dependency. Is the suicide prevention strategy working alongside the alcohol strategy so that there is a holistic, joined-up approach to dealing with some of these complex issues?
Norman Lamb
Yes, very much so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. In each area in England, the health and wellbeing boards will be able to co-ordinate all that work. In considering their strategic needs assessments, they will be able to identify issues relating to suicide and alcohol and drug dependency.
I hope that I have satisfied the House that the Government take suicide extremely seriously indeed and that we are taking real action to help. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Antrim for bringing the matter to the House’s attention.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I add my congratulations to those given to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on calling for this debate, along with his colleagues.
This is one of the few opportunities to address this important issue in the Chamber. There have been Adjournment debates and Westminster Hall debates, but a full Chamber debate is not a natural occurrence for this subject, so I very much welcome it. I begin with a quote from a recent inquiry undertaken by the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention. Someone working on suicide prevention in England said:
“So when you are having a discussion”—
as we are today—
“about what does suicide mean, and the numbers are very small compared to smoking or obesity, what is this about, well our deaths by suicide show…the ultimate loss of hope, the ultimate loss of meaning of purpose, yet they are an indicator. They may be small numbers, but they have a very big ripple impact and they are an indicator of what is happening further down that pyramid.”
This debate, as has been said, is timely, because of the publication of statistics by the Office for National Statistics which show that there has been an increase in suicides in the United Kingdom. In 2011, there were 6,045 suicides—an increase of 7.8% on the previous year. Across the United Kingdom, suicides have increased at different levels. In Wales last year, there was an 18.4% increase, and in Scotland, a 13.8% increase. However, Scotland has changed the data on which it bases its statistics, and it argues that if it had not changed statistical gathering information and the classification of deaths by alcohol, there would have been a small decrease.
In Northern Ireland, the figure is down slightly by 7.7%, from 313 to 289 deaths from suicide, but in 2009, it was as low as 260, so over that period there was an increase. In England, however, there is a 7.4% increase, but the figure varies across the country. In the south-east, it is 6%, but in the north-west, it is 9.3%, which will be of particular interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The highest risk group—and there has been a lot of talk about young people, particularly young men—is men aged 30 to 44, with 23.5 deaths per 100,000. The 45 to 59 age group has the highest rate of suicides among women, and there is also an increase in deaths for men in that group.
When the ONS says there has been a significant increase, it means that we can be 95% confident that the increase has occurred because of an underlying reason, and not just by chance. Our job is to look at that underlying reason. What is driving these increases?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that when Members and others deal with families who are trying to come to terms with a suicide, very often there is a lack of help when those families try to identify within the family circle a behavioural change and problem that led up to the suicide? Sometimes they are racked with guilt because they cannot identify the problems that ultimately led to the suicide. Perhaps that is where attention and resource can be deployed.
Mrs Moon
I apologise to the House. I have lost a contact lens, and I have to wear spectacles. I cannot read my papers when I am wearing them, and I cannot see all hon. Members in the Chamber when I take them off. If I am not wearing them, hon. Members must alert me if they wish to intervene.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Families tear themselves apart over the question of why. They try to analyse behaviour, particularly in the weeks leading up to the death, to seek an understanding of it. Only if there is a suicide autopsy can one begin to look at the reasons behind a death. That is a complicated procedure that cannot be carried out for every death, but it can give some understanding of the wider reasons behind such deaths. I totally agree that the distress for families as to why the suicide has happened is horrific.
That is why the research to which we have access is important. Haw, Hawton, Gunnell and Platt found that the economic recession had a clear impact on suicide. However, the increase in the suicide rate may be offset by adequate welfare benefits; their finding was very clear on that. Other measures likely to reduce the impact of recession included targeted intervention for the unemployed and membership of social organisations. They found that responsible media reporting was also important. Research at the university of Liverpool found that more than 1,000 people took their own lives during the 2008-10 economic recession in the United Kingdom.
There are ways in which we can begin to look at some of the problems that are staring us in the face and that may be causing some of the increase that is becoming apparent. Suicides began to rise in the UK in 2008, following 20 years of decline. Figures rose almost 8% among men and 9% among women in 2008, compared with 2007. The figures reflect the increased effect of the recession. I want to reiterate that research has found that there are risks associated with failure to provide adequate welfare benefits. There are currently high levels of distress and hopelessness caused by the changes in benefit that are about to come into force.
Jim Shannon
I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that the Prince’s Trust recently released figures which show that one in four of those who are in work are almost always or very often depressed. Among those who are unemployed the rate rises as high as 50%. Does she feel there should be a focus on young people, who are suffering more than most? Her colleague—I cannot remember his constituency—had an Adjournment debate in the Chamber on that very topic and he highlighted the issue as well.
Mrs Moon
The figures show that the increased number of deaths are among an older group of men, largely those who have not experienced unemployment before, who find unemployment very difficult to deal with and who despair about being able to maintain their family lifestyle, pay their bills and see a future where they can again be economically successful. We must be careful that those who are unemployed and who need to survive on benefits for however short a period are not made to feel failures, a burden on the state or pariahs in our society.
I know that Ministers will probably argue that the Government are doing wonderful things in relation to benefits but the Office for National Statistic figures highlight a very worrying trend. I hope there will be discussions between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health to highlight the importance of Jobcentre Plus staff in particular being aware of claimants coming in who may well be suffering from depression and exhibiting signs of hopelessness and despair, and being able to take suitable preventive action.
Although the numbers are small compared with cancer, heart disease and dementia, suicide is a reflection of the overall health of a country and a community, and the ripple effects on the health of those impacted by it are very great. Other Members have spoken about the impact on families, but communities, schools and workplaces are also affected. There is an impact on people who have known the individual and people who identify themselves with that individual, which is where the risk is most dangerous.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
May I return to my hon. Friend’s point about the age profile of recent suicide victims? In going through the research, has she found that, in particular, men of a certain age, perhaps in their late 40s or early 50s, who have young children and who suddenly and unexpectedly lose their job, lose their self-esteem and cannot reposition themselves in what has traditionally been the caring-for-children role in the family setting? Does she think that there is a role for providing support to such people in regaining their self-esteem and repositioning themselves in order to get across to them that they have value in their new position, even if they do not get back their previous one, and to get them back on to a positive track rather than a downward spiral towards possible suicide?
Mrs Moon
My hon. Friend asks a complicated question. The research that I have looked at has considered the impact of suicide figures in recessions, not only in the UK but across the world, and it goes back in time to look at the great depression and recession that we had in the 1930s. As far as I am aware, no work has been done, certainly by that research group, on the impact on men’s self-esteem in assuming a caring role and responsibility within the family. Should I come across it, I will certainly pass it his way.
Last year, the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention, which I chair, considered a number of issues that we have to address in relation to suicide. Every meeting brings the best authorities that we can find into the corridors of Westminster to explain and talk about the work that they are doing.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the excellent work that she does in her all-party group. Has it looked into the specific issue of suicide in Her Majesty’s prisons and young offender institutions? Coming from a legal background, as I do, I am aware of that issue and wonder whether she has any observations to make about it.
Mrs Moon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have not yet looked at that issue, but I pay close attention to it because I have Parc prison in my constituency. I hope at some point to secure an Adjournment debate on work that people are doing there on the Invisible Walls project, which builds and re-establishes links between prisoners and their families—their partners and children—because the best sense of rehabilitation that can be given to someone serving a sentence is the feeling that there is hope for a family life once they leave prison. That extremely important work is one of the ways we could focus on improving outcomes for people once they leave prison.
Bob Stewart
I suspect that the most vulnerable people are those who leave prison without a place to go to, in much the same way as, in my experience, soldiers who leave the armed forces go back to nothing if they have no family. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must take a great deal of interest in the people who have nothing, when they have a break from routine, such as leaving prison or the armed forces?
Mrs Moon
The Ministry of Defence commissioned a study by Dr Nav Kapur of Manchester university on suicide in the armed forces. He found that the largest number of suicides were by young people leaving the armed forces, usually without having completed their basic training or shortly after they had passed it. Further research is needed to confirm this, but the indications were that there was a feeling of hopelessness with regard to attempts to build a family in the armed forces, that a sense of success and of identity had been lost, and that that was perhaps one of the motivations towards suicide. Additional funding is needed for that research to be completed, but that was the outcome of the best study that I have seen so far of suicide in the armed forces.
The all-party group has discussed how coroners record suicide and the importance of accurate suicide reporting. I cannot stress that enough. One of the problems is narrative verdicts, which were introduced as an addition to a statutory verdict. If someone died in the custody of the Crown, for example, they allowed for a narrative of that death to teach lessons about how it had happened. Instead, however, they have replaced the verdict and become a verdict in their own right. Often, the death of someone who takes their own life by tying a ligature around their neck is not recorded as a suicide, because the appropriate word has not been used. The Ministry of Justice needs to work on this area. I know that it is doing so and I hope to meet the chief coroner soon to see how we can make progress.
Mark Durkan
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The number of narrative verdicts in England is growing. One of the ways in which they are avoided in Northern Ireland is the decision taken five years ago by the coroners service not to hold inquests on suicides, but to just record them and not put the families through an inquest unless the public interest or another family requirement demands it. That means that there has been more sensitivity than the false sensitivity accorded to narrative verdicts, which then lead to flawed statistics.
Mrs Moon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was not aware of that development in Northern Ireland, and I would like to spend some time examining it. The root trauma for many families who have experienced such a death is sometimes renewed, along with the publicity, up to a year later, which makes it very difficult for them to cope and which sets them back in the progress that they have made in grieving. Many have found it extremely difficult, so I will look at the information he provides, for which I thank him.
The all-party group has looked at the cross-Government strategy to prevent suicide in England. I will come back to that later, because it is a most important issue. We have also looked at suicide and bereavement. We talked to a number of families who have been bereaved by suicide and every one of them mentioned the importance of a Department of Health document called, “Help is at Hand”. Sadly, many Members do not know about this fantastic resource; it is not appropriately distributed and many families never get access to it. We have to find a way of getting that booklet out to people. The Welsh Assembly is looking to translate it and produce a Welsh language edition for Wales. We are also considering whether coroners and the police force would be appropriate groups to distribute that information.
We have also looked at the impact of police investigations. As Members will be aware, when a sudden death is reported, the police investigate initially under the murder manual. Families are therefore further traumatised by the feeling that they are under suspicion for the death. Once it is decided that it is a suicide, the police sometimes walk away and the family are left with no help or support and no sense of where they are supposed to go.
A suicide death is a lonely death because people stay away; they do not know what to say or how to approach the family. Often, the support that families desperately need is not there. That isolation and lack of information add to the risk of further suicides. It is important that people have ongoing support from within their community and from statutory services to see them through the grieving process.
We have also looked at the use of sport to reach out to young men. This point refers back to the question asked by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) about the deaths of young men. It is important to give young men role models who have had difficulties in their life and who have contemplated suicide, despite success. Sports personalities have been particularly effective. We spoke with Ernie Benbow from State of Mind Rugby and Greg Burgess, the Choose Life co-ordinator for north Lancashire. They demonstrated how successful the use of sportsmen had been.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady’s eyesight is better than she thinks. Does she agree that TV soaps can play a key role in highlighting the issue of suicide and prevent viewers from committing suicide?
Mrs Moon
I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is a risk in how suicide scenes are written in soaps. There have been incidents in which a death by suicide in a soap opera has led to copycats and social contagion. The writing must be extremely careful. I know that many soap opera writers take their responsibility extremely seriously because they are aware of that risk.
There has been much talk about recipe websites. This week is internet safety week. It is extremely important that every Member of this House goes into schools in their area and talks to young people about staying safe on the internet. I went to Bryntirion junior school in my constituency last week and I asked a group of youngsters how many of them had ever received offensive material on the internet and how many of them had felt frightened, bullied or scared by what they saw. Every hand in the class went up. That is a world that we all escaped, but it is our duty to build awareness and protection in that world.
The work of the Samaritans is second to none. I want to highlight the work that it has done with British Transport police and Network Rail on the prevention of suicide on the railways. They have identified areas that have particular problems and trained their staff to be highly vigilant. They now provide support to people who enter their railway stations if they feel that there is a risk. That is a fantastic move forward.
I want to consider briefly the impact that the health and social care changes will have on the new suicide prevention plan for England. The all-party group carried out an inquiry into that. We issued a call for evidence that went out to all local authorities and directors of public health, via primary care trusts, local authorities and PCT clusters. That was followed by four evidence sessions in which we took evidence from representatives of the devolved nations, six areas of England and the voluntary sector.
The report concluded that the future of local suicide prevention plans in England depends on leadership and local champions, the identification of suicide prevention as a priority, availability of resources, and the long-term survival of suicide prevention groups already in place. The future of local suicide prevention plans in England is fragile and often relies on committed and dedicated individuals. That such plans are not a statutory requirement of the new national suicide prevention strategy is a major barrier to their survival, and that is particularly true when entering a time of restricted spending within local authorities. If something is not a statutory responsibility, often it will be bypassed or shelved.
There is no guarantee that health and wellbeing boards will address suicide prevention, or that existing plans will survive or be replaced. What will happen in areas where there is no suicide prevention plan and no history of taking an interest in the issue? In areas with no local champion, suicide prevention might be overlooked completely. We are talking about a suicide prevention postcode lottery, which is, in part, reflected in figures that show increases in suicide, differentiated across the United Kingdom.
There is no formal mechanism in the suicide prevention plan for England for suicide prevention groups to report directly to health and wellbeing boards. Without such a link, suicide prevention might not reach the agencies, and groups will be working in isolation, undermining their value and jeopardising their future. Engagement with the police, GPs and coroners is vital, yet in many areas such engagement is poor, patchy and inconsistent. Self-harm prevention and specialist bereavement services remain poor in many areas of the country.
Evidence from Northern Ireland demonstrates the importance of involving community organisations and the voluntary sector in suicide prevention. The existence of suicide prevention implementation groups in every locality was critical to Northern Ireland’s success and ensures that suicide prevention is not left to chance. The leadership at Government level highlighted by the hon. Member for South Antrim is also critical. Northern Ireland is making a difference.
In Wales, sadly, ministerial statements allocating responsibility for suicide planning were not published, and mandates were passed to local authorities but not implemented. That highlights the importance of national leadership, which comes up time and again in ensuring consistent implementation and showing what can result where no suicide prevention plan is in place. My local authority in Bridgend, however, is an exemplar of best practice and best planning. It learned a salutary lesson of the importance of such planning, which it now does excellently.
Evidence from Scotland highlighted the strength of a co-ordinated national approach to implementation—the Choose Life strategy—with the appointment of a co-ordinator in every local authority together with national funding and national leadership. The Minister of State, Department of Health, kindly gave an address at the launch of the report by the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention, and has agreed to respond to that on behalf of the Government.
Health and wellbeing boards need direction because otherwise we will end up with a hotchpotch of disorganised and unconnected policies, many of which have no evidence base. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is commissioning guidance for commissioners of self-harm services, and perhaps the Department of Health could look at doing the same for suicide prevention.
Workers in the field of suicide prevention are dedicated and committed, but isolated. Our inquiries showed the need to share best practice nationally, and in the near future we hope to hold a conference in the House of Commons to facilitate networking so best practice can be shared and so that we do not constantly expect people to reinvent the wheel. We will go back and look later at the effect of the suicide prevention plan for England and the impact of the reorganisation in England.
I mentioned briefly the importance of not linking suicide just to mental health services. The Appleby report of 1999 suggested that 75% of those who commit suicide are not known to services. That is important. We must not always look for a mental health link. If we do so, we will neglect to provide services that address a large number of people who take their own lives.
The debate is important. Suicide reflects on society as a whole. It can affect any hon. Member and any family. As the hon. Member for South Antrim has said, it can affect people whether they are rich, poor, successful, young or old. The sad tragedy that unites them all is that they are lives wasted, and lives we should set out to save.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The debate will finish at 5.55 pm and the two Front Benchers still have their winding-up speeches to make. Will hon. Members therefore be mindful when they are making their contributions so we can get everybody in?
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and all Democratic Unionist party Members for bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House. I am sure they were tempted to debate many other issues, but it is important that we discuss suicide prevention, which is a crucial but difficult issue.
Yesterday, I spoke of some of the most difficult times in my life. I was lucky to have the support of a loving family and great friends, but many unfortunately do not have that. Before being elected, I worked in the hospice movement. In that time, I got to know a lot of the patients well, and, sadly, death became a norm—I did not want to use that word, but I am sure hon. Members understand what I am getting at. Bereavement is always difficult, but suicide bereavement is a different type of bereavement altogether.
Sadly, I say that from personal experience. When I was in the sixth form, I remember vividly walking in and a friend saying to me, “Have you heard about that boy?”—I will not mention his name. He had taken his own life because he had been bullied at school. I remember all the students sitting in the common room in complete and utter shock. All I could think about were the questions going around in my head. What could I have done? Why did I not spot that he was in that difficult place? If I am honest, those questions still haunt me today. In more recent times—since I have been elected as a Member of Parliament—there was the very sad case in my constituency of a father who killed his entire family and then himself.
The suicides I have seen and experienced have had a tremendous effect on the people who are left behind. That is why the debate is important, but more importantly we should act and not just talk about suicide. We must also start right at the beginning and change people’s attitudes. How many times have hon. Members been on a train that has been delayed because somebody has taken their life, and the instinct of some passengers is to moan about the delay, forgetting that somebody has lost their life?
Hon. Members have spoken a lot about attitudes to mental health. I am very proud of the fact that a lot of work has been done in the Chamber to address that. It is a good start to try and take away that stigma. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who have spoken openly about their own personal battles. As hon. Members have said, however, suicide is a much wider subject than just mental health; it can be about finance, careers or family breakdown. It is important that we address all those issues, which is why I welcome the fact that the suicide prevention strategy is in place. It is important that the strategy is not just a piece of paper; it has to be backed up by action, and it is good to see that happening. Crucially, it is partly about identifying the risks.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. In January, suicide-proof fencing was installed at a multi-storey car park in Nelson in my constituency, from which eight people have died in the past 10 years and a further 18 people have had to be talked down by police. I raised this issue on the Floor of the House in October 2010 in an Adjournment debate led by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), yet it still took the car park owners years to act. In addition to what my hon. Friend is saying, does he agree that businesses have a key role to play in identifying risks?
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right: we need to do everything we can—talking to individuals themselves or lessening the risks—to identify those areas. A lot of work has been done in the prison system to try to improve cells to reduce risks. Businesses also have an important role to play.
It is important that the strategy targets specific groups who we know may be vulnerable. Targeting young people will be important, because we want to change attitudes in the future. We also have to look at why so many young men are committing suicide. We have been talking about mental health, but let us face it: men are not very good at talking, and that is part of the problem. As we move into the digital age and we all spend so much time on our computers, being used to talking with others will lessen over time. I fear that we will have a generation who will be even worse than the current one in talking about their problems.
Improving access to “talking therapies”, the strategy’s four-year plan, and expanding it to all ages and different groups, is important. From my own experience, I know that we need to ensure that there is as much work on school intervention as possible to deal with bullying and violence. We must allow people to talk about the threats they feel, whether they are sexual abuse or bullying at home. We also have to remove barriers for people who are disabled, or who have mental health or other long-term conditions. We want to make them feel that they can play a full role in our society and do not become isolated.
Areas that require emphasis have been highlighted by a constituent of mine. I pay tribute to Mike Bush. He and I are unlikely friends. He describes himself as “red socialist”, but he and I have become very good friends and I have a huge amount of respect for him. He has done tremendous work in this field and is an active member of the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. On many occasions, he has highlighted the importance of working with bereaved families. I welcome the fact that the strategy gives greater prominence to measures that support those families; being there and helping them to cope with a family member whom they are worried might commit suicide, and helping them cope with the aftermath of someone who has committed suicide.
Getting better information through the research that is being offered can only be a good thing, but the emphasis must be on support, and I completely agree with the hon. Member for Bridgend that we need to ensure good national provision. We need to ensure that suicide prevention measures are available in every part of our country. In particular, bereavement support needs a suicide angle to it, because it really is very different. In my time at the hospice, I saw how fragmented bereavement services were around the country, but specific suicide bereavement support is even more fragmented.
I hope that as the strategy develops we will continue to work with the many wonderful organisations we have in this country, many of which have been mentioned today, such as the Samaritans. The APPG is a great start, bringing together a coalition of organisations with a wealth of experience, but it is also important that we listen to family groups that have been through this dreadful experience. What makes Martin House children’s hospice such a wonderful organisation is that it is parent-led. The parents describe the care they need, and that is why it can offer such wonderful support. In the same way, the best strategy for dealing with suicide will come from those families who have experienced it.
We need action on cyber-bullying. Bullying has existed in schools for many years, but it has taken on a different form now. People can be bullied at school, but when they get home it continues through the social networking sites and the computers in their bedrooms. In a sense, these children and young people are suffering from a silent bully. The suicide websites have been touched on. We must do more to close them down completely.
I hope that we can offer further training for organisations and—perhaps—the police in helping them to deliver that bad news. I have had several constituents tell me that they almost felt sorry for the police officer delivering the news because it was so difficult. It is important that these organisations be aware of the wealth of information out there. I am glad that the “Help is at Hand” document has been mentioned, because it is not used enough.
In conclusion, suicide is tragic in every sense: the loneliness of the person doing it, the long bereavement for those left behind, the guilt they suffer for years after and the great risk that they themselves might go on to commit suicide. It is crucial that we face this risk. This debate is just the start: let us now address and act on it.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who spoke about the impact that suicide can have. He mentioned a memory of his school days. In preparing for this debate, I, too, reflected on my first acquaintance with suicide. At school one day, we discovered that a chap in my class in the third year had died by suicide. I experienced feelings of absolute bewilderment and shock that someone who had been with us only the previous day—playing a normal role in school and taking part in normal activities—was gone from us. I remember racking my brains and feeling totally bewildered. What had caused it? Were we missing something? That vivid memory, which will never leave me, had an enormous impact on me.
Just today, a friend of mine related to me the sad news of the death by suicide overnight of a mutual acquaintance, and again those feelings of shock and bewilderment came back. I am sure that every hon. Member can relate to this issue in some shape or form. I know that some have experienced personal loss through death by suicide. It is very painful, but it is right that we talk about it, so I am glad of this opportunity to say a few words. Only by highlighting this issue of suicide and talking about its causes and what prompts people to take their own lives can we in some way help others not to go down this path. We need to talk about what we can do in government and society and through working with voluntary community groups to help these vulnerable people.
I want to talk from my perspective as the Member for Belfast North, which has been mentioned a number of times. It has one of the highest suicide rates of any part of the United Kingdom, with 25.2 deaths per 100,000 in the period 2006 to 2011. In the last five-year period for which we have figures, from 2007, that figure crept up to 25.9 per 100,000. As has been said, only the constituency of Belfast West has a higher rate. Those rates are high for Northern Ireland, which has high rates compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I therefore know about this issue from my constituency surgeries, as well as from meetings with the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, Edwin Poots, from delegations that I have led of families bereaved by suicide and from my work with groups such as PIPS, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) mentioned—I commend him on his excellent speech in introducing this debate—and others that do such tremendous work in Belfast North. They include Lighthouse, FASA—the Forum for Action on Substance Abuse—and many other charities and Churches.
Those working in such organisations do enormously dedicated work in difficult circumstances, often volunteering and bearing a great emotional burden every day, as they cope with young people, middle-aged people and older people who are going through difficult times, as well as counselling and helping in a practical way families who have been bereaved. This work takes a great toll on the volunteers and others working in such organisations. I commend them publicly for the work they do on behalf of us all.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I have similar organisations in my constituency doing the kind of work the right hon. Gentleman describes. One of the questions they are asked by many relatives is: “What did we do wrong?”, which is a very difficult issue to deal with.
Mr Dodds
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When I speak to people working in those organisations, I am told that this issue comes up time and time again. It is very difficult to give answers to families who are struggling to cope with the nature of the passing of their loved one. Often it is hard to find any answer that can satisfy—it is just not possible to do that—but in the long run, the work these organisations do provides enormous consolation, help and support. The work of the Samaritans has been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) mentioned Papyrus, and there are many, many others. It is right to put on record our tremendous debt to such organisations and the people who do such tremendous work.
The new suicide prevention strategy, which was launched in September 2012 here in England and Wales, is excellent. The chair of the advisory group, Professor Appleby, who has been mentioned, has said:
“Suicide does not have one cause—many factors combine to produce an individual tragedy.”
Therefore,
“Prevention too must be broad—communities, families and front-line services all have a vital role.”
That is absolutely right, and that is why our motion today talks about government, community and society—all of us—working together to try to prevent suicide. The Samaritans chief executive, Catherine Johnstone, has made an important point—I suppose this sums up what we are trying to get at today—which is that
“suicide can be prevented by making sure people get support when they need it, how they need it and where they need it.”
We know that that is very difficult and complicated to put into practice, because as has been said—the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned this and the Minister reiterated it—75% of those who die by suicide were not known by, or in contact with, social services. This is not just a simple matter of saying that it is about people who are having mental health problems and who are known to the various agencies; that is often not the case at all.
As I have said, we have a particular problem in Northern Ireland, where death by suicide has gone up by 100% in less than 15 years. Some 300 people each year are dying by suicide in the Province, with men three times more likely to die in that way than females. I shall discuss some of the reasons for men being more prone to taking their lives and for their reticence in coming forward.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked the Minister a question about the amount of money that was being spent. I am glad to say that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland has spent £32 million over the past six years on suicide prevention under the Protect Life strategy. That money has been extremely helpful, and it has been well spent on helping some of the groups that I have mentioned.
Of course, money can do only so much, because of the broad range of reasons that lie behind suicide. I will not go over all the issues that have been mentioned, but I will deal with one or two of them. As well as social isolation, there is the problem of drug misuse, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned. In Rathcool and elsewhere in my constituency, good work is being done to try to reach young people with drug problems and to counter those problems. We are finding that a lot of young men—again, it is particularly young men—who get themselves into that situation end up attempting to commit suicide or actually dying by suicide. Problems with alcohol abuse are also a factor.
I also want to draw attention to a piece of research recently carried out by Mike Tomlinson of the school of sociology at Queen’s university. The key finding of his study entitled “War, peace and suicide: the case of Northern Ireland” was that
“the cohort of children and young people who grew up in the worst years of violence…have the highest and most rapidly increasing suicide rates”.
Those generations were the most acculturated to division and conflict, and to externalised expressions of aggression. The report continues:
“The transition to peace means that externalized aggression is no longer socially approved. It becomes internalized instead.”
My constituency of Belfast North probably suffered more than any other constituency in Northern Ireland—that could be true of Belfast West as well, but I can speak only for my constituency—during the period euphemistically known as the troubles. That was a heinous, horrible period of our history, with its violence, blood-letting, murder and mayhem. Today in Belfast North, and in Belfast West, we are still paying the price for that period of violence and bloodshed. Young men and women are still dying, as are middle-aged men and women, as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland. Nowadays, they are dying not as a result of murders committed by paramilitaries, but as a direct result of the troubles because, having been brought up in a culture of violence, they cannot cope in this period of relative peace.
Bob Stewart
Is the despair of some of those people accelerated by the fact that they are lonely? Does the fact that they are away from their families and from society, for example, act as a catalyst? Does their loneliness gear up the despair that makes them take their own lives?
Mr Dodds
It is difficult to be too specific, as every individual’s case is different. Undoubtedly, however, one of the biggest factors, particularly in my constituency, is loneliness and isolation, along with drugs and alcohol. That combination, together with the context in which people have grown up, can often become a too powerful and overwhelming set of circumstances with which to cope.
Particular issues, then, arise in Northern Ireland and my constituency, and they might be different from many cases in England, Wales and Scotland. We have this added problem and pressure of coming out of the period of awful violence that we suffered. Only today, as we look back at the research and work done, do people realise that that period was so awful that we are still living with the consequences. Indeed, people are still dying, even today, as a result of what happened in that period. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) talked about the experience of soldiers—he was right to highlight that—and it applies to people who served in the security forces, too.
On the issue of how this affects family members, I am thinking particularly of a dear lady who had lost a number of her family members, including two children, to suicide. She told me that she feared for other members of her family because of the increasing prevalence of family members copying what other family members or their close friends had done. The problem is exacerbated not only by sites on the web that encourage suicide but even by Facebook, when an insidious form of peer pressure can be applied.
Mr Dodds
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and some families have told me that they dread an anniversary coming up. They sometimes sit up for days on end watching over their loved one in case something happens. They are very aware of this problem as anniversaries are approached.
I want to mention the excellent work done by the integrated services for children and young people programme on the Shankill road in my constituency. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland visited that project just last week, and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who I am pleased to see in his place on the Front Bench, has also visited the Spectrum centre in the Shankill, and is aware of the great work done by Nicola Verner and others. Immensely important work is being done trying to help families that have all sorts of problems and needs. Intervention at an early stage is carried out, helping and supporting families as youngsters go through school and into the teenage years. Excellent work is being done by many organisations, much of it helped by Government. We just want to see that work consolidated and, if possible, increased.
I am conscious that other Members want to contribute, so I shall make my last point. A number of families raised with me the point that when young people go to an accident or emergency centre or to their GP and are concerned about their state of mind and vulnerability, it would be a good idea for them to have somewhere like a place of safety—somewhere they can go to and be put in contact with others who understand what they are going through. They should not just be given a piece of paper as a prescription and told to come back in a week’s time. They need somewhere to go to where they can talk to people; that is vital. I commend the Minister from the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for taking this issue on board.
Mrs Moon
One of the most helpful developments has been the engagement of the Samaritans in A and E departments. That has really made a difference, especially in self-harm cases. Where the nursing staff might be too busy to give up time, the Samaritans might be able to provide that time and support, which would be an excellent move forward.
Mr Dodds
I agree. That shows the importance of the excellent work the hon. Lady does as part of the all-party suicide prevention group to share best practice, as there are bound to be lessons we can learn from each other.
I commend the work that is being done. The Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Edwin Poots, has taken a close personal interest in the issue. He recently held a workshop for workers in the community and voluntary sector, and he has also met a number of family support groups. He has tried hard to raise the profile of this issue. It is now taken very seriously across the board in Northern Ireland—by all the political parties, and in the community and voluntary sector—and I think it important for Members to take the opportunity to highlight it here as well. It is one of the biggest problems that we face, certainly in my constituency.
I commend and thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, and all those, in my constituency and elsewhere, who are dedicated to trying to prevent suicide.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on opening the debate so ably. As we have heard, suicide is a particular problem in Northern Ireland, but the problem exists throughout the British Isles. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on their extremely thoughtful contributions.
It is easy to blanket a debate on suicide in sociology jargon, but the truth is that, while any death in a family is tragic, there is something about suicide that is uniquely tragic. I say that as a mother. It must always leave family members asking themselves, “Is there something that I could have done? Were there signs that I could have noticed?” If suicide is a cry for help, family members must be left asking themselves until the end of their lives, “Why did I not hear that cry in the first place?” There is certainly something peculiarly tragic about suicide.
Of course, the individual causes of any particular suicide are never straightforward, and they are certainly not amenable to any top-down, one-size-fits-all, command-and-control solution, but I think it is agreed across the House that positive changes in society can make a difference to individual lives, and that we can offer even better support to bereaved families.
We know that suicide is not just a matter of mental health; however, it is related to mental health issues. I stress that Labour is committed to tackling the stigma attached to mental illness. One in four of us will suffer a mental illness at some point in our lives, and, as has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the leader of my party, mental illness
“is the biggest unaddressed health challenge of our age.”
I should be grateful if Ministers could give me some assurances about mental health spending. According to some indicators, it has been cut in real terms. It is difficult to develop an effective suicide prevention strategy unless the basic spending is there.
I think that, once we have cut through the sociological jargon, it is clear that the recently rising levels of suicide must be related to the fragmentation of families and societies. Once upon a time, a generation ago, young people could reasonably expect to live in the same street as their mothers and other relatives, or around the corner from them. Young men growing up could reasonably expect a secure job, probably the same as that done by their fathers, and perhaps, in some parts of the country, in the place where many members of their community worked. That increasing fragmentation of families and societies—which is not the fault of any political party or any Government, but is partly due to the nature of the society we live in and to globalisation—must lead to less resilience in families and communities, and must make the issue of suicide more pressing.
As Members will have heard, the latest suicide figures issued by the Office for National Statistics for England and Wales show an increase in the number of people who have taken their own lives. In particular, there appears to have been a significant increase between 2010 and 2011. As we heard in a number of contributions, historically more men complete suicide attempts. We have also heard interesting contributions about the rise of cyber-bullying triggering suicide. There was a very sad case here in London a few weeks ago. A girl committed suicide because she was very upset about the pictures of herself in a compromising position that were going around via mobile phones and on the internet. We have also heard about the particular problems of suicide in prisons and young offenders institutions.
Some Members tentatively tried to explore why men are three times more likely than women to take their own lives. In England, for men under 35 suicide is the second most common cause of death, and that is clearly a particular issue in Northern Ireland. In the 1990s, suicide rates for young men aged 15 to 24 reached an all-time high. They were at the highest levels since the 1920s. Research by both the British Medical Journal and Mind found that during times of recession the mental health of men is put at particular risk. Mind’s YouGov survey found that almost 40% of men are worried or low at present, and the top three issues playing on their minds are job security, work and money. The report identifies unemployment as increasing the risk of suicide among men under 35; young men who took their own lives often did so in their period of worklessness. The chief executive of Mind, Paul Farmer, has said:
“The recession is clearly having a detrimental impact on the nation’s mental health but men in particular are struggling with the emotional impact. Being a breadwinner is something that is still crucial to the male psyche so if a man loses his job he loses a large part of his identity putting his mental wellbeing in jeopardy. The problem is that too many men wrongly believe that admitting mental distress makes them weak and this kind of self stigma can cost lives.”
The reasons for committing suicide are complex and often very individual, but the tough economic climate and social factors such as insecurities around work and housing, social isolation and substance misuse are felt particularly strongly by young and middle-aged men. For many middle-aged men, financial problems or redundancy can cause feelings of shame and hopelessness, and can feel impossible to overcome.
Young men and women of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community have not yet been mentioned in our debate. The Stonewall survey found that 50% of LGBT young men and women had attempted self-harm. We need to look at the particular needs of that group, both in relation to mental health and suicide and self-harm.
The Government have published a strategy called “Preventing suicide in England—a cross-government outcomes strategy to save lives”. It has two key aims: to reduce the suicide rate in England, and to support people better who have been bereaved or affected by suicide. However, the strategy does not make specific recommendations, so in the reorganised system it will be up to clinical commissioning groups and local directors of public health to take action in local areas. I hope this debate will serve to flag up the widespread concern that is felt about this. There is also an issue to do with spending.
Let me say a few words about Labour’s record on mental health. We made important progress on mental health, with the national service framework early on and then the improving access to psychological therapies programme towards the end of our time in office. Along with cancer and coronary heart disease, we made mental health one of our top three clinical priorities, and by 2007 we were spending more than £1 billion more on mental health services than in 2001, which is a real-terms increase of 25%. However, we believe there was more we could have done, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has taken up this issue strongly. There is no question but that if we have an impact on mental health issues, we also have an impact on the problem of suicide.
Labour would like to see more work done on internet safety, to bear down both on internet bullying and on sites that, tragically, help young people to find out about suicide and may well encourage copycat suicides. We want to rewrite the NHS constitution to give patients the same legal rights to therapies for treating mental illnesses as they already have for drug treatment and treatments for physical illness. We want to ensure that training for all professional staff in the NHS includes dealing with mental health issues. If we are to meet the mental health challenge, and so meet the challenge of dealing with increasing levels of suicide, we have to realise that it is not just an issue for the NHS; we have to bring together public services, such as education and the police, to work with business and employers. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has announced the formation of a taskforce to draw up a strategic plan for mental health, which will be chaired by Stephen O’Brien, a good friend of mine and the chairman of Barts and the London NHS Trust.
We have heard about the particular problem in Northern Ireland, and it is sad to think that a generation are living almost with a traumatic disorder in the aftermath of the troubles. Again, I congratulate my friends from the Democratic Unionist party on bringing this issue to the Floor of the House in the British Parliament so that we can put it in the wider context and understand the tragedy.
Every suicide is an individual tragedy. Every person who commits suicide is not amenable to anything that government might do; we will always find that two people—two men or two young women—may be almost exactly the same but when faced with precisely the same circumstances they will choose a different path. There is nothing government can do about that, but we can do something about the therapies and mental health services available. We can do something to support and sustain families. When I say “families”, I do not just mean a man and a woman with a certificate and 2.2 children; I mean the many varied patterns of family we find in our society. We can do more to support families and communities. In particular, we can do more to support grieving families, and we can do our best as a House to ensure that, day by day, year by year, fewer people in the British isles feel that they have nothing worth living for.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is good to follow the excellent speech by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). A number of points have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members about the whole issue of suicide. The overall figures are a startling reminder of just how serious that subject is in society today. In the whole of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—6,045 people died from suicide in 2011. In Northern Ireland, the level of suicide has increased, with about 4,000 people having committed suicide between 2000 and the end of 2012. It is estimated that the final figure for 2012 will show that close to 300 people died last year in Northern Ireland through suicide. In the first nine months, the figure was 223 and it is estimated that it will reach 300 when the final analysis has been done. Those are startling figures.
The awful impact of suicide on families has been mentioned numerous times, and we cannot mention it enough. It is horrific when we, as elected Members, have to go to homes and give our sympathy to those who have lost loved ones—a child or an older person—through suicide. We mean well as we go to pay our respects, but we can walk out of the house again and go back to spend time with our families whereas those people must live with the impact day in, day out. People ask questions, as we heard earlier, such as, “Why did it happen? Why did we not see something that would have shown us that there were problems or that there was an issue that we could have dealt with?” Those questions linger for years; they never leave those people, who think that there must surely have been something they could have done to prevent the suicide. Nothing in life is too serious for us not to sit down and talk about it and not to try to resolve it. The individual who died through suicide might have found that the issues were not as big as they originally thought if they had only sat down and talked to someone about them.
In my constituency of Upper Bann, we have had our share of deaths of younger and older people through suicide. From memory, I would say that the youngest person to die through suicide in my constituency was 12 years of age. That was a very difficult home to go to and we must ask what would make a 12-year-old do that. There must have been something traumatic in that child’s life to make them do what they did, and the mark left on the family has been horrific.
Many organisations across the United Kingdom deal with the issue and offer a lot of counselling. We have a number of them in my constituency. One that I deal with a lot is Yellow Ribbon, run by Dr Arthur Cassidy and a group of fantastic volunteers. I spoke to him earlier this week and over the past two years the organisation has counselled almost 400 people in my area. Its office is in the town of Portadown and many of those who have gone through its doors were referred by their GPs. The organisation has done a lot of work with young people and older people; it has a great passion for the people in the area and it has tried to help to the best of its ability.
As I said, Dr Cassidy is helped by a group of volunteers, and finance is very hard for them. The organisation is run mostly on donations from families, churches and other such organisations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned that some £30 million has been given to organisations that deal with the issues surrounding suicide, and although a large amount of money has been poured in, the situation is worsening in Northern Ireland. That is very, very worrying. Reference has been made to the legacy of the troubles and the difficulties in the Province. Another generation is emerging that is living with what has happened in the past. Perhaps their parents died in the same way, and it is a copycat: people are trying to copy what has happened. That is an awful blight on society.
Dr Cassidy’s organisation counsels many people, and he does not believe that counselling is working as it ought to work. Perhaps we have to think outside the box and come up with more innovative ways of trying to help people and identify the issues that they face. When he talks to those people, he finds that they have very low self-esteem. Men who have worked for 25 or 30 years in one job are paid off and feel that they are not worth anything. They feel that the family would be better off without them, then tragedy strikes. That is the way it happens. When it does, they believe that it will solve an issue for them, but unfortunately it leaves a major problem for the families who are left to pick up the pieces.
The economic crisis that we are going through is a difficult time. Only at the weekend, I spoke to families who are finding it so hard to make ends meet that in the week at the end of the month when they have to pay their mortgage—if they do not, they could go into arrears and lose their home—they do not buy groceries or food to feed the family. In society as a whole, life has become more difficult. Those of us who are in jobs and enjoy the benefits of work may not see it as much, but people who are out of work and who have lost benefits and so on are going through a difficult time.
We need more innovative thinking, and we need to see whether we can help young people and get them into work projects and youth clubs, and help them to meet other young people. We have a lot of work ahead of us to do.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and his colleagues on giving the House the opportunity to discuss this very important issue, which, as we have heard, touches many people in many ways, and in ways that they find hard to express or represent. For all the reasons that we understand, it is important that we in the House—again, in our own inadequate and inarticulate way—not only try to express our feelings and represent the feelings of those who have lost people through suicide, but try to feel our way towards some sort of policy answer and structural response to a very serious problem that is growing in many ways.
It is not just because the statistics are better collated that we can say that the problem is growing. There are issues, and people can analyse and compare the different statistical bases over the years. It is a problem that has gradually been able to express itself a bit more. Reference has been made to the fact that it has been a taboo subject. The first time that I heard of suicide was when I was in primary school in the late 1960s, and a family friend committed suicide. She was a great friend of my mother—she was great to all my brothers and sisters whenever we were in her fruit and vegetable shop—and I remember that my mother’s distress as a friend was based not only on all the usual questions that arise from suicide and the loss of a lovely friend. It was also based on the fact that her friend was denied a Christian burial and denied the rites of her own Church. That is what taboo meant then. Luckily, Churches have become more enlightened and many people have helped them to become more enlightened. So we can celebrate the fact that spiritual enlightenment can inform Churches in different ways, and their response to something that they class as a sin can change and develop. That has been very positive and has helped all of us as a community in many ways.
I have found the debate hard. I agreed with many of the points, and I also felt many of the points. I have experienced suicide in my family more than once. I also have experience of suicide by people whom I regard as close—good friends, family friends and so on. All the things that all the right hon. and hon. Members have said are so, so true. We are stuck with that—the questions that will never leave, and the answers that will never come. There are people finding and developing answers, however. Maybe they are not answers to the particular suicide that has grieved me or grieves other members of my family and extended family, but answers as to how we may be able to get on top of the problem and as to how we can avert such tragedy and prevent it from afflicting other people as well.
In many cases some of those answers are being driven by the families and the very people who have experienced suicide, and by the professionals who have witnessed that, provided support and said, “There has to be a better way. There has to be more that we can do. There has to be more that we can do together.” The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) referred to the work of the all-party group and the report. I do not speak often at the all-party group, for reasons that people will understand; I find it hard to contain my emotions on these things. One thing struck me as I was listening to people give evidence to the group—people who did not know which area I represented. A few times when people from parts of England were giving evidence about their experience and the things that they were trying to do in their area with their trusts and well-being boards, they referred to what they called the Derry model, which they wanted to see in their area.
That is because in my constituency, in my city of Derry, as other hon. Members have said, we have grave levels of suicide, but there has been a strong community response and the local Western Health and Social Care Trust has tried to engage strongly on it. The trust has a suicide liaison officer, Barry McGail, who does not just work well locally, but is globally active and is part of progressive policy-pushing networks on the subject. When people spoke about the Derry model, part of what they meant was that suicide liaison service.
The service is notified of a suicide by the police within 24 hours and its staff make family contact. They are there at the wakes, able to talk to the family and friends. They are able to bring leaflets and draw attention to other services in a sensitive way, so the issues are immediately picked up and the people who might be most emotionally affected or vulnerable after the suicide—other family members, friends, classmates and so on—can be identified and supported. That has worked well and has helped families through and has helped them feel that they are helping others, which is so important.
More widely in Northern Ireland, we have a self-harm register, another positive development. It is run now by the Public Health Agency and is co-ordinated on a north-south basis. The register provides up-to-date information on people who may have attempted suicide or have self-harmed, so that the right services can be in touch with them or they can at least know that services such as counselling and other opportunities are available for them. Again, that is important in prevention. It is also important to learn the lessons of experiences and making sure that things that are known to one service are not lost to the knowledge and intelligence of another service that may be the right one to provide help.
Some hon. Members have referred to the media in this regard. Of course, the media have particular responsibilities. They need to be very careful and sensitive in how they present any film or TV storylines depicting suicide. If they make suicide simply the natural conclusion to a narrative, that is completely wrong. Unfortunately, too often in the media it seems as though the suicide itself makes the statement, and that is very dangerous. Equally, the media, whether the print media or any other kind, need to be very sensitive in how they cover deaths by suicide. If they treat speculation about clusters—the hon. Member for Bridgend, who is unfortunately no longer here, has experienced this directly in her constituency—in an insensitive, invasive, exploitative and sensational way, that can add to the problems. It can not only add to the suffering and stress of families, but put more families at risk of loss and distress.
Over a dozen years ago—this is not a new problem in Northern Ireland—people like Barry McGail worked on developing guidelines for the local media to use. One of the guidelines in circumstances where a suicide took place was for the media not to treat it in a way that linked it to a single dramatic event. I found myself in a situation where there was a suicide in another family that followed a death in my own family. With the support of education professionals, people like Barry McGail, and other people in the Western health board, I tried to prevail on the media not to treat the young man’s suicide as a “Romeo and Juliet”-type story. It was a struggle to get the media to comply with guidelines that had been drawn up sensitively with their own co-operation, and unfortunately we did not succeed in all instances. The media do have responsibilities in this regard.
Then there is the new media, with the digital age and all the opportunities that are there. In relation to the sites that offer methods and techniques of suicide and appear to be encouraging it, Barry McGail says that although most young people will engage in social media, most of them will want to do so positively. As well as trying to police and shut down all the negative, dark sites, we need to think of more ways of making sure that there are far more positive connections and real pathways of assistance and communication. We need to develop new things such as apps that will be suitable for young people, in particular, who could be at risk.
That is not to say that only young people are at risk of suicide. In my constituency and elsewhere, it affects the old and the young—mothers, fathers, and children. However, one of the things that gives me heart is that people who have been through these dark difficulties, and who are still not out of all that darkness, are desperately trying to remedy the situation through different networks, charities and support groups. In my town, they are supported by people such as those at Foyle Search and Rescue, who do such a good job in helping families who suffer following suicide in the river. When we were building the new iconic peace bridge in Derry, they worked with us to prevail on the architects to understand that it needed to be designed in a particular way with rails shaped so as not to lend themselves readily to suicide attempts.
Foyle Search and Rescue houses and accommodates various groups of families who have come together. We also have groups such as Zest for Life, which work so well to counsel people who are suffering from problems, and HURT (Have Your Tomorrows), which particularly helps people who have been suffering from addiction or dependency and have specific vulnerabilities. These groups are succeeding in helping to reduce and to solve the problems, but they constantly come up against funding difficulties. There is also the issue of making sure that all the policies and services can mesh together.
Finally, another positive feature in Northern Ireland is the ASIST—applied suicide intervention skills training— model, which has been borrowed from Canada and is working well where people engage with it. The big problem, however, is getting GPs to engage with it—they are not—because they are the vital cog and the key people. The issue has come up in the work of the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention. As the hon. Member for Bridgend will know, one of the questions that constantly comes up is: how do we get GPs involved in and engaged with this? Their input is vital and they are vital channels, but in their absence, people’s sense of purpose starts to wane and get weaker.
I am not blaming GPs. Obviously, there are a lot of pressures and demands on them, so they need time out of their practice to do this. We need to see what locum support and other things are available to allow them to play their part in the very good efforts that are being made and to make good the investment being provided by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Other Members have been right to acknowledge the work of that Department, including that of the current Minister, Edwin Poots, and his permanent secretary, Andrew McCormick. We should also acknowledge the work of the previous devolved Ministers. It is a pity that the ministerial group did not meet for about 18 months, but that does not mean that other good work was not going on. For that work to be done, it needs to be supported, and I hope that today’s debate will help to support and encourage those people who deserve it in their important work on such a huge issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To resume his seat no later than 5.35 pm, I call Kevan Jones.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing this debate. It is a privilege to follow a very moving speech by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) is right to say that the reasons for suicide are complex. The question that most families usually ask is: why? My constituency has a great organisation called If U Care Share, which was set up by Shirley Smith, whose 19-year-old son, Daniel, hanged himself a few years ago, having not showed any of the signs referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He was, the family thought, a perfectly happy, contented teenager. The family then wondered what they could do. They set up If U Care Share, and Shirley, her husband, Dean, and their children, Ben and Matthew, go into schools to talk to young people about suicide and people’s feelings. People should not be ashamed to open up and talk about their feelings. They also work with youth clubs and the Football Association to get their message across.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) noted how the highest number of suicides seem to be among men, and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mentioned the figure of 6,000. I have just looked up the figure and it is about 4,500 who are actually men. As the hon. Member for Pudsey has said, mental health is not an issue that we talk about. I might sound like a broken record, but we need to keep talking about mental health.
Today’s debate is good because, as the hon. Member for Foyle has said, we are talking about one of the great last taboos. The more we talk about mental health and the effect of suicide—not just on the individual and the lost opportunities for them and their family, but on society—the better we can draw up the systems to help.
There is nothing wrong about talking about mental health, or about people admitting that they need help. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North has said, that is the big step that needs to be taken in most cases. We need to get the message across, not only to young people, but to everyone, that if they are in distress they need to ask for help. In my area, the statistics show that an older generation of men in their 30s and 40s are committing suicide. A reason for that might be the issue of the economic role of men in society, which has been mentioned. Unless we talk about it and put it on the national agenda, we will continue to come up against these issues.
I have just one point to make. We need to join up the services, because the roles of the voluntary sector and the NHS are vital. GP commissioning could have great benefits, but it also brings great risks. I fear that when GPs commission services, mental health services might again be seen as the poor relation. We need a joined-up approach if we are to prevent the tragic losses that are now at a level which most people would say is unacceptable.
I will finish by saying—again, I will sound like a broken record—that the more we speak about these issues, the better it is, because it will help young people and others who are in distress to take the major step of getting the help that is there if they only ask for it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To resume his seat no later than 5.45, I call Mr Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on bringing this matter to the House. I also congratulate my hon. Friends and everyone else who has spoken. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to sum up.
Today is an example of this House working at its best. All Members and all parties have come together and issued a joint call from the Floor of the House for better services. The contributions that Members have made have shown that the House is an immense fount of knowledge. In the short time I have, I intend to highlight the main issues that have been raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim introduced the subject very well. He referred to the bereavement caused by suicide. That is an interesting point, because people have to come to terms with what has happened and how it affects them. I had not thought about that until my hon. Friend made the point and I realise that he was right. Other Members have talked about how suicide affects a person’s entire family and their friends. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) spoke about anniversaries in particular. I will return to that point in a moment. Those issues have been raised over and over again.
My hon. Friend spoke about the vulnerability of people on coming out of prison. He spoke about the drug and alcohol culture among young men. That is not only an urban problem, but a rural problem. My hon. Friend’s constituency covers both types of area.
Members have said that this must not be a taboo subject and that it is time that we faced up to it. Hopefully we have faced up to it in this debate. The contributions have been immense. We have all met people who hide their depression and anxiety. Members have raised the fact that the suicide rate is higher in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Prevention was a key theme in what my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim said. He referred to the impact that computers and websites can have on children. He challenged us to address these issues. That set the scene clearly for me.
The Minister referred to the steps that are being taken to reduce suicide in England. He referred to the figures for the past year. His commitment to working with regional Assemblies is good news because it means that all parts of the United Kingdom, which are represented here today, are working together.
Some 75% of those who take their lives are not known to Government agencies. I did not know that before this debate started. We can look for the signs in people, such as whether they have depression. Like all hon. Members, I have met people over the years who unfortunately fall into that category.
The hon. Member for Bridgend gave a detailed, decisive and, I would say, masterful contribution to the debate and I thank her for that. She displayed great knowledge about the rates of suicide among 30 to 40-year-olds and among females.
The question that everybody asks themselves—I have asked myself this question when friends of mine have died—is, “What could I have done to prevent it?” You search your heart, you search your soul and you almost put yourself into the grave worrying about what more you could have done. Every Member who has spoken has mentioned that. Behind that question there is perhaps a bit of guilt as well.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) spoke about the vital importance of support groups and Papyrus in particular. I am conscious that I am summing up and not making a contribution, but I just want to say that the LINK group in Newtownards does a magnificent job to help people who are considering suicide and those who have depression.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) spoke about suicide prevention and the moneys available in Northern Ireland, which gives that leadership, as well as the moneys that are set aside. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke on behalf of soldiers who leave the service and feel vulnerable, and as Members of Parliament we have all heard such cases.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) mentioned the sensitivity surrounding the coroner’s report, and there is a lesson there for other parts of the United Kingdom after what has happened in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Bridgend spoke about the use of sport for young people and the importance of correct wording in dramas and soaps, and that valid point was also made by the hon. Member for Foyle in a passionate and real way. A “suicide champion” was referred to, and the need to extend that across the United Kingdom, and the comments and points of view expressed contain lessons for all regions in the United Kingdom.
Mark Durkan
I am entirely comfortable with everything the hon. Gentleman is saying about how we need better to co-ordinate and mesh this work across the UK and use all means to do that. Of course, the problem is wider in these islands. Recently, Shane McEntee, a Government Minister in the south of Ireland, took his own life, and there are serious problems that need to be addressed even at school level. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this issue should perhaps be prioritised at the level of the British-Irish Council? Perhaps a debate such as this could take place at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly so that we gather all the experiences and good practice that has come out of the bad experiences in all parts of these islands?
Jim Shannon
I agree, and I think all Members of this House feel the same. I commend the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who referred to bullying at school and the importance of family when he was working in a hospice. He mentioned the difference between death and death from suicide—both very tragic and real issues—and spoke about the red socialist and the blue Tory working together. That is good and the way it should be in this House, doing the best we can.
My right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) gave a detailed account of what happens in north Belfast which, along with west Belfast, unfortunately has a reputation for the highest suicide rates in Northern Ireland. He referred to the hard work done by many people in the PIPS group—the Public Initiative for Prevention of Suicide and Self-Harm—FASA, churches and many other groups that do tremendous work. Queen’s university has made a study of north Belfast, and if my right hon. Friend ever needs facts or evidence of what is wrong and how to address it, those are issues we must consider.
I have in my notes, “Coping with peace after years of violence”, and unfortunately in north Belfast, and perhaps west Belfast, that is one of the issues, and my right hon. Friend clearly addressed that point. He and other Members referred to copycat suicides, and the hon. Member for Bridgend mentioned anniversaries. The work done by the Samaritans in A and E was mentioned, and, as my right hon. Friend said, there are lessons to be learned for us all.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), said that although any death is tragic, suicide is the worst as it poses many questions for the family left behind, and she spoke about the issue very clearly and honestly. She referred to the good work done by Labour when it was in power. I know that to be the case and I look forward to more such work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) referred to the increased number of suicides in Northern Ireland—300—and mentioned Yellow Ribbon and the 400 people helped by that organisation in one year. Four hundred people sought help, and volunteers and groups were there to help.
I thank the hon. Member for Foyle for his passionate, powerful and revealing speech that moved us all, and he put forward a number of ideas. The Maiden City has a suicide awareness day; perhaps it could be a model for the rest of the United Kingdom. He also referred to a self-harm register. Although not many people mentioned that issue in Northern Ireland, the British Medical Association referred to the fact that a third of those who self harm commit suicide, so that issue is important. He mentioned the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Last but not least, I remember when the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoke about mental health in the Chamber some time ago—I have never forgotten that speech. He spoke again today with passion and belief, and with the inner knowledge that comes from his experience. He has been able to describe that for all hon. Members in the Chamber.
We should be clear that we need the voluntary services and the Government to work together. I thank everyone for their valuable and sensitive contributions in the Chamber today. The debate has been excellent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
I have a short 10 minutes to close the debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken—they have made well informed, serious contributions to this excellent and deeply insightful debate on this hugely important subject. As the Prime Minister said today at Prime Minister’s questions in commending DUP Members for tabling the motion, we, as a society, do not talk enough about suicide and the impact it has on families. By being up-front about its often complex causes, we can be better at recognising the signs that lead to suicide and at preventing more lives from being taken in future.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Health, said on behalf of the Government, every life taken by suicide is one too many. When that person is a child, the tragedy is merely multiplied. I am speaking as the Minister with responsibility for children and families as well as a co-chair of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety. I shall briefly explain what the Department for Education is doing to help children as part of a cross-government outcomes strategy to prevent suicide, but before I do so I wanted to mention one or two of the contributions to the debate that have been thought-provoking not just for me, but I am sure for many of the people watching and listening.
I acknowledge the brave and touching speech made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who said that suicide has deeply affected not only his community, but his family. I know it was a difficult speech for him to make, but those suicides have left a lot of unanswered questions for him and many others. It leads to the conclusion that we must do more. We must acknowledge that we need to place huge importance on ensuring that the support made available to families who are grieving the loss of someone in such circumstances is at the heart of the services and support we offer in our communities.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) made a powerful and compassionate speech to open the debate. He said we should not sweep suicide under the carpet—that we cannot run away from it and must face up to it. The situation in Northern Ireland is particularly concerning. He highlighted the fact that 289 people took their own lives in 2011. As he said, it is a personal tragedy for anyone who comes to that decision. We must bear in mind that it can often be triggered by what can seem like a minor or innocuous event. This is a complex issue, and there is very rarely a single factor, although mental health is often a central feature of suicide cases. We need to understand and be better aware of all the different events and pressures on people’s lives that can contribute to them coming to that state of mind.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention, made, as usual, a highly knowledgeable speech and asked the question we should all ask ourselves: what causes suicide and self-harm to feature in people’s lives in the first place? Her point about raising awareness across agencies—she mentioned the Department for Work and Pensions as one such agency—was absolutely right. I will take it away and ensure that other Departments think carefully about how they train their staff so they understand the signs they need to look for and can point people in the direction of the support that we know is out there.
On the hon. Lady’s point about the coroner’s narrative verdicts, the Ministry of Justice is, as she said, looking into the matter. I understand that the Office for National Statistics and the chief coroner will attend the next meeting of the Government’s national suicide prevention strategy advisory group—narrative verdicts are on the agenda—which is coming up next month. Hopefully, therefore, progress can be made.
She also mentioned the “Help is at Hand” resource for people bereaved by suicide and other sudden traumatic deaths. It is an excellent piece of work that is clear and accessible for those who want support. We are distributing it, and it is on the Department of Health website. I think that approximately 1,000 copies are going out each month, but we need to do better and improve distribution. We are working with coroners’ offices to make sure we achieve that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) talked about the moving memory he has of someone he lost at school through suicide. He also talked about his work with the hospice movement. We need to ensure we understand that attitudes to suicide sometimes impact more deeply than we realise. Cyber-bullying is a particularly new phenomenon and it is more and more difficult for young people to escape its awful bearing on their own lives. To understand it better, we need to work closely with young people, and to listen to them and their experiences, rather than assuming that we know the answers ourselves.
In the five minutes I have left, I want to touch on what the Department for Education is doing to try to raise awareness and improve our response, particularly with regard to child internet safety. The new suicide prevention strategy for England, which was published last September, has already been referred to. It is right that children and young people have an important place in that strategy. We should all be extremely concerned about the suicide rate among teenagers, even though it is below that of the general population.
To help young people get the support they need and to be able to talk through their problems, we continue to support, to the tune of £11.2 million between 2011 and 2015, the valuable work done by ChildLine in providing children with free and confidential support in conjunction with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children helpline.
The strategy recognises—a point raised by a number of hon. Members—that the media have a significant influence on behaviour and attitudes, particularly for teenagers. In 2009—the hon. Member for Bridgend will be acutely aware of this—the Press Complaints Commission highlighted the impact of insensitive and inappropriate reporting of suicides. We all have to take children’s safety extremely seriously, particularly to protect them from any harmful or inappropriate online content. We are clear that we favour a self-regulatory model for the internet industry, but that is as much a pragmatic response as a philosophical response. We have heard today that the law makes it clear that people who intentionally encourage suicide via websites hosted in the UK are at risk of prosecution, and, to be absolutely clear, what is illegal offline is illegal online.
We need to do more, and through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety board we are trying to make sure that all internet service providers step up to the plate and realise their responsibility. They need to ensure that these types of sites are kept away from young people, and that young people’s ability to have direct contact with them is removed altogether—they are truly horrible sites to have anywhere near one’s home.
As the Minister with responsibility for UKCCIS, I am leading the work looking at how ISPs, filtering companies, device manufacturers and public wi-fi, which we find in our local coffee shops and retailers—all the information and communications technology industries—can work together to make sure harmful content is filtered out wherever our children are. With nine out of 10 children having access to the internet in their own home and with children aged between 12 and 15 proportionately more likely to own a smartphone than their parents, this issue is only going to get bigger rather than smaller.
There are good examples of the internet industry working with the charitable sector, and that will be a key element as we go forward. As the hon. Member for South Antrim said, Google searches on the word “suicide” will return details of the Samaritans at the top of the results—a real step forward—and Facebook has teamed up with the Samaritans to make it easier to report concerns about a friend who might be considering self-harm or suicide. We must do more, however. As the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned, yesterday was the 10th safer internet day. I met a group of young people who were discussing the excellent “Have Your Say” survey. Some 24,000 school-aged children contributed to the largest ever survey about what they expect online. The thing they wanted most was to be safe. That is something we need to deliver for young people, because they are the ones exposed to what adults provide for them.
In conclusion, this has been an excellent debate. I am sure that many people will be encouraged that the House takes the issue extremely seriously and can work together to keep people as safe as possible from the ravages that suicide can bring to families.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises that the number of suicides in the UK, particularly amongst young people, represents a major challenge for government and society; acknowledges the work that is taking place to address the issue; calls for even more urgency to be shown in seeking to reduce the rate of suicides; notes the danger posed in particular by websites which promote or give information about harmful behaviours such as suicide; and calls upon the Government to adequately resource and promote child and adolescent digital safety.
Canterbury City Council Bill
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18:09 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 258 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 255 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 156 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind the House of the fact that we are debating the Lords amendments to four different private Bills simultaneously, because they are close to identical, as are the amendments made in another place. Although we will debate the amendments together, the questions to dispose of the Lords amendments will be put on each Bill in turn.
Clause 2
Interpretation
Amendment proposed (31 January): C6, page 2, leave out lines 17 to 27.—(Stuart Andrew.)
Question again proposed, That this House agrees with Lords amendment C6.
Mr Deputy Speaker
When the debate was adjourned last Thursday, we were considering the second group of Lords amendments and the amendments to them. Mr Chope was speaking on Lords amendment C6 to the Canterbury City Council Bill. With this amendment, we were also considering the following:
Lords amendments C7 and C8, and C9 and amendments (a) to (h) thereto to the Canterbury City Council Bill.
Lords amendments L3 and L4, and L5 and amendments (a) to (h) thereto to the Leeds City Council Bill.
Lords amendments N3 to N5, and N6 and amendments (a) to (i) thereto to the Nottingham City Council Bill.
Lords amendments R4 to R7, and R8 and amendments (a) to (i) thereto to the Reading Borough Council Bill.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When we adjourned proceedings at 3.27 pm last Thursday, we were less than an hour into the debate on these amendments.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. He had just said:
“I do not need to speak any longer on this group of amendments”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 1120.]
I hope that remains the case.
Mr Chope
I have no intention, Mr Deputy Speaker, of trying your patience. Given, however, that a few parliamentary colleagues are still hanging around, I thought that I would put on the record an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the deputy Chief Whip during Monday’s proceedings, when it was made clear that, although it was possible this debate might start at 4 o’clock and continue until 7 o’clock, if it ran late, it would not be of any significance, because there would be a one-line Whip and no interference in our affairs, whether from the Government or anybody else. I want to make it clear to anybody who thinks that they have to still hang around in the Chamber because this is whipped business, that it is not.
Philip Davies
To clarify that point, a message has gone out from the Whip’s Office to all colleagues saying that we are officially on a one-line Whip.
Mr Chope
I am pleased to have that confirmation. It means that our attendance is voluntary.
Since we have a new Minister, I hope that she will take the opportunity to expand on what her ministerial colleague said briefly in an intervention in the previous debate. In other words, will she explain the full implications of the Government’s consultation paper, in which the Government said they had no choice but to abolish the Pedlars Act 1871 to comply with the European services directive? I hope that she will explain how, if that is correct, the Government can support amendment C9 passed in their lordships House.
In conclusion, I hope that I will be able to move formally amendment (g) to Lords amendment C9, because it is the most telling amendment down in my name in this group of amendments. Amendment (g) would remove the provision allowing designation in order to prevent obstruction of the highway. That is such a wide provision that it effectively reintroduces by the back door the touting provisions in clause 11, which Lords amendment 15 would remove. Anybody could be thought to be able potentially to obstruct the highway; therefore, the local authorities concerned would be able to designate areas where no activity could take place whatever, which would be a total abuse. That is why I would like the opportunity in due course to test the will of the House on amendment (g).
Mr Deputy Speaker
The Question is, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment C6 to the Canterbury City Council—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Mr Nuttall, I was waiting, but you did not jump up as quickly as you normally do. I do not want to stop you from having at least a minute.
Mr Nuttall
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope we have a chance to hear from the Minister on the points that have been raised. I am sure she will have read what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said in opening the debate last Thursday.
I rise to speak to this group of Lords amendments and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend for debate in the House last Thursday. I thank him for the comprehensive way he set out the amendments in that debate and in his concluding remarks today. Let me also say how grateful I am for the work undertaken in the other place by the noble Lords. They have thoroughly and efficiently considered all the issues involved in these Bills. Their noble lordships were not prepared simply to nod these Bills through, as some might have feared, including—I have to say, with much regret—myself. One could well have forgiven their lordships for thinking that as these Bills had been trundling along the parliamentary legislative pathway for some time—albeit at the pace of a rather arthritic snail—there could not possibly be any purpose in subjecting them to further detailed scrutiny.
As it is, their noble lordships recognised the importance of pedlars in our society, as those of us who take an interest in these matters in this place do too. The place of pedlars in the life of our nation dates back to the time of Chaucer. Their noble lordships considered the general principles behind the introduction of these Bills and how the detail of the new proposed laws would operate in practice. Pedlars are the ultimate in micro-businesses. The ability for someone with a relatively small amount of capital to start a business travelling from place to place buying and selling goods has been the starting point for many of our great businesses, including some household names.
It would seem that the local authorities promoting the four private Bills before us today were at least partly motivated by a wish to protect the revenue they received from licensed street traders. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, it was suggested in the other place that these Bills were seeking to achieve the “total eradication of pedlars” from the streets of the cities of Canterbury, Leeds and Nottingham and the borough of Reading. As hon. Members will be aware, there is a great deal of difference between a pedlar and a street trader. It was submitted that the reason why it was thought necessary to try to remove pedlars from those three cities and one borough was to prevent the streets from being obstructed by pedlars as they stopped to sell their wares. Their lordships did not accept that it was appropriate to remove pedlars completely, but they did think it appropriate that the size of the trolley used by pedlars should be limited. Amendment C9 seeks to do just that. It is worth noting the words used by Baroness Knight of Collingtree, who chaired the Select Committee established in the other place to consider the Bills, to justify amendment C9. Referring to the fact that counsel for the local authorities promoting the Bills had produced photographs supporting their contention that the pedlars were causing unacceptable congestion, she said:
“The members of the committee asked for evidence and they produced photographs of their streets, which of course were very crowded. We scrutinised them carefully and asked questions.”
The crucial sentence follows:
“We concluded that nothing we had been shown, or told, proved the case that the local authorities were making.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 445.]
That is a most telling statement. I submit that it provides proof to the House of what my hon. Friends and I have been trying to establish from the outset—namely, that the Bills are far from straightforward. It should not be taken for granted that the case for the legislation has been proven, or that the Bills should simply be nodded through the House without detailed scrutiny. What has happened in the other place has largely justified the stance taken by my hon. Friends when the Bills were previously considered in this House.
We have already seen how, as a result of the first group of amendments, clauses 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which deal with seizure, forfeiture and the payment of compensation, were all taken out of the Bill completely. They were not amended, or even slightly modified; they were removed in their entirety. In this group, amendment C8 deletes clause 4 completely and amendment C9 deletes clause 5 altogether and replaces it with an entirely new clause whose purpose is completely different from the original one.
It is worth noting the details of the proposed new clause. It sets out in great detail the nature of the trolley that a pedlar would be permitted to use. It gives overall dimensions for the trolley when it is being used, but it also—rather unnecessarily, in my opinion—gives details of the size of the trolley when empty. I am not sure what the relevance of that could be. Surely the overall dimensions set out in proposed new paragraph (2C) would be sufficient. Provided the trolley did not exceed a width of 0.88 metres, a depth of 0.83 metres or a height of 1.63 metres, I fail to see how it could be prejudicial to the council or to the users of the highway. I also fail to see how it would prevent an obstruction from being caused if the trolley were of a different size from that set out in proposed new paragraph (2B), which specifically states that it should not exceed a width of 0.75 metres, a depth of 0.5 metres and a height of 1.25 metres.
There is no explanation of why those precise, detailed figures have been chosen. What is the special significance of a width of 0.88 metres? Why not a width of—
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Shame it may be, but I think the time has come. I enjoy hearing the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), but I do not think there is anything new in what he says, so I will accept the closure.
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby. I am worried that we have lost four Members. Will she try to retrieve them to get the vote through?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments C16, C17, C19, C28, C31, C2 and C1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It is a point of order, and the answer is that it is up to the Member in charge whether he wishes to speak to the amendments or not, and obviously he did not. Does anybody wish to speak to them?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Can we have a little silence? As we wish to hear Mr Chope, will Members be quiet if they are leaving the Chamber?
Mr Chope
Mr Deputy Speaker, you in your wisdom accepted that these Lords amendments, which relate to touting, should be dealt with in a separate group, and that is what we are discussing. The lead amendment would remove clause 11, and the subsequent amendments deal with consequential matters relating to the touting provision. When we discussed this previously, I cannot remember how many years ago, a lot of concern was expressed.
Mr Brazier
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is always courteous in debate. He will recall that these amendments were promised by me in the Commons because he asked for them, and introduced in the Lords exactly as we promised, so I am very surprised that he wants to debate them again.
Mr Chope
We now have, after a bit of pressure, an admission from my hon. Friend that he has done exactly what he said he would do by ensuring that the amendments would be moved successfully in their lordships House. I and my parliamentary colleagues who have fought so valiantly to remove the most pernicious parts of these Bills can now say that, because of the work that we have been doing in this House over many years, the Bills are much improved as a result of these Lords amendments.
As my hon. Friend has said, he promised Lords amendment C15 to this House when these Bills were given their Third Reading. He has honoured that undertaking by ensuring that it was tabled in the other place. It is fair to say that we both think that the other place’s debate took a lot longer than expected. On the basis of the proposed amendments, we had expected the Bills to go through the other place relatively quickly but they did not because their lordships decided to look at them in a lot more detail. As a result, we received a series of Lords amendments, some of which we discussed earlier, that made a significant difference to the Bills—not just to the touting provision, but to the definition of pedlars. Therefore, when I seek the indulgence of the House, it is in order to ensure that my hon. and right hon. Friends and the Opposition realise that this has been a very worthwhile exercise. Although a lot of colleagues have consistently voted against the ideas that I and a number of my hon. Friends have suggested—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think it is very interesting to hear Mr Chope and I hope that other Members will take notice, because a lot of conversations are going on and we are struggling to hear.
Mr Chope
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If there is going to be a Division on any of the amendments in this group, will you give Members notice of it so that if they do not wish to participate in this debate and want to carry on their conversations outside they can do so, and that, in due course, if there is a Division the Division bell will ring in the usual way? Could you make that clear, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I just did make it clear that we do not want any more private conversations. We will stick to the business in hand. I and other Members obviously wish to hear you, so please continue.
Mr Chope
I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Sometimes during the course of discussing these pedlars Bills, we who have been on the side of the pedlars have, in a sense, been given an insight into what it must be like to be a pedlar, against whom there is a lot of prejudice among ordinary members of the public. Similarly, quite a lot of prejudice has been generated against those Members of this House who have stood up for the interests of pedlars. It is helpful for us to reflect on the real changes that we in this House, collectively, have made to the Bills.
Philip Davies
Does my hon. Friend note the irony that, previously, Members stayed behind to vote against the amendments that he and I tabled on touting, yet now they are staying behind to vote for them because the Lords tabled them? It is ironic that Members want to stay behind so late in order to vote differently from how they voted last time.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The obvious reason why this House is so full is that hon. Members wish to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who is always illuminating.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as always, for his intervention, but on this occasion he is absolutely wrong.
This is the last group of amendments that we will debate on this Bill. In fact, the amendments relate not only to the Canterbury City Council Bill, but to all the Bills that we are discussing. It is right at this stage to pay tribute to everybody who has participated in these debates.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I have had the pleasure of listening to my hon. Friend on these subjects for a number of years. When I was the Opposition spokesman, I advocated looking at these issues on a national basis so that individual councils did not have to come forward with different Bills. Would that not be a much more sensible approach?
Mr Chope
Absolutely. We have made progress in that regard. When these Bills were first debated, the Labour Government were reluctant to do anything about it, but under the present Government we have had a new consultation paper on the whole subject. That paper makes it clear that the Government’s view is that there may be a strong case for national legislation instead of piecemeal legislation.
The Government have said that if they have to change the legislation to ensure that all the local Acts and the Bills that we are discussing today comply with the EU services directive, they will include the provisions that are put forward by each local authority before the end of the consultation period later this month in collective legislation to ensure that the provisions relating to the rights and responsibilities of pedlars are common throughout the land.
One benefit of this debate having been extended over almost a six-year period is that we have had the chance to consider the impact of the services directive, which, among other things, applies to touting for services, which is the subject of this group of Lords amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) will remember, when we raised the issue of the services directive initially, there was much scepticism among Government Members and people like my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) who have sponsored these Bills. They said that we were raising the services directive as a red herring in order to waste time.
We have now found out that the Government are taking the matter so seriously that they have realised that all the pedlars Acts may have to be repealed to facilitate compliance with the services directive. That implies that when the former Government first thought about the impact of the services directive on the United Kingdom, they and their advisers got it completely wrong. They should surely have understood the implications of the directive when it was being negotiated in Brussels. That is just another example of how we have lost control over our own affairs through the loss of sovereignty, which is being passed to the European Union.
All’s well that ends well in the sense that the Government now recognise that many of the services provisions in these Bills are wholly inappropriate. I suspect that even if my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had not offered, when the Canterbury City Council Bill was before the House on Third Reading, to withdraw the touting provisions in the other place, it would have been necessary to take them out anyway because of their lack of compliance with the services directive.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Is there not something ironic about the European Union coming to the rescue of my hon. Friend to sort this matter out?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have had a good round-up of the Bill and I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is now desperate to get back to discussing the amendments.
Mr Chope
I detect that all good things must come to an end, and in the light of the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has behaved, and in tribute to work done by their lordships in the other place and their thorough examination of the Bill, it would be churlish of me to say that I will vote against the amendments in this group. I must, however, have a caveat to that, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. He may persuade me that I am incorrect. Subject to anything that he says, I am—to use an expression from the other place—“content” to allow the Lords amendments to proceed.
Philip Davies
As has been said, we are discussing the last group of amendments and I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Colleagues who have shown a belated interest in this Bill may think that they have in effect been thwarting my hon. Friend over the past few minutes. Instead, they have been voting to rubber-stamp amendments to the Bill for which he argued many years ago but which the Government of the time, and elements of the Opposition—the Conservative party was sitting on the other side of the House then—resisted. It is a measure of my hon. Friend’s success that he has gone from leading a few of us into the Lobby to support his amendment to this red letter day on which 250 people have supported that amendment. He should be very proud of that.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I wish to place on the record that my first intervention in this House was during a discussion on this matter, probably in May or June 2010. Before we conclude our proceedings, it is important to say that I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his ability to cover a range of subjects. That evening we discussed the monastic rights of the city of Canterbury, and a creature called the Pedlar of Swaffham that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). At each turn my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was able to discourse on those obtuse matters with eloquence and in great detail, and I pay tribute to him for that. As he says, however, all good things come to an end and perhaps it is good at this moment to draw a line under this varied subject.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and make it clear to the House that he knows so much more about matters than I do; his expertise spreads far and wide. I have certainly learned a lot over the years, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) is also learning a great deal from him.
Given that so many people have shown a belated interest in this Bill, it seems only right that before they vote on the Lords amendments they understand what they have been invited to vote on. In previous discussions on this matter—as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, we have been debating these Bills for around six years—we were, to be perfectly frank, talking to a small audience. We could therefore, through various nods and winks, understand each other’s arguments, and the Bill could rapidly progress and rush to a Division because we all knew what we were talking about. Tonight we are in a unique position where lots of people who want to participate in the voting do not know the Bill’s six years of history as I and my hon. Friend do. We must lay out exactly what people will be voting for in this group of amendments because I would not want anyone to vote inadvertently for something in which they do not believe.
The amendments relate to clause 11 of the Canterbury City Council Bill, and this is the right time to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier). During the passage of the Bill, he has probably felt a great deal of frustration on occasion, as have other Members who have sponsored the Bills. In all fairness to him, he did not sit there in frustration without listening to the arguments and taking on board what was said. He was good enough to listen to the force of the argument. We had a long debate on touting in relation to the Canterbury City Council Bill, and he was good enough to listen to the arguments. As he made clear in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—I did not hear all of it because of the hoo-hah going on at the time—the amendment results from the promise given by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury at previous stages. He said it would be a fair deal to get rid of clause 11.
Hon. Members know that my hon. Friend is one of the most honourable people, if not the most honourable person, in the House. As ever, he has been as good as his word. However, we cannot leave it at that—the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill is a precedent—because assurances given in the House on how legislation will be dealt with in the other place have not always been kept. We cannot therefore take it as read that their lordships decided to accept the amendment on the word of my hon. Friend, because they have decided to ignore the words of other hon. Members in the past. We must therefore presume not only that their lordships wished to keep to my hon. Friend’s word, but that they were persuaded by the case.
It is striking that, whereas the Lords have decided to delete clause 11 from the Canterbury City Council Bill—that is the amendment we are debating—they chose not to delete clause 11 from the Reading Borough Council Bill, which is virtually identical. Clause 11(1)(b) in both Bills lists the places to which the provisions will apply. However, whereas the Reading Borough Council Bill refers only to “a street”, the Canterbury City Council Bill refers to
“a street or esplanade, parade, promenade or way to which the public commonly have access, whether or not as of right.”
That is the only difference in the clauses in the two Bills.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said in his opening remarks, it is perhaps a shame that we have not had a great explanation of what their lordships were thinking when they made the amendment to delete clause 11 from the Canterbury Bill. Is the difference in the wording of the two Bills a matter of principle on touting or a matter of practicality? In essence, the measures are the same.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It might help if I say that the Minister will come in when Mr Davies sits down. If he wants to give way now, there will be no more, but I would sooner hear a little more.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is the first time any hon. Member in my seven or eight years in the House has ever said or indicated that they want to hear a little more from me. It certainly has been a red letter day for me, too. I am flattered, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch makes a good point. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister exactly what is in the Government’s mind. Perhaps she will explain why the amendment should be supported and why the wording should apply to the Canterbury City Council Bill but not to the Reading Borough Council Bill.
Perhaps the Minister will also tell us what the Government’s view is of the principle of touting tickets and so on. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport published a report on ticket touting in 2008. I am lucky enough to serve on that Committee, so it is a subject close to my heart. People will have spotted that what is striking about that report is the date—it came out in the middle of the discussions on the Bill. I do not know whether their lordships were influenced in any way by the recommendations of the Committee—I very much hope they were; it was an excellent report, so that may well be the case—or whether they were influenced by the Bill’s principles, but hon. Members may wish to bear in mind the fact that this is a very strange clause in the sense that it is called “Touting”, and that is what is referred to throughout the clause.
The first recommendation of the Select Committee’s report—of course, I will not go through all the recommendations, but it is wise to highlight some of the pertinent ones—states:
“It is important to bear in mind that the term ‘touting’ has very different meanings to different people”.
When we have a Bill that refers to “touting” as if we all know what touting is, hon. Members should bear in mind that comment by the Committee.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I had always understood that the term “touting” usually related to tickets for sporting events. Could my hon. Friend explain how the word covers that use, as well as the use in the Bill?
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will just say in passing that I very much agreed with his earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch when he said that these matters are best dealt with at a national level. We are either in favour of ticket touting or we are not, and the same rules should apply across the country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I think that many people will believe that touting relates mainly to sporting events, or perhaps even big music events, which is maybe one of the reasons why it is in, for example, the Reading Bill in the first place, as it has a big music festival.
My hon. Friend will be interested to know that clause 11(2) talks about affecting
“Any person who, in a place designated under this section”—
I mentioned briefly about the areas that apply—
“importunes any person by touting for a hotel, lodging house, restaurant or other place of refreshment, for a shop, for a theatre or nightclub or other place of amusement or recreation, or for a boat or other conveyance shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
Straight away, my hon. Friend will appreciate that this goes far beyond what he and many other people might think of it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am troubled about this definition of “touting”, because it includes all forms of entertainment. If one were to give out a leaflet asking people to join the local Conservative party, which is always a source of the greatest entertainment, would that potentially count as touting and be illegal in Reading but legal in Canterbury?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I do not think that we need to go down that path; I do not think it would be illegal anywhere.
Philip Davies
I am grateful for that guidance. It has saved me from having to deal with that particular intervention
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Does my hon. Friend think that Mr Deputy Speaker’s ruling applies only to Conservative leaflets, or will it apply to Labour leaflets as well?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I can assure the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that there is no need to reply to that either.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I fear I am being troubled by questions that I am unable to answer.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
In the interests of impartiality, may I inquire about the Liberal Democrats?
Philip Davies
I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure you want me to get back to the matter in hand.
Ben Gummer
This is an issue of concern. One feature of Brick lane, which I live near, are the many people touting for their restaurants. I suppose that a natural consequence of the proposal is that touting for a restaurant in London will be entirely legal, but in Reading it will not. That inconsistency bears out precisely the point that my hon. Friend made earlier.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I want us to deal with the amendments, not worry about London or Brick lane.
Philip Davies
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich makes a good point, however, in that the amendment, which would delete the clause on touting from the Canterbury Bill, raises the question: what is so special about Canterbury? If the House agrees to the amendment, we will remove the restrictions on touting from the Bill. It might well be that people want controls on touting in Canterbury because of its particular circumstances. We ought to listen to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury during an earlier stage of the Bill. Notwithstanding the offer he eventually made, he made it clear, at that point, that the restriction on touting was an essential part of the Canterbury Bill. He said that Canterbury suffered from huge problems, with which I am not familiar, of people touting for business in certain—perhaps historic—parts of the city. Perhaps people felt that touting took something away from the city.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are people in the House who speak Middle English as if it were their first tongue. We all know that the word “tout” comes from the Middle English word “tuten”, meaning “to look out for”, but may I warn him that in Northern Ireland the word has a very specific and very dangerous meaning? It will frequently be found written on gable ends. I appreciate that Northern Ireland is not Reading, and it is certainly not Canterbury, but it is a word we ought to be careful with.
Philip Davies
I guess that the hon. Gentleman is merely highlighting the point I am making and which the Select Committee started out with, which is that the term “touting” has different meanings to different people. I am grateful to him for accepting that point.
In considering whether to support the Lords amendments, it is important that Members decide whether they think that touting is a perfectly acceptable practice or an unsavoury practice. Of course, there are some unsavoury parts of touting—they are not specific to touting itself, but go along with it. For instance, people associate the selling of counterfeit tickets with touting. As it happens, however, that is already a criminal offence. It is not a good excuse for banning touting anywhere, given that legislation is already in place to deal with it. It might well be that people feel it clutters up a town or city and that it would look better without such people making a nuisance of themselves. It might well be that people think the nuisance is worth stopping. Perhaps they are being pestered by people handing out leaflets or trying to drag them into their restaurant against their wishes with a lasso or whatever mechanisms it is they use.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I have a feeling that my hon. Friend is talking about false imprisonment—people being dragged into restaurants against their will—and surely that is against the law anyway.
Philip Davies
As ever, my hon. Friend makes a good point. He is renowned in the House for defending individual freedom. Of course, if people wish to be encouraged into a place, that is a matter for their free choice, but if people go too far, they would be breaking the law. Those practices may well lead people to want to stop touting altogether.
Some people think that touting acts against the interests of the general public. This brings us to the crux of the argument about whether in principle we should find touting acceptable or unacceptable, as well as back to the point my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds made about the touting of tickets for sporting events. Touts mop up tickets for extremely popular events at a low price or at face value and sell them on at an inflated price to the general public who could not get their hands on them because the touts were buying up all the stock. In effect, the general public—the fan or the person who genuinely wants to go—end up having to pay above the odds for their tickets, which people find unsavoury. The Select Committee took a great deal of evidence on that. Indeed, there has been a great deal of concern about this issue and interest in it.
As it happens, it was not just the Select Committee that looked into the issue. The Office of Fair Trading has also investigated whether ticket touting should be stopped because it acts against the interests of the consumer. After many months of inquiry, the Office of Fair Trading found—this was consistent with the evidence it gave us during our inquiry—that, on the whole, touting acts in the best interests of the consumer, and it does so on a number of levels. In many cases, someone who has bought a ticket for an event that they genuinely hope to go to, but who finds that for some reason they cannot go, will be refused a refund by those who sold them the ticket because it is non-returnable. That person is left with a ticket—it could be an expensive ticket—that they cannot do anything with. What are they expected to do? Their only hope is what is known as the secondary market, which is what is known colloquially as touting. Indeed, I am rather surprised that clause 11 is entitled “Touting”. I think that “Secondary market” would probably be a fairer name.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
As I have listened to this debate my understanding of the word “touting” has been considerably expanded. I want to test what it means in the context of this Bill. If I were a pedlar in Canterbury and I started distributing leaflets on people’s doorsteps, would I be caught by this Bill for touting?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend asks a fair question. In effect, he stumbles—whether intentionally or not—on to quite an interesting point about this Bill. In many respects, this part of the Bill has nothing to do with pedlars, because it need not be a pedlar who is selling the tickets. The term “pedlar” has a legal definition—it refers to someone who needs a licence—whereas the Bill as it stands, if Lords amendment C15 was not accepted, would apply to anybody, whether a pedlar or not.
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. In the past, we have concentrated on the definitions of “street trading” and “pedlars”. Is he now suggesting that there is a third category—neither a street trader nor pedlar, but someone who is simply operating in the secondary market for tickets?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clause 11 stands out like a sore thumb from the rest of the Bill, whish is pretty consistent in being about pedlars and street traders, as he rightly says. I pay tribute to the scrutiny he has given the Bill during its passage through this House. Clause 11 stands alone in that it can apply to anybody. It should be an acceptable part of life—it would be acceptable to me, as well as the Office of Fair Trading and the Select Committee, which looked at this—for someone in Canterbury who happened to have purchased a ticket for an event they could no longer attend to sell their ticket on to somebody else. Once people have bought their ticket, it is their ticket. If they want to sell it on to someone else, that should be a matter for them.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Surely this should be a matter of contract. If the ticket prohibits the purchaser from selling it on, they should be prohibited from so doing, and if it allows the use of the secondary market, that should be allowed. Purchasing a ticket is a contractual activity; the ticket is not an item of property.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point but, interestingly, it is not made clear in the provision that that would be the case. Many tickets state that they are not to be resold, or that they are non-transferable. The promoter of an event could take the matter to court to test the contract, and the court could find against the person who had sold the ticket on, whether for a profit or not.
Philip Davies
I will in a moment.
The striking thing is that, to the best of my knowledge, no promoter of any event in this country has ever had the courage to test such a provision in court. I could be wrong, but I believe that that has been done in Australia, however, and that the Australian courts found against the promoter of the event. They found that it was unfair to attach the condition to the ticket that it should not be resold.
I suspect that we are now discussing the provision on touting because the promoters of events are not satisfied that the law of the land will help them in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) suggests. If what he said were true, there would be no need for any of these provisions on touting. Clause 11 would be redundant, because an event promoter could simply take their grievance to the courts. However, if the courts are not going to help, as I understand is the case at the moment, clauses such as these need to be incorporated into Bills so that touting can be dealt with, not because the touts are selling tickets but because people do not like them and want them to be moved off the streets and given fixed penalty notices.
Philip Davies
Indeed he is.
Notwithstanding the question of an individual’s freedom to do what they want with a ticket that they have bought, it seems unacceptable to include the clause in the Bill, as it would provide for imposing a further penalty. Let us imagine that someone had bought a ticket to an event but could no longer attend it. They would lose their money because they could not get a refund, but if they tried to resell their ticket, they would also face being fined for so doing. They would lose out financially.
Stephen Pound
I do not know how they order these things in the city of Christopher Marlowe, but this matter has now been tested in cities that have premier league football teams. There is now a non-profit-making organisation called Seatwave that enables anyone who has a ticket for any English or Scottish premier league match to resell it through that organisation. The key point, however, is that the prohibition on the resale of tickets has been sustained in court. I do not know about the case in Australia, but in Fulham, that is the law.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have given hon. Members a bit of leeway, but I am worried that we are now getting into retail matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill, as we all know. I hope that we can now stick to the matters in hand, and have fewer interventions; otherwise, we are going to drift into areas where I do not need to be.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I shall try not to be sidetracked by people trying to lead me astray. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) is always trying to do that, but I shall resist the temptation.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I want to ask my hon. Friend a question on the specifics of the amendment that we are considering. As I understand it, someone with a ticket in Reading would need to go to Canterbury to do their touting, because it would be illegal in Reading but not in Canterbury thanks to their lordships wise amendment. Is that correct?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The good news is that we are dealing only with Canterbury. I am not worried about Reading, and neither is Mr Davies.
Philip Davies
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you are right that I am not worried about Reading—except in the sense of trying to find some guidance about why their lordships decided that this particular clause should be deleted from the Canterbury City Council Bill but not deleted from the Reading Borough Council Bill when they are virtually the same. All we can do is consider how the detail in this particular clause is different from the other one.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that with ticket touting it is acceptable to charge an added value or premium, but that income and revenue belongs to the artist, performer or whomever the person buying the tickets has paid to see. Does he not agree that that is denying them an income?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are certainly not opening that issue. I am sure the Whip has better things to do at this stage.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if I may be allowed—I do not want that comment to be left hanging on the record—I would like to say quickly that the touts have already bought the tickets, so the artist already has their income. It makes no difference to their income whether it is resold at a different price. I do not wish to pursue that line of argument any further; I just wanted to put that on the record in passing.
I hope that when people are considering whether to support the Lords in their amendment, they will not object to it on the principle that they do not like ticket touting, as I think that would be very unfortunate. It would fly in the face of all the evidence received by the Select Committee and reflected in its conclusions. We were unanimous in thinking that the secondary market was a perfectly legitimate one, and the Office of Fair Trading believes that it works in the best interests of consumers, too.
It seems to me therefore that, given what their lordships have done, this was not a question of principle. If it were a question of principle, I presume that the provision would have been removed from the Reading Bill as well. It can only be, then, a matter of practicality. That brings us back to the detail in clause 11 of the Canterbury Bill, which is about the location in which people can sell their tickets. That is the only bit that is different. Only subsection (1)(b) is different, and it relates to where people can sell.
Here I think my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right, in that it would be helpful if Members had some explanation of the local circumstances in Canterbury. I have been to Canterbury once. Unfortunately, it was not to visit the charms of the city and its history, but to visit the Asda store when I worked for Asda. I am not particularly au fait with the city centre, although I am sure it is a fine place.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so generously. I am listening to the construction of his argument on the issue of the location in Canterbury. While I consider the merits of his argument, will he shed any light from his reading of their lordships debate on whether they considered the evidence base relating to location in Canterbury or whether there are any third-party evidence bases that the hon. Gentleman himself has read that would allow the House to make an informed decision?
Philip Davies
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I think raises a good point. As far as I understand it—the question might be more helpfully answered by the Bill’s promoter or the Minister when it comes to an explanation of the pretext for this—that appears not to have been a great factor in their lordships discussions. By that, I mean the situation as it stands in Canterbury. Where people tend to be located, how many people are engaging in this activity, what nuisance might be caused to local residents and whether tourists have been put off from coming into Canterbury because they have had a bad experience and do not want to return again are all potential reasons for the strength of Canterbury’s feelings about the inclusion of clause 11, but I am not aware that any of them were considered.
John Mann
The hon. Gentleman is not confusing the argument, but the argument is confusing me. I have received many representations about matters of concern to the House, but I have received none about this matter. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that it may have been important to the people of Canterbury in the context of what he describes as a possible motivation for the Bill, but they do not seem to have written to me about it. Has he received any correspondence from the people of Canterbury recently, explaining why it was important for the House’s time and votes to be spent on this Bill?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I do not think that we need worry about Members’ mail boxes while we are dealing with clause 11. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is desperate to stick to the point, and he certainly need not worry about other Members’ mail boxes.
Philip Davies
Of course I accept your wise counsel, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will say, however, that their lordships do not appear to have focused too much on the niceties.
When we began our debate on the Bill, we were told that clause 11 was crucial. When my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I tried to have it removed, our attempts were resisted, and it is because their lordships had to intervene that we are debating it now. The promoters, who were originally adamant about the inclusion of the clause, are now satisfied that it can be removed as their lordships wish. Earlier, I commended the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had listened to the arguments. What I do not understand is why the amendment could not have been dealt with earlier.
I urge Members to reject any views on the principle of touting, and to consider the practicalities. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will know much more about this than I do, but it seems to me that there is not a great deal of difference between a provision relating to streets and one that also includes parades and promenades.
Mr Nuttall
I think that I may have identified a crucial difference between the three Bills that contain a long description and the Reading Borough Council Bill, which uses the one word “street”. All the other Bills relate to city councils. The Canterbury Bill is one of the three city council Bills, and in that respect it differs from the Reading Bill.
Philip Davies
I am—I think—grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) may have been becoming confused, but I am beginning to think that I am becoming confused as well. I am not aware that the extra description in subsection (1)(b) has anything to with the fact that this is a city council Bill, as opposed to a borough council Bill. My understanding was that this particular difference related only to the different natures of the places concerned. I presumed that in Reading there was no promenade, parade or esplanade to which the Bill could apply. I could be wrong but my hon. Friend seemed to be arguing that, in effect, it is the same provision but there is a local difference based on the fact that one is a city council and the other is a borough council. My understanding, however, is that it is essentially the same, but it reflects the different nature of the towns and cities concerned. Clause 11 of the Canterbury Bill mentions “parade”, however, and I find it difficult to imagine that there is not a parade in Reading. That would lead me to ask why it is so important to ban selling on a parade in Canterbury, but not on a street in Reading.
Mr Chope
Is not this whole situation complicated by the fact that we have now agreed to Lords amendment C9, the consequence of which is to have designated areas rather than streets? The area set out in clause 11 of the Canterbury City Council Bill could now be regarded as a designated area under amendment C9.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right in that some of the earlier amendments that were so enthusiastically accepted by the House might have implications for this part of clause 11, which is about the designation of where people can or cannot tout their tickets and other goods and services.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is on to a good point, however, particularly when we take into account the potential impact of the decision in Cooper v. the Metropolitan Police Commissioner of 1986, where the courts decided that somebody who was working as a tout for a Soho club was guilty of obstruction. The obstruction provisions as amended by amendment C9 could be used against touts, notwithstanding this amendment, which takes out clause 11.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point. He tried to do something about the issue of causing obstructions in the previous group of amendments. Amendment C9 has been agreed to, and we must consider clause 11 in relation to provisions already accepted. My hon. Friend may well be right that that amendment could make clause 11 redundant, as we have already got the job done. I am not entirely sure whether that is the case, but I am not a lawyer, whereas my hon. Friend has the considerable advantage over me of being a very distinguished lawyer, so I bow to his superior knowledge. These points should be taken into account when Members decide whether to agree to the Lords amendment under discussion.
The other amendments are all consequential, so we do not need to worry ourselves with them. I shall therefore conclude my brief remarks, which took us on a quick canter around the course on touting in general. My hon. Friend said at the end of his speech that he was minded to accept this Lords amendment but would reserve judgment until he had heard what I had to say. Given that the House may choose to vote on this group of amendments, Members will be pleased to know that, as far as I can see, it would be sensible for the House to accept the amendment. It is a sensible amendment and it defends people’s freedoms. I remain curious, however, as to why it applies to Canterbury alone, and not to Reading, and I would prefer it to apply to both, but we will just have to live with that on this occasion. However, I advise the House to accept this Lords amendment, as it makes the Bill much better.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that. We have reached this stage, where we are in a position to vote for an amendment that improves the Bill and protects freedoms, which for me is what this place is all about, only because of the tenacious way in which he has approached the Bill. We should all be indebted to him for the work he has carried out, because when we accept the final group of Lords amendments, as I hope we will, the Bill will be in incredibly better shape than it was when it first came to this House six years ago. So I support these Lords amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
As the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has just said, this Bill has been discussed over the past six years, although this is the first contribution I have been able to make to it. Last Thursday, the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) was an able contributor to the debate. As he said then, the Government do not usually seek to intervene in private legislation and we have done so on this occasion only in order to clarify the issues relating to the European services directive. The Government believe, and have already said to the House, that some aspects of the Pedlars Act 1871 are inconsistent with that directive. We therefore launched a consultation on a change in the national law concerning street trading, and the consultation includes a proposal to repeal that Act. As my hon. Friend told the House on Thursday, the four local authorities whose Bills we are discussing—in this group, this applies to Canterbury in particular—are aware of the consultation. The House will be interested to know that we have decided this week to extend the consultation by a month to allow more time for people to respond, so it will now close on 15 March. The four authorities are aware that they may need to amend their legislation to take account of any changes that the Government propose on street trading. Having provided that useful information to the House, I just say that the Government are content for the Bills to proceed and for these Lords amendments to be made.
Lords amendment C15 agreed to.
Lords amendments C16 to C26 agreed to.
After Clause 17
Provision of Information by the Council
Amendment (e) proposed to Lords amendment C27.—(Mr Chope.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Leeds City Council Bill
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Nottingham City Council Bill
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Reading Borough Council Bill
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business without Debate
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
business of the house
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
sittings of the house
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
National Assembly for Wales
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to rise at this slightly later than anticipated hour to debate the Green Paper on the future electoral arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales.
I do so against the background of the Government’s wanting to reduce the number of MPs in Wales from 40 to 30 as part of a broader remapping of boundaries which has, I am delighted to say, failed in its attempt to reshape the political map, particularly in Wales but across the country, for party political gain. One of the key problems with that proposal is that it would break the coterminosity in Wales between MPs and Assembly Members. In the knowledge that they were doing that, the Government produced a Green Paper that said, in effect, “Don’t worry about it—we’ll reintroduce the coterminosity as a sort of Trojan horse to bring about a 30:30 arrangement, reducing the number of democratically elected AMs, increasing the list numbers, and changing the prospective balance of power in the Assembly.” That was done without any consultation or collaboration with the Assembly itself—a complete disgrace.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he think that given the Prime Minister’s assurance to the First Minister that any changes in Wales should have the consent of the Welsh people, it was pretty outrageous that he just went ahead regardless, which does not say much for any kind of respect agenda?
Geraint Davies
I will be mild in my criticism, but I thought it was completely disgraceful. It showed a great lack of respect for the blossoming new democracy that we have in the nation of Wales, with a Welsh Government doing very good things and the road of devolution moving forwards. Where important decisions can be made locally by the people they affect most, that is what should happen. It was very unfortunate, to put it mildly, that the Prime Minister showed such disrespect to the leader of the Welsh Assembly Government.
The other propositions in the Green Paper include the idea of a five-year cycle for the National Assembly for Wales detached by a year from Westminster’s five-year cycle. That might be quite sensible on the grounds that it would be unfortunate to have both elections on the same day because there could be confusion in Wales as a result of the media carrying more about UK policies of the Labour party and other parties that may differ from those in Wales. It is important in the interests of effective democracy, and effectively communicating democracy, that the elections do not occur in the same year, and I am therefore minded to support the idea of moving to a five-year cycle displaced by a year.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Would he not argue that extending the Assembly’s term—I agree with what he said about the longer-term prognosis for that—so that the elections did not clash was an example of the respect agenda in practice? I have some sympathy with what he said earlier, but in this instance we saw the respect agenda in practice.
Geraint Davies
It is a good idea, but that does not mean that it is about the respect agenda. I think that perhaps the idea came from this place without proper consultation and it just so happened that the Welsh Assembly Government agreed with it. Will the Minister tell us whether there was consultation on that part of the Green Paper. My understanding is that there was no consultation on any of it. Was there, in any sense, an element of the respect agenda, or was it just a blind coincidence of view?
There is also a move towards the resurgence of dual candidacy whereby somebody can stand in a first-past-the-post election and, should they fail, reappear like a vampire figure through the list mechanism and find themselves transposed into the National Assembly without a mandate, having failed to win in the first place. In other words, losers will be winners; I will be talking about Bob Dylan later.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman holds the strong view that the Green Paper was an attempt to gerrymander the political system in Wales. However, the implementation of the double jeopardy rule that prohibits people from standing in the list and in a constituency was the worst kind of gerrymandering by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) when he was Secretary of State for Wales. Is the hon. Gentleman proud that the electoral system that we now have for the National Assembly for Wales is mirrored in only one country in the world—Ukraine?
Geraint Davies
It is a shame there is no one from Ukraine present to speak up for themselves—no disrespect to Ukraine, but that matter could be taken up in another place, namely Ukraine.
On double candidacy, the proposition was put in a manifesto which was voted for in an election. There was a White Paper and it went through a proper system. Of course, it is possible to disagree with something that has been properly considered and passed in a democratic way—I respect that and I am sure that we all share that view—but we are complaining about proposals that were put through in a one-sided and seemingly political way without proper collaboration with the institution that would then have to run the situation, namely the National Assembly for Wales.
Could the Minister confirm whether the boundary changes are now dead and buried in the aftermath of the vote here, particularly in the light of a Wales Office spokesperson saying that it is now not in anyone’s interests to change the boundaries as proposed by the Green Paper?
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The proposed parliamentary boundary changes have been abandoned, which means that £1.5 million has been wasted by this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that, should the Minister confirm, as is likely, that the review of the Assembly boundaries is dead and buried, they will have wasted even more money?
Geraint Davies
That is completely right. For a Government who are obsessed with cost cutting, they are wasting money on completely unnecessary new things. Had the changes been made, the lack of coterminosity, the confusion and the bedding in of various challenges would have cost enormous sums of money. The money would have been better spent in Wales on services and jobs for Wales, instead of on administrative expense for the sake of it that has now hit the dust. I want a reassurance that the Government do not plan, certainly in this Parliament, to re-tamper with the boundaries.
What is the Government’s position on the fixed term? Is the Minister at last consulting and collaborating with the National Assembly for Wales, and do the Government intend to press for five years, which I support in principle?
I am interested in the issue of double jobbing. There are examples of Assembly Members, MPs and peers who do two of those three jobs at the same time. What is the Minister’s position on that? My instinct is that one should do one job well and that it is very difficult to be in Cardiff and Westminster at the same time, even given modern media. Other people can fill different positions and one can meet up with them to compare notes.
I have already mentioned double candidacy—what is the Minister’s position on that? Is he hurtling ahead with it without consent or collaboration? Will he push it forward irrespective of the Welsh Assembly Chamber that it will affect?
This is about balance. There was no consultation on the boundaries, co-determination could have happened, and it is possible for a movement of competence, under the respect agenda, to the Assembly itself. The Silk report is being discussed, so the Minister might want to talk about that. I am sure there will be active engagement in the question of the future arrangements for competence over these issues or, at least, for co-determination. We should move towards giving that competence to the place where the impact of these decisions will be felt, which is, of course, Wales. I want a general reassurance that there will be no further unilateralism that could be construed as gerrymandering.
Our great forefather Aneurin Bevan saw political economy as a struggle between private property, poverty and democracy, and that at times of economic difficulty democracy would be compressed and would suffer and be undermined by private property stopping poverty getting its fair share. In the pit of this recession, which is being made worse and worse by the Conservative-Liberal alliance, we have seen an attempt on a number of fronts to undermine democracy, to pick away at it and to increase the odds of the retention of power by the incumbents.
That attempt has included the boundary gerrymandering, the attempt to impose voluntary registration for voters, which was disgraceful and eventually had to be withdrawn, and individual registration. There has been cross-party support for the last measure, but I think that it is unfortunate because 25% of people are functionally illiterate and some households contain many people who cannot speak English, so people often need help to register and participate. The Green Paper, which comes on the back of the attempted boundary changes, is another attempt to change the political balance when things had settled down after a proper democratic process.
Wayne David
My hon. Friend has used the word “gerrymander” a couple of times and he is right to use that term. Does he agree that the bottom line is that the proposed boundary changes for Wales were all about preventing the election of another Labour Administration in Wales? That was the motivation and it has been stopped.
Geraint Davies
The evidence certainly points in that direction. Thankfully, there are different institutions in the United Kingdom that can take forward different policies and ideas. For example, in Wales people can go to university for £3,000 a year or about £10,000 across three years, rather than pay £30,000. In this place, the Conservatives say, “It is impossible to have lower fees. Where would the money come from?” That idea and many others show that there are different ways of doing things. That is healthy for democracy.
The attempt to use the power that this place has had historically to blunt the blade of innovation in Wales is quite wrong. Unfortunately, all the evidence suggests that these changes are being proposed for party political gain.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman is being very gracious in giving way. I am sure that he will be glad to hear that Gareth Bale has just scored for Wales and that we are beating Austria 1-0.
There has been cross-party consent in Wales on creating a fairer electoral system. The Richard commission published its report in 2004 and argued for 80 Assembly Members elected by single transferable vote. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that parties across the divide, both here and in the National Assembly, should come together and look again at those proposals?
Geraint Davies
There is a case for having a broad debate about the best way forward. That is part of the Silk discussion and I agree with that. I am surprised that Plaid Cymru’s position is that there should be co-determination as opposed to devolution on these matters. Perhaps that is a change in its position and it is now less devolutionist than I appear to be. That is there for the record.
I will be helpful and give the Minister time to respond and to answer any questions that other Members may have. Clearly, there are more questions than answers in the aftermath of the great boundary victory—a constitutional change for which we can thank the Liberal Democrats, who are here in abundance. I can barely see the green leather, there are so many of them here tonight!
We need to move forward with effective democracy. It would help to have coterminosity of seats for Assembly Members and MPs. Obviously that could change in the future. It would be good to have stability in our relationships with constituents and for decisions increasingly to be made where they have the greatest impact.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing this Adjournment debate on the Green Paper on future electoral arrangements for the Assembly.
Hon. Members will recall that we debated the Green Paper in Westminster Hall on 3 July last year. I was not in Westminster Hall for that debate and I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was. I have watched the video and read it in Hansard and neither makes for a particularly edifying experience. It was not a particularly good debate, so it is worth revisiting some of the issues this evening.
Some hon. Members from Wales participated in the consultation and are keen to know where we have reached, particularly, as the hon. Member for Swansea West said, in the light of the vote last week on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill—I will come to that in a moment. I was going to say that this debate is timely given that vote, but I will not congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that because, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has reminded us, it is keeping us all from the football. We are, however, grateful to him for keeping us updated with scores. That might prove to be one of the more interesting points of the debate this evening.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made it clear that following last week’s vote in the House the Government will not now take forward the Green Paper proposals on Assembly constituency boundaries. I hope that answers one of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Swansea West. Indeed, the Government have been clear all along that the changes to the make-up of Assembly constituencies proposed in the Green Paper—either reinstating the link between Assembly and parliamentary constituencies, or retaining 40 Assembly constituencies but making them a more equal size—would be predicated on Parliament approving the proposals of the four UK boundary commissions for new parliamentary constituencies.
The hon. Gentleman opened his remarks by stating his delight that the proposals for revised parliamentary constituency boundaries were defeated, but I thought he gave the game away as to his agenda this evening. I think he is throwing up a smokescreen for the vote that he and his colleagues took that evening, which was not only a vote against fairer-sized parliamentary constituencies across Wales and the UK, but a vote against cutting the cost of politics.
Wayne David
The Minister says the motivation was cutting costs but will he explain why his Government are in the process of creating 50 extra peers for the other place?
Stephen Crabb
We will not take any lessons from the Labour party on spending money. The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Minister in the previous Government and perhaps bears more responsibility than most, in terms of collective responsibility, for some of the decisions taken by that Government with such disastrous financial consequences for this country. We will take no lessons from the Labour party on the good use of resources.
I think that the hon. Member for Swansea West and his colleagues will come to regret the vote that they took last week, which was, as I have said, against fairer-sized parliamentary constituencies and cutting the cost of politics. Voters want more out of democratic system; they want more value for money and to know that their votes count. The hon. Gentleman’s constituency has an electorate of 60,000 or 61,000, but some of his colleagues have 94,000, 95,000 or 96,000 constituents. He should be able to see as well as anyone the inbuilt unfairness in the current system of parliamentary boundaries.
Jessica Morden
Has the Minister made any assessment of how much the abortive boundaries review in Wales cost, as well as the mess-up over the ballot papers, the police and crime commissioner elections and the Green Paper process? How much has that all cost Wales in total?
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Lady asks a direct question about the cost of the Green Paper consultation and I will give her a direct answer. The consultation on the Green Paper cost just over £3,000. If she or any of her colleagues are tempted to say, “Isn’t that now a waste of money because we are not proceeding with changes to Assembly constituency boundaries?” I remind them that the Green Paper was about a lot more than the shape of constituency boundaries for Assembly elections. Important parts of the consultation still need to be considered, and I will come to that in a moment.
Geraint Davies
The Minister seems to suggest that the Government’s plan was to improve democracy. He will correct me if I am wrong, but the plan that has been mentioned was, in essence, to reduce the number of directly elected MPs from 650 to 600, and increase the number of peers by 50. In other words, to substitute 50 elected Members of Parliament for 50 unelected Members. How can that be democracy? It is ridiculous.
Stephen Crabb
I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last year, but he will know it was this Government’s serious intention to see a substantial directly elected proportion of the House of Lords, and there is still a huge appetite for that. As a result of Parliament’s decision to defer the reform of parliamentary constituencies until 2018, it would not be in anyone’s interest to proceed with that aspect of the Green Paper at this stage.
Stephen Crabb
I am going to make some progress. I am disappointed but not surprised that the Labour party is using this opportunity for point scoring and attempted grandstanding, rather than for a serious discussion of the issues.
While the Labour party engages in what has become characteristic negativity, and in the absence of any constructive contribution to the debate from Labour Members, the Government will consider how to take forward the other important proposals in the Green Paper. First, should Assembly terms be increased from four to five years? Secondly, should the prohibition on standing as a candidate in both a constituency and a region be lifted? Thirdly, should Assembly Members be prohibited from sitting in Parliament and from having multiple mandates?
Geraint Davies
Before the Minister answers those important questions, will he confirm that the boundary changes are dead and buried and that there is no plan to introduce further boundary changes in Wales before the next election? Following his point about the Lords, will he confirm whether there is a plan to introduce a change to the House of Lords before the next election? I would be very glad to hear that there is such a plan.
Stephen Crabb
I have been clear about the consequences of the vote taken in the House last Tuesday—I was disappointed with the outcome—and that we will not proceed with the aspect of the Green Paper that deals with changes to Assembly constituency boundaries.
Of the three questions I have highlighted, the most pressing is on the length of Assembly terms. Hon. Members will be aware that, as a result of concerns expressed by the Welsh Government during the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the Assembly election scheduled for May 2015 was deferred by one year until 2016 to avoid a clash with the next general election. That is a good example of the UK Government listening to the concerns raised by the Welsh Government and, to address another point the hon. Gentleman raised, collaborating with them. That is a one-off change. The two elections are set to coincide again in 2020 unless provision is made to prevent it.
A majority of respondents to our consultation favoured a move to five-year terms to reduce the likelihood of elections coinciding in future. The decision is a finely balanced one—good arguments have been made in support of both options—but however we decide to proceed, we are mindful that electors in Wales should be clear on how long they are electing their representatives for. Importantly, all four political parties in the Assembly favoured a move to five-year terms. It is worth putting that on the record.
In the Green Paper, the Government set out our intention to repeal the prohibition on a candidate at an Assembly election standing in both a constituency and a region. All three Opposition parties in the Assembly favoured removing the ban, but I acknowledge that, overall, a small majority favoured retaining the prohibition in their responses to the consultation. A significant majority of respondents agreed with our proposal to prevent Assembly Members from sitting in Westminster.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned competency—that issue was discussed at length during the debate of 3 July 2012. I should point out that the Government are simply operating within the framework that the previous Government set out in the Government of Wales Act 2006. As he knows, the Act states that competency and responsibility for electoral arrangements for the Welsh Assembly resides at Westminster. There is a Silk process—part 2 was launched recently, which provides a great opportunity for people who have concerns and other ideas to contribute. The Government have made it clear that we will listen and read very carefully all submissions to Silk part 2. We will announce our response in due course. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, but other hon. Members in the Chamber were, and I remind him that they supported the previous Government’s legislation and the framework that retains competency and responsibility for Welsh Assembly elections at UK level.
Wayne David
The Minister indicates that a large part of the Green Paper is redundant because of last week’s events in the House. Will he issue another Green Paper? If not, the consultation was on a largely flawed document.
Stephen Crabb
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We have said that we are not proceeding with one aspect of the package that we consulted on in the Green Paper because of the outcome of last week’s vote. As I have said, Labour Members will, in time, come to regret that vote—it was a vote against fairness in the electoral system and against reducing the costs of politics at a time when the electorate demand more from our democratic system. There are still some very important issues. I highlighted three a few moments ago that we will consider further. It is right that we do that, and we will be making announcements in due course.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The Minister intends to introduce legislation to this House on those three points on the consultation he has already had, which was to do with the fourth point as well—is that how he foresees taking this measure forward?
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and I think he is trying to tempt me to say more than I am able to at this stage. The Green Paper presented a package of changes and proposals. As hon. Members recognise, one significant part of the package is not being proceeded with, so we now have to look at the other elements on their own terms and decide how we can proceed with them, and, if we proceed with them, what would be the best legislative vehicle for them. I am not, therefore, in a position to give him all the information he is looking for this evening, but I am sure we will come back to it.
Wayne David
The Minister mentioned that £3,000 had been wasted because a large chunk of his document is now totally irrelevant. Does that £3,000 include the time civil servants spent on the element that has been ditched?
Stephen Crabb
If ever there was a false premise to an intervention, that was one. It was not wasted at all. We had extremely valuable responses to the consultation that will feed into our deliberations about the other parts of the Green Paper package. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs. If we were not consulting, he would be the very first Member to stand up and complain about a lack of consultation. We can never win with the Opposition: there is either too much consultation or not enough consultation, or we are going too fast or going too slow. Actually, we think we have the balance right. We are taking the time to do this properly. We know that the most timely part of the changes will be, as I said earlier, the need to make a decision about the length of the Assembly term—whether we move from four years to five years—and we will proceed on that in a timely manner.
Geraint Davies
The Minister may have already answered this, but just to clarify the point about the list and dual candidacy, he mentioned he has had some feedback. I think he said that the feedback was that there should not be dual candidacy. What is his instinct about the way forward, and how will he be collaborating with Cardiff?
Stephen Crabb
The responses to the consultation were mixed. I acknowledged that a majority of correspondents appeared to say that there should not be dual candidacy—where somebody is both a candidate on a list and a candidate in a constituency. However, when I read through those responses I have to say that a large number of them seemed to come from the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues and seemed to bear a remarkable degree of similarity. They got hauled up recently for copying each other’s press releases. Far be it from me to suggest that some of his colleagues might have been doing that when they responded to the Green Paper.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the decision not to proceed with changes to Assembly constituencies does not mean an end to all the proposals in the Green Paper. We do not intend to let the significant work we have already undertaken go to waste. The work is not wasted—I refute that suggestion made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). These are issues of real importance. We can joke about them as we have done a little this evening, but we need to get them right. It is right that we consulted the people of Wales, and we are considering how best to proceed before announcing our plans. In light of the Commons vote last week, we will announce how we intend to move forward in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
England-Wales Transport Links
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Betts, and to raise cross-border travel, which is critical for Wales. It was the subject of two inquiries by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in the previous Parliament, and, as is so often the case with such inquiries, the issue is now being revisited by the present Committee. The Government will of course have the opportunity to respond when we have agreed our report.
I shall not pre-empt that, but would mention one way in which the reports are characterised: there has been a lot of discussion of north Wales and south Wales connectivity, quite rightly, but some colleagues may empathise with me when I say that mid-Wales is often lost in the debate. However, a few Select Committee veterans are here among my hon. Friends and colleagues, and others with border constituencies will no doubt want to talk about the important issues of Severn bridge tolls, First Great Western franchise arrangements and the quest for electrification in north Wales. Should I stray intermittently into devolved matters, I apologise from the outset, but responsibility for transport is fragmented, as our report of 2009 stated, and that requires robust co-ordination between the Governments at Cardiff Bay and Westminster.
The 2009 Select Committee report said that rail
“improvement schemes are too often only evaluated on their local benefits”,
that we require greater co-ordination of rail franchises and that we have seen
“a general failure to predict increases in passenger demand and...insufficient rolling stock is available on certain routes particularly at busy times.”
Those, certainly, are characteristics of the debate about the rail line that ends in my constituency in Aberystwyth and passes through that of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies).
Arriva Trains Wales operates the Cambrian coast line service between Birmingham International and Aberystwyth. The absence of an hourly service across mid-Wales is not merely a parochial matter, nor is the loss of a direct service between Aberystwyth and London some 20 years ago. The economic benefits of connectivity, for the movement of people and of goods and services, should not be understated. The town of Aberystwyth has strategic significance. We do not hear much about the mid-Wales corridor. We hear a lot about the A55 and the M4 corridor, but there is a mid-Wales corridor, and the Select Committee made that point in another of our many inquiries—we are a very busy Committee—into inward investment:
“We are concerned by evidence that the quality of transport links in Mid and North Wales and the connectivity between the rest of Wales and England deters overseas investment in parts of Wales.”
Part of that debate is about roads, and colleagues may want to talk about that, but I want to discuss rail and my belief that mid-Wales is being held back, which is why arrangements across the border are so critical. The local perception is that we have a second-rate service. That is not always a failure of the franchisee. Sometimes, it is a failure of political will and opportunity.
My enthusiasm on the matter led me to suggest to the Select Committee Chair that not only should we take evidence on transport matters in Aberystwyth, but we should travel there by train. Not all members of the Committee were brave enough to experience that, although some were. I salute the hon. Members for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Swansea East (Mrs James), for their support in travelling by train. I could have written a soap opera script. We left Euston on time, to embark on our journey of four hours and 40 minutes. It was regrettable that that was compounded by a two-hour wait at Birmingham International station, as we missed the connection. There are limits on what one can do for two hours at Birmingham International station.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
A word of advice: go to Paddington. It is much easier to get to Aberystwyth from there.
Mr Williams
Sadly, in my constituency, people then have to contend with the roads—I live in the north of Ceredigion. I enjoy the friendship and camaraderie of the hon. Members for Swansea East and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, but two hours sitting there waiting is a trial in many ways.
In evidence to the Select Committee, Passenger Focus
“identified inter-franchise connections as one of the main sources of dissatisfaction with cross-border services amongst passengers.”
The report was produced in 2009, under the previous Government, so perhaps the Minister can give some good news now, but we concluded:
“At present, there is no incentive for different train operating companies to provide connecting services or to ensure that connections are maintained when there are delays.”
When we finally got on our train, the journey continued to Machynlleth, in Powys. There we had the spectacle of the four carriages being reduced to two, and passengers scurrying from the back of the train to the front, to get into carriages to Aberystwyth; otherwise they would risk a prolonged although scenic journey—but it was getting late—up to Pwllheli. Those are the realities of the service that my constituents must use.
There has, overall, in the generality of Wales, been progress since the report was produced, not least because of the coalition Government’s commitment to rail electrification in south Wales. That is commendable and necessary, and progress is being made, for which I commend the Government. A debate is emerging on rail electrification in north Wales—the arrival in the Chamber of the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) is timely, as is this important debate. The Assembly Minister announced in January that he will draw up a business case for that, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the liaison and discussion between the Government and Assembly Ministers. However, the lack of an hourly service in mid-Wales and the two- hour wait between trains across mid-Wales is not simply a matter of mild inconvenience. It is an impediment to the area’s growth.
During its inquiry on inward investment, the Welsh Affairs Committee heard from Professor Stuart Cole, of the university of Glamorgan, that
“if Wales was to compete successfully with countries in Eastern Europe, its transport facilities had to be able to help overcome the cost differentials and distances from these markets by becoming ultra-efficient and influence competitiveness for inward investment”.
If that is a message for Wales as a whole, it is a very poignant one for mid-Wales. We heard from UK Trade and Investment officials, who said that the current transport infrastructure in Wales could act as a potential deterrent to investors. We need to make sure that existing businesses and manufacturers are not hamstrung by any impediment such as lack of development of the transport network. The pressures that that could put on the tourism sector and the all-important higher education sector in my constituency are something that I reflect on. The Wales Tourism Alliance has said:
“If we are to succeed, we must get visitors, the lifeblood of the economies of Wales, into each and every corner of our country. At present internally and cross border we simply do not have the transport infrastructure to deliver the economic potential of many of our leading destinations.”
I contend—surprise, surprise—that many of those destinations are on the west Wales coast.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the historic under-investment in transport in Wales. If High Speed 2 —essentially an England-only railway—goes ahead and given that, despite the fact that transport is not actually devolved, Crossrail resulted in a 100% Barnett consequential, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a Barnett consequential for HS2 investment is essential, so that the Welsh transport infrastructure can keep pace with developments in England?
Mr Williams
I welcome that intervention. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall come on to that point because HS2 is of great interest to many of our constituents.
This is a historic debate. Seven years ago the National Assembly’s development committee heard evidence from the mid-Wales manufacturing group in Newtown. At the top of its list of key requirements for businesses to flourish were improved roads, rail and broadband. I would give five out of 10 for broadband but fewer marks out of 10 on rail.
What we need—there is a role for both Governments in this—is a stimulus that supports growth and creates a dynamic transport network in Wales. Much of the debate is internal and the exclusive responsibility of our National Assembly Government, but while that is appropriate, the fact that 16.4 million people live within 50 miles of the border makes cross-border services vital. Over the years of the rail franchise, we have seen strong development in that area, with Arriva Trains Wales reporting growth in its cross-border services of typically between 8% and 13%. On the Cambrian main line, which is a primary cross-border route connecting Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury and beyond, 900,000 journeys are made every year, and the average loading—I hesitate to use the word load to describe passengers, but it feels a bit like that sometimes—is about 125 passengers, which is slightly higher than the UK average. Although I appreciate that, in the current economic climate, there are great constraints on the Governments in Cardiff and Westminster, small, limited enhancements could bring genuine benefits to the community.
I will start with the modest aspirations. SARPA, the Shrewsbury-Aberystwyth Rail Passengers Association, has called for the improved utilisation of rolling stock resources, which could bring improvements to the service at minimal increased cost. Dealing with commuter trains in and out of Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth would be a good start. For example, at Shrewsbury, there is an early arrival from Aberystwyth at 7.11 am, but the next train arrives at 9.25 am, which does not make sense for the many people who need to get to work or college by 9 am. There is a lot of demand for travel to and from Shrewsbury for job opportunities, further education and medical services that are not readily available in mid-Wales, but the current timetable does not serve that demand effectively. Since privatisation, franchise holders have been instructed by the passenger service requirement to run trains with a two-hour frequency. Operators have happily taken the subsidy offered, but little thought seems to have been given by the franchisee to providing a service that reflects the demand for travel across the border.
I acknowledged at the start of my speech that transport policy is fragmented between the Assembly Government and the UK Department for Transport, but I know that there is a healthy dialogue between the Welsh and UK Departments because the Minister convinced me of that when I questioned him in the Welsh Affairs Committee. We also took evidence in Aberystwyth from the Welsh Minister Carl Sargeant, who spoke of an emerging much more positive relationship, so I know that to be the case.
Network Rail is, however, the responsibility of the Department for Transport. I salute the work of its Welsh division—the very fact that we have a Welsh division is an important message for those of us who believe in devolution. Network Rail has undertaken extensive infrastructure work, including the building of passing loops on our line, and we acted as guinea pigs for the development of the European rail traffic management system—the new signalling system that will be rolled out across Great Britain.
I am interested, however, in the Minister’s view on why we still do not have the hourly service. I do not want to damage his relationship with Mr Carl Sargeant, but does he regret, as I do, the apparent lack of will at Cardiff? There has been promise after promise after promise. Since 1999, we have been told that we will have our hourly service, and we have now been told that, as we do not figure sufficiently high in the priorities, we will have to wait until 2015. The service would plug an important gap in the timetable and make genuine commuting opportunities possible across mid-Wales.
At the same time, the Welsh Government have tried to kick-start a market between north and south Wales, with 10 services between Cardiff and north Wales and lower passenger numbers, and many argue that the route could effectively be served by three or four trains, rather than the 10 that it enjoys. An hourly service is a modest aspiration. We have been promised it before, and I hope we can push further for it following this debate.
There is a more ambitious proposal for train services in and out of mid-Wales and to London, which is the re-establishment of a direct service between Aberystwyth and London. Three years ago, we faced more disappointment when the Office of Rail Regulation threw out Arriva Trains Wales’s bid to develop the direct service. I declare an interest: I spend up to 10 hours a week on the train, somewhere between London and Aberystwyth. I have rarely driven here. My wife used to be an employee of Arriva Trains Wales—and a very good job she did, too. Arriva Trains Wales’s bid was an attempt to right a wrong that had emanated from privatisation legislation, which had meant the withdrawal by the successors to British Rail of a direct link to the capital.
In 2010, Arriva Trains Wales’s bid for a twice-daily service to London Marylebone was rejected. The company stated that the bid would unlock the potential of the mid-Wales rail market and bring it in line—that was music to my ears—with that of south and north Wales. It proposed to route a line for the direct service via Shrewsbury and Birmingham International, and the latter is important because many of my constituents and those who live in other parts of mid-Wales use the airport there; it is the airport for mid-Wales. The proposed service would have continued through Banbury, West Ruislip and Wembley to London Marylebone, and plans were drawn up for timetabling and rolling stock. The Office of Rail Regulation gave as its reason for rejecting the bid a concern about the “financial viability” of the new service. There were concerns about the abstraction of revenue from the sadly now former Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway Company, and there were concerns from Chiltern Railways.
I well remember nearly 30 years ago InterCity 125s leaving Aberystwyth at 7 am. It was not exactly robust commuter traffic on a daily basis, but it sent an important signal of connectivity from a peripheral area to the rest of the country. I also remember freight being delivered on that service to Aberystwyth. I am flying the kite to the Minister, resurrecting the ghost of that service, in the expectation that he can help us, and that the Minister at Cardiff Bay is listening, too. We should at least explore the possibility of a direct service once again, and I hope that the Department for Transport and the Assembly Government will look favourably on that. The consequences of the rejection of the Arriva Trains Wales bid has been that, since 1991, Aberystwyth is one of the few towns in Britain left without a direct link to the capital.
I want just to touch on two other things; I know that colleagues want to talk about issues that affect their localities. In 2018, the Arriva Wales franchise will be up for renewal, so can the Minister clarify who has ultimate responsibility for arrival at the new franchise? Can he confirm that there are two signatures on the documentation for it? Or, is it the sole responsibility of our Assembly Government? Either way, the matters will, I am sure, be part of the Silk commission’s work when we look at the devolution of responsibility. Clarity about rail franchises will be considered as Paul Silk embarks on part 2 of his inquiry into further powers.
I also want to talk about the historical matter of the initial subsidy agreement, which was not signed under the Minister’s watch, between the then Strategic Rail Authority and Arriva Trains Wales. There was an agreement for a one-year subsidy of £120 million, which would reduce over the 15 years of the franchise to less than £100 million. The Welsh Assembly Government, rightly within their remit, have decided to pursue a positive policy, including increasing train lengths, acquiring new trains and extending platforms, but I just wish we could see a bit more of the money in mid-Wales.
The policy resulted in the subsidy increasing, in 2012, to £140 million, and it has been suggested by some, including our Select Committee, that some of the problems with congestion and overcrowding are the result of inadequate modelling of predictions for growth in the industry. The Select Committee concluded in its 2009 report that
“overcrowding is the result of poorly designed franchises which paid no heed to industry forecasts for passenger growth.”
Consequently, the Government in Wales are paying for investment. Some have suggested that Wales is being short-changed.
Many people I talk to have a wrong perception that HS2 will directly affect train travel in and out of Wales. HS2 will have an effect. Perhaps if we get the electrification that we all want in north Wales, it will have a positive effect on travel. I am dispelling a perception in my constituency that, somehow, we might step off a slow Arriva Trains Wales train somewhere in Birmingham and hop on to a fast train and head off down to London with 40 minutes taken off our journey. Of course, that is not the reality, which leads me to question the benefits that will accrue to large parts of Wales. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr made a point about the scheme’s possible Barnett consequences.
I could go on at great length. The debate is as broad as the border is long. I could talk about so many issues, but I am keen to flag up one persistent problem: the more we talk about north Wales and south Wales, the more our constituents in mid-Wales say that we are somehow being short-changed. We are not getting the service that we need, not just for those daily trips in and out of Shrewsbury to do some shopping at Marks and Spencer, but to access the services that we require to develop our area economically.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments on north Wales, south Wales and the exclusion of mid-Wales, but does he recognise, for example, the Conwy Valley railway line in my constituency? The line links to Meirionnydd, which I define as being in mid-Wales. One of the key issues for the Conwy Valley railway line is that timetabling means someone leaving Blaenau Ffestiniog on the 7 o’clock train to Llandudno junction will miss the trains to Chester and London by four minutes. Is timetabling not part of better servicing mid-Wales?
Mr Williams
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his arrival. I am not sure whether he was here when I talked about timetabling. Franchise arrangements are slightly different in that instance, but there is a need for franchise agreements to ensure synergy between timetables, because one of my constituents’ persistent complaints is that we do not have the integrated approach that he and I both want.
I have used this at the end of many debates on Wales, and I say “chwarae teg” for trains in mid-Wales.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Seven hon. Members want to speak. If I allow 10 minutes for the wind-ups, there is a maximum of seven minutes for everyone who speaks. I cannot enforce the guideline, which is advisory, but it would be helpful if Members kept to it.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Well done to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for securing this debate. I am sorry that I was unable to be on his marathon six-hour train journey, but he has made a persuasive case for mid-Wales, and I am sure the Minister is listening. I also thank him for giving us an opportunity to lobby on other transport matters. As a south Wales MP, I will address the Severn bridge tolls and rail, which he has already mentioned.
The Severn bridge tolls are a thorny issue. A Wales Office Minister recently told me that reports commissioned on the impact of the tolls on Wales gave a mixed picture. He may well say that, but constituents and businesses tell me loud and clear how hard they find absorbing the increased tolls each year when their pay is frozen, their hours are reduced and the cost of living is rising. I am aware of their misery, because it is a major local issue about which I am contacted as an MP. Businesses, particularly those in the haulage industry, say the tolls mean they bear a cost that competitors across the bridge do not and that they have to add that cost to their bottom line, which hits their competitiveness. A Welsh Assembly study, about which the Minister may be aware, shows that scrapping the tolls altogether would improve the economic output of south Wales by some £107 million.
For many, the light at the end of the tunnel is the end of the concession in a few years’ time. I say a few years’ time, because every time someone ventures to say the concession will end on a certain date, the duration of the concession lengthens, which is worrying to say the least. That is mild: I think the concession is becoming a farce. In 2005, the concession would end in 2016; last year, it was 2017; and it now appears to be shifting to the end of 2018. Will the Minister confirm his current estimate?
The first reason given for extending the concession was reduced traffic due to the downturn; then it was the cost of installing the card-handling system, then industrial building allowances and then higher VAT. Now, because the concession may well extend beyond 2018 into 2020, we have the mystery debt from the construction of the bridges, about which another Minister wrote to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and which might push the date further into the future. The announcement in December obtained by the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), was news to all of us on the Committee. The information was never mentioned in our recently completed inquiry. Will the Minister explain how the debt came about and why we were never told of it?
That highlights the problem with the concession. I note that Ministers have recently been using the Severn bridge concession as an example of why private companies’ investing to improve our roads, with motorists paying tolls, is a good idea. I have heard Ministers say on the radio and on television that there are tolls on the M6. Well, I think that the Severn bridge concession is a terrible example. The concession, fixed by law years ago, allows the company to whack up the tolls every year until it reaches its target. The toll is completely inflexible, as we saw when there were calls to accept debit and credit card payments. Help for regular users, off-peak travel for businesses and the ability for car sharers to share the tab are all too difficult for the concessionaires who just care about getting the revenue. Calls from customers for any sort of flexibility fall on deaf ears, and the motorist yet again gets stung, with no protection when times are hard, as they are now.
We need something to look forward to when the concession ends. There is a niggling fear that the Treasury sees the bridges as a useful revenue stream after 2017, 2018 or 2019, or whenever the concession ends, and is looking to bank in advance the anticipated revenue from the bridge tolls. Will the Minister please tell me that is not the case?
We need to know what discussions are taking place and whether the Department is engaging with the issue now, rather than waiting until the last minute. Crucially, we need to know that not only reduced tolls, but other creative ideas such as reductions for regular users and off-peak travel for businesses are being considered.
Jonathan Edwards
Does the hon. Lady agree that, on the announcement we heard in evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee that the UK Government intend to continue the tolls at their current level, following the return to public ownership because of a previously undisclosed debt, the general impression in Wales is that the UK Government are fleecing Welsh motorists?
Jessica Morden
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, the Welsh Assembly has expressed an interest in running the bridges when the concession ends, and I would be happy with that, as I suspect would many of my constituents, if it pledges in advance to reduce the tolls. It would be helpful if the Minister told us what discussions are ongoing with the Welsh Assembly Government.
The Severn tolls are the highest in the UK. It is true that we have to pay the tolls because the bridges had to be built, but the situation is now out of control. The Government stepped in for the Humber bridge and the Dartford crossing, and they ought to do the same for the Severn bridges and give us some reassurance for the future.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Severn bridge in south-east Wales is seen as an opportunity for the company to fleece motorists. Is the toll not also a real economic difficulty that places the Welsh lorry and logistics industries at a competitive disadvantage?
Jessica Morden
I agree with my hon. Friend. The logistics and haulage industries, many of which are based in our constituencies, are hit hard by the toll because they cannot pass on the extra costs that their competitors do not bear.
On train connectivity, many of my constituents travel to work in places such as Bristol. Constituents at the Monmouth end of Newport East have for years faced ill-thought-out connections, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned, and a decline in the number of train services stopping from places such as Severn Tunnel Junction. A local campaign group, the Severn tunnel action group, have fought a tremendous and successful campaign to bring back many of the services that that station lost. The group has highlighted the local demand for commuter services. The station’s footfall has increased substantially recently—by about 14%—and it is ideally placed to be a major park-and-ride station, with investment.
Even after winning back services that were due to be axed, STAG pointed out that the station’s potential was not being fully realised. STAG highlighted the ill-thought-out timetable, which failed to recognise the importance of connecting commuter trains to services coming from places such as Lydney, Chepstow and Caldicot. For example, Arriva Trains Wales eliminated a service at Severn Tunnel Junction that connected to the First Great Western service and that STAG had negotiated and won back only six months earlier. The replacement Arriva cross-country service leaves Severn Tunnel Junction just minutes before the First Great Western service arrives, so passengers must wait hours for connecting trains, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned. That is not acceptable. Moreover, peak trains are often so full that passengers must stand for the whole journey or wait a few hours until the next one.
All those factors, particularly cross-border connectivity, put commuters off local train services. I ask the Minister to bear those points in mind when he talks to train operators, and perhaps to agree to meet the Severn tunnel action group—a fantastic example of a local group campaigning for rail services.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this debate on a matter that is of huge interest to me and has been for most of my adult life. I want to address specifically how we deal with cross-border links in a devolved United Kingdom. It is not just because my constituency is Montgomeryshire; I worked for a long time to develop the economy in mid-Wales with my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), and one part of the strategy that we always knew was important was transport links. It was much more important for mid-Wales to have a link out than it is for England to have a link in, which lies at the root of the problem.
I was going to talk about road links, particularly two specific ones, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion mentioned rail links, I should say how important they are as well. When we discussed the Aberystwyth-Euston link, it was part of an initiative that we in mid-Wales developed. We got every organisation there to come together in a partnership and invest in the Cambrian line, because it was so important to us. Although we have lost the Aber link, we hope that the Shrewsbury-Euston link will be restored soon. I hope that the Minister will reconfirm the position on that; we have been left feeling optimistic about it.
The hourly service that we all desperately want is now in the lap of the National Assembly for Wales. The investment in the line has been made; it now just needs extra investment in the infrastructure—the trains and the cost of the line. I am hopeful that it will happen at some stage. It has been delayed, because there is cost pressure on all forms of Government, including the Welsh Government, but I am hopeful that it will happen before too long.
The Shrewsbury-Euston line is important. Clearly, we would like the line to go to Aberystwyth, but the Shrewsbury line is key because Shrewsbury is so accessible to us. If we were confident in that line, there would be investment in car parking. Particularly as the prison in Shrewsbury is closing, I can see opportunities for that station to become a key station for mid-Wales, but the link to Euston is important. The newly renegotiated Virgin contract may deliver that.
Road links are hugely important to us in mid-Wales, and there are two that I want to speak about. One is called the Middletown bypass; it is actually the connection between Welshpool and the improved road to Shrewsbury. I am talking about half the length of that road. The same principle applies to the Llanymynech-Pant bypass, but it is much further down the pecking order, so I will base my points on the Middletown bypass.
When I was involved in developing the economy in mid-Wales in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the bypass was a key part, and we thought we had secured it. Then an Act was introduced relating to protecting the badger population, and it was suddenly found that the agreed line, which would almost certainly have gone ahead, ran through a badger sett, which delayed things at a key time in the early 1990s. The Government then, like the current Government, needed to cut expenditure, and there was a bit of a fashion to be anti-roads. At that stage, the scheme slipped back and back, although it has been resurrected since then.
The Assembly Government are enthusiastic to proceed with their part of the scheme, and would make the commitment. I do not know the exact figures, but the road scheme would probably cost about £30 million. The Welsh Government would commit about £25 million, and the Highways Agency over the border would commit about £5 million. The Welsh Government want to do it, but the Highways Agency has no priority whatever to come into Wales. There is no economic benefit, and any cost-benefit analysis will give it no priority, so the scheme cannot go ahead.
As a consequence of devolution, cross-border schemes —not just in mid-Wales; I think that there are four or five—have simply been put on the back burner, and there is no prospect that they will ever proceed. That is a massive blow to mid-Wales, because we need that road out. Anybody who has travelled from Welshpool to Wollaston Cross knows that it is the most appalling road. Drivers settle in to travel at 30 or 40 mph, because that is the way it is; they get stuck behind lorries they cannot overtake. That is not acceptable. The whole economy depends on it.
We need the Government at Westminster to recognise that it is not just the cost-benefit analysis for the west midlands that counts; Westminster must consider the impact in Wales. That applies to every single devolved service. If we do not consider the impact on Wales, although we do not have a direct responsibility, the post-devolution United Kingdom cannot operate with anything like the fairness or efficiency that it should.
The same issue applies to the Llanymynech-Pant bypass. That scheme is further down the pecking order, but it has been seriously considered in the past. The bulk of that scheme is in England, so I can see why the issue will be much more difficult to resolve. Again, the west midlands body will consider that scheme, as it has done, and put it right down the list. There is a big local campaign—I have been to public meetings—because anyone who travels through Pant and Llanymynech can see that it is not a modern highway. It attaches to the road to Manchester and Liverpool and the north of England, which is crucial to the economy. It is not good enough.
We have cross-border links, but devolved Britain—nobody is more committed than I am to a devolved Britain that works—works negatively in terms of cross-border roads. We must address that, not just from the Welsh side but from the English side. We all want devolution to work. We want a country whose governance operates well and efficiently, so that we can feel comfortable with it, but in mid-Wales—certainly among those who depend on its economy or are trying to create jobs there—we are furious. It is one of the biggest negatives about devolution that could possibly be created, and I think it will get worse. I hope that the Minister has heard the points that I have made and will not only address them today but ensure that they become part of the Government’s thinking.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this important debate. I know that the Welsh Affairs Committee reviewed this key issue recently, and doubtless will return to it.
Good transport links are a crucial part of the infrastructure needed to support economic regeneration in Blaenau Gwent, which is one of the most deprived county boroughs in the UK, with 24% worklessness and 17% youth unemployment, twice the Wales average. We are high in the league tables for deprivation. Having said that, in recent years, we have received investment in major transport projects that have made our valleys communities much more accessible. For example, considerable progress has been made in dualling the A465 to improve regional and national connectivity. The Tredegar to Merthyr section of the A465 is terrific, and the Cwm bypass is a big success as well. In recent years, the hourly train service from Ebbw Vale to Cardiff has been a stellar success. However, an hourly service is not good enough.
This progress has enabled access to the perhaps under-recognised advantages of Blaenau Gwent of an attractive environment—we have the Brecon Beacons national park on our doorstep—and proximity to the urban centres of Newport, Cardiff, and Swansea in Wales and, importantly, to our east, Birmingham and Bristol. We have goodish access to the M4 and, to help our economy, we retain significant capability in manufacturing.
These geographical advantages see us well placed to take the opportunities that improved cross-border transport could bring. It is helpful that the designation of Ebbw Vale as an enterprise zone specialising in manufacturing offers us new investment potential. Already, private sector developers want to site a world-class motor sport development in the area. That is exciting. Connectivity to markets in the midlands and south Wales, and on into London, is an important element of those developers’ investment plans. However, given our economic challenges, much more still needs to be done on transport connectivity.
Lille in France is often cited as a town with a similar history of reliance on heavy industry and of decline, comparable with areas in south-east Wales, such as Blaenau Gwent. A high-speed rail link has boosted the regeneration of Lille and I think that similar good transport links could help south-east Wales and our valleys, too.
Last Easter, the Secretary of State for Transport was considering proposals for the electrification of the valley lines. I spoke to commuters on the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line, to hear what they thought of existing services but also to find out their ambitions for future services. Over a two-week period during the Easter holidays, we surveyed 350 passengers and gained in-depth knowledge of their concerns and ideas for improvement. Unsurprisingly, almost 70% of passengers supported electrification. I welcome the Government’s confirmation last year that all the valley lines will be electrified—that is important to the eastern valleys. However, the job now is to ensure a completion date, rather than a start date, of 2019. I hope that the Minister will confirm that date later in the debate.
Although a majority of my local commuters value their current service, they want a more frequent service, which I hope electrification will deliver. This will really open up our valley towns. However, there is also support—important in this debate—for extending electrification to Newport and then on to Bristol. Many respondents thought this a good idea.
Recently, I spoke to constituents who have a car club and together travel every day to the Ministry of Defence facility at Abbey Wood, near Bristol. Bristol now has enterprise zone status, focusing on creative and technological industries. People from south-east Wales may want to take higher-paid job opportunities, which would be available if commuting was made feasible.
The nub of the matter is that we need through trains or improved links through to south-west England from south Wales; that is crucial for the economy of Blaenau Gwent and the eastern valleys.
I hope that the Welsh Government, the South-East Wales Transport Alliance, neighbouring English local authorities—it is a shame there are not more English Members from the other side of the Severn here—and the Department for Transport will all work together, to deliver the accessible, sustainable and integrated transport system that Blaenau Gwent and all our communities on the Welsh-English border deserve.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on calling this important debate. It is a privilege to have a UK Minister with responsibility for transport, particularly in England, here to respond to points that we make about our connectivity across the border.
The issue is especially relevant to my constituents, as Brecon and Radnorshire covers almost a third of the Welsh border with England but is relatively poorly served by transport connections between the two countries. The A44 and A438 are key east-west routes connecting Leominster in the north of Herefordshire to Rhayader, and Hereford with Brecon. It is always a bit of a disadvantage for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), because he makes many of the points that I would like to make. However, I should like to reinforce those points.
These trunk roads are the busiest in my constituency and are managed by the Welsh Assembly Government through a partnership between Powys and Ceredigion county councils, but they still require an input and funding from the English Highways Agency, to maximise the benefits of any improvements that are to be made. That can be a problem, as I have highlighted before with my Assembly colleague, Kirsty Williams, because priorities in England are continually focused on the larger conurbations. Consequently, priorities do not match up and inputs and funding are inadequate to make changes that are essential for road safety and making general improvements to our economic development.
The A483 Pant to Llanymynech bypass scheme was considered by the West Midlands Regional Transport Board as part of the regional prioritisation in 2006, in which the region considered the relative priority of major schemes in the region. The board advised that this scheme was a low priority due to its low cost-benefit score and the modest contributions it was thought to make towards economic development and housing in the area. Following the decision of the West Midlands Regional Transport Board in 2006, the scheme was reviewed to assess whether its cost could be reduced while maintaining a substantial proportion of its benefits. However, due to the route’s not being deemed a priority, that study concluded that possible small-scale solutions along the route would still offer poor value for money. Consequently, the Highways Agency was instructed by the Minister to stop developing the scheme altogether and that it could be revisited in future only if the West Midlands Regional Transport Board decided that it was a priority. Finally, in May 2012, the Government announced a series of schemes that would be developed to enable potential construction in the next spending review. This scheme was not selected and no work is currently being undertaken by the Highways Agency.
The A40, which travels through my constituency and forms a section of the unsigned Euroroute E30, has been described by the Welsh Assembly Government as
“one of the lowest standard sections of the Trans European Road Network in the United Kingdom”,
because of prioritisation discrepancies between England and Wales.
We still require a reciprocal agreement between England and Wales on bus passes. At the moment, Welsh residents can travel only on buses that start or finish their journey in Wales—likewise, English passengers. For example, consider passengers on a bus journey from Hay-on-Wye to Hereford. Hay is intersected by the Herefordshire border, which is also the Wales-England border, but due to bus passes being issued by Powys county council in Wales, those passengers are not able to travel to Hereford without being charged a small fee for doing so.
For many the bus is a lifeline, not only in respect of health, but for those who need to travel for specialist treatment and for jobs, and suchlike, in Hereford and Shrewsbury. My colleague in the Welsh Assembly, Kirsty Williams, inquired into this matter in 2010, asking Ieuan Wyn Jones, then Minister with responsibility:
“Will the Minister make a statement on what discussions he has had recently with the UK Government and Scottish Government about the harmonisation of the concessionary bus pass schemes in England, Scotland and Wales across the United Kingdom?”
Ieuan Wyn Jones answered:
“I have had no recent discussions with UK and Scottish Government Ministers about the harmonisation of concessionary bus travel schemes across the UK.”
I ask the Minister, have there been any discussions on this important matter?
Turning briefly to rail matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion stressed the need for better train services. I am delighted that Network Rail’s 10-year, £1 billion modernisation plan for Wales’s somewhat antiquated line is about to take place, and the £220 million electrification of the valleys line will bring a lot of benefit, but we need to make a start on the electrification of the London to Cardiff line, which will also reduce journey times to Swansea. I am pleased to see the inclusion of a scheme to re-signal the critical Marches route between Newport and Shrewsbury, which will provide train companies with the ability to run more frequent and faster trains between north and south Wales, serving a number of my constituents. I am by no means calling for a reversal of Dr Beeching’s axe of 1963, but the reshaping of the rail network in Wales will still leave large towns in my constituency, such as Brecon and Ystradgynlais, without any connection. People from those towns will have to travel 20 miles to reach a railway station.
I am sometimes told that the people living in Painscastle and Rhosgoch in my constituency take longer to get to New York than anyone living in any other part of the UK. Isolation and peripherality—if that is a word—are not only a perception for the people I represent, but a reality. Small changes, however, could make a real difference to their lives.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Betts, and I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for introducing the debate. He focused on some important issues for his constituency, and I intend to focus on important issues for mine, which need to be addressed by the Government.
North-east Wales is adjacent to England and we form part of the powerhouse economy of the United Kingdom. We have some big businesses in my part of the world—Airbus, steel, paper and tourism—and my constituents work in those areas and depend on such jobs, but they also work in England, in places such as Chester, Liverpool, Manchester and Ellesmere Port. The cross-border connectivity in my part of the world is not a north-south issue, but an east-west one. That east-west link is vital for the development of jobs and services and of the economy of our area. In the short time available, I want to focus the Minister on four particular matters.
First, rail electrification for north Wales is an important, long-standing issue, and, to give the Government some credit, the Secretary of State for Wales is looking at it. My colleague, Carl Sargeant, who represents Alyn and Deeside in the Assembly and who the Minister knows well from previous travel to the area, is now the Welsh Assembly Transport Minister. He is developing a business case for the electrification of the north Wales main railway line. It will be a robust case that emphasises the social, economic and public benefits. I want the Minister to place on record where the Government are on the business case for electrification. What is the time scale? What co-operation and discussions are there with the Welsh Assembly on the electrification business case? How can we start to put it on the table as part of the wider discussions of rail development in north Wales?
We have good rail links to my part of the world. Over the past 15 years, we have improved the rail service to north Wales, but we still need to develop electrification to bring tourists and business to north Wales, and to ensure that we have a better, more environmentally friendly rail service in the area. That is my first challenge to the Minister.
Secondly, how does rail electrification fit with High Speed 2? I want to place on the record my support for HS2, which will bring speedier links to the north as a whole—north-west and north-east. In particular, I want to hear the Minister’s view on how to ensure connectivity at Crewe. He is planning, as part of HS2, a development at Crewe, which will be a major hub for north-west England and will improve links to Manchester airport. I put it to him that there is also potential to improve links to north Wales, speeding the traffic there and providing north Wales with a speedier link to Manchester airport, our nearest major airport hub. That needs to be looked at as part of the long-term development of HS2. I would welcome some genuine engagement with the Minister on such issues.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. HS2 in its existing spine form up the centre of England will bring improvements to people in north and mid-Wales through connections from the various parts of Wales to Birmingham and to Crewe. HS2 is a spine at the moment, but there is nothing to stop spurs running off it—given a business case, a justification and a need—to north Wales, south Wales, the south-west of England or wherever the demand is.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful for the Minister’s contribution. In the spirit of a cross-party wish to improve transport links—HS2 was discussed under the previous Government —I want the benefits of that valuable north-south link to be extended, so we can look at how to achieve connectivity with the potentially electrified north Wales line and with a better spine from Crewe, including links to Manchester airport, so that my constituents get a speedier train route to the airport through the HS2 development, which many people in my area, businesses and others, would welcome.
I live in the town of Flint, where the main link station is on the north Wales line in my constituency, and the town council is very concerned to support rail electrification and to look at the benefits of HS2. I will report back to the council on the Minister’s encouragement. We will look at how to work on that in due course.
I also want the Minister to focus on the Barnett consequential for Wales as a result of HS2. Can he put a figure on that now? If so, what discussions will he have with the Welsh Assembly on how it might be spent?
I have a couple of quick, final points. As the Minister knows, my part of the world has a great need to link to Liverpool. I can open my bedroom window in the morning and see both Liverpool cathedrals, and I can easily drive to Liverpool on dual carriageway, but there is no connectivity by rail. The pressure put on previous Governments, and indeed on this Government, to improve the Wrexham to Bidston line, so that my part of Wales can have connectivity, is extremely significant. I hope he responds to that point in his winding-up speech, because connectivity is important to economics, jobs and our ability to attract business to help our economy to grow. It would also help the commuters of my constituency.
Finally, I support the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) in his concern about bus passes. I, too, am a border MP. We have a free bus pass in Wales and a free bus pass in England, but the two are not connected. Many of my constituents cannot understand why on one bus pass they can travel to one part of my constituency, which might be 20 miles away, but they cannot travel to Chester, which is 5 or 6 miles away. That connectivity would be useful.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing the debate, because we all know that getting connectivity right across the UK is economically important.
I welcome the Government U-turn on electrification to Swansea, restoring the original Labour plans. It is a pity that we had to spend time on that discussion when we could have spent it discussing going further west with the electrification, which is obviously a direction in which I would like to see it go.
In this country, we have a real difference between east-west and north-south connectivity. I remember, when I was at school, drawing a map of the UK according to how long it took someone to get from A to B, and the elongation from east to west was clear. That is exactly the same today. I take two hours to get from London to Cardiff, which is 150 miles, and a further two hours to travel the 50 miles from Cardiff to Llanelli. The main reason for that is the change at Swansea station, which is a lot pleasanter now because we have a nice new waiting room—very much improved—but much as I enjoy the company of tourists and the families going on the boat to Ireland in the summer, in winter it can be extremely lonely, dark and open to the Swansea high street.
The real reason that puts people off coming to and investing in west Wales is not enough through trains. We must look at that and perhaps in the new franchise insist on many more through trains all the way from London to west Wales.
The first problem we encounter when travelling from London to west Wales is Reading where, for ever and a day, there seem to be delays, problems and congestion. I hope that the Minister will look at that and prioritise the way through Reading so that we are not held up at the first point on our way westwards.
The recent wet weather saw access through Bristol Parkway limited because of flooding and the perennial problems with the Severn tunnel. I want the Minister to ensure that everything is being done to try to bring together the relevant agencies to improve flood prevention in the Bristol and Severn tunnel areas. The sort of floods we saw recently are unlikely to be an isolated event, and will be repeated.
I welcome the Welsh Government’s intention to purchase Cardiff airport. It is a tremendous opportunity to turn it around from a rather run-down business and to increase the opportunities so that people do not have to travel all the way from Wales to Heathrow with all the costs involved—often an overnight stay or high car parking charges. It will open up an opportunity for people in many areas around Wales, such as Worcester, Gloucester, Cheltenham and Bristol, to come to Cardiff airport for their flights abroad. That will depend on transport into Wales, and at the moment, apart from the M4, there is weakness in that midlands area, as the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) highlighted. There is a significant need for improvement.
When I went to the Corby by-election, it was quicker to go via London. South Wales has good links to London, and to Manchester and from there to the north and the north-east, but there is a weakness in anything that goes through the midlands. Trying to travel sensibly and as the map would suggest through the middle of England seems to be incredibly difficult, and we need a further emphasis on what can be done to make services better. The north has the trans-Pennine route, but we do not have an equivalent route from Birmingham to the east midlands, linking back into the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion. We must improve that.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Lady is making a valid point. Perhaps one of the great benefits of electrification —we all welcome it, and it is coming to Swansea—is that, as some transport experts have suggested, a case could be made for the possibility of a regional Eurostar service to Paris and Brussels. That would open up Wales to the wider European Union market.
Nia Griffith
Indeed, but for that to be successful we need many more through trains, and connectivity when we come into London so that we are not stopped half way because of difficulties in Reading, Bristol and the Severn tunnel area. I hope that the Minister will look at the matter in the round and try to improve our east-west connectivity in this country.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to start the wind-ups no later than 10.40.
Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)
I will be very brief, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for securing this important debate, and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to it. As many hon. Members know, I have a personal interest in transport, and specifically rail. My constituency will benefit from the rail electrification all the way to Swansea and the advent of city region status, which is really important for my locality. A lot will be happening, and I thank the Government for that. However, I am a little concerned about the Landore maintenance depot, and perhaps the Minister will think about that. There is a possibility that we may not have that depot in its current shape and form for the maintenance of high-speed trains. I would appreciate an update, and any information.
The development of infrastructure in Wales has been vital to everything, and I have been involved in that since 1999 when I worked for the rail industry. Much has happened. I have looked back at previous reports of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, and many of the things we asked for have been achieved or are moving forward. That is heartening to hear and good to know. However, we keep returning to the basic problem of interconnectivity, and the joined-up writing and ideas for timetables and how to link successfully and efficiently places in Wales beyond Swansea and into the hinterland. People in west Wales and mid-Wales are equally deserving.
I am worried about the problem in Swansea because it is the gateway to west and mid-Wales. Many people have to come to Swansea, as previous speakers have said, and must change trains. One thing we know about passengers is that they do not like changing trains. It puts people off, and delays them. If we want to move forward economically in south-west and mid-Wales, we must have interconnectivity. I urge the Minister that, when speaking to his counterpart in Cardiff Bay, he puts that at the top of the agenda.
The local authorities have been working together, and the various rail groups and franchises are working together. We have seen huge improvements and big leaps forward. Working in isolation is no longer an option in the rail industry. We have seen the piecemeal break-up of the rail industry, and I am constantly amazed at how many people still refer to it as British Rail. I meet people on the train every day when I travel. I invariably travel by train because I am a great supporter of public transport, and in the eight years that I have been a Member of Parliament I have not once driven to London, but have relied on the trains. Through thick and thin, I have stuck with them.
The industry is growing exponentially and becoming more popular. We need a world-class service, which is why I was so adamant about fighting for rail electrification to Swansea. We must not be left behind. We do not want to be left behind. It is imperative to recognise the interdependency of local authorities, service providers, transport initiatives and so on, because the issue is all about the economic well-being of Wales; the economic well-being of south-west and mid-Wales. It is not reinventing the wheel. The economics and ideas are simple, but they are very important.
Tourism is a key and growing industry for us in south-west Wales. We have a wonderful product and many marvellous places that are accessed via the rail infrastructure in Wales. It is well worth coming to Wales to see them. They are world-status places, and many people visit them. I do not want them to be put off visiting Wales or—this is my horror—to have to depend on the car. If we want improved public transport, people must use it and have confidence in it. I urge the Minister to put that at the heart of his discussions.
When the Minister next meets Carl Sargeant at Cardiff Bay, will he discuss interconnectivity of the timetable? We have heard from the hon. Member for Ceredigion about our wonderful experience of travelling to Aberystwyth, missing a train by one minute and then having to wait two hours at Birmingham International station. It was good to be there, and I met some interesting people, but they had tales of woe about how that happens too often. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), I meet people at Swansea station who must get off the train, carrying their bags, because they are going on to a much longer journey.
Nia Griffith
Does my hon. Friend agree that if only part of the train went on, that would be a vast improvement in the service, and that we also need more carriages for the crowded parts of the route from London to Bristol?
Mrs Siân C. James
I certainly agree. When I worked for the rail industry, we had more through trains. At the time, I described it as “the thin end of the wedge”, as we contracted that service, including the regular service down to the ferry ports in far-west Wales. It is not a joke when you are travelling there. It is very picturesque, lovely, and it is great to be on the train enjoying yourself, but it is a long haul, wearisome and sometimes very frustrating for people. I do not want them to be left with that impression of Wales. I want them to have the impression of Wales as a modern country with a modern infrastructure, so that they will want to come back.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I thank everyone for their co-operation in ensuring that everyone could make a contribution, and for getting to the wind-ups on time.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing the debate, and I have listened with interest to the knowledgeable contributions by hon. Members from all across Wales.
This is an important debate, as has been said. Transport links and connectivity are not only a lifeline, but vital for business investment, thereby improving employment prospects and reducing poverty. Historically, Wales has suffered from under-investment, leading to congested road and rail links between England and Wales. It is suffering from very high tolls levied on the Severn bridge on passengers travelling into Wales only, and it continues to suffer from disputes over responsibility and fragmentation and more distant relationships between Welsh local authorities and Whitehall than with the Welsh Government.
Roads are still the main link between England and Wales, but there is heavy congestion. The M4, which is the main route, is still inadequate at key points, and it runs close to capacity, with traffic volumes expected to grow. For example, around Newport, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) knows, there are concerns about capacity, safety and resilience at peak periods. That is not the only area by any means, and I welcome the Welsh Assembly consultation on measures to tackle the shortcomings, and I await with interest the outcome of its appraisal of possible solutions.
As was mentioned by the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), there are also other issues. I highlight one: the A494 is an important link, but improvements to the road have only been made on the English side, so the good road stops at Wales. Co-ordination is needed on those important issues.
I turn to the Severn bridge, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East mentioned so ably. It is a vital link, but the toll has been increased above inflation to £6.20, and it only applies to traffic entering Wales. Business groups have long said that that is a barrier to much-needed investment in businesses in Wales. What are the Government’s proposals to remedy the situation and what options are they considering when ownership of the bridge returns to the UK Government? I support my hon. Friend in wanting certainty over when that will be. I believed that that would happen in 2018.
Jonathan Edwards
As the hon. Lady is aware, it is the policy of the Welsh Government, who are controlled by the Labour party, to seek ownership of the Severn bridges. Will she give a commitment today to the people of Wales that, if Labour form the next Government after the general election in 2015, those bridges will be passed on to the people of Wales?
Yvonne Fovargue
I was going to come to that point. Early discussions with the Welsh Government are essential, and there should be acceptance of the underlying principle that they should play a central role in determining future arrangements, and in accessing and utilising any future revenue streams for the people of Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire spoke about buses, which are a lifeline for many people, particularly pensioners, but the two national concessionary bus passes are not valid for pensioners who wish to cross the border from either side. They are left to rely on voluntary schemes provided by local authorities. There is also a lack of awareness about the convenience of bus routes into Wales from Bristol, despite the fact that they have a competitive price, due to exemption from tolls. Will the Minister say what is being done to address both those issues and how he will promote cross-border bus services?
I turn to rail, where there are significant challenges, as we have heard, around capacity and infrastructure. I am pleased that the Labour Administration in Wales is exploring not-for-profit models, including the co-operative mutual model, when the Wales and Border franchise, currently operated by Arriva Trains Wales, expires in 2018. I hope that that will prove a pathfinder for England. A major electrification project for the Great Western railway line to Swansea was introduced by the previous Labour Government, but put on hold by the coalition. Despite that delay on the Government line—perhaps it was caused by the weather, perhaps by leaves—that has now been reconfirmed, and the journey time from Paddington to Swansea could be reduced by 20 minutes. However, will the Minister say why the work is to start in London and not in Wales?
As we have heard many times, closer co-operation between train companies is vital if they are to be financially viable. What is the Minister doing to promote that? Inter-franchise connectivity is a key component, as has been mentioned, and it is certainly not helpful to have companies such as Wrexham and Shropshire, which ran the cross-border services between 2008 and 2011, withdraw, as they were not allowed to stop at Virgin-run stations. It is important that franchises co-operate with each other to ensure that journeys are made with the minimum disruption and that they do not have to go through convenient stations, simply because they are operated by another franchise holder.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion will be interested in the fact that the Welsh Government have committed to a long-awaited hourly service between Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury—I am sure that 2015 is too far away for him—but more emphasis needs to be put on improving services to north Wales, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, and electrification is a key component. Will the Minister update us on the progress of the business plan for that?
Mr Mark Williams
Does the hon. Lady accept that the 16 years that we have been waiting for this really is too long? We were promised in the previous Assembly Administration that the money was there, that the remedial engineering work had been done and that there was no impediment to getting that service. Here we are, years on, still waiting, only to be told by a Welsh Assembly Minister that we now have to wait another two and a half or three years to have that service. That wait really is unacceptable, is it not?
Yvonne Fovargue
It certainly is an extremely long time, and the Administration have said that it will happen by 2015, so let us hope that they will advance it further and that they have listened to the pleas of hon. Members from all around.
On the HS2 connection at Crewe station and connectivity, the Government need to give proper consideration to ensuring that the benefits extend into Wales. I am pleased that the Minister intervened to give support and provide information about the electrification of the south Wales line, which needs to be progressed urgently.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I apologise for not being present for the earlier part of the debate; I was chairing another meeting. It is absolutely essential that we get fast trains stopping at Crewe. With the upgrade on the west coast main line, although many fast trains went to Manchester and Liverpool, they did not stop at Crewe, so people going to north Wales and west of that did not benefit. It is essential that we get that in HS2.
Yvonne Fovargue
My hon. Friend makes the point well that Crewe is an essential stopping-off point for Wales. HS2 needs to stop there, and there should be connectivity, so that people are not waiting for a long time at Crewe to get to Wales. I hope that the Minister will explain more fully the impact on cross-border links and say exactly how much the project will benefit Wales. Equally, it is not only about people who travel, but about freight. The Wales Freight Group was disappointing, and I hope that the establishment of the new group will invigorate the discussion and look at providing sustainable solutions for freight. We have heard of the problems that hauliers have had, particularly with the Severn bridge.
In conclusion, I believe that there is a general agreement that cross-border links are vital, and I am sure that no one would disagree with Carl Sargeant, the Minister in the Welsh Assembly with responsibility for transport in Wales, that good transport is critical for economic growth, social inclusion and the reduction of poverty. It is clear that roads, rail and buses all have an important role to play. Addressing any barrier to integration between England and Wales is vital, as is linking with the communities in north Wales, south Wales, and mid-Wales that have high deprivation. We are committed, in England and Wales, to achieving that aim.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on what has been her first debate as a shadow Minister in this Chamber. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing what has been an interesting, useful and important debate on transport links across the England-Wales border. He raised a number of issues, as did many other hon. Members. Sadly, given the time available to me, I will not be able to respond to all their questions, but I can give an assurance that I will write to them to answer points that I cannot deal with in the debate.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion will know, as a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee—he raised this from time to time in his remarks—that cross-border links have been subject to inquiry by the Committee more than once. Its work has been extremely useful and has helped to give a greater understanding of the complexities and importance of the issue. As he will be aware—I, too, am aware, as I gave evidence to the Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), last October—it is currently considering the issue again. I look forward to the publication of its report.
The Government have made clear in the coalition agreement our commitment to a modern low-carbon transport infrastructure as an essential element of a dynamic and entrepreneurial economy. We have also reiterated the importance of investment in our infrastructure, including our rail and strategic road networks, to ensure that they can support the economic performance of the country, including, equally importantly, that of Wales. Transport and travel are rarely ends in themselves. It is as a driver of economic growth that the Government attach so much importance to, and place so much stress on, investing in transport infrastructure. We consider the cross-border movement of people and goods in the context of growing the economies of England and Wales.
A positive return on investment requires a background of good governance. The hon. Member for Ceredigion will know that co-operation on and, where appropriate, the co-ordination of transport matters between the Department for Transport and the Welsh Government are important to the successful development of cross-border links, as well as to improving transport infrastructure and connectivity within Wales. Relationships between the Welsh Government transport group and the Department for Transport have advanced significantly, and processes have been agreed to further that. The Welsh Government and the Department for Transport enjoy a constructive working relationship that enables officials to provide their Ministers with the best advice possible to deliver on the aspirations of the respective Governments. That includes recognition of the importance of engaging on devolved and reserved issues.
On a personal basis, I am extremely pleased about what I consider—I am fairly confident that I will not be contradicted—to be the relationship that I have established with Carl Sargeant in the past five months since I have been at the Department for Transport. We speak regularly on the telephone. He has met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I look forward to having a meeting with Carl Sargeant in about a month’s time, when we will be able to discuss issues such as those raised by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) and, I am sure, a number of other issues that have emerged during the debate. I will, rather than going into some of the details of what I was going to say on the generality, seek now to answer some of the questions that hon. Members have asked.
A number of hon. Members talked about electrification. I welcome their support for what the Government are doing with regard to the electrification of the Great Western line from London through to Cardiff and on via Bridgend to Swansea and of the Welsh Valleys lines. A question was asked about the time scale. I hope that hon. Members will be pleased to know that the time scales for completing the electrification are, between London and Cardiff, 2017; between Cardiff and Swansea, 2018; and throughout the Welsh valleys, 2019.
The hon. Member for Swansea East talked about the importance of the depot near Swansea. I can fully appreciate her concerns about that. I would be grateful if she left that issue with me; I will look into it and get back to her.
Equally importantly, a number of hon. Members raised the electrification of the North Wales line. I can fully appreciate that for those hon. Members whose constituencies are along that line, that is an important thing. As they will be aware, a bid was not put in, through the Welsh Government, in the relevant control period for electrification of that line. We recognise, and I am sure that the Welsh Government also recognise, the importance of looking at that, to seek improvements in the quality of journeys and standards.
Albert Owen
The Minister is right to talk about the importance of electrification for north Wales constituencies and north Wales as a whole, but it is also important for links to Ireland, to get fast movement of people and goods to the Republic of Ireland, which is our biggest trading partner.
Mr Burns
I fully appreciate the valid point that the hon. Gentleman makes. My understanding is that, in recognition of the importance of this matter, the Welsh Government are currently looking into it. They are looking at the requirements, the business case, a cost analysis and so on, with a view that it could be included in the next control period, control period 6, which will run from 2019 to 2024. We will have to await the outcome of their producing a business case and working with Network Rail and others to see how that can be moved forward.
The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) referred to the Bidston-Wrexham line and asked whether there could be an update on the current situation. I hope that it will be helpful if I tell him that both Merseytravel and the Welsh Government are keen to see that line electrified. However, the quoted Network Rail cost of £207 million has been considered poor value for money and unaffordable for both bodies. Merseytravel is currently considering other options to improve services on the line, which could include partial electrification. The specification, funding and management of ATW services between Wrexham and Bidston is a matter for the Welsh Government, and we are encouraging them to continue to work with Merseytravel on that issue.
A number of hon. Members raised individual, specific issues with regard to train timetables and the number of trains travelling within their constituencies and beyond their constituency borders inside Wales. My advice to all those who raised those important issues is that, as they will appreciate, the operation of the railways within Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Government. Where hon. Members believe that there should be improvements, I would urge them to lobby the Welsh Government and bring their concerns to their attention if they are not already aware of them.
With regard to a direct service between London and Shrewsbury, which would certainly help mid-Wales, as I think was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and possibly the hon. Member for Ceredigion, although I am not quite so confident on that point, I have some encouraging news. As the Secretary of State announced a few months ago, as a result of the extension of Virgin carrying on with the west coast main line, it will be providing from, I believe, December of this year a direct service from Shrewsbury through to Euston.
Mr Betts, I do not want to fall foul of you by running out of time and we are coming up—to use a phrase—against the buffers. I have not been able to answer all the points made by hon. Members, but I will certainly ensure that they all get letters giving responses to the issues that they raised that we have not had time to discuss today.
Tax Transparency (FTSE 100)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.
Many Members over many years have spoken eloquently in this House about the differences between tax avoidance and tax evasion and how the lines between them have become blurred. Tax evasion is clearly wrong, illegal and unfair to the rest of society, because everyone else has to pay more in taxes to make up for those who do not pay their fair share. We cannot have mob rule and many Members are very much in favour of the positive contributions that large FTSE 100 companies make to the larger overall tax take.
Just before Christmas, there was an explosion of public interest after the Public Accounts Committee named and shamed some well known companies that use transfer pricing to offset their tax liabilities in the UK—basically, to avoid paying tax. I am aware of the strong argument that UK tax authorities could do more to enforce tax payments. The Government have done a lot of work on tackling tax avoidance—so much so that I fear that the general anti-avoidance rule that will be introduced might be too severe and end up penalising sole traders and small and medium-sized enterprises more than larger companies.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important and topical debate. Does he agree that it is incumbent on us as legislators to ensure that tax legislation is robust but fair?
Stephen McPartland
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which has been put to me in the more than 60 responses I have received from FTSE 100 companies. I agree that we need to get the legislation right, but later in my speech I shall explain how there are more companies registered in Jersey than in the whole of China, despite tens of billions of pounds of trade with that country.
My interest in tackling tax avoidance stems from a meeting I had with Christian Aid supporters in my constituency last September, when the “tax justice” bus visited Stevenage. The tax justice campaigners believe that tax dodging by international companies costs the UK about £35 billion and developing countries an estimated $160 billion a year. Many of the FTSE 100 companies that replied to me questioned the figures, but, in reality, the figures are large, irrespective of the measure used. Imagine for a moment the dramatic difference such a huge sum of money would make, if it were available to invest in public services, infrastructure and other services essential for economic growth both at home and abroad.
There is growing anger and concern about the fact that some large companies are hiding behind complex accounting rules that may be strictly legal, but are considered to be unethical by the public. The problem of the missing billions in tax is not just a problem for the UK; it is worldwide, and it does the greatest damage to poor and developing countries that cannot stand up to massive corporations. ActionAid told of a lady selling beer in Ghana who paid more in tax than the large brewer in the facility next door. That large brewer’s parent company in the UK declared profits of £2 billion. Governments all around the world will agree with the sentiment of greater tax transparency—I know that the Minister agrees with it—but they will struggle to introduce it, because every nation competes in the global race.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s initiative to make tackling tax avoidance a priority when the UK takes over the presidency of the G8. He made strong references to a particular company needing to
“wake up and smell the coffee”.
I must be one of the few Members who does not have any such coffee chains in my constituency. The Chancellor, with whom I do not see eye to eye on many issues, has also agreed that aggressive tax avoidance is “morally wrong” and “abhorrent”. We have had the words; it is now time for action.
My first question to the Minister is, what plans do the Prime Minister or Chancellor have to convene a cross-Whitehall meeting with tax justice experts and campaigners to identify what a tax transparency policy would look like in practice? There is real concern and feeling that transfer pricing is at the heart of the problem, so what measures will the draft finance Bill include to create enforcement in respect of transfer pricing and put a stop to it?
As I mentioned, ActionAid commissioned interesting research in October 2011 into the use of tax havens by FTSE 100 companies. It found that the FTSE 100 companies at that time had 34,216 subsidiary companies, joint ventures and associates and that 38% of their overseas companies were located in tax havens. Ninety-eight groups had declared tax haven companies; only two groups, Fresnillo and Hargreaves Lansdown, did not. There were 623 companies registered in Jersey—a tiny island just off our shores—and despite our tens of billions of pounds of trade, only 551 are registered in China. ActionAid struggled to get the research and, like me, would like to see Companies House enforce sections 409 and 410 of the Companies Act 2006, so that information on UK-registered multinationals is more accessible to the public.
The Minister and Government have the best of intentions, but in the end, it will be up to the companies themselves to lead the way, and they will do so only if their customers—the British public—drag them kicking and screaming towards tax transparency and a fairer tax system for all. With that in mind, last November I wrote to the chief executives of all the FTSE 100 companies asking them individually whether they were willing to pledge their support for corporate tax transparency and whether they would support a new international accounting standard for country-by-country reporting.
The current international accounting standards require multinational companies to report accounts on a global consolidated basis only, which makes it incredibly difficult to know where taxable economic activities are occurring and where profits are declared. I gave the example a few moments ago of a lady in Ghana paying more in tax than a massive, multi-billion dollar, multinational company. Companies, particularly multinational corporations, move billions of pounds of profit between jurisdictions in order to reduce their tax bills, and large companies are allegedly manipulating their centres of interest through the use of holding companies, offshore accounts and intellectual property rights.
I am not saying that FTSE 100 companies are engaged in tax avoidance or aggressive tax planning; the point I am trying to make is that whether it is tax avoidance or tax evasion, illegal or immoral, the British public and most Members believe that it is wrong and should be stopped.
A recent inquiry by the Select Committee on International Development called for
“legislation requiring each UK-based multinational corporation to report its financial information on a country-by-country basis. Such information should include the names of all companies belonging to it and trading in each country, its financial performance in each country, its tax liability in each country, the cost and net book…of its fixed assets in each country, and details of its gross and net assets in each country.”
Some of the FTSE 100 companies that replied to my letters believe that there could be greater tax transparency. All agree that they are as transparent as they possibly could be and that people would not like them to be even more transparent because it would make their accounts more unwieldy.
I look at the extractive industries, the work coming out of America on the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the proposals for EU directives on transparency and accounting, and I wonder whether such legislation could be used for our multinationals. The extractive industries are being forced down a line of country-by-country reporting with more focus on transparency, because it has been felt over many years that they have not been as clear as they should have been. Do we need a more even playing field?
The only way to resolve the problem is to introduce greater transparency. Members will be pleased to learn that, in the interests of transparency, I have published all the responses that I have received on a website: www.taxchallenge.co.uk. The responses from over half the companies are online. With the responses, I have given people an opportunity to sign a petition to demand greater tax transparency.
The responses from the FTSE 100 companies have been wide-ranging, but generally disappointing. HSBC offered to help design a tax transparency standard. BT and others welcomed the transparency initiative, but not the new accounting standard. Hargreaves Lansdown, which we now know was one of the few FTSE 100 companies not to have tax havens at the time, questioned the value that it receives for the taxes that it pays.
More positively, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s agreed that consumers are best placed to encourage companies to pay the tax that they are supposed to pay, as they can vote with their wallets if they do not think that the company is making a fair contribution to society. Capita stated that it was both interested in and supportive of the establishment of a new international accounting standard. Morrisons suggested that the Government should force all companies to disclose their corporation tax payments in the UK. Does the Treasury have any plans to do that? The refreshingly honest response from Aggreko summed up what many other companies felt—that they pay lots of tax and probably more than is needed, but that greater tax transparency is “a lousy idea”.
John Stevenson
I understand my hon. Friend’s arguments on transparency, but does he believe that the Government should also look at how we tax companies?
Stephen McPartland
I agree. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and has a wonderful legal mind. Many of the companies believe that they have a responsibility to their shareholders, but shareholders, to push up their returns, are interested only in the overall amount of tax that they have to pay globally. In their responses, some companies claimed that their overall tax rate is more than 45%, while others claim that it is about 25% to 28%. Although they all believe that they are as transparent as possible, it is perfectly clear that they are not being as transparent as the general public would like to see and understand.
We must move to a simpler tax system, in which it is much easier to see what is going on, and what companies have to pay in tax. I do not want this debate to appear to be anti-business or anti-FTSE 100. I am a Conservative Member of Parliament who is going to end up in the Morning Star as a result of this debate—probably the first one to do so—but the reality is that FTSE 100 companies make a huge contribution to Britain, including through the whole range of taxes that they pay. I understand that the FTSE 100 are responsible for almost 10% of the tax take in the UK, including the income tax and employer’s national insurance contributions that they collect on behalf of the Treasury.
The FTSE 100 are therefore massively good companies for the UK, and I am delighted that we have them in our country, but I want them to be a little more transparent, so that we can all have a bit more faith. As I have said, I believe that we have to lead the way in forcing them to accept the idea of tax transparency. Aggreko has said that it pays lots of tax and probably more than is needed, but that greater tax transparency was “a lousy idea” because it sees that as 500 new pages of the tax code and a great load of regulations that it does not want.
I could go on about the responses—I will if hon. Members wish—but the general thrust is pretty simple: the biggest companies in Britain believe that they all pay their taxes honestly and make a huge contribution to the economy by employing people who pay taxes. So far, most responses clearly show that they are not prepared to be proactive, and will comply only with current laws. Unfortunately, fancy corporate lawyers can blur the lines between tax avoidance and tax evasion, but that is clearly wrong, illegal and unfair to the rest of society, as I have mentioned.
I firmly believe that most employees in most of the FTSE 100, the FTSE 250 and other companies in the United Kingdom would expect their employers to pay their fair share of tax in the UK. We must start thinking about tax and tax transparency as a measure of corporate social responsibility.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I apologise for missing the first few sentences of my hon. Friend’s speech, but he knows that I am very much with him in this campaign. Has he thought of using his website to encourage shareholders of each of the top companies to raise the issue at their annual meetings and to force the issue internally, in the way that many green and environmental issues have been raised from within as well as through pressure from outside?
Stephen McPartland
My right hon. Friend makes a wonderful point, as he often does about tax transparency. I genuinely believe that that is an excellent way of moving forward. Many of the companies have offered to meet me, and I know that they have meetings with Christian Aid and ActionAid. Those companies are huge organisations that struggle to understand the complexity of what is going on within them.
I had a very positive response from the chief executive officer of AstraZeneca, who explained in great detail how he holds each member of his staff personally responsible for conducting its business, how he considers them to be ambassadors, and how he wants to help in any way he can to create tax transparency. There is, however, a fear that greater tax transparency will lead to greater regulation. He believes that many of the issues we are raising are already covered in the company’s accounting reports—the information is already collected—and that the question is how to go about demonstrating and sharing that information.
If we can demonstrate that there is great political will, shareholders will show great will to move the idea forward, saying, “Yes, this is important to us. It is like being green. Tax is part of our corporate social responsibility.” We will then be able to make progress. I very much take on board my right hon. Friend’s suggestion and will try to promote it.
The companies that I was referring to have a very devolved and developed sense of corporate social responsibility. British customers, employees and consumers want them to create greater tax transparency. There has been a huge hoo-hah about some large, non-British companies moving their profits overseas. Those companies have had difficulty in interacting with their own customers, and one of them has volunteered to pay tax. It should not be a voluntary option; it should be a legal requirement.
My new website—www.taxchallenge.co.uk—gives hon. Members’ constituents an opportunity to sign a petition calling for greater tax transparency, so that everyone will know which FTSE 100 companies are willing to sign up for that and which are not. Every one of us can then decide individually whether the biggest companies in Britain really care about the poorest in our society, at home and abroad.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) on securing this debate and setting out his case so clearly. In recent months, he has shown great tenacity on the issue, including by raising it on the Floor of the House a few weeks ago.
I want again to put on the record the Government’s view that companies must pay tax in accordance with the law, and it is crucial that they are seen to do so. Many businesses help their cause by releasing data or other information relating to their tax payments, and I very much welcome greater transparency from businesses about their tax affairs. As a Minister, I have said for some years that businesses need to do much more to explain the taxes that they pay and how they comply with their obligations. Such transparency can go a long way towards building greater trust between them and their customers, and might end up having commercial benefits.
Of course, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, as the tax collector in the UK, has a statutory duty of confidentiality that protects the tax affairs of all taxpayers, and it is important that it continues to honour that duty. I make that point because that is one of the reasons why it is difficult for Ministers to engage in individual cases, some of which have been very high profile, because we do not of course see any information that is not in the public domain.
I want to focus on what we in this country can do to assist developing countries in collecting the tax that is due, which is at the heart of my hon. Friend’s concerns. We are committed to supporting developing countries to access sustainable sources of revenue, while balancing action in this area against costs to Government and industry. To achieve that, our priorities, which I will set out before turning to my hon. Friend’s specific questions, are capacity building; improving exchange of tax information and assisting developing countries in accessing the benefits from that; and increasing transparency, particularly in the extractives sector, to address corruption.
On capacity building, it is of course up to individual jurisdictions to make decisions on how best to run their tax systems, but the Government are committed to supporting developing countries to access sustainable sources of revenue and to collect the tax that is due. The most effective way of doing that is to provide the technical support to their tax administrations that will help them maintain sustainable domestic taxation systems.
The Government’s work with the Ethiopian Revenues and Customs Authority, for example, has helped strengthen the accountability and efficiency of revenue collection in Ethiopia. As a result, tax collection in Ethiopia in 2011 was seven times higher than it was in 2002. Furthermore, Ethiopian customs clearance times for low-risk imports have been reduced from seven days to 10 minutes. The UK will also continue to work with international organisations such as the African tax administration forum, the World Bank and the OECD to support other capacity-building projects in developing countries.
There is increasing recognition that strong institutions are important for a country’s development. In the light of that recognition, the success or otherwise of the revenue-raising authorities in a developing country is absolutely crucial. We want to do everything we can to assist them.
Stephen McPartland
The Minister will be delighted to know that many FTSE 100 companies see capacity building, revenue building and the secondment of HMRC civil servants to developing countries as positive steps towards helping create that tax base. Many have offered to help, so I would be delighted to pass on those names to him.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s constructive point. It is recognised that effective tax authorities are important. That feeds into political benefits as well, because a broad base of revenue raising will result in stronger political institutions that will be held accountable by the people of that developing country. I welcome his remarks and I know that he welcomes the measures that we are taking in this area.
Related to strengthening capacity building is ensuring that information is available to tax authorities around the world. The international tax transparency agenda, and the tax information exchange in particular, is a key tool in tackling offshore tax evasion, and we are actively promoting that agenda. Through the G20, we are providing leadership and direction in increasing tax transparency and the exchange of tax information. Through the global forum on tax transparency, we are ensuring that jurisdictions meet the international standard on tax transparency. Through the expansion of the multilateral convention on mutual administrative assistance to more jurisdictions, we are providing a mechanism to access the benefits of tax transparency, which is particularly suited to developing countries. Furthermore, our direct assistance to Ghana ensured that it was in a position to join the convention and access the benefits of exchange of information, and we look to build on that. I am confident that the sensible, considered conversations that we are having internationally, and the exchanges of information coming from them, will have a real impact on the overall tax landscape.
Extractive industries is the third area of international action that I want to highlight. This sector and the fears of corruption in it are of great concern to not only this debate, but the wider global community. My hon. Friend will therefore be pleased to hear that we are committed to greater extractives transparency through the accounting directive, which addresses civil society accountability without imposing unnecessary burdens on business. Not only do we support EU proposals to improve transparency in the extractives and forestry sectors, but we have extensively consulted representatives from civil society groups and industry to reach a position of reporting in greater detail that is proportionate with existing burdens upon industry.
I want to address my hon. Friend’s concerns about country-by-country reporting, which is a somewhat broader approach than the one that we have been taking on extractives and forestry. The country-by-country reporting model is currently being considered in the proposed amendments to the EU accounting and transparency directives. The UK supports EU requirements for extractives companies to ensure that they disclose the payments that they make to Governments—as I said, corruption is a particular concern in this sector—and that proposal will have an immediate impact on reducing potential corruption by allowing citizens of resource-rich countries to hold their Governments to account for their use of the extractives revenue received. However, we are not yet convinced of the merits of the wider model of country-by-country reporting proposed by some and neither is the OECD. We do not believe that the case has been made in terms of the costs and benefits of extending the proposals for EU mandatory requirements to report payments to Governments beyond the extractives sector and forestry. We will of course keep the matter under review, and it will be interesting to see how the experience of greater extractives transparency plays out.
On profit shifting, there are international concerns over whether the current international tax rules manage properly to capture the profits generated by multinational companies. It is an issue that all countries face, and we need to work together to develop the appropriate solutions. As with most major economies, the tax system in the UK is based on the internationally agreed OECD guidelines that mean that a multinational company pays corporation tax where it carries out the economic activity that generates its profits and not on its sales. We have already reaffirmed our support for the OECD work to address profit shifting by multinationals and erosion of the corporate tax base at the global level. At the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers last November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued a joint statement with his German equivalent calling for concerted international co-operation to strengthen international tax standards as a first step to promoting a better way of dealing with profit shifting and base erosion of corporate tax at the global level. To back that up, the UK, alongside France and Germany, has offered additional resources to the OECD to speed up progress. We will hear of that progress at the G20 meeting later this month.
My hon. Friend asked specifically what we are doing in the UK on the matter. The problem is essentially international, because the UK complies with the OECD rules, as do all other major economies. We are, however, strengthening HMRC’s capacity in the area. In the autumn statement last year, additional funding for HMRC was announced, much of which is to be focused on strengthening the transfer pricing capacity of HMRC, challenging multinationals to ensure that their arrangements are compliant with the rules that currently exist, and ensuring that tax is paid in the jurisdiction where economic activity occurs. I do not want to be drawn into individual cases, but it is clearly not acceptable for multinationals artificially to inflate the costs apparently incurred in a low-tax jurisdiction, resulting in tax not being paid on profits that should, in truth, be attributed to other jurisdictions. We are determined to give HMRC the capacity to deal with that. It is worth pointing out that HMRC’s activity on transfer pricing over the past four years, for example, has brought in some £4.1 billion. Last month, I visited one of the transfer pricing teams in HMRC and we should recognise the good work that is being done, but we want to build on that, which is why we are strengthening HMRC’s capability in this area, which my hon. Friend will support.
I hope that the Government’s actions, both domestically and internationally, also have my hon. Friend’s support. We have taken steps to address concerns and we are clearly moving to a climate of greater international tax transparency. The Government do not necessarily accept all the numbers that are cited on the loss to developing countries, but we want to strengthen developing countries’ capacity, and we are at the forefront of ensuring that we do precisely that.
Metropolitan Police Service
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Before I call Mr Gareth Thomas to speak, let me just say that we have a cast of thousands this afternoon for this important debate. So, if I can impose a five-minute voluntary time limit to begin with—not including Mr Thomas, of course—we will see how we get on.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing this debate. It is right to begin by saying that we in the House owe a continuing debt of gratitude to the men and women of the Metropolitan police. They are, in general, superb public servants, doing a very difficult and very important job extremely well.
The Met was rightly praised for its work during the Olympics and the diamond jubilee last year, but its less high-profile work—the bread and butter of policing work, through its contribution to keeping our communities safe, pursuing criminals and supporting victims—remains fundamental, and the overwhelming majority of its officers do that with considerable skill and dedication.
Nevertheless, the future of policing in London is under scrutiny, and with good reason. Under the stewardship of the Mayor of London and the Conservative party, the Metropolitan police have already seen a drop of more than 4,000 uniformed police—police constables and police community support officers—on London’s streets since the general election, a period in which all Members will acknowledge that there were major riots and growing concern about gang violence. To take just one borough—my own borough of Harrow—we lost 100 PCs and PCSOs, a cut in front-line uniformed police officers of 19%, which is one of the biggest cuts. A cut of almost 20% in the Government’s grant to the Metropolitan police, which was supported by the Mayor and Conservative Members, is the driving factor behind the cuts to police funding that are now being debated across London.
Using a choice of statistics that the characters in “The Thick of It” would have been proud of, the Mayor’s plan promises more police recruitment. However, the truth is that there will be fewer police officers and fewer PCSOs by 2015, and that police officers are likely to be significantly less experienced than now. That drop in police numbers is noteworthy of itself, but comparing the number and percentage of crimes solved reveals that the Metropolitan police saw in 2011-12 a sharp drop in the number, and crucially in the percentage, of crimes being solved. In 2011-12, 22,600 fewer crimes were solved in London than in 2009-10, and the percentage of crimes solved dropped to 21.6%.
Those figures are perhaps not surprising when cuts to the number of prosecutors available to the Crown Prosecution Service in London are taken into account. It would be interesting to hear the Minister and the Mayor of London explain how they think that the number and percentage of crimes solved are likely to rise with fewer police and even fewer prosecutors.
According to the figures that the Mayor of London has published, two thirds of London boroughs will still have fewer police officers by the end of 2015 than they had at the time of the last general election. Estimates for the number of PCSOs per borough have not been published, but with further substantial cuts to PCSO recruitment—some 1,100 will be cut by 2015-16, according to the Greater London assembly’s police and crime committee—it looks as though every borough will have significantly fewer uniformed police officers in total patrolling their streets by 2015 than they did in 2010.
Some people think that PCSOs are an expensive waste of time. I am not one of them, certainly not after I saw the difference that two PCSOs made to stopping trouble outside the gates of one of my major secondary schools. The head teacher said that he and members of his senior team went from being called out to deal with an incident at school closing time four afternoons out of every five to just twice in three months, after PCSOs were stationed outside those gates for the 30 minutes from the end of lessons. So PCSOs do a vital job, offering a direct reassuring presence to the public, helping to build the confidence that is necessary to gain intelligence, and—crucially—supporting the victims of crime.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I echo what my hon. Friend is saying about PCSOs. In Newham, PCSOs have certainly been valuable when incidents have occurred that could possibly have heightened community tensions, particularly around the time of the riots and shortly afterwards. Being without PCSOs would be a real problem for us.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a very good point based on her own constituency experience. I suspect that, as I do, she feels that the cut in the number of PCSOs is noticed in her borough, as it certainly is in mine, and I suspect that it is also felt more widely across London.
By comparison with 2010, when Members last faced the people to ask for their support, there will be considerably fewer sergeants in London by 2015. Some estimates suggest that 1,300 sergeants will be axed. Inspectors and chief inspectors are also going, and superintendents’ numbers are likewise being cut. In short, the positions occupied by experienced police officers are being axed. The Mayor’s plan describes those positions as “supervisory grades”. In truth, those roles, and crucially the experience and skill mix of the senior staff occupying them, are fundamental to the effective pursuit of the criminal, the passage of the accused through the legal process and the sensitive support of the victim.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the experience of those officers who have had many years in the police is vital for the coaching and support of officers who are new to the service? I have noticed in my own constituency the difference that that coaching and support has made, particularly in areas of Feltham and Heston that suffered a large number of burglaries before Christmas. The advice that those more experienced officers were able to give to PCSOs who were on the front line was vital.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the value that experienced police officers bring to the coaching of new recruits. It is worth noting in passing that the Mayor’s plan envisages specialist crime squads at borough level—such as local burglary, town centre or robbery squads—essentially being raided for staff, who will then be redeployed. So we sense that, as my hon. Friend suggests, a huge amount of vital experience is set to be lost to the Met when it is still needed.
It would be good to hear from the Minister what discussions he has had with the Mayor and the Association of Chief Police Officers staff in the Metropolitan police about how the cuts that I have described will also impact on national efforts to confront organised crime, or how cuts in the positions occupied by experienced police officers and the movement of staff from specialist units will impact, for example, on the work of Operation Trident. It certainly prompts the question how cuts in the Met will impact on its ability to support the UK Border Agency in its efforts to track down, arrest and deport illegal immigrants.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Like me, he represents an outer London borough. He has not said anything about the changes in the draft crime and policing plan to the resource allocation formula that was put in place by the previous Mayor. By 2015, my own borough will gain 117 officers compared with the number in 2011. Does he agree that changing the formula in that way is a welcome development for outer London?
Mr Thomas
It is good to have the hon. Gentleman here. However, looking at the figures between March 2010 and April 2012, I see that Croydon lost 175 PCSOs and police officers, and it experienced the same percentage cut in police numbers—a cut of 19%—as Harrow did. Moreover, the figures for 2010—just in terms of police officers for Croydon—compared with the figures for 2015 suggest that there will be a net increase of just one police officer in Croydon. Add in the likelihood of further significant cuts to the number of PCSOs, in the way that I have described, and I suspect that the reality of police numbers in Croydon will be a significant fall.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I just want to point out that it depends on what people’s starting point is in 2011 as to whether we end up with more or fewer police officers in Croydon. If we take as our starting point the month immediately after the riots that deeply traumatised people in the borough, we end up with fewer police officers than at that time, and the public generally view the number that we had immediately after the riots as wholly inadequate—
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Gentleman is not necessarily comparing like with like. He is comparing the number of officers that were working in Croydon in 2011, which is the basic borough command unit strength plus additional officers who were temporarily allocated, with what the Mayor is saying the fundamental borough command unit strength will be in 2015. If he makes a like-for-like comparison, he will find a significant improvement for many outer London boroughs. Does he welcome that improvement?
Mr Thomas
I welcome any increase in police numbers, given the significant cuts that have been made and, in truth, will continue to be made up to 2015. The figures that I cited are from a freedom of information request about the cuts between March 2010 and April 2012, and the hon. Gentleman has said nothing about whether he supports the Mayor’s decision to axe 175 posts in Croydon during that period. The figures that I gave for the numbers of police officers in 2015 and in 2010 are from evidence given to the London assembly’s police and crime committee.
As I have said, the Mayor and his staff deliberately chose 2011, because it was the lowest point for police recruitment, with a freeze on recruitment that no one was told about. With respect, the hon. Gentleman will be judged by his constituents on what has happened since March 2010, when the general election campaign started, and what the position will be by 2015, and I am afraid that they will see a reduction in the number of police officers and PCSOs in Croydon, unless there is a dramatic change before then.
Local police teams are essentially being squashed under the Mayor’s plan. Instead of each community in Harrow having at least a sergeant, three police constables and three PCSOs, there will be only one PC and one PCSO dedicated to policing each community. In my constituency, the areas of west Harrow, Rayners Lane and north Harrow, which cover four wards, will go from having 28 uniformed police officers dedicated to those communities to just eight. Perhaps we should not be surprised. After all, in July last year, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, commenting on the Metropolitan police, noted the plans to cut police officers and PCSOs, as well as police staff, by 2015.
The inspectorate’s survey of whether police officers were available when they were most likely to be needed showed a decrease in the proportion of police officers and PCSOs in visible roles at key times. In an FOI request, I asked for the proportion of safer neighbourhood team staff on duty at 9 pm on a Friday at the end of November, and the answer was just 20%. Response teams were, of course, available, but I was surprised by how low the figure was. We need to be cautious with such figures because they offer a one-off snapshot, but that underlines the concern that many constituents and many Members of Parliament have about whether enough police are now available on our streets at key times.
Although the Mayor’s plans are at pains to appear committed to safer neighbourhood policing—they retain that language—in practice, it is clear that that model of policing is as good as over. There is talk in Boris’s plans of one borough-wide safer neighbourhood panel, but local ward-based panels, which enable local people to develop a relationship with the local police teams and talk through the challenges faced in their communities, are not mentioned at all. Will the Minister explain whether such forums are to be abolished?
Victim satisfaction rates in London are poor, compared to those in the rest of the country. The ambition to lift the rates is laudable, but having fewer senior and experienced police officers and lots of new inexperienced ones, along with less of a visible deterrent in the form of vital reassurance policing hardly suggests that a convincing plan to increase victim satisfaction is at the heart of the Mayor’s thinking on the future of the Met. The plan that is being touted around London boroughs is being aired for just one hour, and the Mayor of London himself cannot even be bothered to go and hear ordinary Londoners’ concerns around the capital. The Metropolitan police service is one of our city’s greatest assets and deserves inspired political leadership, but instead it is being asset-stripped, and our constituents will lose out.
No debate about the future of the Metropolitan police can take place without a reflection on the story of Stephen Lawrence’s murder and the failure of the investigation, because it still resonates all these years later, in part because of the continuing failure to ensure that the senior ranks of London’s police reflect the communities they aspire to serve. If recent media reports are to be believed, there is not one black or ethnic minority participant on the strategic command course, which is
“the conveyor belt for middle-ranking officers being groomed for senior-officer rank.”
I find it difficult to believe that, in the 21st century, there is not one ethnic minority candidate with the talent to be groomed for a senior command position in the Metropolitan police—not one.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Will he join me in commending the local commander in Harrow, Borough Commander Dal Babu, on all his work, and does he share my concern about the commander being one of the people not chosen to go on the strategic command course? He would have been admirably suited for the course.
Mr Thomas
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to that point in a second.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has pledged to act on the issue. That pledge is extremely welcome, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister that he is encouraging the commissioner to be ambitious in his thinking.
My right hon. Friend just mentioned my own excellent borough commander. He was one of the Met’s few senior Muslim officers before he retired this week. Chief Superintendent Dal Babu’s story reminds the House of the ongoing need for, in his words, “radical measures” to boost ethnic minority recruitment into the Met, into its specialist units—for example, firearms and the criminal investigation department—and, crucially, into its senior ranks. During his time in the Metropolitan police, Dal Babu helped repeatedly to challenge discrimination and bias. Just one example of his work is a pilot mentoring scheme for talented senior officers. Surprisingly, however, ACPO rejected the idea of rolling the programme out more widely, to encourage more black and ethnic minority officers in middle and senior-ranking posts to be ready for higher commands. As Chief Superintendent Babu points out, there is a significant gap between our collective ambitions for a representative police force in our city and the reality. It would be useful to hear the Minister underline publicly what I believe is a cross-party view, that the senior ranks of the Met need to be much more representative of the communities of London.
More recently, the Mayor of London announced plans to close some 65 police stations and sell them off. In my borough, Pinner police station and the front counter at the civic centre are set for closure, although I understand that there is now a question whether Pinner will be closed after all. Given that the civic centre front counter has long been manned by volunteers, I would be surprised if much in the way of revenue savings would be generated. What is striking, though, is the scale of the cuts to police stations in some parts of London. Croydon will lose five of its six stations. Barking and Dagenham will lose three of its four. Havering will lose four of its five, and Waltham Forest is set to lose four of its five. I understand that the police station in Tottenham—a visible signal of reassurance to a community devastated by the riots—is set for closure, too. What is far from clear are the rationale and criteria for each closure, particularly when the deputy Mayor has promised that, where a face-to-face service closes, it will be replaced with another such service. I ask gently, as the Minister can perhaps throw some light on this: how much money will be saved by that scale of closure, given that promise of replacement face-to-face services?
The Mayor’s plans create uncertainty about not just police stations; there has been a sharp reduction in the number of police cars available to the Metropolitan police. The car is a fairly fundamental bit of equipment for police work. According to information obtained through freedom of information requests, almost 200 police response vehicles were axed across London in the first two years of this Government—a 16% drop. I am not sure why the Mayor thought that it would be a good idea to cut by almost a third the number of unmarked and marked police cars in Haringey, which was a flashpoint of the 2011 riots.
Gang crime remains one of the most modern challenges that the Metropolitan police face. It is a huge issue in much of inner London, but it is becoming a problem in the suburbs as well. In a debate in this Chamber on 4 December, a series of Members—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), but also my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field)—pressed the Minister on the future funding of the anti-gang initiatives that are in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North noted that funding had been cut already and was likely to face further significant reductions.
The police and crime committee of the Greater London assembly has noted that community safety funding often pays for independent domestic violence advisers, who are crucial in supporting domestic violence victims to come forward. Such funding also pays for restorative justice projects, substance and alcohol misuse programmes and, crucially, programmes to divert young people from gang and youth violence. Concern about whether such funding will continue threatens to destabilise projects that have made a difference in addressing gang crime, supporting the victims of domestic violence and preventing antisocial behaviour.
I ask the Minister, as my hon. Friends did in the debate on 4 December, to clarify whether Home Office grants to London for community safety, youth crime and substance misuse will again be substantially cut back next year. Does the Home Office still plan to end funding to London through its ending gang and youth violence funding pot in March?
Championing the safety of constituents is surely a Member of Parliament’s most significant responsibility. The cuts in police funding, coupled with the Mayor’s half-baked crime and policing plan and further cuts to programmes that address some of the causes of crime, leave my constituents and Londoners in general less safe and more vulnerable. I urge the Government to think again.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
The wind-ups will begin at 3.40 pm. Eleven colleagues have caught my eye. We now move on to our voluntary four-and-a-half minute time limit for speeches.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Streeter. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for securing this timely debate. We all know that for London to remain one of the best cities in the world it must also be one of the safest. London has been well served in that respect.
The Metropolitan police, although no stranger to controversies or mistakes—my hon. Friend has mentioned some high-profile concerns—is one of the best police services in the world, considering the challenges that it faces. Given the sheer expanse of the city and the ever-present concern about terrorism, the need to forge links across all communities is an important hurdle that the Met overcomes. We would all want to give great thanks to the men and women who serve in our areas.
That is all testament to the previous Labour Mayor, who invested in our police service and in policing technology; it is a testament to the previous Labour Government, who revolutionised neighbourhood policing. The resulting model for the Met that the previous Mayor and Government bequeathed to their current Tory masters was defined by three principles. The first principle was strength in numbers. The number of officers available to the Metropolitan police broke the 33,000 barrier, complemented by 4,000 police community support officers and 4,000 special constables.
The second principle is a relentless focus on the local and the very local. Community relations were forged on the ground, not just over the airwaves. New sergeants and their teams were embedded in neighbourhoods and communities, ensuring that they knew not only the faces of people serving the community, but their first names and addresses.
The third principle was an inescapable presence. The Metropolitan police had a permanent and visible presence in every neighbourhood in the capital. Whether it was an expensive or expansive police station or a local shop front, Londoners knew where to find their police on the high street, and residents and businesses felt safer for that.
As my hon. Friend has outlined so well, that model is now under threat. Those pillars are slowly being kicked away by the swingeing axe that this Government and their Mayor have taken to budgets. Where they have not entirely demolished community faith in policing—I shall come to concerns in Tottenham shortly—they have found a deputy Mayor who has not been present at all in the communities that he is supposed to be serving.
We have already lost 1,500 police officers and 2,000 PCSOs since the spending review. The safer neighbourhoods teams have been decimated, and a quarter of sergeants have been cut. Just last month, we found out that the Mayor has ordered the effective withdrawal of the police from our high streets. Sixty-five police stations are proposed to be closed, and the hours of more than 30 others are being downgraded. Of particular concern to me and my constituents is the fate of Tottenham police stations.
Lyn Brown
I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend’s flow about Tottenham, but may I tell him that Newham faces the same problem? Almost half of our police stations are going, and so is the police station in Stratford, which, as hon. Members may recognise, is a place of major growth and regeneration. How can someone possibly think that that is a reasonable police station to close?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend makes her point well. She will appreciate that constituents such as ours in Newham and Tottenham fear the closure of police stations and the hours that police stations might now be open. Concerns in complex, multicultural areas must command the Mayor’s attention, and a present deputy Mayor is needed to answer them urgently.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on securing this important debate.
Ten short days ago, my constituency was home to an appalling tragedy. A 16-year-old boy, Hani El Kheir, was brutally murdered in the street. Walking along Lupus street, Pimlico, literally a mile or a mile and a half away from here, in the early evening, Hani and his girlfriend were approached by a group of 10 to 20 youths carrying a range of weapons. When he tried to escape, he was tripped and set upon, receiving a number of stab wounds as he was attacked, one of which pierced his heart. Having completed their deed, the pack of killers left Hani bleeding in the street. The emergency services arrived swiftly, taking only five to 10 minutes to get to the scene of the crime. Medical staff worked hard, but Hani eventually died some two hours after the attack.
Hani was the only child of Pauline Hickey. As a father of two young children, I cannot even begin to imagine her anguish. She has lost the most precious gift, a son with whom she had, as she put it, an “unconditional and unbreakable bond.”
Everyone here will have read the newspaper reports of the attack, and I suspect in my constituency such attacks bring more headlines than is perhaps the case in some parts of outer London. I do not wish to repeat those reports other than to say that the witness accounts were chilling and posed questions about how such people operate in our society. I am well aware that comparable brutalities occur on the streets of Harrow, Tottenham, Hackney and Peckham that are no less a tragedy because of their location.
All but one of the constituents who contacted me after Hani’s murder were women, and I suspect that such cases strike a particular chord with mothers, daughters and sisters who sympathise so deeply with Pauline Hickey. One of my correspondents said:
“Hani’s death is a tragic example of the escalating brutality that our young men in the area are being exposed to.”
A number of warrants have been issued across London and local ward resources have been beefed up, with weapons sweeps conducted on local estates in Pimlico and beyond. Police have been working closely with Westminster city council and information is being shared with local schools, especially with regards to the siblings of any victims and suspects arrested in relation to this high-profile case, and there have been many arrests. A big public meeting is taking place tomorrow to bring all of us together—police, council, residents and elected representatives—to discuss how we might prevent similar tragedies in future.
I have mentioned this in the House several times, as has been mentioned, but it is worth repeating that Westminster city council, under the energetic chairmanship of Councillor Nickie Aiken, who is a cabinet member, has pioneered innovative work with gangs in this city. Under the “Your Choice” programme led by the integrated gangs unit, gang members are given real choices. If they wish to leave their gang, they are helped with employment, mentoring and support. If they choose not to, serious enforcement action will be taken, including clamping down on those living in social housing who create misery for their neighbours through antisocial behaviour. I am glad to see that the Mayor of London is committed to rolling such measures out.
Many criticisms are made of the Metropolitan police, particularly in these difficult financial times. In the aftermath of Hani’s murder, I received some relating to the fact that there seemed to be a visible police presence only after the tragedy. Where had those bobbies on the beat been before? If they had been more visible, could they have prevented Hani’s murder? Those are the sorts of question coming through.
I confess that I do not recognise some of the criticisms that have been made by the two hon. Members who have spoken in this debate and, I suspect, will be made later by others among this great phalanx of London Labour MPs. [Interruption.] I felt as outnumbered as this in 2001, when I was first elected to the House. It may happen again in future.
Mark Field
This is an important debate, and rest assured that Conservative MPs have had various meetings on these matters with Stephen Greenhalgh, deputy Mayor of London, and with the Mayor himself.
The new local policing model reflects the financial constraints that any Mayor, of whatever colour, would have experienced. Part of it involves making police more accountable to local people. One reason for closing down our local police stations is that we are trying to put more money into bobbies on the beat rather than necessarily into bricks-and-mortar institutions. There will be an extra 2,600 officers in the safer neighbourhoods scheme as the role of safer neighbourhoods teams changes to cover reassurance and enforcement. Neighbourhood officers will be available for far longer hours, and neighbourhood inspectors will be a key point of accountability. That is good news, and I hope that the Met starts connecting with local people so that communities can work together to protect our youngsters.
Mr Thomas
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the figures from the police and crime committee of the Greater London Assembly show that by 2015, there will be 202 fewer police constables patrolling the streets of Westminster than there were in 2010, and that does not take into account how many police community support officers will go as well. Even according to the Mayor’s figures, there will be significantly fewer police officers in the hon. Gentleman’s borough.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, I would be grateful if he could draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Mark Field
I shall. I appreciate that many others want to speak. I just wanted to mention that particular local tragedy.
I fear that the voice of young people is often being lost in this debate. That is why Westminster city council is working in partnership with the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion to deliver the youth secure streets programme, in which young people and community representatives develop a local strategy for dealing with some of these issues. In my constituency, particularly in the Ebury Bridge and Churchill Gardens estates, a lot of effort has gone into reassuring residents—in many months gone by, not just in the last 10 days—and encouraging them to come forward. That has often been something of a missing link.
There is so much more I should like to have said, and I am sure that many other Members will say those things. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and I recognise that these are deep concerns across the political divide. As London MPs, we feel that they are our particular concerns and problems, and I hope that he will give us some reassurance when he sums up the debate.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Colleagues, by the power vested in me, I impose an official four-minute time limit from now on. I remind Members that if there are interventions, you get an extra minute, but let us try to limit them, or someone will be squeezed out.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on initiating this debate and rightly drawing our attention to some of the ways in which the debate on police numbers has been presented by the Mayor’s office. He is completely right, as he pointed out in his intervention, that the presentation showing one additional police officer in Westminster does not tell us the whole truth, and that we are down by 202 police officers since 2010. He is also completely correct to draw our attention to the changes in the safer neighbourhoods structure, which I think will seriously dilute the connection between safer neighbourhoods teams and their local ward areas. Local leadership of safer neighbourhoods teams is what has made them so important and successful over the past seven or eight years, and it is a great shame that that structure is now being changed.
Although the debate has been framed generally around numbers and premises, one important thing that we can all agree on is that what really matters is how the police demonstrate their presence in a community. It is presence that is significant, not necessarily the bricks and mortar in which police are housed. Police must be visible and accessible, and visibility is not the same as audibility. Communities want to know that their police are present, and not simply as a siren in the street.
I welcome the fact that, under the new proposals, more police officers will be moved into the safer neighbourhoods pool of police, albeit in larger local units, but that brings us back to police premises. It is all very well for the Mayor to make the case that there are 65 stations and counters with a low footfall for reporting crime, and that they can be closed without an effect on the community, but we all know that where police work from matters in terms of how they are perceived by the community. The withdrawal of police stations, particularly from areas of deprivation such as the Harrow Road police station in my constituency, will matter if we are not given a clear indication of the criteria, budget and structure for the alternative way in which police will operate.
The whole consultation has put the cart before the horse. We have been asked to make our comments on police station closures without having had any clear indication of what will replace them or, above all, where the safer neighbourhoods teams will work from to ensure their local police presence. That matters not just in terms of reassuring the community about police presence but to the close relationships between police and their local communities.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) is completely right that one important example is the relationship between police and young people. In recent years, progress has been made on improving that relationship. It is always difficult, but it has improved, and overall progress has been made on stop-and-search, which lies at the heart of a lot of the tensions. It is therefore worrying that young people have come to me who have undergone strip searches for cannabis possession under the new enforcement regime. It seems to me that proportionality is an issue in how we operate stop-and-search. It is an important tool and it should be used, but proportionality should be borne in mind.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was completely right to draw our attention to gangs and the terrible murder in his constituency. It is of deep concern to me that we have yet to hear from the Mayor’s office on the funding of the gangs unit. Westminster council has told us that the £225,000 that it received from the Home Office ending gangs and serious youth violence fund will end, and that we have yet to hear where the replacement funding will come from.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on securing this debate. I want to raise a couple of local concerns, as well as an issue of which I think the Home Office and Government counter-terrorism should be aware.
I was on the pilot police parliamentary scheme with Jacqui Lait and Neil Gerrard in the late 1990s, and I am now doing the graduate police parliamentary scheme. If colleagues have not done it—I know that some have—I highly recommend it. I place on record my appreciation, which I am sure is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), of our borough commander, Chief Superintendent Dave Stringer, and his deputy superintendent, Robert Revill, for keeping us informed of all the developments throughout the consultation. Like other colleagues, we also appreciate all the staff of the Met—back-room staff, officers and support officers—for the great work that they do to protect us.
One local issue is the closure of stations. At the moment, we have six stations: two 24-hour stations, and four day stations. That will be reduced to one 24-hour and two day stations, although obviously, there must be rationalisation of some description. The reductions in numbers in safer neighbourhoods teams have been well documented by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West. Safer neighbourhoods teams were piloted in the Shadwell ward in my constituency before being rolled out to the rest of Tower Hamlets, the rest of London and then across the country, so we have seen the value of them for probably longer than anyone. The evidence in Tower Hamlets is that, for the six years after their introduction, there was a year-on-year reduction in crime. For the past two years, however, there has been an increase. There is therefore real concern about police presence, police visibility, safer neighbourhoods teams and access to police stations.
The second issue I want to raise is the future of the Wapping marine policing unit. It is based in the country’s oldest police station, and it was founded because of the docks in east London. That was before Peelers were introduced and walked the streets of this great capital city. It has been suggested that there will be a 40% reduction in staff, with the loss of night patrols. When I was a Transport Minister, one of the big security issues was the Thames. The attack in Mumbai, which came from the sea, adequately demonstrated the risk of sea-borne attacks. During the Olympics, HMS Ocean was based on the Thames at Greenwich to support marine units. That demonstrated that the risk was still there.
The problem for the Minister is that the Mayor of London’s police and crime plan—MOPAC—does not mention the River Thames or what will happen to Wapping. The Home Office has ring-fenced funding for the counter-terrorism unit and SO15, and, given the counter-terrorism role the Wapping unit performs, this is partly a Home Office matter. The question for the Minister, therefore, is whether staff numbers at the marine policing unit will be cut by 40%. That is what is rumoured, but we have no details. Will that result in there being no night-time patrols at all, which is the word that has been put out on the river? Where will the metropolitan marine policing unit be based when Wapping police station closes? Where will the museum of river police be relocated when the station closes?
Some of those matters are for the Home Office and some are clearly for the Mayor of London, and the Minister may want to deflect some of our inquiries and criticisms to the Mayor’s office. However, there is a counter-terrorism issue here, and the River Thames is very much London’s Achilles heel, so I hope the Home Office will be interested in making sure that we maintain our vigilance for the security of the city.
Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for securing the debate. I want to make a few quick points, mindful as I am of the time.
First, I hope the Minister is struck by the degree of cross-party agreement on this issue. This is about our capacity to represent our constituents and to ensure that they are kept safe and secure. The concern about falling numbers and police counter closures is shared right across London.
Secondly, I want to put on record my thanks to the Met for the extraordinary job it did during the Olympics. I particularly want to reference the two borough commanders in my area—Matt Bell in Lambeth and John Sutherland in Southwark. They do their job every single day of the week, and they would never complain. However, we must reflect the hollowness of MOPAC’s stated ambition of doing more with less. We know that the resources available to our communities are stretched almost to breaking point.
On numbers, despite the commitments made in the heat and passion of the mayoral election campaign, Lambeth will see a reduction of 157 officers by 2015, while Southwark will be down by 132. That flies directly in the face of the assurances that were given.
On counter closures, I remind Members that the Mayor promised that no front counter would be closed without a new, improved facility being put in its place. All that we are being offered, however, is the empty MOPAC rhetoric about doing more with less. That is not a promise kept. In each borough, it is intended to retain only one 24-hour station—Brixton, in Lambeth, and Walworth, in Southwark.
There is enormous concern about abstractions on the part of the two borough commanders and the safer neighbourhoods teams in my area. Abstractions—the arbitrary withdrawal of police staff to deal with issues elsewhere—are unpredictable and unplanned, but absolutely required. Having reviewed the level of abstractions, I am concerned about the frequency with which police constables are abstracted from our safer neighbourhoods teams, diminishing teams’ powers of arrest and enforcement.
Finally, I want to say a word about safer neighbourhoods teams. There is unanimity in the debate about value of safer neighbourhoods teams and safer neighbourhoods policing in terms of the security and safety of London. I hope the Minister is listening and will reaffirm that in his discussions with the Mayor.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. Like you, I recognise that the Home Affairs Committee, of which you were a distinguished member, constantly has inquiries involving the Metropolitan police.
I want to raise three issues, but I want first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on not only securing the debate, but becoming the deputy shadow Minister for London.
The first issue I want to raise is diversity. My hon. Friend was right to highlight the fact that the Metropolitan police, especially at senior levels, does not look like London, and that is not acceptable. Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Manchester, suggested that the police service adopt positive action to get a broader range of officers into the ranks of chief constable. Whatever method is adopted, the situation must change. For the six years I have been Chairman of the Select Committee, senior officers have said they must do more, but that is not enough. Given the population in London, it is vital that the police should change at the highest levels.
Secondly, I support what the Government are doing to restructure the landscape of policing, although they must carry the work force with them. That is not happening at the moment, and it is certainly not happening in the Met. I would like to hear very clearly where the counter-terrorism command will rest. Will it go to the National Crime Agency or will it stay with the Met? Judging from the speeches we have heard so far, there are a lot of bread-and-butter issues the Met should be concentrating on. I would like to hear from the Minister whether that decision has been made.
Finally, we are all concerned by the number of historical investigations—Yewtree, Alice, Elveden and Tuleta—occurring at the moment. Yesterday, we heard that Operation Hearn, which has cost £1.2 million and which has 20 or so officers working on it, has still not concluded. At this time, it is important that the Met is given the resources it needs—not from its agreed budget, but additional resources—to deal with some of these cases. In that way, we can deal with issues such as the one that was raised with the Committee only yesterday: undercover agents’ use of the identities of dead children in performing their activities. That is quite wrong, and it is important that the families are notified immediately. When Pat Gallan gave evidence to us, she said the issue had to be investigated thoroughly. I urge the Minister to give the Metropolitan police the resources it needs to conclude these inquiries.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on securing this important debate. Like other colleagues, I pay tribute to the Metropolitan police and especially the officers in my constituency and across Tower Hamlets.
The Government’s announcement that the police budget will go down by 20%—£2 billion—in this Parliament and Mayor Johnson’s announcement that a further £500 million will be cut from the Metropolitan police service budget mean that we will lose 1,500 members of staff, on top of the 4,000 uniformed officers who have lost their jobs since the cuts began.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, police numbers have gone down and crime has gone up over the same period, and that is also true in my constituency. There are now 163 fewer uniformed officers in Tower Hamlets than when the Government came to power in 2010. Over the same period, crime has gone up by a dramatic 9% in Tower Hamlets. That contrasts with six successive years of crime reduction in the borough under the previous Government. When I raised that issue with the Home Secretary during Home Office questions on 7 January, as reported in column 14 of Hansard, she said that the Metropolitan police had indicated that they wanted to change the number of police community support officers to increase the number of police constables available. Yet the evidence shows that Tower Hamlets has 103 fewer police officers and 58 fewer PCSOs than in 2010. I wrote to the Mayor of London to seek clarification a few weeks ago, soon after that answer, and have yet to receive a response.
We face the closure of three police facilities, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, and a cut in proven and effective safer neighbourhoods teams, from six officers to one police officer and one PCSO. As he said, we were the first to innovate and pilot the safer neighbourhoods initiative, which has proved extremely successful at reducing crime in our borough and around the country. It seems bizarre that the Government and the Mayor of London want to reverse that important provision, with its proven track record of success. It is dangerous and simply puts public safety at risk. I therefore appeal to the Minister to re-examine those issues, especially in the light of the dramatic increase in crime in the borough.
My constituents do not have confidence in the proposals of the Mayor of London. They made that clear in a recent consultation led by the deputy Mayor, who was rather short of facts and unclear about what exactly was going on. We highlighted the risks and showed the evidence, and asked him to think again. In particular, it is critical that the Mayor of London and the Government should consider the matter in the context of recent risks such as hate crime, which the police dealt with valiantly and immediately, because they still have some capacity to do so.
Similarly, during the riots, community and police working together managed to stop a major riot happening in our borough; and we stopped the English Defence League exploiting those divisions across London to create more unrest. That required 7,000 police officers, despite a ban, and it shows how desperately we need police officers working with the community, and community support officers. I ask the Minister to examine those issues closely, and to see what the risks are—not just the risk of a rise in crime, but the risk to community relations in our city.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Last night, Hammersmith had an unwelcome visitor—the deputy Mayor for policing and crime, Stephen Greenhalgh, who is of course also remembered in the borough as the previous leader of the council. During his time there, he cut most of the things that are needed for civil society to be harmonious and law abiding, including youth clubs, Sure Start, housing and social services. He was a hugely divisive figure and his signature policy, of course, was the social engineering of the borough through the demolition of social housing and its replacement with luxury housing.
Since Stephen Greenhalgh was elevated to the post of deputy Mayor, he has been a controversial figure. He held the Greater London assembly in contempt by, at the first meeting, standing down the police commissioner. The tawdry incident before Christmas of inappropriate touching in a lift makes him unsuitable for his post, in my view; and for the past three weeks, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has been deciding whether to investigate him for possible criminal activity. I want the Mayor to come to the borough to talk to us—not someone who is highly discredited and unfit to hold his position.
I was not able to attend the event as I was here for last night’s important vote, but my staff who attended told me that there was the usual bombast and platitudes; but that could not disguise what is happening in Hammersmith and Fulham, which is that Shepherd’s Bush police station, in the poorest area with the highest crime, will close, and Fulham police station will go on to reduced hours. Despite that, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) and the Conservative council support the strategy adopted by the Mayor and Stephen Greenhalgh. I do not accept that supermarket counters and post offices are an alternative to police stations for the reporting of sensitive and important matters. People want a police station.
A letter from my borough commander said:
“At this stage we are not intending to close Fulham or Shepherds Bush Police Station”.
However, I believe that once counters have closed, it is likely that whole police stations will close in due course, as the police sell their estates around the borough. We are told that we are merging with Kensington and Chelsea and will lose our borough commander. We are also told that the boroughs will be split into three—north, middle and south. That looks to me like a three-tier service, because the two boroughs have a poor north and wealthy south. I am sure that I know where the resources will be put.
Our safer neighbourhood teams are universally popular. The idea that they will be based on one police constable and one PCSO is disgraceful. We have already lost 5% of officers and 45% of PCSOs. That will not have changed, according to the Met’s figures, by 2015. All we get is spin and false statistics. Crime has not materially changed; concern about crime has gone up in Hammersmith and Fulham. The council spends more than £1 million on publicity, mainly aimed at telling people what a good job it does on law and order. It is a disgrace; it is similar to the Mayor of London’s saying after the riots, before the election, that he opposed police cuts, although now he proposes horrific police cuts.
It is burned into my memory that the cabinet member for policing in Hammersmith said, when asked a question at a sensitive public meeting following a murder a couple of years ago in the borough, that his solution to crime was to increase owner-occupation. Greenhalgh said last night that he was thinking of using money from estates sales to invest in policing. That is not the solution to crime in London. The political leadership—not the police leadership—of policing in London is unfit, and the Minister would be well advised to consider that and think about how we are to get the leadership that we deserve.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
In my constituency, one of the most popular public policy initiatives of the past 20 years was safer neighbourhoods teams. Mitcham and Morden campaigned hard for them. Ten years ago, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) was the Policing Minister, she came to meet dozens of local people in Steers Mead who wanted to introduce safer neighbourhoods teams to tackle the low-level crime and antisocial behaviour that affected their part of Mitcham. Thanks to her, we were lucky enough to get one of the country’s first teams, and the model of one sergeant, two police constables and three PCSOs walking local beats has been a great success.
The police had drifted away from community policing for decades, but the safer neighbourhoods initiative meant that we had six people whom we knew, walking local beats, who could not be moved away from us. It also meant investment in communities that had been neglected. Police offices such as those in Lavender Fields, St Helier, Pollards Hill and Mitcham town centre have benefited the community in many ways. More obviously, they enabled our safer neighbourhoods teams to spend more time in the community, rather than travelling to and from distant police stations; but they also represented investment in local neighbourhoods. Previously, those offices were derelict—empty shops that attracted antisocial behaviour. Most of all, the new offices were an outward projection of the fact that the police cared about those communities, as they were part of them.
Now, all that is under threat. I feel sorry for my borough commander, Chief Superintendent Darren Williams, who has been in his post only a year. I have enormous respect for him and the energy that he brings to his job. I praise him particularly for his fundraising for Fight for Change—a scheme to encourage young men to turn away from gang violence—but he has a thankless task. Others have decided that cuts must be made, that the 1-2-3 model of safer neighbourhoods policing is no longer sacrosanct and that police offices and police stations are no longer a priority.
A campaign has been launched by the Guardian group of local papers in south-west London after, in their words,
“it emerged an area measuring about 75 miles squared—larger than any individual London borough—would be left without a 24 hour station”.
As the Guardian group explains:
“The exposed area includes Mitcham, Tooting, Earlsfield, Balham, Streatham, Thornton Heath, Norbury, Norwood, Dulwich, Forest Hill, Sydenham, Beckenham, and Catford”.
Tooting police station, which is just inside my constituency, will close; Mitcham police station will be closed at night; and the safer neighbourhoods offices that we fought so hard to get are also under threat. I want to take the opportunity to praise the Guardian group for its campaign.
When Boris Johnson’s office published plans to end the 24-hour service at Mitcham police station, to close local police offices and to scrap the 1-2-3 system, we were appalled. I am sure he will find out just how appalled we are when Stephen Greenhalgh comes to our constituency at the end of the month. The Labour leader of Merton council, Councillor Stephen Alambritis, will be there, and I congratulate him and Councillor Edith Macauley on saying that the council oppose any moves to close local police stations or cut the number of police and PCSOs in our community.
People in Mitcham and Morden are beginning to feel the difference: they are beginning to feel more unsafe. They are concerned that the police are surrendering their territory. I hope that I have, in this short contribution, been able to express their views about their No. 1 priority.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for securing this important debate on an issue of such vital concern to residents in the areas that colleagues and I represent.
I put on the record my concern about proposals to cut policing in Croydon, particularly in Croydon North, so soon after the worst riots in a generation, for which Croydon was one of the focal points nationally. This was a huge issue in the by-election just a few weeks ago, when I was elected to represent Croydon North, although at that point the proposals were not as severe or damaging as those that we now have before us.
People living in that constituency are still shaken by what they saw during the riots. London road, which is one of the main shopping areas running through the constituency, was in flames. People were appalled to see gangs of looters and rioters smashing through local shops, stealing whatever they could find.
Many people do not just have the memory of those riots: they are still experiencing the after-effects. Mr and Mrs Hassan ran a launderette on the London road that was burnt out by arsonists. They have not only received no compensation to enable them to set up their livelihood again, but they have no other means of income. As a result, they cannot pay the mortgage on their home and are threatened with losing it.
Charlene Munro, a young single mother, and her three-year-old son had to flee their home when they saw a gang of rioters approaching. They returned next morning to find their flat burnt out and all their possessions destroyed. They also received little support. Charlene has been left in debt and her son, now aged four, is still traumatised by the experiences that he suffered.
Those are just two of many examples of how people in Croydon North are still suffering from the riots. The riots are not in the past; people have to live with them today. At a time when people in that community so desperately need reassurance about their public safety, how extraordinary that the Mayor should introduce proposals to cut the police, offering people greater fear about their personal safety, instead of reassurance.
Croydon North is a densely populated area. It is relatively poor. It is a challenging area to police. It is extraordinary that the Mayor is proposing to close every police station in Croydon North and to leave police numbers below the wholly inadequate level that existed immediately after the riots. Croydon is losing out twice. The Mayor’s justification for closing down the police stations is that it frees up resources to provide additional police on the streets. Croydon North will suffer on both counts; it will not get the additional policing that the Mayor has promised. This is a breach of the promises that people in Croydon North were made after the riots.
Crimes such as street robbery, domestic violence and hate crime are on the rise in Croydon. The legacy of the riots is still strong in people’s minds. I hope that the Minister will support me in urging the Mayor of London to bring forward alternative proposals that meet his earlier promises and are fair to Croydon.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Like many hon. Members, I was elected in 1997 and at that time I went out on the beat with police officers, as many of us did. Some may recall John Hannington, who used to work in the House of Commons. He was one of my beat officers and we went round Barnhill ward together. We had one beat officer per ward then.
I had one of the earliest safer neighbourhood teams. We got the sergeant, two PCs and the PCSOs and it was a major success. We set up the ward panels and mapped out the beats, in terms of crime problems in a particular area. I set up initiative meetings—I still have them every quarter in each ward—where I meet councillors, police and local residents, and we tackle the problems together. We have launched projects for the young people, including anti-drugs, domestic violence and safety for the elderly projects. It has been an overwhelming success in building confidence in policing in the local area. That process has been destabilised since 2010.
Sergeant vacancies are either not filled or there are delays in recruitment, PCs are not replaced for long periods and PCSOs are not replaced at all, in many instances. Premises on estates in my constituency, where we have relocated teams, are now under threat of closure. In addition, staff are withdrawn from the whole area—I do not know whether other hon. and right hon. Members have noticed this—to police demonstrations, and so on. I understand that there are priorities, but there was a commitment that there would be sufficient resources so that safer neighbourhood teams were not withdrawn in that way.
What has happened in my community? If hon. and right hon. Members read the newspapers this morning they may have missed it, but as a result of the changes Hayes is now in the top 10 in the country for burglaries. Drugs are becoming a real problem, particularly drug dealers preying on youngsters. We were working hard in the town centre to reduce the fear of crime and attract people back in at night. However, the town centre teams have been hit hardest since 2010. I fear that we are going backwards rather than forwards.
It is not just about numbers. Ben Bradford, the Oxford criminologist, made a valid point when speaking to the London assembly. He said that it is not just quantitative, but about the qualitative relationship: how police interact with constituents, to give them confidence, respect and reassurance. When experienced staff are lost, particularly sergeants with years of experience, and that level of supervision is lost for new, young officers coming in, it undermines the quality of the policing and the interaction between the police officer and members of the public, and it undermines an element of accountability upwards as well as downwards.
Right hon. and hon. Members may have talked to police officers. Morale is low in the Metropolitan police. Their pay and pensions have been hit and they have been hit with increased work loads and demands on their time. When the Police Federation ballots to see whether officers want the right to strike, that is a warning that morale is at rock bottom, and Ministers, mayors and others, should take heed. There now needs to be a halt to the cuts, proper investment in the police service and engagement with the community, rather than our being ridden roughshod over as we have been recently.
We have the consultative meeting in Hillingdon tonight at 6 o’clock, although I will be here objecting to one of the cuts in welfare benefits. I will communicate these views to the Mayor and others, but the view that I am getting back from the consultative meetings so far is that they are public relations exercises, simply set up to convince people that the numbers are going up when they know that the reality is that the number of police officers is falling and cuts are taking place. I hope that this debate will help.
Mr Slaughter
My hon. Friend’s constituents should not get too excited, because I am told that the meeting last night ended with the deputy mayor saying that he was on the home run. Clearly, he believes that the task has been done and they are going through the motions. I apologise to my colleagues who still have to go through this process, but it is purely cosmetic and a matter of dressing up unacceptable cuts in false statistics in a way that will make those palatable to the media.
John McDonnell
When MPs, members of the public, local councillors and the police themselves at street level are saying that the Mayor has got it wrong, someone needs to listen, and if the Mayor does not the Minister should.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) who has done a service to his constituents and to the people of London in bringing this important issue to this Chamber.
The fact that 15 of my right hon. and hon. Friends have attended this debate, plus the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), shows that they share an interest in the importance of policing in this great city. I have not yet noticed a Liberal Democrat attending this debate. Perhaps they are too embarrassed about their general election pledge for 3,000 extra police officers to turn up in person. We will put that to one side for the moment.
In this debate about the future of the Metropolitan Police, my hon. and right hon. Friends have spoken with passion about their concerns for their constituencies. London is a complex city to police and faces many challenges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) mentioned that the Olympics was an important event. Such international events in this great city are commonplace, week in, week out.
We have heard about the importance of recognising the potential for London’s being a focus for terrorist activity and about the prevention of terrorism. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) mentioned the river boat scheme. We heard of appalling acts of murder in this city from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. We heard about gangs and guns, and of the importance of neighbourhood policing, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked. We have heard about the historical hangover of the riots in Croydon from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). During his election campaign, I was pleased to go to Croydon police station to see its importance to the community. Historical inquiries were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee, who is also present, showing the importance of the debate.
Those are big issues, and policing London is a complex matter. The community reassurance that neighbourhood policing brings to London, which has been mentioned by all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and the cohesion not only to fight crime but to be a presence on the streets of London, to communicate with its citizens, have been important. Many of those matters are rightly devolved to the Mayor, but the central contention of my right hon. and hon. Friends today has been—I put this strongly to the Minister—that the choices made by the Mayor in London are wrong and that the choices made by the Minister on budget and organisation since 2010 have compounded those wrongs and made policing in London much more difficult.
As the Minister knows, we have an honest disagreement about funding. When I was the Police Minister, in the last year of the Labour Government, we planned to make some savings on policing—some 12%—but the Minister’s proposals have meant a 20% cut, which is effectively £540 million lost to the Met budget by 2015, or 4,200 police officers. That is a real challenge. From May 2010 to date, the Metropolitan police has lost 2,285 police officers and, importantly, 1,900 police community support officers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) mentioned the importance of those numbers, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden.
Police station closures are pivotal. We need to make savings in the policing budget in London, no doubt, but 65 police stations are proposed for closure. Today, my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and for Croydon North have mentioned the importance of those stations to their constituencies, showing that somewhere someone is getting this wrong. The reassurance demanded by the constituents of my right hon. and hon. Friends on such issues is simply not being given. No doubt the Minister will say that crime is down. I welcome the fact that crime in certain areas is falling, but it would be in certain areas, because, after all, Labour put 15 years of investment in as Mayor and as Government. As pointed out today, however, the rate of crimes solved has also fallen; and the level of recorded crime has fallen, but the level of reporting to police is falling.
The issues are serious, and in drawing attention to them I make no criticism of Bernard Hogan-Howe or the Metropolitan police. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West mentioned their service day in, day out, putting their lives at risk. Indeed, on Saturday, I will go to Southwark cathedral to pay tribute to Paul McKeever, the former chair of the Police Federation, who was a Metropolitan police officer. He knew and had pride in the service that the Metropolitan police provide to this great city. The challenges of the budget cut and of the decisions on how that cut is made have been reflected strongly in what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said today.
Mr Thomas
Will my right hon. Friend do two things? Will he join me in congratulating Joanne McCartney, a Labour member of the Greater London assembly, who has led the effort to explore the consequences of the Mayor’s budget cuts? Will he also ask the Minister for particular clarity on the Home Office fund for ending gang and youth violence and on whether it will cease in March 2013, as many of us fear, or whether there has been a rethink?
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend makes an important point, because we are not concerned only with the direct police budget. Resources also come through the community safety fund, which was mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members. In the last year that I set it, it was £13.2 million for London. This year, it is £5.3 million, and next year it is disappearing altogether. That is £13.2 million in the last year of a Labour Government but that is now no more, in the third year of a Conservative and Liberal Administration.
Mark Field
I am glad that the shadow Minister acknowledged that some serious crime rates are coming down in London. We all have great concerns—I share many of those expressed today—but is it not also fair to say that, given the financial constraints that any Government would be under, to be brutally honest, there is vanishingly little between what would have happened had there been a Labour Government in office today, in the sort of grants that they could give via the Home Office to the Mayor, and what has been happening in the past year?
Mr Hanson
Let me gently slap the hon. Gentleman down. There is a difference between the 20% cut on policing introduced by this Government in England and Wales and the 12% reduction that we had planned, which had the support of Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary, which said that it was deliverable and achievable, and that we could have maintained police numbers. The difference in London between the votes he has voted for and the votes that we have voted for amounts to, at the moment, £230 million lost to London policing. That is the difference between him and me. Next Wednesday, he will have an opportunity to look again at the Minister’s budget. I can give the Minister a hint. Just between you and me, Mr Streeter, we will be voting against his budget next Wednesday. My right hon. and hon. Friends will do so because that budget needs to be reviewed.
My hon. Friends have mentioned gang and youth violence funding, gangs and knife violence funding and substance misuse funding. They are all difficult challenges for which funding has been lost. On the diversity issue mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, for example, in London 34% of PCSOs are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and when we lose 986 of them by 2015, the effect on the numbers of black and ethnic minority police officers and PCSOs on the streets of London will be disproportionate.
In conclusion, my right hon. and hon. Friends have made valuable points. We need to look again at the budget. When we reject it, the Minister will have the opportunity to go back and think about it again. We need to look at accountability, because now the London deputy mayor responsible for policing is not as accountable as the police board was in the past. We need to look at the role of the Met in national policing. We need to look at how we can improve diversity—perhaps the Minister can tell me why the last time the Home Office diversity group met was when I chaired it in December 2009. It has not met since, according to his parliamentary answers. The issue is real, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken for London, I hope the Minister will listen.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
It is always a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Streeter. I echo others in congratulating the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr Thomas) on securing the debate, and I echo his tribute to the Metropolitan police and to the police as a whole on the remarkable job that they continue to do. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) spoke about their performance, in particular during the Olympic and Paralympic games, when forces from throughout the country worked together in London to deliver the biggest peacetime policing operation in our history. That was a huge and undeniable success.
I will start on one of the things the hon. Member for Harrow, West said that I agreed with. He will not be surprised to learn that there were not many, but there were some. I completely agree with him and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee on the importance of diversity in police recruitment and retention, and I have two concrete things to say in response.
I was pleased earlier this week to help launch the College of Policing, a new body set up with support from across the House to increase professionalism within the police, to improve standards and to share best practice. Clearly, one of the areas in which the college will have fruitful work to do will be on practical ways to improve diversity, which is obviously a particularly important issue for the Met. As has been said, chief officers as well as Ministers in successive Governments have said that something needs to be done. There has been no lack of push to do it but, so far, there has been a lack of sufficient success in doing it. I hope that the college will help to achieve that.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), made a point about money. I admire the elegance of his phraseology: when the previous Government were organising something, he used the words “savings” or “reductions”, but when this Government do it, it is “cuts”. They are exactly the same, and wrapping it up in nice language does not make any difference.
When we came to office, we set the police a challenge to cut crime while playing their part in reducing the country’s record deficit, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party left us. In the case of the Metropolitan police, the response to that challenge is being ably led by the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. We know about some of the difficulties that the Met has faced in meeting that challenge. They have been brought up by many hon. Members during the debate, but we also know that it is fundamentally determined to address those difficulties, and that it is being successful in doing so.
In November 2012, the Metropolitan police submitted a plan for a balanced budget and stated its intention to transform the service, prioritise the front line, and maintain officer numbers. The Mayor’s office for policing and crime is consulting on a draft policing and crime plan and estates strategy. I regret the way that the consultation has been criticised by various hon. Members during the debate. It seems to me that we should all welcome the deputy mayor’s visits to London boroughs to hear local concerns as a model of consultation.
Ms Buck
It is right that we can have a mature debate about police premises and the best way to base the police in the community, but given that the Mayor said categorically that police stations and counters would not close until alternative provision had been found, why have we gone through an entire consultative process with no alternatives being offered, merely being asked to comment on 65 station closures?
Damian Green
I will come to station closures. I take the point, which has been raised by the hon. Lady and other hon. Members. I want to deal with it.
The consultation includes commitments about not only the level of resources that the Met will have at the front line but—this point has been neglected but needs to be injected into the debate—how those resources will be used. At the forefront of the Met’s plans is the Met change programme, which is being used to transform how operational policing is delivered in London. The programme has several strands, including plans to deliver a flatter management structure, thereby putting more constables on the beat, engagement with the supply services market to examine new ways of delivering the services they provide in areas such as human resource, technology and finance, and plans to release under-utilised assets.
I hope that hon. Members agree that the Met’s recently issued plans show that it is looking at a transformational approach to the way in which it delivers policing in London. Everyone has observed that London is a fast changing city that is difficult to police, so it needs to keep ahead of the curve. Clearly, there has been great interest, not just in the debate, but across London about the closure of police stations. As has been said, decisions about the number of stations and their operating hours are matters for the Mayor and the Commissioner. I am sure that many hon. Members will contribute to the consultation.
It is important not to confuse buildings with quality of service provided to the public. Fewer than 50 crimes a night are reported at front counters throughout the Metropolitan police area. Since 2008, the number of crimes reported to those front counters has dropped 20%, and internet and e-mail reporting is up by 32%. That shows how changes in the modern world must be reflected in changes in the way the police deliver their services.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I cannot keep quiet. I will give a concrete example of what will happen. Wanstead police station will shut, and there will be no replacement whatever. Response times will lengthen, and people will be put in danger. That will be a green light for burglars in the Wanstead part of my constituency. That goes directly against what Boris Johnson promised. People in Wanstead and throughout London want to know what Boris Johnson does not understand about the word “no”.
Damian Green
There is no reason why response times should go up. I have explained what is happening in the way people report things to the police. There are ever-increasing ways in which the public can contact the police. That includes contact centres on the new non-emergency number, 101, which takes some of the pressure off 999 services, and contact through supermarket surgeries and so on, where the police can meet thousands of people, instead of the very few who may come in to a police station.
Several hon. Members made the point that the quality of contact as well as the quantity of contact matters. It seems to be unarguable that getting the police out there into buildings where thousands of people are likely to be is a better way of making that contact than simply being inside a traditional big-building police station.
Mr Lammy
There is a proposal that throughout the entirety of my constituency police station hours will be reduced to 9 to 5. The matter also involves perception. The people of Tottenham do not want officers coming into the constituency from outside. They want officers based in the constituency for reasons that were echoed time and again after the riots in the summer of 2011. The issue is not just about a 9-to-5 operation; it is about visible policing on the ground in constituencies such as mine.
Damian Green
Indeed, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, one part of the MOPAC plan is to increase the number of police constables, so there will be more visible policing. The background that the right hon. Member for Delyn mentioned in passing—he is honest enough to know that it must be the background to the debate—is that crime is falling, but someone coming to this debate cold would not recognise that fact from the tenor of the debate so far. It is a straightforward fact that crime is falling, and that includes a 3% reduction in police recorded crime in the Metropolitan police area in the first two years of this Government between 2010 and 2012. That refutes any suggestion that reduced budgets and fewer officers inevitably make the public less safe.
Ms Buck
Does the Minister accept that the reporting of crime at police counters or contact points is marginal to the argument that most of us have about the police presence in the community? People want safer neighbour teams and police to be rooted in their neighbourhoods so that they do not end up having to report to a police station at the far end of the borough and, as is usually the case, the most deprived neighbourhoods are left behind.
Damian Green
I have just addressed that point. There are two things: the response to crime and preventing it, and the quality of day-to-day contact. That is why finding innovative ways of placing the police regularly in parts of the community where thousands of people go may prove to be a better way of establishing those contacts than the traditional way. I have seen that in action. The other week, I was in Newport in Gwent visiting a mobile police station in a supermarket car park. People of all ages and from all backgrounds were coming up and talking to the police naturally. That is extremely important.
The matter must also be looked at against the background of falling crime. Crime in Harrow—the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) introduced the debate—is down by 1.6%. We heard an impassioned speech from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) who must be aware that crime in Hammersmith and Fulham over the past year is down by 4.7%. In the interests of fairness, it is important to put that context in place, because the Metropolitan police are doing an extremely successful job in vast parts of the city.
I shall deal with one or two of the detailed points that have been made. Various funds that were mentioned have been rolled into the community safety fund, which is worth £90 million in 2013-14. The allocation of that within individual budgets is the responsibility of local areas, and in London the deputy Mayor. A point was made about abstraction of police constables, and overall the Met intends to increase the number of police constables.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked about the use of dead children’s identities, which of course shocked all of us—
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but our time is up. We now move on to our next debate.
BTEC (Public Uniformed Services)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, for this debate, which is important to my constituency and my constituents and to the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education.
In this half-hour Adjournment debate, I want to highlight the important part that MOD service personnel are playing in supporting cadet forces in state schools and, in particular, the involvement of service personnel in delivering the BTEC in uniformed public services. That course and well run school cadet forces generally are making a real difference to the lives of youngsters who attend state schools. Along with the Department for Education, more than £10 million has been pledged to expand cadet units into more state schools by 2015. I understand the budget pressures that the MOD currently faces, but I want to stress that I believe that is a good use of money.
Two state schools in my constituency—Walker technology college and Heaton Manor school—have cadet forces. The benefits have a real impact on individuals. Involvement in cadet units and work on the associated BTEC teaches participants the ethos of public service, as well as beneficial life skills, such as discipline and organisation. Not every pupil encounters those virtues outside the school environment.
The head at Heaton Manor school, Lynne Ackland, told me that the cadet force at the school has had a very positive impact. Attendance and attainment has increased among participants, their physical health has improved notably, and many have had their confidence and self-esteem reinforced. She said:
“As a head teacher who was sceptical at first I have been so impressed with the achievements and presence this opportunity has brought to the school”.
The staff and individuals who offer to help with cadet forces and in teaching the BTEC show great dedication. For many staff, including Ministry of Defence service personnel, the commitment is purely voluntary. Without their efforts, many units would not be viable. For the staff, the benefits are twofold. There is the personal satisfaction of teaching youngsters—sometimes very disadvantaged youngsters—and also the personal professional development through leadership and team-working skills. For the youngsters themselves, the results are even more marked, although not always easy to quantify.
I should declare an interest here, Mr Streeter. I am, and have been since 1980, a governor of Walker school—now Walker technology college. At Walker technology college, the uniformed public services BTEC is delivered as a curricular activity via the cadet unit. The qualifications gained by the pupils currently count towards the school’s value-added best eight GCSE or equivalent points score measure. The way in which Walker technology college has offered the BTEC course has helped to give it real status, and it has been praised by the Cadet Vocational Qualification Organisation as an example of excellent practice. The model has even been adopted by a number of other schools. The school has seen success with the qualification, which has included groundbreaking work with the Ministry of Defence and 15 (North East) Brigade at Catterick. Both the MOD and the school have made significant financial commitments to the qualification by running the cadet unit as though it were a full curriculum department. The school also looks to offer ex-service personnel the opportunity of full-time employment, helping to staff that area.
The crucial point is that Walker technology college relies on the BTEC qualifications associated with the cadet unit being counted in the school’s performance indicators to justify its level of commitment and investment. That arrangement is different to many schools, including Heaton Manor, where the cadet unit and associated qualifications are extra-curricular. The Prime Minister, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education have publicly pledged their commitment to school cadet forces. In a previous exchange in the House, admittedly with a different Minister, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)said:
“It would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman”—
a reference to myself—
“and some of his colleagues used their links with the trade union movement to ensure the fullest possible participation among trade unions in helping to support cadet units.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 3.]
Always willing to help out in a good cause, I asked the regional secretary of the northern TUC, Mr Kevin Rowan, to check the position of the TUC-affiliated trade unions, and he very kindly did so. He contacted every schools’ trade union representative in the north-east of England, under the heading “Unusual Query of the Day”, asking for trade union representative’s views.
The quote from Walker technology college’s National Union of Teachers representative, Mr Shaun Dunlop, is typical of the rest of the responses:
“To my knowledge, there have been absolutely no objections raised by unions to the BTEC in public uniformed services that has been followed by many students at Walker over the last few years, nor to the combined cadet forces attachment we have at college. The vast majority of staff see the combined cadet forces and the BTEC course and the effect it has on the confidence of the students who are following it as a great asset to the college. Certainly nothing negative has come my way. I have personally volunteered to help out in probably more than a dozen weekends away with cadets over the last four years or so to help them gain their BTEC qualifications.”
I wrote to the Minister on 29 November last year, asking if he was aware of any specific issues relating to trade unions. I hope that the response I have read out will serve as a reassurance that, when it comes to supporting local cadet units, we are on his side in east Newcastle.
There is, however, a problem for Walker technology college, which I highlighted to the Minister in our exchange in the House, and today’s debate gives me the opportunity to highlight it again. Following the recommendations of the Wolf report and subsequent actions by the Department for Education, the uniformed public services BTEC has been removed from counting towards school performance indicators. Schools must now focus on a narrower range of courses. That puts into jeopardy the excellent provision at Walker technology college. State schools must consequently focus their funding towards courses that count towards pupil and school performance indicators. It is more difficult to justify spending funds on an activity when it would take place on a purely extra-curricular basis, as would be the case for the cadet unit at Walker technology college from 2014. That is of real concern to everyone involved and it is counter-productive, given the Government’s stated commitment in that area.
If we believe in the value of the course, which I do, it must be recognised for evaluation. If the Prime Minister and the Government generally want to realise the course’s objectives, they need to ensure its inclusion in performance indicators. The Wolf report acknowledged the growing importance of BTECs and states that many who take BTEC level 3 national qualifications continue on to higher education. I do not seek to disagree with the recommendations of the Wolf report or with the efforts of the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that significant rigour is present in the education of our children. I am, however, eager to ensure that courses that provide beneficial skills to young people are recognised and included. It seems to me that the uniformed public services BTEC and associated cadet force training is of notable merit and should be one of those recognised qualifications.
The Department for Education has made some changes to the approved list of courses that will be included in school performance indicators from 2014. I am arguing that the BTEC in uniformed public services should be on the approved list. To that end, I have already been in contact with Pearson International, the company that owns Edexcel, which runs the BTEC. Representatives have told me that they are happy to sit down with the MOD and the Department for Education to explore how that could be achieved through looking at the BTEC and how it may comply under new guidelines.
In praising what the Ministry of Defence has done in this area so far—I have nothing but praise for that—I hope to enlist the Minister’s support in progressing discussions about the uniformed public services BTEC within the Government. I know that the Secretary of State for Education is sympathetic, because he has told me so. I have the impression that the institutional view of the civil service in the Department for Education is less sympathetic. Our cause is just and therefore I hope that I can enlist the Minister’s help in championing it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown)on initiating the debate. I am very pleased to have his heartfelt endorsement of our cadet units, particularly in view of his extraordinarily long service with Walker technology college. Serving as a governor since 1980 is extraordinary. It is very good to hear how well the BTEC to which he refers and cadet forces in general—the cadet experience—have helped improve the lives of young people. I am very grateful also for his iteration of Mr Dunlop’s testimony. It is my experience, too, that the opinion of teachers who may be a little sceptical about involvement in the cadets is often turned around once they have experience of the work that cadet volunteers do to help young people. It is always good to hear such stories.
It is worth while putting on record that one of the great things about youth in this country is the presence among them of our cadet organisations. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not need to be convinced of that. Broadly speaking, they fall into four parts: the Combined Cadet Force, of which more anon if I have the opportunity, the Army Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps and one that is particularly close to my heart—the Sea Cadet Corps. There are 140,000 cadets in more than 3,000 units. It is worth while putting on record our thanks to the 26,000 cadet force adult volunteers, who make all this possible.
Some 530 units are based in schools across the country, either as an integral part of the school or using them simply as hired venues. Schools that have set up cadet units have seen significant benefits for their young people, their school and the local community. Students learn self-discipline, resilience and leadership, but also develop a sense of community and teamwork. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the research done by the universities of Southampton and Portsmouth, which studied cadet forces and found that 92% agreed that their leadership skills had improved through being in the cadets; 91% agreed that being in the cadets had made them want to do well in life; 91% agreed that being in the cadets had taught them to respect other people; 90% said that being in the cadets had given them a sense of community; and, very importantly, 79% agreed that being in the cadets had helped them stay out of trouble.
I think that that is impressive, and that is why we and the Department for Education are working together to deliver 100 new cadet units in state-funded schools in England by 2015 and working hard to break down the apartheid that regrettably has existed as far as the CCF is concerned between the maintained sector and public schools. Building on the Government’s Positive for Youth agenda, the Departments have allocated £10.85 million to provide the equipment and training support needed to ensure that the cadet experience is maintained for all our cadets, with schools or sponsors then paying the running costs of those new units; I shall come back to what I mean by “the cadet experience”. That is about increasing opportunities for more young people: the skills that they learn and the personal qualities that they develop as cadets prepare them for entry into the work force and life in general. We all, as constituency MPs, have seen that in practice.
In some parts of the UK, our cadets are the only presence in military uniform. Most of us who represent constituencies will be well aware of the activities of our cadets locally. We see them, particularly on parade on Remembrance Sunday. I am very pleased to note, in my capacity as the Prime Minister’s special representative for the commemoration of the great war, that they are already limbering up to take a very active and obvious role in local commemorations of that conflict. They are, for example, taking part in In Memoriam 2014, the War Memorials Trust effort, supported by the SmartWater Foundation, to find, record and protect every war memorial in the country by 2014.
The cadet experience varies depending on the cadet force, as it is founded in the particular environment of the parent service, with, for example, flying being the unique selling point of the Air Cadets—a point I remember well from my own schooldays. Sadly, I did not get much flying, but I got a great deal of marching. Things have, I believe, changed. It is that cadet experience, not external qualifications, that the Ministry of Defence funds. Cadets do, however, have the opportunity to gain all sorts of qualifications, whether it is a first aid certificate, a Duke of Edinburgh’s award or one of a number of BTECs. That is a valuable by-product of the MOD-funded cadet experience.
The majority of BTECs awarded to cadets are in public services, with the Cadet Vocational Qualification Organisation delivering an Edexcel qualification, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Other level 2 BTECs available to cadets include music and engineering. Like all BTECs, these focus on practical vocational learning. The partnership between the cadet forces and CVQO is more than 12 years old. CVQO was founded to give cadets the chance of explaining their service in a way that employers could readily understand. However, it should be recognised that the BTEC qualification is an outcome of cadet service, not an output, and the MOD cannot provide funding to pay for an educational qualification. Cadet service alone is not sufficient to receive the BTEC. Some 30% of the work needed to receive the qualification is done outside the cadet unit.
Although almost 1,400 Army Cadets have received a level 2 BTEC in public services from CVQO in the last academic year, that is quite a small number when we consider that almost 11,500 first aid certificates were awarded to Army Cadets in the same year. The BTEC is important but only one of many options open to cadets.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I know the Walker school very well as a former councillor for the area. Does the Minister agree that what the cadet force does there is keep certain pupils in education and give them life chances that they would not get if it were not for the cadet experience?
Dr Murrison
Yes, I agree absolutely with that. The research done by the universities of Southampton and Portsmouth, which I have cited, is germane to that. Certainly, expanding the range of options, particularly vocational options, that kids are able to take up at school when they might be alienated from straightforward academic subjects is very important. However, I will go on to talk about some of the characteristics that the Department for Education believes are necessary in order to qualify a BTEC for inclusion in league tables. It is important to emphasise that the MOD does not fund the BTEC qualification. It is funded from either Education or charitable sources.
Mr Nicholas Brown
For the sake of complete clarity, I point out that that is not what I am asking the Minister. I am asking that the BTEC in uniformed public services be counted in the evaluation of the school. The school to which I am referring serves a predominantly working-class community. Resources are restricted. The school has to prioritise and it has to prioritise those courses that count towards its evaluation, yet the uniformed public services qualification work is doing so well for the school. If it can retain it, it really wants to.
Dr Murrison
I am sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that what I am able to say will give him some comfort and be helpful. I should point out, however, that education is of course a devolved matter. We are all still picking our way through the devolution settlement, and it adds a level of complexity to discussions of this sort. Although the MOD has the luxury of dealing with matters that are not devolved, the Department for Education simply does not. In England, as the CVQO-led BTEC in public services has been approved by the Secretary of State for Education under section 96 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, schools can choose to fund it from within their budgets. Alternatively, I can confirm that CVQO is funded by the Education Funding Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Education, to deliver qualifications for 5,000 English cadets a year aged over 16 and under 19. I am aware that, as a charity, CVQO is raising funds to meet an ever-growing demand from within the cadet forces and other youth organisations.
As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the issues that he raises regarding changes to the recognition of the BTEC in public services are a matter for the Department for Education, not the Ministry of Defence. However, I am informed that in reforming the school performance tables, the Secretary of State for Education is incentivising schools to offer qualifications that have the greatest value for the majority of pupils at key stage 4—qualifications that will best enable them to progress to further study and into employment. Due to its specialist nature, the BTEC in public services does not feature on the list of qualifications that will count in performance tables from 2014. If it assists the right hon. Gentleman, I can provide the existing characteristics needed for performance tables and a list of BTECs that currently count.
I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s conversation with Edexcel and Pearson. It would clearly be desirable to reconcile the list of characteristics with the BTEC in public services. I would be more than happy to discuss with my colleagues at the Department for Education whether a dialogue would be helpful, so that we can reach the conclusion the right hon. Gentleman seeks. I understand the experience he and his local schools have had with the imperatives the Department for Education has established.
Notwithstanding that, in recognition of the fact that there are pupils who will benefit from taking other qualifications, schools remain free to offer any qualification approved for use pre-16, including the BTEC in public services. I know that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that. Ultimately, it is for schools to decide which qualifications are most appropriate to meet the needs of their individual pupils. His testimony about his two schools will no doubt encourage the head teachers of those schools to do what they can to support the qualification.
Mr Nicholas Brown
I am grateful to the Minister for the general approach he is taking. I do not think there is a quarrel between us. As he clearly understands, my objective is to get, not the cadet force itself, but the BTEC qualification to count towards the assessment of Walker college. I ask for that because a well resourced, fee-paying school has enough money to offer the cadet experience or even the BTEC experience as an optional extra, but a state school serving an inner-city community at a time of public expenditure constraint has limited ability to do the same.
The cadet force experience offered to young people relies heavily on the altruism of the school’s teaching staff and the voluntary commitment of Ministry of Defence personnel, willingly giving up their free time because they believe in what they are doing and want to help the youngsters on the course.
The benefits of not only the cadet force, but the BTEC are such that the course should be included. I would be more than willing to engage with either Department or with the BTEC providers to make progress towards that.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he and I are more or less on the same page. It is clearly a matter of reconciling the characteristics, which the Department for Education has laid down to assess BTECs and their inclusion in performance tables, with the needs of schools, such as those he described in his constituency, and our need to ensure that young people have something that will be of value to them. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman, and we hear from people in our constituencies, testimonies about the transformational experience that such work can engender in youngsters. We are in agreement.
The Government believe that teachers should use their professional judgment to balance the subjects that are directly linked to a pupil’s future success, and are reported in the school performance tables, with those that match the pupil’s abilities and interests. Where schools judge that their pupils have benefited from the uniformed public services course, we encourage them to maintain that provision, but I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point about resources.
In the Ministry of Defence, we recognise that a BTEC in public services can be life-changing for some young people, with its either being the only qualification they receive or the additional qualification that allows them to fulfil their ambitions. That however is not why Defence funds and supports the cadet forces; we do it to improve the awareness and understanding of the armed forces and their role in British society.
Finally, I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute, once again, to the 26,000 cadet force adult volunteers. Most give up at least two nights a week and one weekend a month to provide a challenging and safe environment for young people. Without them, the cadet forces would cease to exist. I hope that everyone here agrees that we owe them a massive vote of thanks.
Neonatal Care
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Streeter. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, who could have been, but was not, slightly late, which is ironic in a way because the debate is about babies who turn up very early. He was due to be in the Chamber as we speak, but kindly rearranged a whole host of things to be here this afternoon to answer the debate. I thank him very much indeed. He and I have often spoken about neonatal care, and indeed stillbirth, so I know that he will do all he can to answer the debate with deeds as well as words.
Neonatal care is an absolutely vital service that no parent or prospective parent ever wants to have to rely on, but lots do. One in every nine babies in the UK is born either premature or sick—more than 80,000 every year. We therefore need a service that is fit for purpose and provides the best possible care to all premature or sick babies and their families in facilities that can give the best care—sometimes very specialised care—at a harrowing time for the parents concerned.
One of my constituents, a fantastic mum called Catherine Allcott, alas, had to rely on neonatal care a few years ago. Catherine’s twins, Luke and Grace, were born unexpectedly at 26-weeks gestation. At six weeks old, they were separated and sent to neonatal units 40 miles apart due to Luke’s critical condition. Catherine and her husband, Nigel, spent the next three months visiting two hospitals every day until Luke sadly died and Grace was discharged. Grace is now a delightful, happy, healthy six-year-old and Catherine’s experiences during that time have shaped her fundraising and campaigning work for Bliss—a fantastic charity that campaigns for continual improvements to neonatal care and is a strong advocate of care for babies.
When the results of the 2010 general election were announced, Catherine was one of the first people to find my advice centre. Before I knew it, I was being whisked around the Gosset neonatal ward of Northampton general hospital, looking at their facilities and talking to staff and parents. Since then, I have had the pleasure of visiting many other maternity and neonatal wards across the midlands and the south-east.
Catherine is concerned, as Bliss is, about the national shortage of neonatal nurses, particularly those qualified in that specialty. Half of all units do not have enough nurses to meet national standards and one in 10 units is so busy or understaffed that they cannot release nurses for specialist training. According to Bliss’s report on saving our specialist nurses—by specialist, I mean nurses who have a recognised qualification in specialist neonatal care—that figure is pretty solid.
As was shown by a Bliss report in 2010, that boils down to the need for 1,150 extra qualified specialist neonatal nurses—the figure has changed since that date, but that is the latest I have—if we are adequately to provide the service that this country so desperately needs and that babies and their families deserve. Not all nurses working in neonatal care have the specialist qualification, but the “Toolkit for high quality neonatal services” states that 70% of a unit’s nursing work force should hold one.
According to an Oxford university study, an increase in the ratio of qualified and specialist nurses to babies in intensive and high-dependency care might reduce infant mortality rates by 48%, something that is surely worth every penny and for which it is definitely worth fighting. I am told that that works out at about £1,400 of additional investment per baby, which, as the Government have themselves highlighted, would benefit society in the longer term to the tune of approximately £1.4 billion.
As I have said, I have seen my local neonatal care unit in action and know the pressures that Gosset ward is under. The staff at Northampton general hospital do an excellent job, but they face significant pressures, even after an increase in staff equivalent to 4.3 full-time nurses. Despite that increase, the unit has had to close its doors to new admissions more than 20 times in the past year for non-medical reasons, a statistic that is surely not good enough. We should not and cannot restrict access to health care to some of the most vulnerable and innocent in our society—the next generation—on the basis of those lax numbers. Frankly, we must do better and we must do more.
The shortfall nationally shows the extent of the issues that we face. More than half of all units do not have enough specialist nurses to meet the national standard—that 70% of the nursing work force should hold a specialist neonatal care qualification—and the importance of such specialist care is so clearly shown in an area where such tiny and fragile babies can have such complex and often multiple conditions. It is not a hole that can just be plugged in the short term to meet a budget, but something that needs long-term planning and investment in a skilled work force.
If we are to achieve such a national standard and address the recruitment of specialist nurses that neonatal units require, continued investment in education is of paramount importance. I therefore welcome the national changes to the commissioning of specialised services. They promise to ensure that we do not face a postcode lottery, thus improving the consistency of services across the country and spreading best practice.
Locally, my constituents in Daventry and I have other concerns and opportunities. The Minister will know of the “Healthier Together” programme in the south-east midlands, which is looking at the services provided at the five main hospitals in Bedford, Kettering, Luton and Dunstable, Milton Keynes and Northampton. There are options or plans to reduce the number of maternity units that are consultant-led from five to three, an action that would have a clear impact on neonatal services, because it is most likely to result in the closure of neonatal units at the hospitals that have midwife-led units.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I have a very successful midwife-led maternity unit at Hexham general hospital. Does he agree that such units can provide a fantastic ongoing service, but that it is very important that parent and larger hospitals in the region provide them with neonatal transfers and ongoing support?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend, and I will speak about that in more detail later.
I am not particularly against the mooted changes in the south-east midlands if they provide a higher quality of specialist care at nearby centres of excellence. However, the changes raise several important questions that I hope the Minister will answer either now or later by letter. Will he ensure that the “Healthier Together” proposals and similar ones up and down the country are driven by a genuine programme to improve outcomes and quality, and not just to save costs or money?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said, it is absolutely vital that the needs of families of premature and sick babies are factored into any changes and are not inadvertently overlooked when mainstream maternity and children’s services are redesigned. Will the Minister say something about transport to neonatal centres, both now and in the future? Many parents find themselves quickly transported from knowing what is happening and where they expect a birth to take place, to not knowing what is going on and intense worry.
When parents have to travel further afield to centres of excellence, they have plenty of increased costs in the travel, parking charges and time considerations that come from such changes. Those responsible for planning services must take that into account. I hope that the Minister will respond on that point, and assure me that those planning services take costs into account so that not only do babies receive the highest quality care, but services and support are in place to meet families’ needs.
The parent is intrinsic to the care of the child, which I believe sets neonatal care apart from almost every other branch of medicine. We must therefore consider the needs of the parent alongside those of the child. It makes good economic sense: babies whose parents are included in their care grow faster, have less illness, go home sooner and do not come back; and their parents have less stress and fewer mental problems later. There is a huge benefit from getting neonatal care right, and if we can get it right at an early stage of planning service changes, that is all to the good.
Has the Minister heard of the children’s air ambulance service that is currently being set up by the East Midlands air ambulance, which will help to cut transfer times? It will go operational on 13 March, but has already done the odd transfer here and there. On Monday 10 December, a baby who was a few days old was flown from Glenfield hospital to Sheffield children’s hospital for potentially life-saving treatment. The total transfer time was only 34 minutes, but it would have taken one hour and 23 minutes for the team to have gone by road, which is a huge time saving for a baby suffering from a serious illness. Obviously, being operated by the air ambulance service, such transfers are at little, if any, cost to the taxpayer.
As I said, when I visited neonatal wards—especially at my local hospital, Northampton general, and the John Radcliffe in Oxford—I was really taken by the kind and understanding manner with which the staff dealt with parents. From stories related to me from across the country, I am absolutely sure that best practice can be better spread. I hope that the Minister might comment on how he will continue to ensure that the needs of such families are taken into account and that best practice is spread.
In any Westminster Hall debate on health, we get to talk about money. Although cost should not act as a disincentive to provide quality and specialised care, it is obviously a factor that cannot be overlooked. Payment by results, which has been introduced in this area, works for many other areas of policy where there is a national currency but a local tariff. However, payment by results takes into account only the current levels of service provision, rather than the services required to meet national standards; currently, those standards are not quite being met. Thus, the current shortfalls that I have outlined will only be reinforced, rather than addressed, by the payment system. A set national price would ensure that commissioners can focus on quality and outcomes of service. However, neonatal care faces a local tariff, where price invariably is a larger factor, and that equates to variable outcomes across the country.
In other types of care, significant service levels remain available under the system, but the statistics show that the disparity between one unit and another is growing in neonatal care, which suggests that the system is not working in this particular case. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the current shortfalls are addressed and how can we ensure that this Government’s legacy sets a precedent for future neonatal care?
On a day when a disaster in Staffordshire will dominate the news on the national health service, I want to acknowledge that, all across the country, there are some amazingly wonderful NHS staff delivering the best care that they can and helping mums, such as my constituent, Catherine, and their premature babies get through some of the toughest times any of us can possibly imagine. However, with the help and advice of charities such as Bliss, the spreading of best practice and the sensible allocation of resources, I believe that neonatal care—this fantastic service that we already offer—could, and should, be delivered in a better and more consistent way.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I am most grateful to you, Mr Streeter, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for letting me speak for literally 90 seconds at the end of his impressive speech.
I endorse everything that my hon. Friend says, and I want to add my endorsement of the amazing work done by the NHS staff in my area of Northumberland, specifically at Hexham general hospital. It is an outstanding hospital that the Minister will, with a bit of luck, visit when he comes to Northumberland in April. It fits well between the trusts developing in Northumberland and Cumbria and is effectively the heart of the wheel with the spokes being the various other health services around it. It is a general hospital, but it has an outstanding midwife-led maternity unit. I have visited it and met staff and patients, and it is fantastically popular and successful.
I want the Minister, who has great expertise in this field—let us not say that we do not have specialists in this Government—to endorse the fact that midwife-led units have a role to play in the ongoing provision of health services, particularly in rural areas such as mine. I hope that he agrees that the standard and quality of the care provided and the outcomes are just as good in midwife-led units as in consultant-led specialist hospitals. They are different, but they are just as good. It is to this Government’s great credit that we continue to support midwife-led units and provide such services.
Specifically on neonatal care and transfer, I am interested in the importance of neonatal transfer in the isolated cases where things do not pan out in the right way. Changes are afoot, and my hope is that the Minister agrees that it is incumbent upon the lead hospitals in the region to ensure that the quality of training throughout the region is high, so that where there is neonatal transfer, it goes off without a hitch.
I have taken up enough time. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Streeter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on securing this important debate on neonatal services. He strongly advocates the needs of his constituents, but also raises an important issue that we are already focusing on and improving, to give every child the very best start in life.
It is also a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and I am looking forward to visiting his constituency in the near future. An April visit is in the diary at the moment, and I look forward to visiting and seeing for myself some of the excellent care delivered locally. He is right to highlight that midwifery-led units play an absolutely vital part in delivering high-quality care for women and their families. The Birthplace study absolutely supports his points and suggests that midwifery-led units may well play an even more vital role in the future provision of maternity services. I am sure that we will discuss such matters in future debates.
Before we get on to the specifics of neonatal care, I want to discuss some of the more general points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry. He mentioned air ambulance services, and he is quite right to say that if we want a co-ordinated and integrated emergency response, particularly in more rural and sparsely populated areas, air ambulances must play an important part. The land and air-based responses need to be co-ordinated effectively, particularly for road traffic accidents. He makes a good point and I am sure that the local commissioners in Daventry and elsewhere will take note of our discussions today.
My hon. Friend was quite right to say that the payment- by-results system has been problematic in many areas of medicine. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when he was Secretary of State for Health, made strides towards changing the tariff system in many areas of care, particularly the year-of-care tariff for people with longer-term and more chronic conditions. We also have changes being implemented to the maternity tariff to encourage a normalisation of birth. We want to view birth as a normal, everyday, natural process and to move away from births that need hospitalisation, by supporting people better in the round through antenatal care and more holistically throughout pregnancy, childbirth and the post-natal period.
My hon. Friend mentioned the unacceptable variations in care that exist across the country, which was highlighted poignantly today in the debate on the NHS in mid-Staffordshire. He has also previously advocated the reduction of stillbirths and supports the excellent work that Bliss does to raise the importance of high-quality neonatal care. More work is necessary, but I want to describe some of our achievements and the progress that the Government have made over the past couple of years, which shows that we are taking such issues seriously. As my hon. Friend quite rightly outlines, there is more that we can do and we intend to do more over the months and years ahead.
As has been said throughout the debate, we cannot divorce childbirth and midwifery care from neonatal care; the two are linked in terms of service provision and the care that is provided for premature babies. We want to provide more care and support for women during pregnancy, and the latest work force figures show that midwife numbers increased by 1,117 between May 2010 and October 2012. Training places in midwifery are at a record high, and we are ensuring that commissions for future training places will remain at a record high, so that we can continue to provide personalised, one-to-one midwifery care for women. The birth rate is increasing, and that is why we are employing more midwives and keeping training commissions high.
On neonatal care, 1,376 neonatal intensive care cots were available in December 2012, of which 951 were occupied. In December 2011, only 1,295 such cots were available. So in a period of 12 months—between 2011 and 2012—we have seen an increase in the number of neonatal intensive care cots available nationally, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is a good thing.
The number of paediatric consultants has also increased, from 1,507 in 2001 to 2,646 in 2011, and the number of paediatric registrars—or middle-grade junior doctors—has also increased by almost fourfold in the same period, with some of those registrars specialising in neonatal medicine. Consequently, I believe that we must give some credit to the previous Government for some of the work that they did in this area, but this Government have taken their work forward with renewed vigour to make this a priority.
The number of full-time paediatric nurses has also risen, from 13,300 at the beginning of the century to 15,629 in 2011. So, in general, we are seeing good progress being made in putting more resources into children’s health care, giving every child the very best start in life.
Specifically on neonatal services, my hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we need to do more to ensure that there is no variability in the system. We made a commitment very clearly as a Government to high-quality, safe neonatal services, founded on evidence-based good practice and good outcomes for women and their babies. Improving outcomes, rather than focusing on process measures, is what we are all interested in. We want to ensure that babies who need neonatal care are given the very best care and have the very best outcomes in terms of their future life and, indeed, the care that they receive on neonatal wards.
In our mandate to the new NHS Commissioning Board, we will be holding it accountable for all health outcomes. We want to see the NHS in England leading the way in Europe on health care outcomes. The Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that mid-table mediocrity must be a thing of the past in all areas of medicine, and I will make sure that I work closely with Bliss and other organisations and, indeed, with my hon. Friend to make sure that we hold the NHS Commissioning Board to account for delivering high-quality health outcomes everywhere, particularly in this important area of neonatal care.
It is worth highlighting, and I think that I have time to do so, the different types of neonatal facilities that are available; the different types of special care baby units, or the level 1, level 2 and level 3 units. Special care units, traditionally known as level 1 units, provide care effectively just for the local population in the local area. They provide neonatal services, in general, for singleton babies born after 31 weeks and six days gestation, provided the birth weight is above 1,000 grams. For slightly more complicated births or slightly more premature births, there are level 2 units, which provide neonatal care for their own local population and for some sicker, or more premature, babies from elsewhere. They provide neonatal services, in general, for singleton babies born after 26 weeks and six days gestation, and for multiple-birth babies born after 27 weeks and six days gestation, provided the birth weight is above 800 grams. Then we have level 3 units as they are traditionally known, which are neonatal intensive care units, and they are sited alongside highly specialist obstetric and fetomaternal medical services. For example, there is a level 3 unit across the river from here, at St Thomas’ hospital. Such units take very premature babies.
That description highlights the fact that neonatal care must be considered alongside the provision of high-quality maternal care; the two go very much hand in hand. The point that my hon. Friend made—my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made it as well—is that when services are being redesigned or reconfigured the most important thing is to provide high-quality patient care. Reconfiguration is about delivering those high-quality patient outcomes and that high-quality care.
The best example of where service reconfiguration has really benefited patients that I can think of was in Manchester, which I visited towards the end of last year. A redesign of the maternity and neonatal provision in Manchester in a very planned, systemic way resulted in about 30 babies’ lives being saved every year. When the case for reconfiguration is made in terms of patient care and not in terms of cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry outlined, that is the right reason to reconfigure and redesign services. What we cannot have, and what has been expressly ruled out under the criteria for reconfiguration, is redesigning services purely on the basis of cost. If we are going to redesign the way that we deliver care, it must be done in the way that it was done in Manchester, where—as Mike Farrar, who is now the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said—it is about saving babies’ lives. That service reconfiguration in Manchester was right, because it is saving 30 babies’ lives every year. That is the right reason for reconfiguration.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to highlight that in some cases, when we look at these issues in areas where there are long distances to travel and considerable rurality, all these factors need to be taken into account when redesigning services. However, the end result must always be for the benefit of patients. It may be the case that sometimes people have to travel a little bit further to get that high-quality care, but these decisions must be considered in the round and on the basis of achieving high-quality outcomes and doing the best things for mothers and their babies.
In conclusion, it might be worth highlighting a few other specific things about neonatal care that the Government are committed to doing. We now have a toolkit for neonatal care, and we are looking to ensure that it is properly implemented across the NHS. Some parts of the country are doing very well in ensuring that the majority of their staff working as nurses in neonatal units have specialist training, but that is not the case everywhere. We have established that toolkit; that was a direct challenge that the Government have picked up and taken forward, to ensure that we drive up the standard of neonatal care everywhere.
Guy Opperman
Does the Minister accept that, as the health care reforms kick in, it is incumbent upon GPs to make the point when they first advise expectant mothers that they can give birth at various places and that midwife-led units provide the full spectrum of care from well before the birth to well after it?
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital that whenever there is a discussion with any patient—in this case, it is a discussion with an expectant woman about where she should give birth—that an informed choice is made. That should not just happen initially, but that choice should be reviewed consistently, according to what the risk factors might be throughout the pregnancy, and women should be helped and supported into choosing the most appropriate birth setting for them. And all factors, such as the woman’s safety or what care might be required immediately after the birth, are vital ingredients in that decision-making process.
What we want to promote, and what we all believe in, is patient choice in the NHS. One thing that is facilitating patient choice in maternity care is having a national set of maternity notes now, so that all women effectively have a transferrable set of notes that they can take from one unit to another. That is something that is being driven across maternity care, and I think that it will make a real difference if the location of care needs to change in the future.
I will also say something specifically about how we will ensure that we better implement the toolkit, which we agree is a good thing in driving up the quality of training available to neonatal nurses. Very shortly, I will be devising and helping to set up the Health Education England mandate, which will be responsible for training health care professionals in England; not just doctors but all health care professionals. A mandate will be established for how that body will operate and what it will prioritise as areas of training. I am very happy to give a commitment, just as we did on the mandate for the NHS Commissioning Board, to ensure that giving every mum the right support in pregnancy and every baby the very best start in life is something that we will look to incorporate in that mandate, to make sure that high-quality training is available for health care professionals involved in all aspects of pregnancy, birth and beyond, and of course neonatal care is an important part of that.
That is something that I will take away from this debate, to ensure that it is clearly an important part of the Health Education England mandate that we look very seriously at neonatal services, to help to iron out the unacceptable variability in training that we have identified. I hope that that is reassuring to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry. I thank him for securing this debate, and I thank you, Mr Streeter, for chairing it.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Electricity Market Reform
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
The Department of Energy and Climate Change requires a cash advance of £4,851,000 for financial year 2012-13 from the Contingencies Fund to support urgent preparatory work by National Grid Plc, to initiate recruitment for a panel of technical experts, and to fund external advisers in relation to transitional arrangements for early investors. This work needs to begin before parliamentary approval can be obtained of both the specific enabling legislation and the necessary estimate.
The Energy Bill will, subject to Royal Assent, require the system operator to deliver two measures as part of the reform of electricity markets in the UK, namely feed-in-tariffs with contracts for difference and the establishment of a capacity market. National Grid in its role as electricity system operator needs to undertake work now to ensure it is ready to implement the measures immediately following Royal Assent. The Energy Bill also makes provision for transitional arrangements to enable developers to take investment decisions, where required, ahead of full implementation of electricity market reform. The Department needs to engage external advisers before the Bill receives Royal Assent to support the negotiation of any such arrangements to ensure they represent value for money for consumers.
These measures are designed to ensure sufficient investment comes forward in time to replace old generating plant due to close from 2016 onwards with new low carbon plant. This will ensure continued security of supply for the UK and will significantly contribute towards achievement of our legally binding EU 15% renewable energy target, and the decarbonisation targets established by virtue of the Climate Change Act 2008.
Accordingly, parliamentary approval for additional resources of £4,851,000 for this new service will be sought in a supply estimate for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £4,851,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
Irresponsible Dog Ownership
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I am pleased to announce a package of measures to tackle welfare and irresponsible dog ownership on which DEFRA consulted last year.
In that consultation from April to June, we put forward a number of possible measures to encourage more responsible behaviour and deal with the consequences that irresponsible dog ownership has on everyone else. There was an overwhelming reaction to the consultation, with over 27,000 responses. I am today publishing the results of the consultation, including the proposed way forward and have placed a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. Following the results of an earlier consultation in 2010, the 2012 consultation sought views on four specific proposals:
A requirement that dogs are microchipped with details of the owner.
A change in the criminal law in section 3 of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to extend the offence of a dog being dangerously out of control to all places, including private property.
Allow owners of dogs seized as suspected dangerous dogs or prohibited types to retain possession of their dogs until the outcome of court proceedings.
Increase the application fee for prohibited dogs to be placed on the index of exempted dogs
Microchipping of all dogs
The responses to the consultation show there is overwhelming support, from some 96% of respondents, for some form of compulsory microchipping of all dogs. Microchipping makes a clear link between a dog and its owner. Over 100,000 dogs either stray, are lost or stolen each year with many having to be kept in kennels before being re-homed. Having a microchip means they can be reunited quickly with their owners, reducing the stress for dog and owner alike. It will also lead to substantial savings for local authorities and welfare charities who spend some £57 million a year on kennelling costs and will mean that fewer dogs are destroyed. Some 6,000 dogs have to be put down each year, because their owner cannot be found.
We have listened to the views of those who responded to the consultation particularly on the question of practicality for owners and those dealing with stray or lost dogs. Only 10% favoured the option of microchipping puppies. The 10 to 12-year delay before all dogs would be microchipped is considered too long to wait to get the benefits and the police and others did not feel it was practical.
So we will introduce regulations to require the microchipping of all dogs in England from 6 April 2016. From that date owners will need to have their dog microchipped and registered on one of the authorised commercial databases available; and they will have to register the details of any new owner before they sell or give the dog away. Owners will be required to keep their contact details up to date on the microchip databases.
DEFRA is now working with database providers and microchip suppliers to ensure minimum standards of service for commercial databases and standards of microchips, and that there is updated implantation guidance and training available as well as a one-stop 24-hour enquiry point for microchipped lost and found dogs.
I wish to thank the Dogs Trust for their very generous support which means a free microchip will be available for all unchipped dogs throughout England. The Government are working with the Dogs Trust to ensure that free microchips will be offered by the Dogs Trust to local authorities, housing associations and veterinary surgeries. A number of other animal welfare charities are offering free microchipping at their centres including Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and Blue Cross.
We expect there to be a high compliance rate with the microchipping requirement.
Amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act
Tackling dangerous and out of control dogs was an important part of the measures put forward by DEFRA last year. The Government have decided to toughen up the existing law. The ban on owning or selling some types of dogs bred for fighting will remain for public safety reasons. We agree with advice from the police that the ban on the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentina and Fila Braziliero should remain in place to protect the public and to help deal with potentially dangerous dogs. However, we also accept that any dog can become dangerous and that owners are ultimately responsible for the behaviour of their dogs. The Government’s approach is one of tackling both deed and breed.
Incidents involving dangerous dogs are on the rise, and it is wrong that the police cannot investigate offences and put them forward for prosecution simply because a dog attack occurred on private property. Eight children and six adults have been killed in dog attacks since 2005, with many of these attacks taking place in the home; five of the victims were children under the age of four years. Concerns have also been raised about dog attacks on postal workers and health visitors and social workers during home visits. People just doing their job should not be subject to dog attacks. The public agree. The consultation has shown wide support for the proposal to extend the scope of the offence in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to all places, including private property. Extending the law will help give protection both to children in their homes, and to people who have to visit private properties such as healthcare, postal and utility workers. Postal workers in particular have suffered some terrible attacks, and the proposed change to the 1991 Act will close the loophole that has meant these attacks go unpunished. However, the proposed extension to the criminal law will not provide protection to trespassers who have entered a private property whom the householder believes has unlawful intentions. DEFRA will bring forward amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as soon as parliamentary time permits to effect this change in the law.
The Government are also concerned to ensure that irresponsible dog ownership is tackled before a serious incident has occurred. As well as the ban on certain breeds of fighting dog, DEFRA is working closely with the Home Office and other authorities to introduce new powers to help frontline professionals tackle anti- social behaviour involving dogs. The measures proposed in the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill published on 13 December 2012 will provide a set of flexible, effective tools and powers to enable police and local authorities to tackle a wide range of anti-social behaviour including dog-related incidents.
Seizure and kennelling of suspected dangerous dogs
To ensure the welfare of suspected prohibited dogs that have become the subject of court proceedings and to ease the substantial costs to the police service, Government have also decided that it should no longer be necessary for the police to seize and kennel such dogs pending the outcome of court proceedings where the police do not consider the dog presents a risk to the public. The police will have discretion to release a suspected prohibited dog where they are completely satisfied that it is in the care of a responsible owner. They will be allowed to put extra restrictions on the owner, for example requiring the dog to be muzzled and on a lead when in public. These changes will be made by way of amendments to the exemption scheme and can be made through secondary legislation.
We consider that allowing suspected prohibited dogs to be exempted from seizure in these circumstances strikes the right balance between protecting the public from such potentially dangerous dogs and ensuring that safe and properly looked after dogs are not unnecessarily removed from their homes.
Dangerous dogs index fee
We propose to raise the fee payable by the owner for placing prohibited dogs on the index of exempted dogs to £77 plus VAT from the level that was set in 1997 (£20 plus VAT), to reflect the costs involved in administering these dogs for their lifetime better and thereby reduce the burden on the taxpayer.
Other measures to address irresponsible dog ownership
Irresponsible dog ownership is a complex problem and there is no single solution. The primary responsibility for ensuring that dogs are kept under proper control must rest with individual owners who should only acquire a dog if they are prepared to look after it properly and make sure that it does not become a nuisance or a danger to others. A key concern of Government is the ease with which it is possible to buy a dog or other pet over the internet. There is a rise in the trend for pets to be advertised for sale in this way, and DEFRA is working closely with the animal welfare charities to develop codes of conduct for website operators and to provide guidance for buyers on the potential pitfalls of buying pets in this way. We look forward to co-operation from the industry to the benefit of all.
We consider that education also has a significant role to play in reducing the problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership. Government have provided funding of £50,000 shared between the RSPCA, Battersea Cats and Dogs Home and the Dogs Trust to foster innovative local community projects to encourage responsible dog ownership in areas where there are high instances of dog-related problems. The funding was provided on the basis that the interventions will be carefully evaluated and the learning disseminated to help others working with local communities including local authorities. That evaluation is underway. Funding has been given to the Association of Chief Police Officers to support the training that they provide for officers with knowledge of dog control legislation in order to ensure that there is a centre for such expertise in every police force.
Overall this is a practical and balanced package of measures which encourages responsible dog ownership and supports local communities.
EU/Cape Verde Readmissions Agreement
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
The Government have decided not to opt in at this stage to the draft Council decisions concerning the signature and conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (European Union Document Nos. 14237/12, COM(2012) 558; 14235/12, COM(2012) 557).
There is little illegal migration from Cape Verde to the UK, and our existing good bilateral arrangements allow us to make returns there where necessary. It would be possible for the UK to seek to participate in the agreement post adoption if these circumstances were to change.
Grand Committee
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.
Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 25) Regulations 2013
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Popat
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 25) Regulations 2013.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Popat
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the proposed regulations to reform and modernise the system for the registration of company charges. For many years I worked as a business and finance consultant, and I cannot stress enough the importance of a clear, transparent system that enables companies to access the finance they need and lenders to provide finance with confidence. This is particularly important in the current economic climate.
These regulations intend to modernise the system for the registration of company charges—a system which is more than 100 years old. The changes to this system of registration are intended to retain the fundamental principle of the current system, which is internationally well regarded, while making those critical changes that will allow this system to continue in a way that is effective and efficient.
Secured lending is vital to support economic growth. It allows companies to access the finance they need to grow and enables lenders to invest in a company with greater confidence. In fact, the World Bank, in its report Doing Business 2012: Doing Business in a More Transparent World, considered the laws relating to collateral to be crucial to supporting economic growth and transparency. The statutory schemes for registration of company charges contribute to the UK being rated equal first, with Malaysia, in the section on getting credit.
In the early 1900s, a system was conceived which required companies to register debt secured against their assets. This allowed lenders to see clearly whether assets were already encumbered and to offer finance with confidence. The fundamentals of this system remain and have been the subject of further reviews and consultations, including the Crowther report in 1970, the Diamond report in 1989, the 2001 recommendations of the Company Law Review and the most recent consultation led by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in 2010 on reforms to the system, based on the considerations of these earlier reviews.
Over the past 10 years there has been ongoing engagement with legal practitioners and academics as well as credit reference agencies and investors to determine what reforms should be made to this system. These stakeholders have generously offered their time and expertise to support our reforms and to test out how these may work in practice. This is vital in preventing unintended consequences later on.
The proposed system will deliver benefits to business of around £21 million every year through a reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy as well as a simplification and modernisation of the system.
I will now take a few moments to outline the key elements of the reforms. First, we have amended the regulations governing the system for the registration of company charges to take advantage of modern technology. Companies, legal advisers and accountants will now be able to submit the charge for filing electronically and will be able to pay their £13 charge electronically too. This has the twin benefit of reducing the time and bureaucracy of filing a charge, while also allowing the registrar to operate a more efficient system.
Secondly, the regulations set out a far simpler model for determining whether a charge is registrable. Lenders and companies want to be able to register charges so that they can invest or attract investment, but the complex list of types of registrable charges had led to confusion and wasted effort in simply ascertaining whether a charge could be registered. The new regulations place the onus rightly on the presenters of the charge to make this commercial decision, subject to a few clear exemptions where the registration of the charge was not in any way useful to the public, investors or companies.
Thirdly, following on from my previous point, the system recognises that the incentive on investors is to register their charge rather than risk it being void against a liquidator or administrator. In the rare instances where a company itself registers the charge, it is commonplace for investors to require the company to submit the charge for registration as part of the financial agreement. The existing criminal sanction is therefore entirely unnecessary and these regulations repeal it.
Fourthly, the system will deliver far greater transparency around financial arrangements as, due to the technological advances, the whole charge instrument or deed will now be available electronically in addition to the summary information. Of course, the regulations also include sensible safeguards against fraud and allow personal information, bank account numbers and signatures to be redacted.
Finally, the proposals will for the first time create a system that fits around the different property laws and processes that operate in different parts of the United Kingdom. Many lenders and companies operate across the UK and now they can take the same approach to the registration of the charges, regardless of where they are. I hope that nobles Lords will support these important reforms.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I hope it is in no way a measure of the interesting comments made by the Minister in his introduction that the only other noble Lord who was present has fled quickly from the room and is therefore not in a position to respond to his kind invitation to speak, but that leaves the burden on me. I appreciate the way in which he introduced this change and want to make it clear from the start that we broadly welcome it. It is a good idea, but possibly rather later than perhaps it could have been, as the Minister hinted at in his introductory comments.
This has obviously had a troubled background in the sense that, as we discovered, the original consultation was in March 2010 and had to be reissued for further consultation a couple of years later before the department was able to come forward with a modified proposal. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is whether we ended up with a situation in which we have the least worst solution rather than the best solution. Just to amplify that, most people seem to want—and the majority of the responses within the impact assessment suggest this—a fully operable system, with all the detail. There were, however, a significant number of people who felt that that was going to be burdensome and difficult, so the compromise is neither one thing nor the other. I would be grateful if he could make a few remarks to illustrate what he thinks is the end result and how it meets the benefits specified in the documentation.
Secondly, I was having difficulty following the figures, possibly because there were two different consultations and two different levels of issuing comment. The summary document which accompanies the impact statement says that the impact on businesses is expected to be a reduction in the burden on those filing charges, generating a net savings of £21 million a year. However, the impact assessment itself says that the net cost to business will be about £21 million as well; I may have misread that, but I would like a comment on that from the Minister. It seems like a modest reduction, given the amount of effort that goes into registering charges. As the Minister said, this is at the heart of all business transactions involving inter-business acquisitions and sales; any lending going on will always require some sort of assessment of the overall capacity of the organisation to which it is being lent. Therefore, we are saying that this is a very modest change.
However, costs are not symmetrically based; they will fall on those who have to prepare and generate the new input documents which the document says will be recouped through efficiency savings over an estimated period of four years, but no evidence about that is given. I just want to be sure that these are really modest savings and would like it on the record that that is correct.
My third point is about the costs burden arising from moving to a new electronic system. We are all sceptical about the claims that are often made for these systems but this is by all accounts a rather simple one. It is a register that is not capable of doing very much more than simply holding data. Can the noble Lord give a bit of context for how much testing of this new register has been done and whether he is confident that it will be up and running and ready? Quite a lot of time has been spent preparing for it, after all, so I hope that it will be but I would like to be confident.
Finally, I trained as an accountant in Scotland, where one of the things that was drummed into me early on in my studies was the difference between the charging register system in Scotland and that in the rest of the country. In Scotland, it is not necessary to register all charges. There is very little mention of that in the Explanatory Memorandum while there is some comment on it in the impact statement. It would be for the benefit of the Committee if the Minister could simply mention what exemptions there are for Scotland and how they will be accommodated given that the overall aspiration of this move, which I do not dissent from, is to try to provide a simple system for the whole of the country despite the differences in responsibilities between the various territories.
Lord Popat
I thank the noble Lord for a number of the issues that he has raised on these regulations. First, let me explain the cost versus the benefits side. Currently, to register a charge the fee is only £13 but there is a huge cost to the businesses and companies when it comes to dealing with a large number of forms through their accountants, solicitors or agents for registration. Electronic transmission will be much easier, as when we do our tax returns and VAT returns electronically. A company can in fact register electronically a director or company secretary. Having business knowledge and a business background, I suppose that this is something that should have been done many years ago.
This is a welcome move for a number of organisations, in particular credit reference agencies, lawyers and accountants but, most importantly, the lenders themselves. It gives a lot of security to lenders because we can register a charge electronically within one day. Currently, the system takes as long as eight days. Lenders will be pretty well secured on day one of release of the money to the companies to which they are lending, so it is a much safer system than we have now.
In the old days, I remember that we used to rush to Companies House in London. Now, Companies House is based in Cardiff and there is also a 21-day time limit, so in that respect the cost saving to the companies is quite huge. Even if it takes roughly half an hour for the lawyers and their secretaries to do the necessary paperwork for company registration, that half an hour is charged as a cost to the client so that will be a saving. That is what the £21 million saving is all about. With regard to the cost of putting it in practice, which is something like £750,000, if you can imagine the time saved by Companies House staff in Cardiff in processing manual applications compared to electronic applications, I would guess that that £750,000 will be recouped in four years’ time. A lot depends on the number of applications going through electronically, which is currently about 90,000. If the numbers go up, recouping the cost will probably take less than four years.
This was taken to be a compromise on future lenders’ requirements and to simplify the particular archive held in their own system. I will explain what I mean by that. When their auditors come, companies are required to do company registration, with its charges. The auditors can actually get information electronically and that screen saves audit fees for the companies, so there is that advantage too. I am afraid that it was not a compromise.
On why this took so long, we obviously had a number of reports on this and took the necessary time, as it is a complex area. We engaged all the stakeholders, who are now largely satisfied, including the Law Society and firms of chartered accountants.
With regard to Scottish companies, this provision will apply to the United Kingdom throughout. The system is not different for Scotland in this respect. I believe that I have answered most of the noble Lord’s questions.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I do not think that the Minister quite got the grasp of what I was saying about Scotland. Scottish law does not require the automatic registration of all charges. In England and Wales you have to register them automatically. Therefore, given the Government’s drive for simplicity, I was asking whether the Minister could say a little more about how there can be a very simple and universal system, yet also allow Scotland the discretion to not register where that is appropriate. For instance, unincorporated companies do not need to register charges in Scotland.
While I am on my feet, I might add that the Minister did not answer my question about whether the system had been tested and to what extent he felt that it was fit for purpose and ready to implement.
Lord Popat
The draft form has been tested with the stakeholders and other learned registrars and the system works well.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I think that the clerk is indicating, very sensibly, that we might need a moment to pause for officials to change but if that is not necessary, we will proceed.
Parental Leave (EU Directive) Regulations 2013
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Popat
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Parental Leave (EU Directive) Regulations 2013
Relevant document:15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Popat
My Lords, these regulations give effect to the 2010 parental leave directive. It is a revised directive, which repeals the 1996 parental leave directive. As the UK has fully implemented the 1996 directive, the regulations under consideration today are confined to giving effect to the changes arising from the revised directive. Before I elaborate on the legislative effect of the Parental Leave (EU Directive) Regulations 2013, let me state the purpose of the revised directive. It is to lay down minimum requirements designed to help working parents balance their work and family commitments.
The 2013 parental leave regulations do three things. First, they increase the number of weeks of parental leave for all parents from the current 13 weeks to 18 weeks. This transposes the requirement in the revised directive that parental leave should be granted for a period of four months. They make no other changes to the amount of parental leave available. Parental leave will continue to be available per parent per child but an employee will be entitled to 18 weeks rather than 13 weeks. Similarly, there will be no change to the age limits of a child whose parents are entitled to take parental leave—that is, five years old or 18 years old for a disabled child. They make no changes to the arrangements governing the use of parental leave—namely, the 12-month continuous employment qualification, notice requirements and the limit on the amount of leave which can be taken in a 12-month period.
In November, the Government announced a package of changes to leave for parents following the modern workplaces consultation during the previous year. As part of this broad sweep of changes to maternity and adoption leave, and the creation of shared parental leave, we will make parental leave available to all parents of children up to the age of 18.
The Government intend that these changes will be introduced in 2015. However, we are required to increase the number of weeks from 13 to 18 now so as not to be in breach of our EU obligations. We have decided not to make other changes to the age limit at this time but will raise the age to 18 years as part of the broader sweep of changes in 2015. The reason for raising the age later is that we understand from the business community that having the change in age as part of the creation of shared parental leave and pay will be easier in terms of familiarisation costs.
Secondly, the revised parental leave directive requires that parents returning from parental leave must have the right to request flexible working. Many employees who are parents and carers already have this right, but employed agency workers are currently excluded from the right, and this is not permitted by the new directive. The effect of Regulation 2, therefore, is that employed agency workers will have the right to request flexible working on return from a period of parental leave.
Finally, the regulations introduce a review clause and a duty on the Secretary of State to review and report on the workings of the regulations which implement the directive, five years after the regulations come into effect and at least at five-year intervals thereafter. This is not required by the directive but this Government consider that a duty to review the effectiveness of, and ongoing need for, regulations is central to good government and good law.
As part of the review, we will seek views from business and family groups and look to the research on family leave conducted by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. We will place copies of this report in the Library. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I welcome this order and am particularly grateful that it includes adoptive parents, assuming that I have understood it correctly. Having worked in the past with children who are in the process of being adopted, I recognise that these are often children who have had very bad early life experiences and who can be very challenging for parents to care for. We know that one in five adoptive placements, unfortunately, fail and one can only try to imagine how awful that may be for the children involved. Any support that can be given to adoptive parents to make the best go of that placement is very much to be welcomed, which I do as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Looked after Children and Care Leavers.
I welcome all policies which support the family. Our human capital is often overlooked. At a time when we are so concerned about the future growth of this country, it is important to think about investment in bridges, new train systems and better communications. However, we need also to bear in mind that our families and children are a vital component for future growth and that investing in human capital, and investing early in families, is an important means to seeing that we are a vital and competitive nation in future. I welcome this measure.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am pleased to welcome this proposal. It is exactly what the Government should be doing and seems to do what is required. As the Minister said, it has been welcomed by those who have been consulted in the round. However, there is one caveat. The Minister explained why certain measures had to be brought forward at this point because of an EU directive requirement, but the general thrust of the approach to parental leave and to regularising the broader position is based on doing them at the last rather than the first possible moment. I do not need a response on that but I would like to record that it is obviously a matter of some regret that some of the good things that we see in this change to the regulations are going to be delayed, to the disbenefit of those who will be affected by them.
Will the Minister rehearse the timing of the extension to the age of 18? I ask that because the matter was raised when these regulations were considered in another place; there was an exchange about this of which I am sure the Minister is aware. I quote the Minister on that occasion, who said in response to a question from a Labour Member:
“The hon. Gentleman posed a fair question about why we are not raising the age to 18 at the same time”,
as the rest of the regulations which were going through with this order. The Minister said that the reason was straightforward—although it may be to the benefit of the Committee if it listens hard, because it is not at all straightforward to me—and that,
“we understand from the business community that having all the changes on shared parental leave and on pay and leave for parents in one go is easier in terms of familiarisation costs. For this small, discrete change, there is an earlier European Union deadline, and we want to make sure that massive changes do not happen at various times”.
That seems clear, and I understand its logic. She continued:
“However, I give the hon. Gentleman the firm commitment that the Government’s policy is to raise to 18 the age at which the regulations apply”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 28/1/13; col. 7.]
Although she said that it was not going to happen at this point, the guarantee which the Minister wished to give was that the Government would move this forward. This has been repeated by the Minister again today.
Why have these things not been brought together? If the Government wanted to minimise the impact of familiarisation costs on business, it would seem more sensible to do all these, and apply them, at the same time, yet they chose not do to so. Perhaps the Minister could respond on that point.
Lord Popat
I thank noble Lords for their comments. I thank, as always, the noble Earl for his comments on children who are being adopted. Adoptive parents will be entitled to 18 weeks, as is everybody else, with leave to be taken within five years of the date of adoption; others would be from the date of birth. If somebody adopts a child of six years, the right will expire five years thereafter or when the child is 18, whichever is sooner.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked why we did not bring the 2015 date forward. Consultation was done on a range of time limits: five, eight, 12, 16 and 18 years were proposed. Around 30% of the respondents called for no change, whereas 31% called for the age limit to be increased to 18. There was not much support for eight, 12 or 16 years. We therefore made the age 18. In order to minimise the cost to business, this change will only be introduced alongside the other changes in the system for maternity, paternity and shared parental leave. The change will therefore not be made through these regulations. Primary legislation is required, and will be included in the Children and Families Bill. I trust that I have responded to the noble Lord’s questions.
Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2013
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Popat
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2013,
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Popat
My Lords, this is a short but not insignificant order that will enable the effective enforcement of the Consumer Protection (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012. The regulations implement into UK law Article 19 of the European Union consumer rights directive. They prohibit traders from charging consumers above-cost payment surcharges. The Government have had concerns about the level of card surcharges that exceed the real costs in several sectors of the economy. Such surcharges are typically employed as a form of drip pricing, whereby the consumer does not see the final transaction cost until after completing several forms. That can make it more difficult for consumers to shop around. Under the regulations, surcharges for using a particular form of payment will become cost-reflective.
The provisions of the directive need to be implemented in UK legislation by December 2013 and brought fully into force by June 2014. Given the concerns that have been raised about these practices—notably by Which? and in a report by the Office of Fair Trading—the Government have decided to implement this part of the directive early. The payment surcharges regulations were made and laid before Parliament on 19 December last year under the negative resolution procedure. As with this order, they come into force on 6 April 2013. They are not of course the subject of the Motion today but they are directly related.
Article 2 of the order provides for the enforcement framework in Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to apply in relation to the regulations. This enables the relevant enforcement bodies to apply to the courts for enforcement orders against traders that have engaged, are engaging or are likely to engage in conduct that breaches the regulations, if that conduct harms the collective interests of consumers in the United Kingdom. Taken together, the regulations and this order will provide an effective enforcement regime in fulfilment of the directive’s requirements that adequate and effective means exist in national law to ensure compliance with the provisions of the directive and that penalties laid down for breaches of the directive are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Although the payment surcharges regulations implement an EU directive, Article 2 of the order specifies them as a domestic infringement rather than a community infringement for the purposes of the 2002 Act. This is because the obligations in the regulations take effect from April 2013, whereas the EU directive requires them to take effect only from June 2014. The order does not therefore strictly relate to infringements of EU law in the period up to June 2014. For this reason, and unlike the regulations, the order is subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
The noble Lord’s fluency in so many matters suggested that he wanted to make a contribution. I am sad that he will not do so.
We on this side welcome the regulations. They are a good step in a direction that many noble Lords will recognise has been a source of considerable annoyance and concern to consumers over many years. In that sense, I want to understand better the approach that the Minister is taking here. He quite rightly explained that there are requirements because of the European Union directive to move in this direction. In many senses today is interesting because the earlier order that we considered also relates to a European Union directive. The choice there was to do something at the latest possible moment whereas the choice here is to take forward the timing of the European Union directive and use it to solve a problem that is, as he said, a domestic rather than a European one. That aside, it is still a good decision.
Underneath this is a history that the Minister touched on but is worth recording. This comes from a civil complaint from Which? that was referred to the OFT, and the OFT generated the momentum behind this. Yes, it could have happened because of the European Union directive but there is sufficient pressure internally. That also shows that the measures brought forward under the previous Government to try to provide for more active consumer protection in this area have been successful. As a result of that, we are seeing these changes today.
In the impact statement, to which the Minister referred, the assertion is made that these drip-pricing approaches—you do not know the full cost of what you are buying online until you get to the final screen and suddenly some additional charges are put in—are, of course, a frustration and an annoyance. It is interesting, however, that the impact assessment is quite coy about whether it will be to the long-term benefit of consumers. It is effectively saying, if you read between the lines, that while the changes in the regulations and the consequences of what is being proposed mean that companies will not be allowed to add these additional charges, or drip charges, to the price that they are quoting and we will therefore be able to compare prices better and get more for our money, in fact, the money that is being taken out of the system through drip pricing will probably re-emerge as additional charges within the main cost. The impact assessment says that,
“the overall price level may fall; however this is considered unlikely”.
I wonder whether the Minister has any more information on that. I looked carefully through the impact assessment and I could not see much documentation about what will happen to prices. Does he think that my assertion is overstated or about right?
My final point is that the CRD—and the regulations implementing it—covers most retail sectors, but does not include some. Will the Minister please explain what is going to happen in areas which are not covered by the CRD or by these regulations? What measures are the Government considering to bring forward in future years to deal with those?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. I should have jumped in before him, so I apologise for not getting this right. I wanted to ask one question about the impact assessment and the opt-out for small businesses. I do not believe in extra burdens and regulation for businesses, but it seems odd to me that we seem to be saying that, by allowing business with fewer than 20 people to opt out, they can carry on overcharging customers. It seems odd and unfair that they will still be able to make these charges, but generally I think that this is a great order and I am delighted that it is being brought in.
Lord Popat
I thank the noble Lord. He is quite correct that this order will prohibit traders from charging consumers above-cost payments; in other words, the charges will not exceed the real cost of the goods or services bought from the trader. We are implementing this in December 2013, largely due to our own research and that of Which? magazine, which brought this to our attention. The European directive will be enforced in 2014, so it will be good for consumers. The European Commission is looking at the payment separately under the financial services regulations. We will obviously get this information in due course. It is our policy to exempt microbusinesses from the new regulations until 2014. They are small businesses that employ probably fewer than 10 people, but they are crucial for growth and we have to support and encourage them. That is my response to the questions about small businesses.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
May I push the Minister a little further on that? It just seems very odd to me; I want to see small businesses and the economy grow, but if I am running a small business, I do not see why I should overcharge my customers. That does not seem like good practice and we should not allow it because it is not fair. I hope he will explain the point he is making. Why should small businesses be able to overcharge when big businesses cannot?
Lord Popat
As I said earlier, microbusinesses are crucial to growth. As a small businessman myself, I want to give value for money to my customers and do not want to make them pay any unnecessary charges, because I want to make sure that I get my repeat business. It is our policy is to exclude microbusinesses. The regulations will apply from June 2014 and not from December 2013.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Committee has made rather better progress than perhaps one noble Lord anticipated. I therefore suggest that the Committee break for five minutes.
Publishing Industry
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who are going to speak in this debate. I also express my thanks to the ALCS, the Publishers Association and the Society of Authors for the help that they have given me and, I hope, colleagues in preparing for the debate.
People who are brought up with books in the home are lucky and privileged, and life must be very difficult for those who, in their childhood, never saw a book in the house. I am reminded of a book which I read many years ago by Brendan Behan, called Borstal Boy, about a teenager in a juvenile prison allocated, I believe, two books a fortnight. He loved books so much—or developed such a liking for books while he was in jail—that he rationed himself to only so many pages a day, to make sure that his two books lasted the fortnight before he got new ones. One day the prisoner allocating books gave him a seed catalogue as his non-fiction book. As Brendan Behan says, he was almost in tears, with nothing to read for part of that period. Let us also remember that in the last century, books were burned by people who saw books and publishers as the enemies of freedom and democracy.
Books and publishing are of enormous value to the UK economy. The publishing sector is estimated to be worth some £5 billion a year, of which book sales amount to £3.2 billion. The United Kingdom is one of four countries that produce 100,000 new and revised titles a year. The UK book market is the fifth largest in the world, and 41% of the sector’s sales come from exports; a larger proportion than that from any other country. Moreover, successful books often lead to film rights, another benefit to the UK creative industry. However, a large barrier to growth is the difficulty most authors have in finding a proper return for their professional work. The figures for what many authors earn show how little they get in return for their professional work. One or two authors scoop the pools and make a fortune, but for many it is a very hard job indeed to make a decent living.
I turn specifically to publishing and the publishing industry. Publishers are of course the guardians of an author’s copyright, without which authors would hardly be able to make progress; they invest in authors, and give advances and royalty payments; they identify good-quality writing and research; and they help in the distribution of books. Publishers and retailers work together to encourage reading, for example in bookshops with World Book Day and many other such schemes.
However, one of the key factors on the scene is the growth of electronic publishing. I understand that in 2011 electronic publishing increased by 366%—an enormous increase. There is no VAT on printed books but electronic books published in this country attract a VAT rate of 27%. In some of our competitors on the continent, such as France and Luxembourg, there is a much lower rate of VAT. Britain is at an economic disadvantage with our e-books, and may well suffer even more as other countries impose lower rates of tax. If books are more expensive, Britain will fall behind. We only have to look at the music industry and the recent decline of HMV to see how bits of our economy can fall behind very rapidly if they are not able to compete in a world market.
On the positive side, digital books help in self-publishing, so they open the door for some authors. But nobody can predict the way in which e-books will go. All we can say is that the digital market has grown dramatically of late and I believe that it now poses a threat. I do not want to be a Luddite or act like King Canute and say we do not want e-books because of course they are here. What is important is that printed books will not fall behind too much and can live in this new digital age.
I think it was Jamie Byng, the managing director of Canongate, who said that one of the things that bookshops do is encourage discovery. The same applies to libraries. There can be few things more exciting than for a young person to be let loose in a bookshop or library and see the wealth of books available there for his or her reading. That applies entirely to libraries. Yet we have seen recently a dramatic decline in the number of bookshops. The growth of e-books will encourage that decline. I really feel that bookshops are one of the values in our society. If we lose bookshops, something valuable will be gone.
I love going to book festivals. I have been to the one in Edinburgh frequently. In the Lake District, there is a superb book festival at Keswick that I go to most years. Yet, if we all had only digital books, how could there be book festivals? They would not mean very much if the output of a book festival was just a pile of Kindles and no books themselves. Yet the public lending right should be extended to e-books and audiobooks. That is important to get balance, but we have to be careful. We have seen the problem with Amazon, which scoops the pool in terms of electronic books at the moment but is based abroad and pays very little tax in this country. The whole thing is unbalanced and makes it very hard for British electronic publishers and above all for books to compete.
On the national curriculum, changes to that are being phased in very quickly and it is important that the publishing industry is given a chance to provide the necessary and appropriate books so that the national curriculum can work. That is one of those areas where more co-operation between government and the publishing industry would be appropriate.
Open access has been an important point. There was a report by Professor Finch about open access for future academic publishing. I am not certain that the Government have responded to that but it would be useful were they to say where they stand on this.
We have in books and publishing one of the most important creative industries in the country. We are renowned for having good creative industries. We are a world leader, as I showed earlier. It is important that, in their general approach to publishing and books, the Government should be aware that our leadership cannot be sustained automatically. They need to make sure that they support publishing.
It is important in terms of detail that we have a reasonably successful copyright regime, which should not be weakened in any way. If we do that, we weaken the economic success of our publishing industry and our books. There has been some talk about developing educational exceptions. However, we have to be careful. If an educational establishment can photocopy something that is appropriate for teaching purposes for 50 or 100 students, that of course will severely impact on the income of authors, which would be a retrograde step. Of course, one wants educational institutions to be able to work freely and easily but we also have to protect copyright in that respect.
I have already mentioned the difficulties of VAT and electronic books. I am in two minds about this. It would be fair that VAT on electronic books should be on a level playing field with printed books. I am also concerned about the impact of e-books. I should like to repeat what I have said earlier. I must admit that I have a Kindle, although that was before I discovered how little tax Amazon is paying. I now feel a little guilty every time I use my Kindle and it is useful for travelling. However, we should be careful. Anything we can do to sustain hardback books, bookshops and the publishing industry can be only for the good. We have a vital creative industry in this country, which the Government must support as fully as they can.
Lord Black of Brentwood
I declare an interest as a director of the Telegraph Media Group. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is to be congratulated on securing this important debate. Publishing is the lifeblood of a free society. It forms the basis of democracy, our education system and our creative industries; yet its future is uncertain because of the massive impact of digital. Every publisher is faced with the central challenge: adapt your business model or die.
However, in order to find time to adapt, traditional publishers need two things; namely, as little regulation as possible and as much protection for the absolute right to copyright as possible. Both are under attack. I want to flag up three ways in which the Government can help. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said about VAT. As printed material in the UK rightly attracts a zero rate, it is wrong that the electronic equivalent attracts the full 20% rate, which leaves UK publishers at a real commercial disadvantage. Given the rapid development of this market, there is now an urgent need to remove or reduce VAT on electronic publications. I would ask my noble friend if he would talk to his very kindly friends at the Treasury on this point.
As regards music publishers, I should declare an interest as a member of the Royal College of Music Council. Music publishing is an incredibly important business because it is at the core of our creative industries and certainty about copyright is crucial for it to flourish. Of specific concern therefore is the Government’s plan to water down copyright protection—again, the noble Lord mentioned it—which is of fundamental importance to its existence through extending the exceptions for educational use by introducing a so-called “fair dealing exception” which will be available to “all organisations and individuals”. This will increase exemptions in this area to include one-to-one music lessons, Saturday music services and music clubs, and could lead to a proliferation of photocopying of sheet music, which would be a real loss for the UK music publishing industry at a time when it is trying to make life easier for schools which want to copy musical work. I ask my noble friend to ensure that any scheme is sufficiently carefully drafted to protect small, specialist providers of educational material. Perhaps he could write to me to explain how the fair dealing exception will work.
Finally, I come to newspaper and magazine publishing, where the internet has been fiercest. Here we need to ensure that the press in the UK is not subject to any form of statutory content controls which would hugely disadvantage it with global competition. But proposals from the EC High-Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism would usher in a draconian European system of controls, including proposals to force media councils to ensure that newspapers comply with European values. These proposals would push the EU into an information dark age and the Government must do everything that they can to stop it. I ask my noble friend for his support on my three points.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the impact of digitisation on the book industry has been seismic, and one might say, with Gramsci,
“in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”.
Swirling in the maelstrom, the publishing industry is, however, resilient and adaptable. So, too, are books. The codex was invented by the Romans. It has been refined in every century since, and it remains a technology that will be hard to beat.
What, then, is the role of the Government in supporting this important industry and the place of books in our national life?
The Government should create a fair tax regime. There should be zero-rating for e-books. Google and Amazon should pay their fair share. Meanwhile, Amazon might care to consider presenting a Kindle to every child, of whom 4 million in Britain do not own a book.
The Government should support publishing exports and deal firmly with trade barriers, piracy and infringement of copyright. They should ensure that their regime for intellectual property is coherent, fit for purpose and appropriately balanced as between the rights of creators and users. They should enable Parliament to consider, closely and carefully, any proposed changes to the legislation.
The Government should nurture reading within the national curriculum, working with the Publishers Association, allowing time in the school day for reading and putting libraries back at the heart of schools. They should support the charities which support books and reading. I single out the Reader Organisation, a charity which organises groups to read nothing but high-quality literature: groups of patients in mental health trusts, prisoners, substance abusers and looked-after children. It works in every case. The market for serious literature outside classrooms and middle-class homes can be developed.
The Government should enable local authorities to give decent support to libraries and literary festivals, and to help independent bookshops compete on price. The Arts Council should provide sustained security for serious non-commercial literary publishing, particularly poetry. They should implement the extension of PLR to e-books and audiobooks.
In a letter in the Times on 1 January 1942, TS Eliot, EM Forster, JB Priestley, Bernard Shaw, Rebecca West and others wrote:
“Unless authority suffers a change of mind, the condition of letters in this country will be quickly past prayer … Books and the book trade are not merely another industry. They are the daily food of our mental and spiritual life”.
They went on to quote the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who had said:
“Books in all their variety offer the means whereby civilization may be carried … forward”.
The Minister is a civilised man, and he will endorse all that we have said. May we hope that our Prime Minister, too, will affirm the high importance of books and the publishing industry in our culture and economy?
Lord Wills
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on securing this debate. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my declaration of interests.
This is a timely debate. As we have heard, digital technologies are disrupting the business models that have sustained the industry for so long. They are redistributing power within publishing, between publishers and retailers and between different sorts of retailers. However, as my noble friend Lord Dubs so eloquently set out, there is no existential threat to publishing in the way that canals, for example, were replaced by railways. Millions will continue to derive huge pleasure from reading and, as long as they do so, there will be a publishing industry.
However, these new technologies are potentially disruptive for what is available to read. For all the growth of self-publishing which has been enabled by these new technologies, and it is welcome, publishing is for the most part still a fragile ecology, where a wide range of talents and skills remain critically interdependent. Creative artists, whether writing fiction or non-fiction, rarely, if ever, create on their own in a garret. They are supported by agents and publishers, all striving together for that elusive creative and commercial success which underpins not just publishing but all the creative industries which do so much for this country. Those support systems depend, above all else, on effective intellectual property rights.
This is a complex area of public policy, as the Government have recognised. Rightly, they are trying to balance the interests of rights holders, creators, consumers and users, and this has always been a difficult balance to strike. However, it has been made all the more difficult by the extraordinary developments in digital technology over recent years. In the light of this rapid change and the inherent difficulty of the task, no one can be certain that the Government have got the balance right. If they have not, there could be serious consequences for publishing and all the creative industries.
I was therefore dismayed to see the Government reject amendments to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill in Committee, which unfortunately I was unable to attend, which sought to provide mechanisms to protect against such uncertainty—particularly the proposal for a new office to keep the interests of intellectual property rights holders in the forefront of public policy which, in such a rapidly changing world, and in which their importance has been overlooked in the past, seems simply prudent. To rely, as the Government seem to wish to do, on the existence of, in Sir Robin Day’s immortal phrase, here-today and gone-tomorrow Ministers seems to defy all the experience of recent years when the development of public policy in this area has painfully failed to keep pace with the implications of rapid technological change. I hope the noble Lords who proposed these amendments—I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is down to speak in this debate—will submit them again on Report and that the Government will then reconsider their approach.
More generally, it is likely that the publishing industry will change even more in the next 10 years than it has done in the previous 10 years. Its customers—readers—will determine those changes, but public policy cannot stand aside. I look forward to the Minister setting out what the Government are going to do to support this vital industry.
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, I must declare my interest as set out in the register, which reflects 25 years of earning my living as a writer. I add to the thanks expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, not only for introducing this debate but for doing it so splendidly. He gave us a fantastic tour d’horizon.
The publishing industry faces grave difficulties, but I want here to concentrate on the plight of authors—academic, literary and others. Without them, there would be no industry. Incomes are falling; the future is filled with uncertainties; the essential nurturing of creative talent that allows authorship to reach its peak is disappearing; and the internet age believes that it has inalienable right to read everything online and for free. There is an urban myth that anyone who has ever written a book that anyone else has ever heard about must be a multimillionaire. The chilling truth is that the average annual income for a full-time author is around £12,000 a year.
I want to make two specific points. The first echoes the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the public lending right. It is a scheme whereby authors get a token payment when their works are lent out by public libraries. The PLR supports 23,000 authors every year. Those payments are limited and typically very small, but they are vital. It is not a subsidy; it is a payment in return for authors and publishers agreeing to allow their works to be loaned out through the library system. Yet the Treasury has cut PLR. It amounts to less than £7 million a year, but it has been cut. Still worse, it is refusing to extend PLR to audiobooks and e-books. It is a little like the Government commandeering a taxi and then refusing the fare.
My second point, about intellectual property rights, has also been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as it was by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. The Government are preparing to move us into the digital age by making it easier to access and copy authors’ works, particularly in schools. Cut through the language and what that means is that schools will be able to copy an increasing amount of work without paying the authors. It is of course vital that we support education, but I do not see the Government asking dinner ladies or the suppliers of desks and dusters to come to their rescue. But authors are, sadly, easy targets.
I trust, and I am sure, that the Minister will go away and think about all these matters. I do not need to bore him any more than I bore him in the Bishops’ Bar about some of these issues and I know that he is well aware of them. I hope that he will take on board, if not always necessarily agree with, the advice of the Society of Authors, the Publishers Association and other relevant bodies. It would take very little to correct some of the problems that have arisen—a little more care, a little more understanding and a little more vigour in protecting authors’ intellectual property rights. If that is not done, I fear that there is a real possibility that we will turn around in 20 years’ time to discover that those who should have been the cream of our literary talent, the lifeblood of British creativity, have cast their pens aside and found themselves other jobs.
Shakespeare did not write for posterity—
Lord Dobbs
I beg your pardon. Let me then sum up very quickly by saying that it would be a terrible pity if the book industry were to be left with little but celebrity memoirs, chick lit, TV spin-offs and books of such pale shades of grey that they were all but invisible. That would surely be the saddest tale that we could have written.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for introducing this much needed debate on the future of the publishing industry. I declare an interest as someone who next year will have been a published author for the past 50 years. The publishing industry is a vital component of the creative economy and employs 33,000 people across 2,500 companies. In addition, there are a large number of professional writers working full or part-time who create works on which the industry relies. The quality and range of British writers is recognised around the world, and 40% of publishing industry revenues are derived from exports—a bigger proportion than in any other country. The UK book market is the fifth largest in the world and the largest e-book market in Europe. Despite this, the Society of Authors is concerned that several of the Government’s current policies are creating barriers to growth and hindering the development of the publishing industry.
The largest obstacle to growth for most authors is financial. In a 2006 survey, the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society concluded that writing was a very risky profession, with median earnings of around £4,000 for all authors. Most authors earn very little and cannot live by their profession alone. In principle, the public lending right increases their income. The Digital Economy Act 2010 extends PLR to audiobooks and e-books, but these payments have never been implemented. This is patently unjust. That provision should be brought into force and extra funds should be made available to cover PLR payments for such lending.
Print books attract a zero rate of VAT, but their electronic equivalents are subject to a rate of 20% in the UK. Some other EU countries have reduced the VAT rate on e-books, so that the UK is now at a competitive disadvantage, as my noble friend Lord Dubs pointed out, as e-books sold in the UK are more costly than those sold elsewhere, making it doubtful that they have ousted printed books as reading matter. The Spectator recently carried a cartoon in which two women and a child are sitting on a park bench. One of the women is reading. The mother says to her little girl, “Look, darling, she’s holding something called a book”. I hope we have not got to that point yet. I have a Kindle but do not much like it. There is an urgent need for removing VAT on e-books to avoid the UK falling behind European competitors.
Authors would benefit enormously from an educational and general environment from primary level upwards that emphasises the value of culture and the importance of copyright. Intellectual property rights are lucrative to the UK economy. Knowing that they own copyright in what they have written and what that means can be a cause of excitement and pride in students and generate an understanding of the harm done by piracy.
School libraries should be compulsory, and reading and writing for pleasure encouraged; but in general, they are not. How many times have I been told, “I do not have time for reading”? How many homes have I been in, often beautifully furnished and decorated, but where there are no books? High street bookshops, local theatres and libraries all underline the importance of books, culture and learning and should be supported. The habit of culture should be as much a fundamental aspect of the environment as, for example, the country’s architectural and historical heritage.
I will finish on an optimistic note for the publishing industry. When I was first published, there were only two or three literary festivals a year in this country. Now, every county, city and town holds one. The large number of books sold at these events and the enthusiasm shown for reading by those who attend them must be a sight for sore eyes for publishers. The Edinburgh Festival is a large bookstore in itself, and the village of Hay-on-Wye has more bookstores in its streets than anywhere else in the world.
Lord Smith of Clifton
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for this timely debate. Over the years, I have had a range of experiences in the world of publishing. I was on the board of the weekly magazines New Society and, later, the New Statesman, and was also a director of Gerald Duckworth & Co book publishers. I must declare an interest in that I am currently on the editorial boards of two learned journals—Government and Opposition and Public Policy and Administration, both of which posts are unpaid. The introduction of open access, as recommended by the Finch report and aggressively promoted by the advocates of STEM subjects, raises serious concerns in academia among specialists in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Both the Royal Historical Society, of which I am a fellow, and the Political Studies Association, of which I am vice-president, have made representations to BIS and its Universities Minister, David Willetts, and to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee.
As proposed, open access will require authors to pay fees of up to $1,000 to the publishers of learned journals to cover the costs of expert reviews as to worthiness and of editing, which will have to come from already squeezed research budgets. This will have a deleterious effect on young, aspiring academics. In the arts and social sciences, articles are usually single-authored. By contrast, STEM articles are almost always multiauthored and half the average length of those in the humanities and social sciences. Up front publishers’ fees will be cheaper and more widely spread for STEM authors. The effect of this differential costing may well influence university departmental heads to allocate publishers’ fees disproportionately to senior, already tried and tested, academic authors rather than to risk the possibility of greater rejection of younger ones.
Secondly, there is the whole question of copyright, to which other noble Lords have alluded, and ownership of intellectual property. Open access will accord free use of UK research that has been funded by the UK taxpayer to all and sundry all over the world. Thirdly, it adds to the operating profits of publishers of learned journals, who make no financial contribution to sustaining scholarship and research; they simply enjoy harvesting it.
Those who undertake research in the humanities and social sciences are not opposed to some form of open access. However, they are concerned that the proposed scheme is being adopted without full consultation, is too STEM-compliant and will enable scholarly intellectual property to be plundered. Her Majesty’s Government and, particularly, Mr David Willetts need to think again. It seems that Mr Willetts and Dame Janet Finch, a distinguished social scientist, have been too easily seduced by the blandishments of STEM interests and forgotten those of their original university training. In winding up, will the Minister say whether Her Majesty’s Government are open to further consideration?
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am a publisher but take a very bleak view of the future of publishing if Amazon goes unchecked—not that it will harm me, but it will kill most of the rest of the industry.
Amazon is an amoral monopsony in its growth phase. It is using extremely low margins to drive market share. It is using aggressive tax avoidance to afford those low margins. It is not just us that it does not pay tax to; it does not pay tax to anybody. It is being allowed by Governments to do this because it is seen as a nice, friendly company to consumers. Indeed, in the days when I shopped with Amazon, I found it a comfortable place to shop but it is coming to dominate the book industry. It is clear that it will soon have over half of all the book trade, physical and virtual. It is causing taxpaying businesses to die. One has just to look at what happened to HMV, which has died largely because of tax competition. A lot of that came from the likes of TheHut out of the Channel Islands but a good deal of it was mediated by Amazon. We now have nowhere to shop on a large scale. The internet retailers have control and the internet retailer that will have control above all is Amazon.
Suppliers will then become dependent on the one retailer. It is clear where Amazon intends to go after that: it intends to take out the publishers. It is already doing that in the States, forming its own relationships with authors and publishing its own exclusive-to-Amazon books. At the end of the day, what need has a company with three-quarters of the book trade of independent publishers? It can do everything itself.
It will continue to use a wide range of predatory tactics to do that. Amazon trawls the web to make sure that it always offers the lowest price on anything. It compels suppliers to charge it less than they do anybody else, on pain of being dropped—either individual projects or entirely. It runs this thing called Amazon Marketplace, where little traders can go, but it knows everything that happens in that marketplace: all communications between a business and its customers, what is being sold and at what price. When it sees a good opportunity, it goes to the supplier and undercuts the trader.
If you use Amazon fulfilment, it will clean up your complaints file so that bad notices will not remain for others to see. If you do not use Amazon fulfilment, it will not. It provides a home for people who are breaching copyright by importing books from outside the appropriate area. It provides a home for people who are running VAT scams. In one way or another, if we do not do something as a Government to remove the tax bias that benefits it, to enforce our existing laws and to put it through the Competition Commission, we will find that we have been steamrollered by Amazon.
Lord Giddens
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on his excellent introduction. I declare an interest as founder and director of Polity press.
Publishing is an industry in absolute turmoil. I am not sure that even the contributions to the debate thus far have brought this up strongly enough. This is true not just in the UK but in the US and other countries, too. One can say that absolutely no one knows where these trends will lead. Many people have their best guesses, but nobody actually knows.
There are three intertwining factors in the transformation of the publishing industry. First, as has been said by other noble Lords, e-books have arrived with a bang after several years in which they made little or no headway. It is important to recognise how massively popular they are in some sectors. In the United States, for example, among more popular titles, more than 60% are now produced as e-books. Will the traditional book survive? Will the e-book survive? One should not think that the e-book is the cutting edge here. E-books themselves are being transformed by all sorts of multilayered devices; you can hold conversations with authors and so forth. The e-book is certainly not the end of the story.
Secondly, the publishing industry here and in many countries is becoming hollowed out, with ever fewer large conglomerates at the top and an array of small publishers at the bottom—all of them, in a way, following a precarious existence. The rise and rise of Amazon, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is one main factor in this. Publishing is not really about the production of books but about marketing and distribution. Because of its massive size, and its mainly automated warehouse and delivery system, Amazon absolutely cuts prices to the bone.
Thirdly, a trend which overlaps with these is the emergence of self-publishing on the internet, where an orthodox publisher might not be needed at all. There is lots of experimentation going on here. For example, one publisher invites prospective authors to pitch their book proposals on its website. If sufficient people pledge to buy it, the author can then go ahead and write it, reversing the traditional relationship. It is not clear that this will succeed. These are overlapping trends, but they are creating something fundamentally new after centuries of domination by traditional book publishers.
I have three brief questions for the Minister. Often, technological innovation is followed by a “back to the future” reaction; for example, when nylon was invented, people went back to wool and cotton. The same thing might happen to traditional books. For this reason, I hope that the Government will not take too big a scythe to public libraries.
Secondly, as other noble Lords have asked, what is the latest position on open-access publishing? Many publishers, as well as academics, are quite worried about that and the Government’s endorsement of the Finch report. What will it do to traditional journal publishers?
Thirdly, apart from the issue of taxation—following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so eloquently said—are the Government happy with the dominant position that Amazon has taken in the book trade? In conclusion, I hope that no noble Lords will be caught reading a Kindle in a Starbucks.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for initiating this debate and all noble Lords for their contributions, which have been of a very high standard indeed. As my noble friend Lady Rendell said, this is a very timely debate, and we appreciate that. My noble friend Lord Giddens warned us that this is an industry in which conditions are worse than we think. They may get much worse before they get better, if indeed they do. We need to bear in mind also that this is a complex industry, like all creative industries. With some notable exceptions, we have focused today mainly on the creative side—the agents and publishers—but we also have to think about the retailing end: the designers, the marketers, the logistics and, of course, the concept of electronic publishing, which is an underlying thread here.
This debate has really been about whether the current leadership that this country’s publishing industry deservedly has can be sustained and whether there will be growth. There have been a very large number of questions for the Minister and I do not intend to cover them all. I hope that he will be able to give a particular mention to them all but, if not, that he will write to us about them. I think that there will be too many, even for the time that he has been allocated. However, from the questions that were raised, the first was on this vexing question of the public lending right, which is so important to authors and publishers. Of course, it does a much wider job by raising people’s interest in books and writing and, more generally, in education. Will and can that be extended to e-books?
On VAT, the differential between the printed and electronic versions is obviously a major issue. What approach are the Government taking on this? I know that the Minister will say the usual thing when he comes to reply: that taxation is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course it is but, six weeks out from the Budget, surely budget submissions will have been made. Can the Minister confirm that DCMS has raised this issue with the Chancellor and is making the right sort of noises, along the lines that he has heard today?
On copyright, the issue that comes up time and again is whether the Government have got their approach right, along with the question of who is actually in the lead on this issue. In debate on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, confirmed that he was the Minister for Intellectual Property and therefore has, within BIS,
“a role to champion the IP system as a whole”.
Indeed, he was proud of the fact,
“that no other country has such a post”.—[Official Report, 28/1/13; cols. GC414-16.]
He felt that that solved the problem. However, what then is the role of DCMS in relation to copyright? Perhaps the Minister could say a few things about the approach that he is taking in this matter and how the department gets its point of view, which we note to be significantly different in terms of discourse from that which is currently being led by the IPO. There is much more sympathy with some of the points that have been made today. It would be a pity if that was being boxed out by government structures.
On the key issue of education and the circularity of the approach that has to be taken across libraries and supportive reading, and about the role of English more generally—but particularly on reading and writing and on creative work in the EBacc—it would again be useful if the Minister could explain what DCMS’s role in that has been, whether meetings have been taken and whether it is making progress.
Finally, can the Minister say a bit more about the general role of the DCMS in this industry? Many of the issues that we have discussed today are, as I have said, largely in the gift of BIS and not that of DCMS. Can he therefore explain a bit more what its role is?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing this debate. It is certainly true to say that I have learnt a great deal today from the expertise of all your Lordships. I have listened and it is indeed a privilege to reply. Perhaps I might say that there were quite a number of questions and I hope that noble Lords will be tolerant if I write a general reply wherever I have not dealt adequately, as I would believe, with their questions.
Without doubt, the UK’s creative industries make a vital contribution to national life but they also have a key role to fulfil in helping our economy to grow and helping the people of the UK to compete globally. Employment in the creative industries has grown at double the rate of the economy as a whole, and 1.5 million people are currently involved in creative employment. They are, in many respects, British culture and I was very much taken by what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, said about culture. I am sure that the Prime Minister is very keen and that he champions British culture too.
The entire publishing sector is the largest of our creative industries. It contributes £11.6 billion a year to the UK economy and employs some 244,000 people across 9,700 companies, which cover books, e-books, academic journals, national and local newspapers, magazines and print music, to name a few. Our publishers are the largest exporters of all the creative industries. With 40% of the sector’s revenues coming from export—the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Howarth of Newport, referred to this—that is a bigger proportion than in any other country.
However, as noble Lords have mentioned, it is not limited to print alone. UK consumer e-book sales grew by some 366% in 2011, as the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Giddens, referred to, making the UK the largest e-book market in Europe. The UK is a market of early adopters. Consumers in this country are quick to take up new products, services and channels, particularly in entertainment. In publishing, this appetite on the part of consumers has been matched by the willingness of publishers to explore new opportunities, in spite of the challenges that new technologies undoubtedly present, as the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Giddens, referred to. I reaffirm my personal support for bookshops and the many happy hours I continue to spend in them. I have to admit that I have never bought a book from Amazon.
The Government are committed to fostering an environment that will stimulate world-class content creation. We want the current level of success and investment not just to continue but to increase. I am very conscious of course that the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs, whose work is so widely admired at home and abroad, are in their places. Indeed, I very much hope that there will be many more generations of their like in British culture.
The issue of VAT was raised by my noble friend Lord Black, the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell. As has been pointed out, Luxembourg and France at present operate a reduced rate of VAT on e-books. Under existing law, e-books are electronically supplied services and therefore should be taxed at the standard rate. The European Commission has launched infraction proceedings at the European Court of Justice against Luxembourg and France on this matter, the outcome of which is awaited.
My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood raised a point about the recent EC report on pan-European press regulation. The Government have noted the contents of the report on media freedom and pluralism and await with interest any resulting debate and the response from the European Union. However, the Government have no intention of allowing European institutions to regulate the British press. The Government believe that this is a matter for individual member states and will resist any European legislation in this area.
Many noble Lords referred to copyright, including my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, and the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Howarth. It is vital that the publishing industry is supported in addressing copyright issues. I am mindful of the difficulties the music industry has suffered in its own digital transition, which my noble friend Lord Lucas specifically referred to. The Government are acting in a number of areas to ensure that the UK copyright framework meets the demands of the digital environment while continuing to maintain the success of sectors such as publishing. An appropriate regime is vital for copyright in the UK. The Government are very well aware of the range and strength of views and interests, which is why the Hargreaves review of intellectual property and the development of government policy since then have included broad and deep consultation.
Last December, the Government outlined a number of ways to support efforts by creative industries to protect copyright, in particular: action to educate consumers about the importance of respecting copyright and paying creators; launching a superfast patent processing service; a campaign for smaller businesses; and looking at enforcement. The Government are exploring with the City of London Police and the content industries what more can be done to bring to book the criminals who make a living from counterfeiting and piracy, particularly online. Protections for the interests of property rights owners and creators must be built into the revised framework. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned that in particular.
The Government have sought to increase the number of options available to rights holders looking to protect their intellectual property online—the noble Lord, Lord Wills, referred to that—in particular, by ensuring proportionate responses are available at every level, from court action to a voluntary response. The Government have supported collaboration between industry and law enforcement and a regular round table for those involved is now held at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport under the chairmanship of my honourable friend the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in particular raised that. The round table has seen several successes, including an agreement with internet advertisers to cut off payments and advertising to illegal sites.
On exceptions, noble Lords raised in that connection the potential impact of changes to copyright law on business, for example the impact on exceptions to copyright rules on music publishing for educational use. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friends Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Dobbs mentioned that. I will write to my noble friend Lord Black about the particular matter he raised. The Government want teachers to be able to use creative materials in the classroom without copyright being an obstacle but—I emphasise “but”—this should not be done at the expense of our educational publishing sector, on which our schools depend. We will give teachers more flexibility to use copyright works in new and creative ways but they will not be given a free pass. It is important that we strike the right balance. Copyright is the means to reward creativity; it generates investment, stimulates wider dissemination and delivers balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned the national curriculum. The Secretary of State for Education is due to announce the statutory consultation on the new national curriculum shortly. Publishers will therefore be able to consider the proposals for all national curriculum subjects. Again, the matter of young people was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. I entirely agree that reading and libraries are a great source of inspiration for young people—and adults. Next week, I am due to answer a Question in the Chamber on libraries. Libraries come under the budgets of local authorities and I am sure that we will have a full discussion in the seven minutes permissible on that next week. Again, I am personally a staunch supporter of open access to libraries. There are many exciting opportunities. New libraries are being opened and communities are coming together to ensure that reading and the opportunities that it provides to young children are well understood and recognised.
The Government also recognise that there are significant potential threats and opportunities with regard to how, for instance, text and data mining may be affected and how these technologies are used. I think we would all agree that the priority must be to develop the best environment for scientific and medical research. That has to include a successful research publishing sector. I am very mindful of what my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton and the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said. I will write to all noble Lords on the Finch review because I would like to consider the matter and then write in full detail. It is fair to say that the Government will proceed carefully in this sector.
The Government are supporting the industry through the expanding intellectual property attaché network abroad, which is already in China, Brazil and India. There is a new one now in south-east Asia. Progress on the EU patent front is a major step forward.
I appreciate that the sector faces many challenges. Noble Lords today have raised them in full and I am mindful of them.
Lord Giddens
Would the noble Lord care to say one or two words about Amazon and its industry dominance?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I should like to finish my few words. My commentary on Amazon is already on the record. However, many opportunities can be seen by the way in which the sector is embracing the digital revolution. The Government recognise the sector’s importance for cultural and economic reasons, and are working closely with the publishing industry to create an intellectual property environment which sustains success and rewards creativity.
PACE Trial: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Countess of Mar
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effects of the PACE trial (Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised Evaluation) on provision of health and social care and welfare benefits for people with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of Forward-ME, a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on ME and a patron of a number of ME charities. The PACE trial was funded by the MRC, the Department of Health, the Scottish Chief Scientist Office and the Department for Work and Pensions to the tune of £5 million. The researchers, led by chief principal investigator, Professor Peter White, have consistently and confidently advised medical professionals and the Government of the success of cognitive behavioural therapy, or CBT, and graded exercise therapy, or GET. The PIs’—the principal investigators’—objective was to reverse the behavioural and cognitive factors which they believe to be responsible for the perpetuation of symptoms and disability. Despite the extensive biomedical evidence base of peer-reviewed papers which undermines their belief and despite the fact that the MRC now states that there is evidence of,
“inflammatory mechanisms in the brain and spinal cord”,
their view has prevailed.
Throughout the history of medicine there has been a predominance of doctrine over science and currently there is a similar conflict between the doctrine, which asserts that CFS/ME results from a disordered psyche, and the scientific view that it is a devastating organic disease. We do not know what disorder was being studied because in March 2011, the chief PI wrote to the editor of the Lancet. He said:
“The PACE trial paper ... does not purport to be studying CFS/ME but CFS defined simply as a principal complaint of fatigue”.
To whom, then, can CBT and GET be safely applied? The Minister cannot answer because on 17 January her right honourable friend Norman Lamb confirmed that no assessment of the PACE trial has been made. Furthermore, the PACE trial results have not been presented transparently. This is not uncommon and Dr Ben Goldacre, known for his “Bad Science” column in the Guardian, has initiated a campaign calling for publication of all results of all trials, not just selective results. Already more than 7,000 signatures have been collected, including from high-profile organisations such as the MRC, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Public Library of Science and the BMJ. It calls for all universities, ethics committees and medical bodies to recognise that under-reporting of trials, as occurred in the PACE trial, is misconduct. Misreporting of clinical data leads to harm, wastes money and prevents scientific progress.
As regards the PACE trial, a recent Science Media Centre press release states that,
“the authors worked hard to define recovery based on the data available from the PACE trial”.
Investigators must define their primary outcomes before a trial begins and abide by them, not define recovery based on the trial data. Once the PACE trial was under way, the PIs changed the outcome measures so that the very same score on physical functioning—the SF-36 scale—represented both eligibility to enter the trial and “normal” function at the end of it. Indeed, according to the Lancet, a participant could have achieved a worse score at the end of the trial yet still be classed as “recovered”.
When funding was granted and ethical approval agreed, a participant had to score 85 to be considered recovered but by the time of publication in the Lancet, this “recovery” score had dropped to 60, which was five points lower than that required to enter the study. This illogical situation resulted from departure from the published protocol. To overcome this, the chief PI created his own meaning of terms; for example “recovery” does not mean recovery as the world understands it, and a return to “normal” does not mean a return to normal health. The chief PI does, however, concede that,
“improvement and not reaching research criteria are different from recovery”.
We do not know how many patients reached the initial target for recovery because the PIs have refused requests to release that data. Instead, they introduced significantly lower measures of improvement and abandoned an objective measure, the wearing of an actometer. The results of the subjective reporting in the six-minute walking test after graded exercise therapy were very poor, placing participants below the performance of patients awaiting heart or lung transplant. Had the PIs achieved their anticipated level of success, a level consistent with their claims over many years and a major factor in the award of research grants, they would have achieved international acclaim.
What hit the headlines was the Lancet “Comment” claiming a 30% recovery rate, yet the best that has been shown from CBT and GET is a maximum 15% improvement rate. A recent paper by the PACE authors, published on 1 February and purporting to show recovery rates, is a masterpiece of obfuscation. The authors have substituted “recovery” for “reversal” of CFS without any explanation, yet they admit that,
“although many patients improved, the question of how many patients recovered remains unanswered”.
As one of the members of the Forward-ME Group said:
“It really is quite bizarre that there is absolutely no data whatsoever in this paper on what most people would regard as markers for recovery … a return (or ability to return) to full time employment or education … no longer claiming any DWP sickness or disability benefits”.
The original claims made for recovery made it into the media and into the minds of GPs, DWP officials, social care providers, private insurance companies and even the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Professor Trudie Chalder, one of the PACE trial PIs, said that,
“twice as many people on graded exercise therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy got back to normal”.
This was widely but incorrectly interpreted as “recovery”.
The fact is that, as opposed to the spin that accompanied the publication of selective results, only 15% of patients improved with CBT and GET, leaving 85% with no benefit from those interventions. Furthermore, of the combined CBT/GET groups of 321 people, 91% experienced adverse events, and only those who were well enough to attend regular hospital appointments were included in the trial; the severely affected and housebound were excluded. This is not mentioned when the “recovery” rates are discussed. From where have the PIs derived the figure of 22% for recovery in their latest paper?
Where does that leave us? The only information, published in A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the PACE trial, shows that there was no significant improvement after CBT and GET in the average number of days lost from work or the number of participants who lost days at work. In fact, claims for income-related benefits, illness and disability-related benefits, and from private pensions and income protection schemes, increased across all intervention groups during the trial.
As it is cheaper for CFS/ME to be dismissed as a behavioural problem, patients are denied access to diagnostic facilities by NICE guidelines, and very few medical consultants specialise in anything but the supposed “behavioural” aspects of the disease. ME charities are inundated with cries for help as their members struggle with the benefits and social care systems. Bed-ridden and housebound claimants are put into the WRAG for ESA and are too ill to appeal. If they manage to get to an Atos assessment, they feel that they are not listened to and are told that they are fit for work. The DWP part-funded the PACE trial because it was assured that CBT and GET would get people off benefits and back to work, but the promised return-to-employment figures have still not been provided by the PIs.
I am relieved that the Medical Research Council’s expert group, under the chairmanship of Professor Stephen Holgate, is launching a UK chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis research collaborative on 22 April. It recognises that in light of the,
“magnitude of the disease burden on those affected and their families involving both adults and children, there is an urgent need to increase research effort in the field”.
Some £1.6 million has already been allocated by the MRC. There is an equally urgent need to assess the effects that the outcome of the PACE trial has had upon people with ME. However, how can the Government act responsibly in assessing them when the results have not been presented transparently?
It is widely accepted within the ME/CFS community that the PACE trial PIs changed the primary outcome measures with the intention of artificially inflating the success of CBT and GET—treatments they promoted for more than 20 years—and that, consequently, they are guilty of scientific misconduct. They believe that White and his colleagues have shown that they are not responsible guardians of the valuable data collected in the trial. It is therefore a matter of great importance that they are re-analysed by an independent group, using the original criteria for recovery and the positive outcomes described in the published protocol. This would enable healthcare commissioners to make decisions based on data that they know have not been misrepresented.
I know that the Minister understands the problem and ask that she and her colleagues from the other affected departments order such an assessment so that we do not consign thousands of people to the shadows. To quote Orwell, we must not allow the PACE trial to,
“give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”.
Lord Winston
We are all very grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for introducing this debate. I will be very brief and I apologise to her for missing the first minute of her speech. Very surprisingly, we were much earlier than expected and, unfortunately, the name of the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, was still on the screen when I came into the Moses Room.
This syndrome causes persistent fatigue for more than six months, as well as various other symptoms. It is not relieved by rest, which is and has been puzzling for a long time. It is not the case that there has not been a lot of research. I have looked, for example, at MEDLINE, where we can see that there are 5,874 research papers on this condition. It was not only the Medical Research Council that funded the PACE survey; it is very clear that extensive work has been carried out and many countries have been involved.
Recently, I made a list of papers published in the past year. I will not bore your Lordships with all of them but we know of, for example, Moss-Morris at King’s, Dr White at Barts, Dr Lehmann in Bavaria, Dr. Fjobback in Denmark, Fukuda in Japan, Jackson in Australia, Lewis in Bethesda, Maryland—part of the NIH funders there—Wibourg from Hamburg, Bleijenberg from Amsterdam, Newton from Newcastle, Brooks from Huddersfield, Wessely from King’s and Vincent from the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. There are many other names, but these are very prestigious departments of medicine. Effectively, they all come to the same conclusion; namely, that at the present time, the best treatment is almost certainly along the lines of cognitive behavioural therapy.
What is different about the PACE study is that it is a detailed, controlled study which has extremely rigorous entry into it. Unlike most previous studies, I think I am right in saying that—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, will correct me if I am wrong—there was only one drop-out, which is fairly remarkable. It means that it is extremely comprehensive, so there are very good data. It looked at a series of issues about treatment and it seems pretty clear to me that cognitive behavioural therapy is effective in something like one-fifth of patients, which is a bit more successful than the noble Baroness claims. I do not think we should underestimate that. They go some way to explaining that were cognitive behavioural therapy to be used perhaps on a slightly more financially secure footing with rather more sessions, it would be likely to be of more benefit, particularly toward the end of the treatment.
One issue is that far too frequently, we see that many of our colleagues have been vilified. Simply because they are psychiatrists does not mean that they are not doctors. That is a real issue, and it is not only psychiatrists who have been vilified. For example, Myra McClure, who was sure that there was not a viral causation for this disease, was absolutely vilified and decided to give up her research. This is also true of Esther Crawley, who even went so far as to report her vilification to the press and changed her telephone number. As some noble Lords will know, Dr Simon Wessely claims that he had death threats, which is very serious.
The problem, of course, is that to say that these vague conditions appear almost certainly to have a psychiatric basis is not to say that they are less important, or that the person who is suffering from them is in some way to blame. It means that we must find rational ways of treating them.
I commend this study. It is an example of really excellent research done in a very difficult phenotype and done very well indeed. The authors are to be congratulated on demonstrating clearly that cognitive behavioural therapy and, to a certain extent, some exercise in addition, is a real improvement on what has happened for these patients before.
Lord Alderdice
Like the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I am grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for giving us an opportunity to look at this question, although I have some doubts as to whether your Lordships’ House is the best place to evaluate scientific evidence and do the exploration. I think that repeated research by other colleagues and demonstration within the scientific community is the way forward. I declare a previous interest as a consultant psychiatrist in the NHS, where I treated a number of patients with these types of symptoms.
The history of medicine is that we have tried to clump together groups of symptoms which appear relatively regularly together, and seem to have indication of possible outcome, and maybe of management and treatment. However, these are temporary constructs. It is perfectly possible that they are a whole bunch of different disorders which overlap in various ways. Even to talk about it as a condition seems to be making certain presumptions. Certainly, to conclude that there is a definite organic basis, other than to say that in every disorder there are organic and psychological elements, does not mean that we dismiss the psychological—on the contrary. When we think, we can only do so because some things are going on in our brains, which are a physical substrate.
My own position would have to be that we really do not know what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a whole range of symptoms and complaints. We do not know the etiology. The prognosis is variable with different people. We must continue working as best we can.
In the mean time, it is terribly important that we try to evaluate how to manage the problems that people come along to us with. We do not properly understand the schizophrenias; that is a group of different disorders. Yet we still have to manage the large numbers of people with these problems. That is the case with these people who come along with post-exertional fatigue, memory difficulties, pains and so on.
When we try to do that, it is not uncommon for patients to tell us that such and such a thing helps and that such and such a thing does not. I am not a particularly strong advocate of CBT, as some colleagues know, but I remember when I was using CBT with some patients suffering from depression. They would come along and I would ask them to write a diary of what they were doing every half hour and evaluate it. They would say, “I do not feel like getting up in the morning. I am too depressed and I cannot get out of bed”. I would say, “Look, I know that you don’t feel like it, but please try to get out of bed, structure some activity for the day, do it on an hourly basis and let’s see how you are”. Hey presto, when they did that, the thing that they felt would not make them better actually did. They were surprised about this.
That is one of the dilemmas about what patients think will help. Sometimes they are intuitively right and sometimes they are intuitively mistaken. The only way that you can understand this is to do some work in a scientific way. That is what these colleagues in this paper have tried to do. Some of them will have had particular notions about etiologies, but the point is that they were simply looking at what worked and what did not. What is the outcome? The outcome is that CBT and graduated exercise training are helpful for some people to some extent, and more helpful than the other things which have been suggested. It is not helpful to everybody and it is probably not completely helpful to almost anybody but it is better than doing nothing and better than the other things that have been suggested. There are a lot of scientific tables and graphs but that is the basic outcome.
To me, that is good news because it gives us some indication of things that might be helpful. It also tells us that an awful lot more work is necessary to find out what we are dealing with. If somebody came along and said, “There are such things as chest diseases, we should treat them in such and such a way, and the cause is this”, we would say, “Yes, that is true but there is a difference between asthma and cancer”. They might say, “Oh, really? Well, let’s explore that”. We are at that kind of level with this set of symptoms.
It is really important that when people give themselves to scientific enterprise in this area that we do not pillory them for their efforts. They may come up with some outcomes that people do not want to believe or that are not very welcome. We psychiatrists are quite used to the idea that often people would rather have a physical explanation for things than a psychological one. It is dreadful if we encourage that by saying, “Well, of course it is not psychological”, as though somehow it is a smear on a patient to have psychological difficulties. We must be very careful about that. I do not suggest that Members of your Lordships’ House would do that but it is something that happens out there in the community and about which we must be careful.
I am glad that we have had the debate. I trust that we understand the very early stage we are at. It is good that there is some indication here: the paper demonstrates that CBT and GET are helpful, and probably more helpful than other things, but there is a lot more to do. We should encourage people to get into the research work, not just for the ideology issue but to find what helps, and we should not pillory people who come in because that only drives people out of the research. That is the last thing we want to see.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Mar for tabling this Question for Short Debate concerning the PACE trial. I must declare an interest as former chair of East London NHS Foundation Trust. Professor White, a leading researcher in the PACE trial, works as a consultant in that trust in addition to his research post at Queen Mary, University of London.
CFS/ME can be a seriously disabling syndrome. I like to refer to it as a syndrome because it seems to be not one but a number of diseases. NICE compares the physical symptoms of CFS/ME with those of multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus—if I can pronounce that correctly—and rheumatoid arthritis, probably three of the most fearsome illnesses one can think of. To make matters worse for sufferers, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, so rightly said, the causes and disease processes of CFS/ME are not yet understood. That must be a deeply frightening thing for any patient.
Doctors can misdiagnose sufferers or, worse still, dismiss them as not really physically ill at all. I understand that for some, some psychological aspects may be important and for others they may not. I am aware of people who have had major viruses and suddenly been struck down, having led very active lives, getting on with things and being fine. We have to be very careful about any assumptions, whether physical, psychological or whatever.
CFS/ME is all too real. Of course we need much more research. I await the outcome of Professor White’s cytokine research later this year, for example. We look to the MRC and others to prioritise this distressing syndrome. Thankfully, the MRC has two boards—it probably has others, too. One funds studies such as PACE and the other funds studies into the immune system, and viral and genetic considerations. The PACE study did not in any way affect funding for organic CFS/ME research. That is terribly important because there are fears that it may have done.
As the noble Lord said, the experts believe that in time a number of distinct diseases will be identified that currently fall within the CFS/ME label. In the mean time, NICE recommends CBT and/or graded exercise therapy for people with mild or moderate CFS/ME because these are the interventions for which there is the clearest evidence of benefit to patients. No doubt in time treatments that attack the causes and achieve better and faster results will be developed but in the mean time it is a great step forward that, as in the PACE trial, 22% of patients recover—I agree that there is debate about the word “recovery”—after only 13 sessions of CBT or graded exercise.
Meanwhile, 60% of patients achieve significant improvements in both fatigue and exercise levels after the same period, according to the PACE study, which certainly fits with my experience of the limited number of people—about half a dozen—who I know. A meta-analysis showed a 50% recovery rate after one year. These results are very significantly better than spontaneous recovery rates or those following alternative available treatments. From our most helpful discussion on Monday, I understand that my noble friend Lady Mar respects the PACE study but, very reasonably in my view, has grave concerns about the spin put upon the results. People have to be very careful. We all know what happens once things get into the media but the spin that is put on these things is really important for patients. Things can be very hurtful.
I understand that the DWP may treat people as workshy if they have not undergone a CBT/GET treatment regime. At least a quarter of PCT areas do not have any specialist services for these patients. Others have nothing but grossly inadequate services at a pathetic level. It is essential that the DWP and, indeed, insurance companies take account of the non-availability of such services in many areas. Will the Minister pass on this concern to the noble Lord, Lord Freud? The DWP also needs to be aware that CFS/ME patients can take time to improve. I am not an expert but out of the people I know, several have needed much longer than one year to recover acceptable levels of functioning.
In terms of returning to work, the PACE trial had no effect whatever on the numbers of CFS/ME patients in work. I would not expect it to have done. These people have been, on average, out of work for two and a half years before they entered the trial, and from all the work that numbers of us have done over many years, we know that it is incredibly difficult to get people back into work if they have been out of work for two and a half or three and a half years. However, the social care costs and the need for family support were reduced. People were much better—not necessarily completely better but an awful lot of them were much better.
I now want to address a few other issues arising from the PACE study, including the fact that 10% of patients deteriorated during the trial. I understand that all these deteriorations resulted from life events or other infections during the trial period. We know well that serious life events or further infections do—or can—cause relapses in this horrible set of illnesses or this syndrome. Secondly, there is the question of whether ME patients benefited from the PACE trial. I am reliably informed that 51% of the patients in the PACE trial had been defined as having ME. I know there are all sorts of debates about that definition, but there was no significant difference in the outcome of treatment for patients who had been deemed to be suffering from ME relative to patients who had been given the CFS label.
Concerns have been expressed about the 11 serious adverse reactions to treatment. The 10 “possible” adverse reactions were equally distributed across the four treatment types. There is no indication that CBT or GET caused any problems. There was one “probable” serious adverse reaction, which was in the medical treatment group and was a reaction to an anti-depressant. Some of us are very familiar with the fact that people can have reactions to anti-depressants, but there is no evidence that CBT or GET can be dangerous.
The PACE trial is the largest ever trial of treatments of this debilitating set of conditions and has received acclaim from clinicians and scientists across the world. Some have wanted to criticise it for changes to the protocol, but those were made before the analysis and were approved by the independent trial steering committee; they were not fixes. The changes were minor and did not affect the results or conclusions in any significant way. Any potential conflicts of interest were published alongside all the papers, and none applied to the statisticians who did the analysis.
It is very encouraging that the Association of Young People with ME accepts that the NICE guidelines are useful for patients and healthcare practitioners. They are right. In conclusion, will the Minister give the Committee an assurance that the Commissioning Board will, in future, give equal priority to the specialist services needed for CFS/ME to that which they give for rheumatoid arthritis and MS?
Lord Layard
My Lords, I too greatly welcome this debate. This is a terrible condition and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who are suffering from it. While it is clear that although there have been many studies relative to the seriousness and pervasiveness of this condition, there is far too little research into what is causing it. I want to focus on treatment, as there have been terrible misunderstandings and misconceptions put about on that score.
I want to make just four points. First, the issue of what causes the condition is often quite different from how we can best treat it. This is such a basic point but it is not fully understood by many of the people suffering from this condition. Coronary heart disease may be caused by cholesterol but we treat it with a stent. In the same way, chronic fatigue may be caused by a virus yet the best treatment available at the moment may include psychological therapy. This form of treatment implies nothing about what we believe to be the cause. People who suffer from CFS, and who in almost all cases feel that it is not psychological in origin, are surely making a mistake when they reject psychological support for their condition on the grounds that this implies something about its cause. In their own interest, they should focus on what is the best possible treatment available on the evidence.
Secondly, we have quite a lot of evidence about which treatments work. More will surely be discovered in future and some of them will surely be biological. In the mean time, we have a large amount of evidence that both CBT and graded exercise therapy enable many more people to recover than if the only treatment they have is standard medical care. My main point here is that this is so, whatever the definition of recovery. It is wrong to suggest that this all depends upon that definition; you can put the cut-off for recovery in many different places and you will always find that people who get CBT and graded exercise therapy do better than people who have only standard medical care. There are many studies preceding PACE to show this. Of course, that is the main finding of PACE, which I would say is a fine piece of work by all normal standards. Some of the criticisms are really misleading but some of them have been answered already.
I come back to this question of the change in the protocol to stress that this was made before any analysis was done of the results. It was not that they looked at the results and said, “Let’s change the recovery criteria”. The changes were made because of discussions affecting the whole research world and agreed by the trial steering committee. What is very interesting is that a separate paper has been written simply on the recovery issue, which uses five or six different criteria of recovery. Again, in the PACE study it is shown that whatever cut-off you use, you get the same difference between the outcome of CBT and graded exercise therapy. There really is not a conjuring trick going on here and it is wrong for this impression to be given to the community of people who are suffering, if that leads to them not receiving help which they could really benefit from. Instead of criticising the study, we should be rejoicing that we again have more evidence that something can be done which is better than standard medical care.
My third point has, in a way, been made before but given the strength of this evidence that we have these treatments which work, it is shocking that they are so little available. This is part of a wider story of the non-availability of psychological therapy. The survey that was done by Action for M.E. found that a large number of PCTs were providing no specialist treatment clinics for this condition—or were not providing any kind of care, let alone this most evidence-based care. That is a disgrace and I hope that the Minister can say something about that.
The treatments are not unsafe, a claim that is often put about due to the fact that, of course, some people get worse during treatment. The only argument against the treatment, if it were the case, would be if people who did not receive it were less likely to get worse. Again, the statistics are absolutely clear: the proportion of people who get worse in treatment is no higher than that for people who get worse who are not in treatment. There is no argument whatever that this is unsafe.
My fourth point is about how we can get a better deal for this large group of sufferers. Obviously, the worst possible way to get it is to turn the area into a battleground. It gives the commissioners the perfect excuse for doing nothing and gives people of good will, who might come in and try to help people with this condition, a serious disincentive for getting into this field. As we know, and has already been said, many—or certainly some—of the people who work in this area have received repeated insults and even death threats. I pay particular tribute to Sir Simon Wessely at King’s College London, who has led the field for many years in this area and has stuck to it, despite all this harassment. He and his colleagues—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the noble Lord is in his seventh minute. We are very tight on time and I am worried that the Minister will not have time to reply.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Mar for raising such an important topic. I have read the research very carefully in preparing my short contribution.
We know that some patients who develop symptoms of CFS/ME will recover fully but that the majority go on to have a fluctuating long-term condition. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that there is no single cause for this condition. Some 10% to 12% of people who have glandular fever develop the symptoms of CFS/ME, but there are many other precipitants, too. It is a very distressing condition for people to have and is confusing and difficult for families, friends and employers, particularly because the condition may fluctuate in its effects so dramatically and vary in its severity. It is not surprising that people with CFS/ME may feel that they are not believed and that their family and friends are unsympathetic at times. Imagine living with an illness that fluctuates, recurs after mild exertion and is associated with what people describe as brain fog? As it stands, a very limited range of therapies are available and, understandably, this patient group has ended up feeling overlooked and neglected.
The greatest weapon against illness and disease is robust, peer-reviewed research. Research into both causation and the factors that sustain symptoms is important, as is research into effective interventions. I am particularly pleased that current biomedical research funded by the MRC is trying to understand some of the mechanisms at play, including by looking at mitochondrial function, autonomic dysfunction and sleep disturbance. It is essential that we continue to look at the best possible treatments.
I will speak briefly about the PACE trial, which of course most noble Lords have spoken about and which enrolled 640 participants. Just last week, the follow-up study, looking at recovery after one year, was published in the journal Psychological Medicine. Noble Lords may know that the trial showed that an average of only 13 sessions of CBT or graded exercise therapy, over just six months and as a supplement to good specialist medical care, had rates of recovery of 22%. My understanding is that, by “recovery”, the researchers included the fact that after a year these patients no longer met the criteria for CFS/ME. This would be heralded as a fantastic outcome for the treatment of MS, Parkinson’s disease or cancer. Only 8% of those receiving adaptive pacing therapy and 7% of those receiving just specialist medical care achieved the same degree of recovery. In other words, the successful treatments were three times more likely to lead to recovery than the comparison treatments. Of course, that was after just one year, but follow-up is continuing, and I look forward to hearing whether these results will be sustained. I hope the Minister will agree with me that it would be very useful for this study to be funded for follow-up for five years, particularly given the fluctuating nature of the condition.
Better outcomes are achieved for all illnesses, from heart disease and cancer to schizophrenia and depression, when the overall well-being of the patient—biological, psychological and social—is taken into account. That is not to say that there is no physical reason behind the onset of illness, or that physiological effects are not continuing to maintain or modify the disease process. My noble friend’s debate today is concerned with both health and care, including access to benefits. It is yet another reminder of the importance of a holistic approach to care, an intertwining of body and mind. This complex interaction has been acknowledged since ancient times but somehow, over the past 100 years, with the elucidation of many physical causes for illness, the mind-body connection has been somewhat forgotten. Thankfully, this connection has again been brought to the fore by the Government’s welcome commitment to parity of esteem between physical and mental health. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, of which I am a former president, has long been concerned about the physical effects of psychological stress and the psychological effects of physical stress. Interdisciplinary research—which brings together, for example, the neuropsychiatrist with the immunologist—is vitally important.
Could the Minister clarify whether the arrangements being made to ensure that evidence-based treatments, such as those tested in the PACE trial and recommended by NICE, are commissioned and that they do not fall through any gaps caused by what has been called an orphan status for this condition? To explain what I mean, CFS/ME can be classified under both neurological and psychiatric disorders for clinical purposes; it is not clearly claimed by any one specialist group as being its primary responsibility. This means that many people diagnosed with CFS/ME will not be referred to a specialist centre and that the treatment they need will just not be available. Research will shine more light on this condition and begin to distinguish whether subgroups of patients will be more responsive to different new treatments being evidenced and introduced.
Research is needed into all aspects of the illness so that more effective treatments can be found. This must include both biological aspects and any psychological factors that may sustain or lead to the further deterioration of the illness such as, for example, major life events, which are known to cause a relapse in CFS/ME patients. Thankfully, the MRC has recognised the past underinvestment in this poorly understood condition—or set of conditions—by highlighting it as a priority area for research. Through the particular efforts of Professor Stephen Holgate, the CFS/ME research collaborative mentioned by my noble friend will be launched in April, bringing together researchers from all relevant disciplines with patient groups and charities. This is so important. The future is looking brighter for people with CFS/ME and the constructive collaboration of people with different perspectives and contributions will, I hope, prove to be a major step forward.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate and acknowledge the work of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on CFS/ME as chair of Forward-ME and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group. Although a last-minute stand-in in this debate for my noble friend Lord Hunt—he is due shortly in the Chamber for the Statement on the Mid Staffs report—I am not new to this issue. As the noble Countess regularly contributes on CFS/ME to health debates I have participated in, most recently our extensive debate last November on neurological diseases, initiated by my noble friend Lady Ford. What is new to me is the focus on the PACE trial and the opportunity to hear from our expert medical and psychiatrist colleagues about the wider issues and perspectives, and about the trial itself: what it covered, who was involved, its findings and results and the wider, extensive research that is currently being undertaken across the world.
As we have heard, the PACE trial was the largest-ever randomised controlled trial of treatments of CFS/ME, primarily funded by the Medical Research Council following competitive peer review, with its main findings concerning efficacy and safety published in the Lancet. It was designed to compare improvements in safety after CBT and GET with outcomes after ADP and SMC. The patients were recruited from hospital clinics in England and Scotland, and were able to travel to clinics to receive treatment. The trial was not designed to test treatments in patients with severely disabling illness. As a non-expert, it seems to me that some of the criticisms and disappointments levelled at PACE do not fully recognise this.
As we have heard from noble Lords in this debate, the trial provided clear evidence that both CBT and GET were better than ADP or SMC in improving both symptoms and disability. In fact, all the treatments were found to be safe without any serious reactions to treatments in any of the treatment groups. I understand that a paper published last week showed that CBT and GET are three times more likely to bring about recovery than any other treatments.
Like other speakers, I want to underline the importance of looking to the future. On the NICE guidelines, I support noble Lords who stress that the key issue about them is making sure that they are actually implemented, so that patients can receive effective treatment and care wherever they live in the UK.
In the debate on 20 November, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, assured the House that all the neurological and specialist conditions would have “equal priority” under the new NHS commissioning arrangements, and that this would mean that the Cinderella conditions should be improved. Can the noble Baroness outline the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that the commissioning arrangements provide appropriate and adequate specialist care for patients suffering from illnesses such as CFS and ME which are not easily classified under normal commissioning arrangements? To help this, will the Government give CCGs guidance on which illnesses should qualify under special commissioning arrangements? Can she reassure us that this guidance will include ensuring that guided exercise training is provided by qualified and trained specialist therapists?
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for initiating this debate. I apologise for the fact that my noble friend Lord Howe cannot be here, as he is in the Chamber making the Mid Staffs Statement. I, too, am a last-minute replacement.
I know that the noble Countess has a particular and personal interest in the subject and I pay tribute to the way in which she continues to raise issues of concern in your Lordships’ House, as well as her unswerving commitment to improving the experience of people living with CFS/ME. I recognise how distressing and debilitating the condition can be for individuals, their carers and their families. Equally, I recognise the difficulties that many patients face in getting the treatment and care they need to help them manage their illness and, where they can, make a recovery; we have heard that this afternoon. I am sure that we all agree that the most important thing is to ensure that patients receive the treatment and care that they need.
At this point it is worth acknowledging that, while many patients feel let down by the system, many patients have had a positive experience and have worked with health and social care professionals to manage their care effectively. It is also important to acknowledge that doctors and other professionals working in this field are highly committed to providing the best possible care for their patients. We want to see people with CFS/ME being listened to when it comes to decisions about what type of treatment and care may best meet their individual needs and, across the country, many doctors are working with their patients to achieve this. I hear what my noble friend Lord Alderdice says on this.
There is no doubt that there is widespread uncertainty surrounding this condition; that has shone through in this debate. There is controversy, disagreement and divided and often polarised opinion about its causes and the best way to treat it. The kind of issues raised by the noble Countess today have surrounded the debate for many years. We have seen how passionate but how often opposed are those seeking to address these problems in the debate this afternoon.
It is an unfortunate fact that despite a great deal of worldwide research—the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made clear how extensive this is—we do not yet know definitively the cause or causes of CFS/ME: whether it is a disease; a condition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, described it; or a syndrome, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, described it. The noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Layard, surely are right that it is concerning if researchers are in any way intimidated as they seek to clarify these problems.
CFS/ME is not alone in being mystifying. We do not know the causes of most cancers and other diseases such as Alzheimer’s. That lack of knowledge, however, has not stopped us from seeking the best forms of treatment. Many of these diseases are treated well even though we do not know their causes. I quite agree that more research is needed. In the mean time, patients want access to the best treatments that are available. So far, the only treatments that seem to have shown any benefit in clinical trials have been cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy, but I have heard what noble Lords have said in regard to those.
This brings me to the PACE trial that has prompted today’s debate. The MRC’s decision to fund this trial was based on the fact that there was a lack of high-quality evidence to inform the treatment of CFS/ME and, in particular, on the need to evaluate the treatments that were already in use and for which there was insufficiently strong evidence from randomised controlled trials to support their effectiveness. The decision to fund this trial was based on the MRC’s usual rigorous peer- review process for clinical trials, as noble Lords have emphasised. The experts who reviewed the application were satisfied that the design put forward was of high quality, would provide useful evidence to help doctors and patients decide whether any of the four treatments to be evaluated was likely to be worth pursuing, and would help to inform decisions on the provision of treatment by the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, and others argued that this was a controlled and rigorous study. All agree that research is needed.
I shall try to address the challenges that were raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. She expressed concern about the selection method for participants. I assure her that having neurological symptoms, such as memory difficulties or muscle weakness, did not exclude anyone from taking part in the trial since these symptoms were medically recognised symptoms of the condition. While researchers used the Oxford definition to define the condition in the PACE trial, participants were also assessed to see whether they met the international Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria to see whether the effects of treatments were different in those who met this alternative definition. The independent members of the trial steering committee reviewed and agreed the plans for secondary analysis.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, also expressed concern about the recovery statistics and other areas in relation to the protocol. As for all MRC-funded studies, it is the responsibility of the investigators and the relevant journals, guided by peer reviewers, to determine how findings are published and when. The investigators’ first paper on the outcomes of the PACE study was published in the Lancet in March 2011. A later paper was published in August 2012, which dealt with the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Further papers will be published, including papers showing a long-term follow-up after two and a half years. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, made a very important point about follow-up, and no doubt the MRC will bear that in mind and will look at this debate. Follow-up in all these trials is very important.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked about severely disabled patients being excluded from the trial. Patients had to be able to attend hospital for treatment, but a number needed mobility aids and others received treatment by telephone when they were too unwell to attend a clinic once they had been recruited. She also asked whether the trial data could be reanalysed. As she will know, there are ethical and legal barriers to releasing data to a member of the public without consent when these data contain medical information that might identify the patient. The main outcome data have already been independently analysed by a Cochrane Collaboration group and a paper is being prepared for publication. I know that she will look at that with interest.
An often voiced criticism is that the money spent on the PACE trial would have been better spent on research into causes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, indicated, the two are not mutually exclusive. While understanding the cause of the condition is obviously important, if potential treatments are available, it is equally important to test their effectiveness so that they can be introduced into service. Of relevance to this is that the PACE trial tested adaptive pacing therapy, which had not previously been tested in a large trial and which is supported by patient organisations. Various noble Lords have paid tribute to the quality of the research, even though the noble Countess, Lady Mar, was more sceptical.
As the noble Countess is aware, the findings of the PACE study reflect the recommendations in current NICE guidance. I understand that concerns have been expressed that patients may have their choices about care restricted because the PACE trial supports their non-recommendation by NICE or that patients may be forced into treatments they do not want because they are recommended. I assure noble Lords that clinical guidelines published by NICE help to promote consistency but recognise that patients are individuals who may require different forms of management. Clinicians are therefore free to adapt the guidelines when deciding, in consultation with their patients, the most appropriate treatment. NICE routinely reviews the need to update its guidance in order to take account of the latest available evidence. As the noble Countess is aware, CFS/ME is currently a highlighted area and a high priority for the MRC. The high-quality research stimulated by the MRC’s recent call will add to the future evidence base.
Concern has been expressed that the findings of the trial will be used to reduce the number of people with CFS/ME on state benefits. That was flagged up briefly by noble Lords. I should like to dispel straight away the idea that CFS/ME is not recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions as a potentially serious condition. For example, there are no targets for finding individuals fit for work in the work capability assessment process. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, raised this particular issue and asked whether patients who do not comply with the CBT or take the treatment recommended to them might have their benefits withdrawn. I can assure her that that is not the case. Entitlement to employment support allowance is not based on compliance with specific treatments and anyone claiming ESA will undergo the work capability assessment. That assessment is founded on the premise that eligibility should not be based on a person’s condition or the treatment regime for it but, rather, on the way that that condition limits their functional capability. I am happy to flag this debate to the DWP, as the noble Baroness asked me to, in regard to the availability of services.
The noble Baroness also asked me about the NHS Commissioning Board and whether it would give equal weight to a number of other diseases. I can assure her that the mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board will ensure that improvements are made to the quality of life for all people living with long-term conditions, including this one.
The noble Lord, Lord Layard, asked me about specialist treatment provided by PCTs. In the new system, clinical commissioning groups will be responsible for commissioning specialist CFS/ME services. As he knows, they comprise front-line clinicians. We certainly hope that they will therefore have a good understanding of their local communities, including patients with these problems. The NHS Commissioning Board will hold those CCGs accountable for the services that they commission, as well as providing support—for example, through the development of commissioning guides. I understand that Martin McShane, long-term conditions lead at the NHS Commissioning Board, has already met with the CFS/ME patient groups to discuss their concerns. Those discussions will inform the board’s work as things move forward.
The Government’s aim is to help individuals who are suffering from these problems both to receive appropriate treatment and to get back to work where they can do so. They also seek a better understanding of the situation that these individuals are in. The PACE trial was funded to respond to the concerns of patients, carers and doctors that more research into CFS/ME was required. Of course, we all hope that health research results in people becoming healthier and fewer suffering from these kinds of problems. This is obviously a major focus for the MRC in making its individual funding decisions.
In conclusion, I hope that the noble Countess will agree that we are sympathetic to the needs of patients with CFS/ME. I appreciate, as do other noble Lords, her many concerns. I hope that I have reassured her that we are investing in improved services for CFS/ME patients and in an expanded research programme—noble Lords have emphasised the importance of research moving forward in this area—and that this should make a difference to the lives of the many people affected by this condition. That is the Government’s priority.
House of Lords
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Children: Obesity
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the factors contributing to the rise in childhood obesity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, obesity is a complex issue, and there are many factors that contribute to children becoming obese. We are committed to tackling obesity in children. Our call to action on obesity sets out the actions that everyone needs to take. For our part we will continue investing in the Change4Life programme, the national child measurement programme, and the School Games.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, one-third of our children are already obese, and the fact is that cheap fast food can be a major contributor to obesity. The Government’s responsibility deal for calorie reduction has signed up 31 companies, which have promised to reformulate their products to make them less fattening. However, according to the Department of Health’s website, not one of these signatories is a fast-food operator. Does this not suggest a failure of the voluntary approach and that we need regulation, as the BMA says, to make food companies play their proper part in reducing obesity?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. In fact, the responsibility deal has led to a number of very important gains and benefits, not least from food companies: food retailers as well as food manufacturers. Calorie labelling, for example, has expanded rapidly in out-of-home settings; we now have labelling in around 9,000 outlets across the country, which is to be welcomed. As my noble friend said, 31 companies, some of them household names, have signed up to the responsibility deal calorie reduction pledge. However, this is an area that we continue to work on, and I think my noble friend’s comments are well placed.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, will the Minister accept that in Wales the figures for childhood obesity in those aged between 2 and 15 are three percentage points worse than those in England? As responsibility for some aspects of these matters is devolved and for others is not, can his department take up with the Government of Wales in Cardiff how a coherent plan can be undertaken to tackle this?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that we tread warily when it comes to interfering in the affairs of the devolved Administrations. However, I take his point, because on serious public health messages such as this we need to have a co-ordinated approach. Members of my department are in regular contact with their counterparts in Wales.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, the Minister mentioned sport. Beneficial as it is, does he accept that obesity is caused overwhelmingly by overeating and eating foods that cause obesity? Are there any media initiatives to direct young people to what is healthy to eat and to foods that cause less obesity, as well as to sports programmes?
Earl Howe
I completely agree with the noble Baroness that for children especially, exercise and sport are vital, which is why there are a number of initiatives in that area. She asked about media campaigns. Change4Life continues to support families to make simple changes to adopt a healthier diet and increase their physical activity levels. We are currently planning a summer campaign to encourage physical activity in children. The campaign remains subject to formal approval but is very much in our minds. Change4Life, I would just add, uses the full range of communication channels, including TV advertising, press, and local supporter activity. It is a well known brand and we intend to stick with it.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, does not the Answer to the first Question on the Order Paper really depend upon the plans that the Minister will deploy before the House in his Answer to the second Question?
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I am going to take two bites of the cherry because I shall also briefly address the second Question. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, constantly reminds me that eating too many calories, not simply not exercising, is what causes me to be overweight, although I do exercise. However, when I pick up and eat a tub of low-fat yoghurt, which I have been doing for the past few years, thinking that I am eating healthily, I have not been able to read the very small print that states that this “low-fat, healthy” tub of yoghurt is packed full of sugars and calories. Actually, just before Christmas, I stopped eating low-fat yoghurts and I hope that noble Lords will appreciate the effect it has had on me. However, my specific question is: when will the noble Earl take the necessary statutory steps to ensure proper food labelling?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, food labelling is largely governed by EU law and, at the moment, the EU directive is permissive about front-of-pack labelling. However, I take his point that it is very important that consumers are properly informed about what they are eating, and we are working with food manufacturers and retailers to ensure that there is much greater transparency in this area, across the piece, whether it relates to sugar, fats or salt.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, does he not agree that cheap food has become far more delicious than it was in the youth of most people in this Chamber? Secondly, children like to copy their heroes. Could not the media be persuaded to make greater use of physical heroes, such as footballers, tennis players or any kind of sporting hero, in order to promote less obesity?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes a very good point about role models. To a certain extent, that has been tried and tested in the past with some success. As regards food and its taste, I would say each to their own, but she is right that we are encouraged in all sorts of subtle ways to eat more than we used to in years gone by. The responsibility deal calorie reduction pledge specifically enables businesses to contribute to our challenge to the nation in this area, which we issued as part of the call to action on obesity in 2011, to reduce total calorie consumption by 5 billion calories a day.
Health: Sugar Consumption
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to help people reduce their sugar consumption.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, we have challenged business, through our responsibility deal calorie reduction pledge, to take action to help people eat fewer calories. This can include helping reduce sugar consumption. Businesses are already taking action; for example, soft drinks manufacturers which are signed up to the calorie reduction pledge are reducing sugar and calories in their drinks, and we are looking to others to join force.
The Government are also helping consumers to reduce their calorie intake by providing practical advice through NHS Choices and via the Change4Life campaign.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Health that legislation may be required in this area if other measures do not succeed? In the mean time, does he think consideration needs to be given to changing tax regimes so that the tax may be rather higher on very sugary soft drinks, and rather lower on drinks that are less full of sugar? Does he also think that we may need to restrict the amount of sugar provided in some products, such as breakfast cereals targeted at children, so that parents either as consumers themselves or watching their children can see how many spoons of sugar are going on to their cereal, rather than simply accepting the amount of sugar already produced by the manufacturers?
Earl Howe
My noble friend asks a number of questions. I am sure he will have welcomed, as I did, the announcement a few days ago by two major manufacturers of sugary drinks that they were substantially reducing the sugar content of their drinks. This is in part a result of the engagement that we have had with the food industry, which, in public health terms, is taking on responsibility for the products that it makes.
While there are advocates for taxation, in 2012 my department reviewed the international evidence of the effect of taxation on people’s consumption of food and drink. There is very limited empirical evidence, certainly from literature, but also in practice that that has an effect on body weight or health outcomes. There is a range of possible unintended consequences, including swapping for other foods which may be even less healthy than the ones that we are trying to cut out.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the overeating habits of pregnant women can be programmed into the foetus, so that when born the children will not stand a chance unless people accept that the answer to the obesity epidemic is to eat less? Although exercise is important in reducing cholesterol, for well-being and so on, it has very little to do with the control of the obesity epidemic.
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes a good point, but in healthy children exercise is very important as a preventive measure for obesity and diabetes. The central point he makes is absolutely right. We look to healthcare workers, not only health visitors but also midwives, through programmes such as the Healthy Child programme and Start for Life, to get families and children off to the right start, so that they eat properly and live healthy lifestyles.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, does the Minister think sweeteners are a good substitute for sugar or do they have side effects?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we are clear that artificial sweeteners are safe if taken as intended. That is the advice of the European Food Safety Authority and we take that advice. However, encouraging people to take low-diet fizzy drinks, for example, in preference to sugary drinks is problematic because all fizzy drinks have an adverse effect on tooth enamel. We need to be balanced in our messages but we think that artificial sweeteners have a role in a proper calorie-controlled diet.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, are the Government aware of a study by the Dutch Government which links obesity with exercise—in particular, walking or cycling—in inverse proportion? Given that the same study says that we are the most obese country in Europe, will he encourage cycling to be taken up by more children and persuade the Department for Transport to take this a bit more seriously by get moving in encouraging more children to cycle to and from school and for leisure?
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, we have already heard mention of the importance of the proper labelling of foods. Could that labelling be such that even the youngest child, perhaps with type 1 diabetes, would be able to understand it without having to go into some mathematical equation to decide exactly what is good for him to eat?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend may know that a UK-wide consultation on front-of-pack labelling was held last year. We published a formal response to it at the end of January. The responses identified a number of issues which we need to consider further and officials are working on those. However, my noble friend is absolutely right that not just the calorie content but the clarity of the messages around calories need to be clear not only to adults but to children.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
Does the noble Earl know that drinking alcohol is a big factor in introducing sugar into the body? The drinks industry is totally exempt from any requirement to show the calorific effect of alcohol, or indeed its energy factors. Is the Minister happy that the partners in the responsibility deal within the drinks industry are taking no action on that issue, or is he prepared to say that the Government will push through the responsibility deal to try to bring about some change?
Earl Howe
My Lords, our alcohol strategy includes a commitment for the Responsibility Deal Alcohol Network to seek to make further progress on including energy information as part of the responsibility deal alcohol-labelling pledge. We have already secured provisions in recent EU labelling legislation that will enable companies to provide this information on a voluntary basis. The pledge on improving information for consumers in the off-trade area already includes a commitment to raise awareness of the energy content of alcoholic drinks, and we will continue along those lines.
House of Lords: Reform
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to proceed with any reforms to the composition of the House of Lords.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, as noble Lords know, the Government have no further plans for legislation to reform this House in this Parliament.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, given that the House of Commons has made it absolutely clear that it will not tolerate the challenge to its primacy of an elected second Chamber, given the Deputy Prime Minister’s sensible acknowledgement that the best is the enemy of the good and given the undesirability in the interests of good government that the question of Lords reform should overshadow the next Parliament, will Ministers introduce legislation in this Parliament to enable us to resolve the issues of how Members are to be appointed to the House of Lords, the future size of the House, how the balance between the political parties, the Cross Benches and the Lords spiritual is to be determined, the future of hereditary membership and life peerages, and provision for retirement and disqualification, all of which need to be resolved and upon which sufficient consensus could be achieved?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Having picked my way around this landscape over the past few weeks and having had the chance to talk to and understand the concerns of many noble Lords, I am not sure that it would be as easy to secure consensus as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, suggests. He is clearly a great optimist if he believes that that is the case not only in this House but between this House and the other place. I obviously understand the points that many noble Lords raised about some of these issues that we discuss but, in the light of last year’s debate and the views that the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear, there is no prospect of further legislation for those issues that would require legislation.
Lord Laming
Bearing in mind the financial situation and the concerns expressed all round about the impact of that on the poorest people in our society, does the Leader of the House agree that it would not enhance the reputation of this House for public funds to be used to encourage people to give up the privilege of serving in this House?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree personally and in principle with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. When the rest of the country is facing huge economic challenges, as the noble Lord said, to spend taxpayers’ money in such a way would be difficult, but I also agree with the underlying point of principle, which is that it is an honour and a privilege to serve in this House, and the idea that if one ceased to want to fulfil that honour and privilege, one would need to be compensated financially, sits oddly with the principle it serves.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, in his role as Leader of the House and as the representative of this House in Cabinet, will my noble friend take the opportunity to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the article in today’s Times by the Lord Speaker, and impress on him that it represents the feelings of the vast majority of people in this House? Further, will he talk to the Deputy Prime Minister and say to him that his refusal to allow the Steel Bill to go forward is unacceptable, given the strength of feeling shown in both Houses about the size of the Houses of Parliament and the importance of getting value for taxpayers’ money?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am sure that all the points that have been raised in this debate are being seen by my colleagues in the Cabinet, including by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. I understand the points raised about the size of this House. It is important to have the ability to refresh the House, bring in new talent and draw on the expertise for which this House is rightly renowned. One of the reasons why I was particularly keen to do this job is because I saw as a Minister the difference between this House and another place in terms of the quality of the scrutiny that this House provides, and it is extremely important that we should carry on having the Members to enable us to do so.
Baroness Hayman
My Lords, will the Leader reconsider the pessimism implicit in his original reply? It is intolerable that the failure of the Government’s plans for an elected House should stand in the way of progress on a reform agenda that is widely supported and which is urgently needed for the reputation of this House. The noble Lord could do the House a great service by championing that reform agenda, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. Will he undertake so to do?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I hope that I can always be a champion of this House, about which I feel extremely strongly. On the point about me being a pessimist, I like to think that I am an optimist. I am optimistic about this House, about its future and about the contribution that it makes to our national debate. I have, though, to be realistic about the consequence of the debate and the votes that took place. We know that the other place said at some point that it was in favour of an elected House; it did not then will the means for that to happen. Given where we got to last October, I am not a pessimist but I am realistic.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Is the Leader of the House aware that following consultations with the Chief Whip, and as he rightly advised me, I postponed the Motion that I was to bring forward stopping further introductions until 28 February, which is the day before my Bill is next due to be blocked by the government Whips in the House of Commons. It would helpful if he, I and others could use the intervening time to try to persuade the powers that be at the other end that this is really a housekeeping measure purely affecting the Lords that we would like them to be nice enough to send back to us.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand that point. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and am glad that I have already had the chance to discuss his proposals with him and others. I would be happy to do so again. He, I am sure, can use his powers of persuasion with colleagues in his own party, including the Deputy Prime Minister. I know that he will try and we will then see how we get on.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I would like to take him back to his first Answer. He suggested that it would be difficult to get a consensus in your Lordships’ House on interim changes. Why does he not put it to the test? There are various groups meeting at the moment in this House discussing these matters. There is a great deal of consensus. Why does he not call those groups together, or have a Leader’s Group, to see if we can make progress when there is a clear and huge majority of your Lordships’ House in favour of making sensible interim changes?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Again, the noble Lord says there is a lot of consensus around this. The conversations I have had with people so far do not bear out that optimistic gloss. I am keen to talk to Members of this House who have views, and that is something I will continue to do.
Taxation: Avoidance
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have to deal with any abuse of charitable status for the purposes of tax avoidance.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton)
My Lords, an organisation must be a charity, under the law of England and Wales, and meet certain other conditions in order to qualify for UK charity tax reliefs. Whether an organisation established in England or Wales is a charity in law is a matter for the Charity Commission. The Government are considering the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on updating charity law following his review of the Charities Act 2006.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I notice that when you complete your tax return, one section asks you to say whether you are a member of a tax avoidance scheme. I am always amazed by that. That makes me wonder whether certain tax avoidance schemes are recognised and approved by the Treasury. Can the noble Lord tell me whether the Cup Trust, which is the one that has been so widely accused in the recent press, is known and approved by the Treasury, or whether it is unknown and that it has come as a shock to the Treasury to have this revelation in the press?
Lord Deighton
My Lords, I cannot comment on the tax affairs of individual taxpayers but what I can do is speak generally. Schemes that abuse the gift aid rules with a view to enabling individuals to avoid tax do fall within the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes rules. That means that anyone who uses such a scheme must disclose it on their tax return. HMRC can then identify those individuals and challenge the reliefs claimed where appropriate.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, are not the charities that most significantly avoid tax on dubious grounds the public schools? Many of them were granted charitable status when they educated the poor or those of middling incomes. They now clearly educate, overwhelmingly, the children of the wealthy and the privileged, as evidenced by the Conservative Front Bench in the Commons.
Lord Deighton
As I said in my original Answer, the issue of whether an organisation qualifies as a charity is for the Charities Commission. The review of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which reported in the middle of 2012, was given an initial response by the Government just before Christmas. The Public Administration Select Committee is also looking at this and will report, I think, in March. At that point the Government will give their further recommendations on the regulation of the charities sector. That will deal with the issue of which organisations qualify as charities, including public schools.
Lord Strasburger
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether alleged tax avoidance schemes, such as those operated by the Cup Trust, are likely to be caught by the general anti-avoidance rules when they are introduced? Can he also confirm that the general anti-avoidance rules are still scheduled to be introduced in this year’s Finance Bill?
Lord Deighton
I thank my noble friend for giving me the chance to shed further light on this issue. HMRC is extremely clear that circular schemes which are designed to exploit gift aid do not work in tax law. It will challenge and litigate enthusiastically against any scheme that it believes does not work in tax law. As the schemes do not work in tax law, the anti-avoidance provisions are not necessary and the schemes should fall at the first hurdle of not being legally acceptable. However, I can confirm that it is the Government’s intention to include the general anti-avoidance rules as part of the Finance Bill 2013.
Lord Richard
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a principle of English law that that which is not forbidden is permitted? Do not the Government recognise that merely to go on bleating from the sidelines and telling people that they should not avoid tax will have absolutely no effect whatever? Clever lawyers will be able to devise ways of continuing to avoid tax. If the Government want to deal with tax avoidance, they will have to legislate to deal with tax avoidance and stop preaching from the sidelines.
Lord Deighton
The Government are prepared to legislate against tax avoidance in the area of charities law. In both 2004 and 2010, Governments legislated to do precisely that. I see this as two distinct areas. On the one hand, we need to create a tax regime which encourages an enterprise economy and giving to charity. On the other hand, the quid pro quo for that kind of positive environment is that people pay their taxes. I can assure the House that HMRC will pursue diligently those who seek to avoid tax.
Lord Lexden
In relation to the Question from the Labour Front Bench, will my noble friend note that independent schools provide far more in bursaries and means-tested scholarships than they receive in benefits through their charitable status?
Lord Deighton
I thank my noble friend for that important addition to the debate. I was not aware of that but I am delighted that he has been able to share it with the House.
Lord Empey
What is the role of the Charity Commission in this? If an organisation pays out to good causes only less than 1% of its revenue, does an alarm bell ring somewhere?
Lord Deighton
In this particular case, as I understand it, the Charity Commission, which works closely with HMRC, investigated the trust but found that it did not have the legal basis to make a challenge. In that context, I refer to the review of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, the follow-up from the Government and the announcement made in the other House this morning that the focus of the new chairman, Mr Shawcross, should be on its role as a regulator.
Hereditary Peers By-Election
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the draft Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012 laid before the House on 26 November 2012 be approved.
Relevant Document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 8 January.
Prisons (Property) Bill
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Pannick
“(d) the conditions regulating the agreement contained in subsection (12) are satisfied.”
Lord Pannick
My Lords, Amendments 81D and 92 are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. They are in the first of a series of groups of amendments which address Clause 27. As your Lordships know, Clause 27 allows employers to buy off employment rights otherwise enjoyed by employees. Under this clause, employees can agree to receive shares worth at least £2,000, in return for which they will lose the right to claim unfair dismissal, the right to claim statutory redundancy pay, the right to request flexible working and the right to request time off for training.
What is so objectionable about Clause 27 is that these employment rights were conferred by Parliament over the past 50 years and have been protected by Governments—both Conservative and Labour—precisely because the inequality of bargaining power between employee and employer means that freedom of contract is quite insufficient to protect the employee or the prospective employee. Therefore, to allow these basic employment rights to be traded as some form of commodity frustrates the very purpose of these entitlements as an essential protection in the employment context.
The concept contained in Clause 27 is especially bizarre when there appears to be no demand whatever from employers for such protection and when responsible employers are introducing genuine share ownership schemes. I can think of only one precedent for Clause 27. It is in Genesis, chapter 25, where Jacob refuses to let his famished brother Esau eat some of the broth he has made until he sells him his rights as the first born. Esau agrees because he is famished and says, “What use is my birthright to me?”, compared to the mess of pottage of which he has immediate need. Your Lordships will come in due course to consider whether the correct response from your Lordships’ House to this mess of pottage is to reject it in its entirety—for all the reasons so powerfully outlined at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in particular.
Amendments 81D and 92 seek to ensure that if we are to have Clause 27 at all, the employee and the prospective employee must at the very least be given the minimum necessary protection to understand what it is that they are giving up. The minimum necessary protection that Amendments 81D and 92 would provide is that the statutory rights could be lost only if the agreement satisfied three essential conditions.
The first is that any agreement in this context must be in writing and must set out the rights being traded and the value of the shares that are to be received. One of the surprising features of Clause 27 is that it does not even require the agreement to be in writing—an invitation to subsequent litigation if ever I saw one. Secondly, the individual must receive legal advice on the consequences of the agreement from an independent lawyer. These matters are surely too important for Parliament to allow employees and prospective employees to give up those basic rights without the legal implications being fully explained to them. The third essential protection is that the individual must have received financial advice from an independent adviser—who must be a regulated person—as to the value and the prospects of the shares that he or she is about to receive and for which they are giving up those basic employment rights
The detail of Amendment 92 is modelled on Section 288 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 288 is a vital provision. It makes an agreement void if it purports to contract out of the employment rights that Parliament has conferred. At the moment, employees and employers simply cannot contract out of employment rights. Clause 27 conflicts with that basic and fundamental principle. However, Section 288 allows for compromise agreements to settle specific employment disputes in individual cases in employment tribunals. That is a very different concept and entirely acceptable in principle.
Section 288 states that one of those compromise agreements in the context of an individual employment dispute is valid only if it is in writing and if the employee who is settling the case has received independent advice on the terms of the agreement by which he or she is settling the claim—advice from a lawyer, a trade union official or an advice centre worker. Clause 27 involves an agreement much more fundamental in its implications for the individual, who is not just settling an individual employment claim in the tribunal but is generally giving up important employment rights for the future. Therefore, in the Clause 27 context—if we are to have Clause 27 at all—the procedural protection that Parliament confers on the employee must be at least as strong as that which Parliament itself has conferred on the employee who is settling a specific employment claim.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has helpfully addressed that very issue. It has expressed concern that Clause 27 may indirectly and unlawfully discriminate, contrary to EU law, against those workers and prospective workers whose first language is not English, those with learning disabilities or young workers. Therefore, the commission says that a proper justification is required and that depends, in its view, on safeguards such as the receipt of informed and independent advice.
I emphasise that Amendments 81D and 92 would not make Clause 27 acceptable. Clause 27 would remain a provision that knows the price of statutory employment rights but ignores the value of those rights. However, because the amendments would make Clause 27 marginally less objectionable, I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, on Second Reading I expressed my concerns about the whole concept behind this clause. Various Ministers have suggested that only a small group of companies are likely to be interested in these proposals: new, high-technology, rapid-growth, micro and small companies which might want to encourage employees into more commitment and endeavour by offering them shares in their company. So far, so good. However, many employers already do this in this sector, especially those running fast-growing, leading-edge, high-tech companies, because they know that they are going to grow much faster than many other companies and they want to commit their staff to working for them, to share the benefits in the longer term and the hardship of trials that most companies face in their start-up phase.
I declare two past interests. First, I have a foster son who has recently been employed by one such firm, joining it from university. He has received a share package as part of his employment. I have talked to him and some of his colleagues about the benefits and whether they would be prepared to talk about giving up their rights. I will come to that later. My second interest is that I advised St John’s College, Cambridge, as it created the St John’s Innovation Centre in the late 1980s and subsequently was a non-executive director at the centre until 2010. The centre works with entrepreneurs and academics spinning their ideas out of Cambridge and other universities, offering them short-term leases and, very specifically, business, legal and technical advice that is the envy of many other science parks and innovation centres that have developed in the intervening 25 years.
These companies are the exact target audience that Ministers tell us will be interested in the proposals in Clause 27. Having talked to the directors of these small but high-growth companies, I know that many already offer shares, as I mentioned. They, as directors, do not understand why an employer would want to do so in return for a reduction in employment rights. One of their key issues as the company grows is to keep the morale of the staff going during the difficult times. It is very rare for a new company to have an entirely smooth journey to success and reward. Proposing that staff should give up their rights to redundancy pay is an issue, as not all early-stage companies survive and so redundancy is a real possibility. They are also concerned about training. This is absolutely vital in the leading-edge technology sector, where the skills of your workforce are likely to make all the difference against your competitors, particularly the business skills that technical staff may not have had when they arrived at the company. They need those skills in order to progress in their market. Losing part of paternal leave is also a concern, as many of their staff are in exactly the age group likely to be beginning their families.
So if the stick—that is, the loss of rights—is not attractive either to employers or to staff, what about the carrot? The carrot of capital gains tax exemption sounds very exciting but I do not believe that the Government have really understood the two likely outcomes for these high-tech companies. The first, sadly, I have already alluded to. Not all of these companies are a success. Probably one in 100 is. There is a chance that the company will not succeed and that the shares will be worthless.
The second is the unlikely event that the company will do well enough to make those shares really worth something in the future. However, even this route is fraught to those coming in on the ground floor. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the group of employees who joined the company in its first two years were given shares at the then face value. It would not be unusual after their issue, as the company grows and faces all the typical excitements of launching in the market, for those shares to become worthless. But our fledgling company is taking off, and in order to become a really effective player, it will have to take on finance. It often needs to seek that finance when the company is not attractive. So, some business angels or venture capitalists invest in the company, and all the original shares are diluted substantially by this investment. We are only talking about round two of investment at this stage.
Well, the rubric goes, it is better to have a small share of something than a larger share of nothing at all. Often, though, there are three or four subsequent rounds of financing, and those employees are likely to find that their small share becomes a minute one. This is a really risky business. Would many employees understand the risks that they were taking? Would they honestly be prepared to wait 10 years or more for the carrot of the CGT exemption for the one company in 50 to 100 that starts to make a return for its shareholders? I doubt it. I also doubt that many employees would understand the nature of the process that I have just outlined.
That is why my noble friend Lord Tope and I have tabled Amendments 82A, 82B and 91 in this group. For people working in the financial services sector, such as venture capitalists and bankers, the process of growth and new share issues, with the consequential dilution for longstanding shareholders, is common knowledge, but for a young software engineer, perhaps fresh out of university, it is an area that they are likely to know nothing about The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend address this. We believe that employee shareholders under Clause 27 should have access to independent legal advice. More than that, we think that the employer should have a duty to ensure that the employee has a right to receive the appropriate legal advice and that the employer should make a contribution towards that legal advice.
I am reminded of the small print in the public shares issues of the 1980s: shares can go up as well as down. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—I am astonished to find myself praying her name in aid—felt that it was appropriate for the ordinary man or woman in the street to have that advice then, so I am sure that it is right to be provided in these circumstances for employees who are unlikely to have had training in the finer points of share prices and rounds of investment in high-growth companies.
Amendment 92, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Adonis, takes my proposal one stage further, and in a new subsection (12) demands much more specific types of advice as well as a written agreement for individuals being offered the opportunity of employee shares and specifies the nature of that advice in much more detail. Not only do I think that is more useful but I am sympathetic to it.
Amendment 82B would then put the onus for paying for that advice on to the employer. I am sure that this is correct and only fair. If you are giving up your rights as an employee in return for shares that may, though probably may not, increase in value and will certainly be diluted out of sight in the future, that is a complex decision that needs specialist advice and careful consideration by the prospective employee shareholder.
When we come to discuss clause stand part I will return to some of the principles of the clause in general, but I want to conclude on these amendments by saying that all the evidence that I have heard from both employers and employees, in the sector that Ministers say is the one most likely to take this up, is that it just will not be attractive. I hope that the clause will wither on the vine, but if it does not then we must have protection for the employees who are going to be faced with this sort of proposal.
Lord Vinson
My Lords, I declare an interest in that for many years I was chairman of the Industrial Co-partnership Association. I also happen to be fortunate enough to have floated a company on the stock exchange when we had 1,000 employees, and we gave 10% of the company to our employees.
I am deeply committed to the concept of wider share ownership but I am concerned about Clause 27. I shall give the Committee an example of quite what ownership means to some people. One of the older women in our company came up to me about a month after we had floated it and said, “Guvnor, you just don’t know what it means to me to feel I am part of this company. It has made my life”. That just brought tears to my eyes. People want to belong, and in smaller businesses they can belong and feel that they are names, not numbers.
However, the whole point of wider industrial shareholding is to try to create a sense of common purpose. I fear that the unnecessary obstacles and quid pro quos put into Clause 27 go in exactly the opposite direction; they negate trust rather than increase it. With great reluctance, therefore, I have to speak against the Government, who I am sure are right to encourage wider share ownership. If you wrap it up in complexity, cover it in advisers and make it all too difficult, it simply will not happen, but it is fundamentally the most attractive and important thing to create a wider capital-owning society in which everyone feels they have a stake.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, at Second Reading I opposed these provisions. In my view, this is yet another attempt by the Government to remove employment rights which have been hard fought for by previous generations. In my view, it is a backdoor means of introducing the Beecroft proposals which were recently condemned not only by trade unions but by many employers as well.
The Government maintain that the new status of employee shareholder is voluntary. Really? Are these proposals voluntary in situations where there is already high unemployment, where people are desperate for any sort of employment? A number of the issues have simply not been thought about. What about mergers? Do employee shareholders take their shares with them or do they have to give them up? What happens to TUPE—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—which gives protection to employees? According to an opinion provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, an employee shareholder is legally still a worker and therefore still has employment rights—hence the Government’s insistence on the voluntary nature of this new status, so that the worker voluntary surrenders rights.
Of course, while the employee shareholder may have a right to benefit from shares, he or she also shares the risks involved. For this reason, many people—including the movers of Amendments 82A and 82B, and even Amendment 92—have said that before entering this arrangement, the employee must have access to legal advice of an entirely independent kind. It has even been suggested that the employer should pay for this. These are, of course, modifications on a quite unacceptable set of proposals.
I still oppose the whole arrangement. It is one of a series of arrangements in which the Government are seeking to weaken or remove employee rights. We have already discussed the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill in this House, which has a section on employment which is designed to make it as difficult as possible for employees to access employment rights and to take cases to tribunals. It also includes provisions in relation to health and safety at work, making it more difficult for workers to claim.
The LASPO Act, discussed before, also made it clear that legal aid would not be provided in employment cases. It is already becoming clear that the minimum wage is inadequate, and there is talk of a living wage instead. In April this year, cuts will begin to affect a whole range of people on benefits, particularly housing benefits. The Government claim, however, that much of this legislation is meant to assist small and medium-sized employers—SMEs. However, employers are already benefiting from low wages, which are in many cases subsidised by the taxpayer through the benefits system. Clause 27 is yet another attack by the Government on employment rights and on ordinary workers. It should be opposed for what it is.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I support all those who have spoken, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. She is right when she says that these rights were hard fought for. In my working life, I recall a time when people lost their job and went out of the door with a week’s wages and, if they were lucky, maybe some holiday pay. It gave dignity to people who were very loyal to their company that, if they were unfortunate enough to lose their job after a decent period of time, they at least got something to tide them over, because redundancy payments are not all that big.
This is an insult to the companies which already give shares to their workers. There is a famous heating company—it is not fair to mention its name—whose owner decided that, because he did not have any direct heirs, he would give the shares to his workers. He did not put any strings on that arrangement; he gave the shares to the workers.
This is bad legislation. We are bringing in a situation where we are saying, “Give up your rights and we’ll give you shares”. We are giving a financial incentive which, at the end of the day, as the noble Baroness said, is not necessarily a financial incentive because shares go up and down.
I remember being in Committee on the famous Tebbit Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is now a fellow Peer. He and many others argued that the trade union movement had been given too much in the way of rights by the previous Labour Government. One of the things they said was that you could not apply for unfair dismissal unless you were employed for a full, consecutive two years. Under the Labour Government, it was a year. The argument was that you had to show loyalty to the company that you were with.
Under this arrangement, workers who are prepared to show loyalty are giving up their rights on the day that they walk in the door and sign them over for shares. They still have to be employed for two years before they can apply for redundancy, and that proves that they are loyal people. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, would recognise that. He said that we want loyalty. Employers are getting that loyalty, but the Government are now saying that they want a facility where people give away their rights.
I can see a situation in places of employment where you will turn worker against worker because some will accept this deal but others will say, “No, I would rather keep my statutory rights”. It could be that pressure will be put on them. I bring the Committee back to Sunday working. During the passage of the legislation on Sunday working it was stated that anyone who had deeply held religious beliefs would not have to work on Sunday. That held for a while, but when new employees came in they were told that if they wanted the job, they had to work on Sundays whether they had deeply held religious beliefs or not.
The Bill states that employers will have to respect workers’ right to say they do not want shares and that those workers will be entitled to their rights under legislation. But what the Government have not considered is the new employees. People coming in the door will be told: “You must accept the workers’ shares, and if you don’t like it then you don’t get the job”. This is bad legislation.
Baroness Afshar
My Lords, I have worked for a long time with minority groups who employ their women in a system that is very similar to what is proposed. They have an interest in the business, they are committed to the business, they have kinship ties, and they have absolutely no rights. They work right through the day, and they share the losses and the gains.
In my long experience, the children of these minorities, who are some of the best educated children because the families use education, grow up and wish to use their education to get out of the informal sector into the formal sector. They wish for a different experience from that of their parents. They want to be workers with rights, entitlements and the possibility of progress. In fact, many of them would work in these new companies without realising that by doing so they were returning to where their parents were. That is not because they are not educated but because of the complexity of the contract. They are happy to have a contract. They sign it, which means it is formal and official. They do not have a lawyer at their side to warn them of every point. It would be a matter of great regret to lose these intelligent people, who, I think, are footloose and fancy free. They may well move on to other countries where they are better paid for having poor contracts. We are losing the confidence of our minorities and possibly the prospect of some very well-educated young people.
Lord Strasburger
My Lords, I declare an interest. Before I joined this House I was a serial entrepreneur. I have started many businesses from scratch. The most recent one employed 200 staff after being in business for four years. I am a big fan of giving employees a stake in the success of the business so that their goals are aligned with those of the founders. It never crossed my mind that my staff should need to forfeit their employment rights in exchange. Snatching these rights is hardly the best way to win their hearts and minds. Managers who feel they need to diminish the rights of their staff to get their full commitment to the success of the business are bad managers and will almost certainly fail. This idea is complete nonsense.
Lord Flight
My Lords, when these proposals were announced, I was somewhat lukewarm towards them, for some of the reasons that other noble Lords have spoken about today. However, as I thought about the proposals rather more, it seemed to me that there is some sense to them. They are not proposals for everybody. They are not for individuals who work for the public sector or for large companies; they are relevant to individuals who are by nature high risk-reward in their approach. They are willing to be high-risk takers to build up capital for themselves and their families. The proposals are, as has been articulated, for small and medium businesses, and are certainly not appropriate for larger businesses.
The proposals at present are really rather simple and straightforward and may be capable of improvement but not, I hope, of too much embellishment or the whole point of the principle would be undermined. People have the option whether to participate. If you wish to be an employee entrepreneur, here is the chance to benefit with equity on an extremely tax-attractive basis, but you are going to be taking risks just like the entrepreneur himself. One of the problems with small-company share schemes, as I have experienced in my own career, is that they are very limited. Where options have to be used they end up being taxed at nearly 60% and are not particularly attractive. The carrot of tax-free capital gains is attractive.
The subsequent amendment that I will address shortly suggests a template for and guidance on the new scheme. Particularly as it is new and untried, that is needed. The principle of requiring advice I can go along with to some extent, although requiring barristers seems perhaps to be jobs for the boys. The principle of the scheme seems pretty straightforward. It does not require anyone of huge intelligence to understand the quid pro quo.
Moreover, some of the potential problems have already been addressed via amendments in the other place. There are measures intended to stop any form of coercion. Employees also retain the great majority of their employment rights. Partly paid issued shares cannot be used, so people would not be left with a liability if a company went bust. If shares are inappropriately valued, the deal returns employees to their normal employment status. I am not sure how far one should really go to spoon-feed the principles. If someone is not a natural risk taker, this is clearly not for them, and they should not look to accept a job with this sort of deal.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, the issues in this debate on Clause 27, and the other amendments, have not changed. I take the view that the objectives of the clause and the conditions attached to wider share ownership were wrong then and remain wrong. The issues that British industry faces today are not to do with wider share ownership. Of course, it is to be welcomed if we can provide greater security, commitment and skills; it is very much part of a process of commitment and evolution within the workplace.
At Second Reading, I said that I was no stranger to the concept. I worked in my company for 18 years and was awarded employee preference shares. I welcomed them, and they caused no harm. But I have to tell noble Lords that they did not influence my loyalty, commitment or motivation in that company. I gave of my best because it was a decent company, with its terms and conditions as well as security. Everything that went with it could be described as a model experience. I did not even give the shares a thought. I could not find my share certificate when the time came to dispose of them. That is how little they meant to me. I was no exception in that regard among the more than 3,000 people employed in that company because the company culture was right and the company met the needs of the industry.
We really ought to look at the deficiencies of Clause 27. It does not address training, productivity or investment, be it investment in people, community or the wider concept of society. I do not see too many words about skills in the clause and do not begin to understand how it could be deemed necessary to bring it forward to secure the loyalty and overall commitment that industries need. Indeed, it could be argued that Clause 27 will have a perverse effect on employee relationships within the workplace, because if the workplace is about anything it is about unity, working together and equity of treatment and approach. What we are doing here will possibly sow the seeds of a divided workforce operating in small units where some people are shareholders and some are not. The legislation does not provide equity of security because at the outset your legal rights have to be forfeited. I am old fashioned enough to think that workers’ rights cannot be bartered for sale on the stock market because that brings nothing back into a company.
I say to the Government that sooner or later we will need to address the wider concept of industrial partnership but from a totally different perspective. We are discussing a “buy today, sell tomorrow” concept. If your shares are tradable, do you have any loyalty once you have disposed of them? You certainly do not have any rights because you gave those up at the start point, but do you have any real security? I do not think so. Therefore, I believe that the points that were made at Second Reading and the points so ably made today by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in respect of the legality of the issues involved in the different statutes lead to the necessity to rethink this clause. The clause really needs to get back to considering what industry needs, what is required and what will increase productivity, not just a “buy today, sell tomorrow” culture.
Lord James of Blackheath
My Lords, it would be extremely helpful if the clause contained a clearer definition of “profit share” and “equity participation”. That is where the confusion will arise and cause the greatest difficulty. Profit share is relatively clear, straightforward, simple and very motivating. I wholly agree with the noble Baroness who talked about that earlier. That is fine, but profit share does not carry with it any of the risks that go with equity. I disagree with the noble Lord; you do not just buy your shares today and sell them. If you are a locked-in minority, especially in a quoted vehicle, you are stuck, you have no way out, and you never will have.
Further, and worse, I have seen this work to the total detriment of the shareholders. I had a company that had a number of ships—we were opening the North Sea oilfields—that were bought and each put into a separate company. It looked like a good, straightforward, long-term profit opportunity, so we had a lot of participation by Scandinavian banks, which would buy a ship and put it into a purpose-built company. The captain might be offered the opportunity of 20% of the equity in that company, meaning 20% of the ship he was going to sail. If that company did not get the contract work, did not make the money and could not service the debts of that bank, the banks in Scandinavia came at those shareholders and took their homes as a condition of their putting in the extra money.
These hazards are not anticipated in what we have here. There are some fearful risks in inviting people to become locked-in minorities, especially in SMEs where you have nowhere to go if there is a problem. Profit sharing does not have any of those problems, so we should be going down the profit-share path, not the equity-participation route, especially where it is given free into unquoted vehicles.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Flight, on being the first speaker in more than 50 on the Bill so far to defend this shares-for-rights proposal. His reward will no doubt be substantial hereafter.
I also welcome the noble Viscount the Minister to our debates on the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is looking mightily relieved that she has an afternoon off. Her time will return only too soon. The noble Viscount has the thankless job of defending the indefensible—another practice that, if I may extend the analogy used by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, goes back to the Book of Genesis, where Adam had to explain why he had misbehaved in the Garden of Eden. We are rather hoping to expel the entire Clause 27 from the Garden of Eden, but we are first debating some mitigating measures and inviting the noble Viscount to respond.
We start with the issue of coercion. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, said that the issue of coercion had been dealt with, but I contend that it has not. One of the reasons why Clause 27 is fundamentally wrong and flawed is that, contrary to the Government’s own statements and assurances, it is coercive in that it in effect requires individuals to accept jobs without fundamental employment rights. The coercion involved in these shares-for-rights jobs comes in two ways. First, individuals will in some cases have no option but to accept such jobs. We will come to that issue in respect of benefits claimants in the next group of amendments.
Secondly, these shares-for-rights jobs are in all cases potentially exploitative, because there is no requirement for independent advice before an individual signs up. It is therefore likely that individuals, particularly the more vulnerable and low paid, will not be properly aware, or even aware at all as they will not be as informed as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, of the rights they are forgoing in return for shares worth as little as £2,000 at the time they are issued. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, these shares could be worth even less or nothing at all if the employees want to sell them at a later stage.
A whole succession of noble Lords, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have made a compelling case for there to be protections, including independent advice before shares-for-rights contracts are entered into. The amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, proposes that there should be legal advice on the rights forgone and financial advice on the valuation and prospects of the shares it is proposed to offer in lieu of employment rights. Without such advice, the scope for exploitation is considerable. Such advice should be paid for by the employer, and there should be an explicit agreement between employer—
Lord James of Blackheath
Will the noble Lord draw a distinction between the legal advice to be given in the potential sale of a listed company, where the majority shareholders have a separate set of interests and the minority shareholders—the working shareholders possibly have a very different set of interests? Are we to have two separate and parallel sets of lawyers to avoid a conflict of interest between those types of shareholders? That would seem necessary. How is it to be funded?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, we are talking about individual employees who are seeking to take jobs, which is a different situation from the one that the noble Lord has described. We are not talking about the takeover of companies, which is the issue he raised. However, the noble Lord is right to point out that two different sets of interests are involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we have these rights purely because of an imbalance of power in the relationship between employers and potential employees. If the noble Lord is saying that we need two lots of lawyers on the job, I understand the point he is making but it makes the proposal even less workable and even more unaffordable.
Lord James of Blackheath
The noble Lord is correct; that is what I am saying—you need two sets of lawyers in any case.
Lord Adonis
The noble Lord therefore proposes a system that is even more complex and onerous than is envisaged. Such advice should be paid for by the employer, and there should be an explicit agreement between employer and employee stipulating the employment rights that are being foregone and the value of the shares being allotted.
When similar amendments were debated in the Commons, the Minister, Michael Fallon, said that they would impose,
“an unnecessary cost and burden to the employer”.—[Official Report, Commons, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 6/12/12; col. 484.]
However, this is not a new principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is, in fact, a principle accepted by previous Conservative Governments. The great noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was Secretary of State when this principle was enshrined in law. Under the legislation of the previous Conservative Government, there are minimum independent legal advice requirements on the surrender of unfair dismissal rights in what are now called compromise agreements—a key element of which is a written agreement upon which the employee has received advice from an insured independent legal adviser or other specified and qualified person.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also quoted the advice and recommendations of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which could not be clearer. Let me read the recommendations to the Committee. They state that,
“the mere fact of a choice having to be made on which type of employment status to accept could indirectly discriminate against those less likely to be able to make a properly informed or truly ‘voluntary’ decision. This may include those whose first language is not English, those with learning disabilities, or young workers”.
The commission’s recommendations continue:
“In order for objective justification to be established, it is likely to be necessary for the individual to have a right to receive appropriate advice and for the employer to be required to draw this to his or her attention”.
We agree entirely with the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s recommendation. It is now up to the noble Viscount to say why it is wrong.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)
Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that I was expecting a somewhat lively debate on this general issue of shares for rights. I very much appreciate noble Lords’ contributions. Before I turn to the amendments in the group—Amendments 81D, 82A, 82B, 91 and 92—I should take this opportunity to inform the House about the clause. I will have the chance to expand on this during a stand-part debate, but the House might like to understand why the Government are creating the new employment status and what it is aimed to achieve.
The Government are creating a new form of employment contract that companies limited by shares can use. This new status will be known as “employee shareholder”. The employee shareholder will be granted shares in the employing company or the parent company but will not have all the rights of an individual with employee status. The Government are taking this action to offer companies and people more choice, and are giving choice to companies on how they structure their workforce to ensure maximum growth and flexibility, more choice for people in the type of jobs that are on offer to them and new opportunities to benefit from growth and meet their long-term aspirations.
This Government, from the outset, have committed to reforming employment laws, and are doing so through the employment law review. Establishing the employee shareholder status is different. With this change, the Government are creating a new type of employment relationship. It is an employment relationship where both the company and person share the risk and rewards for business more than any other employment type.
I now want to address the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Pannick. This clause is not about making a new employment status compulsory for all. It is about adding to the employment statuses that already exist. It sits alongside existing employment statuses such as employee and worker.
Employment law does not stipulate that individuals should have legal or financial advice before accepting a job with the employment status of either employee or worker, or taking up share ownership possibilities. It would be anomalous to impose these requirements for the new employee shareholder status. Neither do we want to stipulate that employers must pay for legal advice. Noble Lords will appreciate that legal expenses can be high, which would be a burden both in administrative and cost terms, in particular for the type of fast-growing company to which this is most likely to appeal.
There is nothing in the clause that prevents individuals from seeking independent advice. This is about creating a new voluntary employment status and not about creating additional burdens for employers.
As for employment contracts, it is important to leave these to employers and individuals to negotiate, discuss, and agree to, although employees are entitled to receive a written statement of employment particulars within two months of the start of their employment. Government are committed to reducing burdens arising from regulation and therefore wish to keep administration requirements to a minimum.
The status, as we have already said, will be most attractive to fast-growing businesses, which will spend time looking for and investing in the right people to help their business grow, and will be willing to give fully paid up shares to the right candidate. These employers will have to invest in employee shareholders by giving them shares, which is a cost to them. It is likely that they are exactly the type of employers who would then struggle to find the additional cost and time to fulfil the amendments my noble friends and the noble Lords are suggesting.
Lord Flight
Just before my noble friend passes over this matter, I would like to raise one issue that is not clear to me. When the grant of shares is given, is the value of them treated as taxable income? If so, I certainly think that it should not be part of the deal as something that is tax attractive.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank my noble friend for that question. The shares are treated as taxable income, although they are shares, so there would be tax at whatever level payable on the shares received.
I should now like to answer some questions that have arisen. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, stated that there was no demand for this new status. I can understand his concern from other comments made this afternoon. This new employment status will not be appropriate for all companies or be taken up across the board. It simply adds to the options and flexibility available to companies and individuals in determining their employment relationships.
My noble friend Lord Flight has eloquently mentioned this particular issue in his speech. The new status will probably appeal mainly to fast-growing and small start-up companies and individuals as this is the level where employment rights are seen to impact the most.
I would like to address directly the points raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton to say clearly that this particular employment shareholder status will not suit the examples that she cited in or near the Cambridge area. My noble friend Lord Strasburger also cited some example and I suspect it would not suit—
Baroness Brinton
Does my noble friend accept that this is exactly the group of companies that Ministers in another place were citing were perfect for exactly this sort of scheme?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Indeed, it may well be the case, but it is not my position to stipulate exactly which particular companies would be right for this particular scheme; only to say that we are offering this as an incentive and an opportunity for business to help the company grow. If it is not suitable for particular companies, that is absolutely fine—it is not suitable.
My noble friend Lady Brinton also asked why we were removing the statutory right to request time to train. The Government recognise that training in the workplace is important and acknowledge the concerns raised. There is currently no reason to suggest that removal of the statutory right to request time to train, which at present is available only to employees of large organisations—that is, those with more than 250 people—would result in employee shareholders being unable to access training or request it if needed. Larger employers tend to have established appraisal and development processes. On that basis, we do not believe that this proposal will adversely affect future employee shareholders. Employee shareholders can still make non-statutory requests for time off to train.
Lord Adonis
Did I understand the Minister to say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that these shares, including the first £2,000-worth, would be taxable? That is quite an important change in the policy announced in the other place.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, indeed, I can confirm that the shares that are received are taxable, so tax would be payable in the first available pay—
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, it would be in the month following receipt of the shares.
Lord Adonis
Is the noble Viscount aware that he has made quite a significant change in government policy in the past few moments?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I shall come back to the noble Lord very quickly if what I have said is incorrect, but I am pretty certain that it is correct.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I apologise for intervening again but this point is absolutely critical to the Government’s intended success of the clause, or otherwise—that is, a carrot needs to be available to the employee at the time of the share issue, as well as later when there might be some fruition in terms of the investment. This seems to remove the only carrot at the time of the initial employment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
As promised, I will revert to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as quickly as possible to confirm what I said.
Lord James of Blackheath
Will the noble Viscount please also assure the Committee that there will be an absolute bar on companies lending individuals the money to pay that tax? They will be in enough trouble already.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I would like to think that I could say yes to that. However, it is up to the company to decide, and it is something that I cannot stipulate or guarantee.
I should like to address the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I can confirm that the shares are taxable, but the Chancellor is considering making the first £2,000 tax-free.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, with great respect to the noble Viscount, he is trying to say that the shares are and are not taxable. Which is it? Is the first £2,000-worth of shares taxable or not?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I think that I have made the position very clear. The Chancellor is looking at this but I have said that it is taxable.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I have to say that the noble Viscount has not made the position clear to me. It may well be that everybody else is clear about it but, as I understand it, he is saying that the £2,000 will be taxable, and he appears to be saying that it will be taxable as income. If that is so, the value of the shares in real terms could very well be reduced by 40%. Is that right?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
First, it depends on whether the employee shareholders are 40% taxpayers, but I can confirm that tax is payable on the shares that are given.
My noble friend Lady Brinton expressed concern surrounding the share dilution, particularly when small businesses have additional investment. Additional investment shows that a company has potential and this should benefit the shareholders in the long run. We envisage that it will. Minority shareholders already have some protection under company law, and employee shareholders would be able to make appropriate representations under these rules.
I now turn to a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, concerning TUPE. She asked whether TUPE will be affected by employee shareholders. Exactly how TUPE would apply would depend on the precise details of the transfer, but there is nothing in the employee shareholder clause as it stands that would require an interpretation incompatible with TUPE. It is important to realise that any employee transferred under TUPE cannot be forced by the transferee into becoming an employee shareholder. The employee will still have a right not to be unfairly dismissed or suffer a detriment as a result of refusing an employee shareholder contract. There is nothing to stop business arrangements being made in such a way as to provide that a person who is an employee shareholder in one company becomes an employee shareholder in another company. It is also possible to agree that the employee shareholder would no longer have employee shareholder status and become a full employee. I also want to clarify that if an employee has bought shares privately in a company, and he has transferred to that company under TUPE, he is not deemed then to have become an employee shareholder of the company by virtue of holding shares in that company. That is because the shares were not given to him as part of the employee agreement to become an employee shareholder.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also raised the issue of Beecroft. I think she said that this was Beecroft by the back door. I reiterate that it is certainly not. The new employee shareholder status is different from the no-fault dismissal proposal because individuals become shareholders of the company at the start of the employee relationship. That is an important benefit conferred by the employee shareholder status. Unlike no-fault dismissal, the employee shareholder status will be freely agreed between employers and individuals in contractual negotiations. Employers will also be free to offer improved contractual terms, such as contractual redundancy payments, as raised earlier, in an employee shareholder contract. After reviewing the evidence, the Government found no compelling reasons to implement the no-fault dismissal proposal.
My noble friend Lord James of Blackheath was concerned that shareholders might be locked in and subsequently would have to pay the debts of the company. The shares must be fully paid up by the company. No financial liabilities are attached to the shares. No personal guarantee can be demanded from an employee shareholder as a condition of the particular status.
Lord James of Blackheath
Can the noble Viscount please explain what would happen in the event of a rescue rights issue?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will certainly have to come back to my noble friend with a full answer to that question.
I shall conclude by agreeing in part with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on a particular point. There is indeed a large number of sources of quality legal and financial advice available. The Government do not need to stipulate where people should seek advice, nor would it be appropriate to oblige people to seek such advice when they may not need or want it. The best approach is to provide guidance, which we will do, to ensure that people enter into contracts with their eyes open. That is the approach that we are taking. With those reassurances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to the Minister and, indeed, to all noble Lords who contributed to this valuable and, as described by the Minister, lively debate. It confirmed, as many noble Lords suggested, that this is an ill thought out, divisive and unnecessary provision that ought to be put to sleep as soon as possible.
The Minister suggested that Clause 27 simply creates a choice, and asked what was wrong with creating choice? The whole point of employment rights is that they are needed because the bargaining power of the employee is so limited that statutory protection is required. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, suggested that these proposals might be appropriate for some types of employee in some types of employment. There are two difficulties with that defence. First, Clause 27 is entirely general in its terms; it is not confined to particular types of employment and particular types of protection. Secondly, the employees and the employers for whom the noble Lord, Lord Flight, suggests Clause 27 might be appropriate—entrepreneurial employees in high-tech companies—are not operating in a context where the rights to protection against unfair dismissal and redundancy are of particular significance. It does not inspire a great deal of confidence in Clause 27 that the best point that can be made in its defence is that it will not be used very often.
This amendment is about legal and financial advice, particularly legal advice. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, said that legal advice is not needed in this context because the legal implications are very clear. I have to say that they may be clear to the noble Lord, but I can assure him that the implications of signing away one’s basic employment law rights, and what one will receive in return, will not be clear to the ordinary working man and woman who may be invited to sign away these essential protections.
The Minister then said that there was nothing in Clause 27 that would prevent the employee seeking advice. As a judge said in the 19th century, it is rather like saying there is nothing to prevent the employee from staying overnight at the Ritz hotel. Statutory protection is required to ensure that in reality, advice is made available for those who will not otherwise obtain it. The Minister did not address this. I cannot understand why legal advice is—rightly—required by Section 288 of the Trade Union Act in the context of a compromise agreement, but is not required under this clause when the employee gives up his or her employment rights generally.
I hope the Government will listen to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Turner of Camden and Lady Afshar, and to the noble Lords, Lord Vincent, Lord Martin, Lord Strasburger, Lord Morris of Handsworth and Lord James of Blackheath, all of whom speak from their different perspectives with an enormous range of experience. The Minister and noble Lords will know that there are many other noble Lords who are not here today who are equally concerned by Clause 27. I hope that the Government will listen and do what must be blindingly obvious that they ought to do, which is to withdraw Clause 27 so that we do not need to spend—I will not say “waste”, because it is not a waste of time—any more time on this on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis
“( ) Any individual who declines to enter into an agreement under section 27 of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 shall not suffer any consequential reduction or withdrawal of any state benefits to which they are entitled to by virtue of their current employment status.”
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 82 is the same as that of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I hope that we can unite across the House on the simple and fundamental proposition that shares-for-rights contracts should be voluntary, and that individuals on benefits should not be forced to accept them for fear of losing their benefits if they do not.
Before getting to the substance of the amendment, I will raise with deep concern a point of procedure fundamental to the issue of what benefit claimants will or will not be required to do, which is the guidance given to DWP decision-makers where appeals are made against the docking of benefits in cases where a claimant has failed to accept an appropriate job or attend an interview. The Government have said repeatedly through the passage of this Bill through the other place and the earlier stages of our debates in this House that they will amend the guidance so that it is fair. This revised guidance is vital to understanding what will or may happen in practice. I have repeatedly asked that noble Lords see the revised guidance or at the very least a draft of it before we consider this clause. We cannot properly consider it without the revised guidance because the issues at stake are so fundamental. For example, will carers be able to decline to take shares-for-rights jobs, or to attend interviews for them, because they may want to request flexible working? Will a youngster with few or no qualifications be able to decline a shares-for-rights job or an interview for one, since under these contracts they will not even have the right to request to undertake study or training?
I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about the guidance on 9 January. By the time the Committee started I had not even had the courtesy of a reply. I raised this issue on the first day in Committee and the noble Baroness apologised for the absence of a reply—she did so very graciously—and, when I asked whether we would have the guidance by today, she said that she would seek to make sure that we did. We still have not got it. Instead, I have since had a letter from the noble Viscount which is wholly unsatisfactory. He wrote:
“Where necessary, revisions will be made to the guidance. It is important that the guidance is clear and fit for purpose—
it is, indeed, important; it is absolutely vital that it is clear and fit for purpose—
“and this task is ongoing. I will share it with the House when it has been drafted but undertake to keep you informed of progress”.
However, we need the guidance today. I took the noble Baroness to be undertaking that she would at least seek to ensure that we had it today. In view of the fact that we have not had it, I now take the noble Viscount’s letter to me to be intended to resile from the commitment to give us the guidance before we debate this clause.
When are we going to see the guidance? Do the Government really intend that we should debate this clause without seeing it? The noble Viscount owes the House an explanation of what is going on and, before I proceed with my speech, I invite him to give us one so that we know the basis on which we are intended to proceed in debating this clause. Is the noble Viscount not intending to explain to us why we have not had the DWP guidance?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will be speaking at the usual moment. I would like to hear the speeches of other noble Lords first.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I note that the noble Viscount is not even defending the fact that the guidance was not sent to us before this debate started. The first issue he needs to address is why we have not had the guidance before us in Committee even though we were given assurances that the Government would seek to get it to us; and we need to know precisely when the guidance will be forthcoming. I give him notice that if we do not have that guidance by Report there will be significant arguments about the way in which the Government have treated the House. I have been on that side of the Dispatch Box and I regard it as wholly unsatisfactory that we should be expected to debate a fundamental change in the way benefits claimants are treated without knowing what it will mean in practice.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord makes a very good point. I stick by the words in my letter that further guidance will be forthcoming. We have some guidance already but we are working hard to improve and expand it. I will come back to the noble Lord as soon as I can to explain when it will be available.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, but can he tell us whether that will be before Report, when we will debate and, I suspect, vote on the substance of the matter before us?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will obviously need to return to the noble Lord with a clear answer on that. Right now I cannot give him that answer, much as I would like to.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the House needs to be aware of the situation that we are in at the moment. The defence that the Government make in respect of the proposal that benefits claimants will not be treated unfairly is that the DWP guidance will be redrafted. That is what the Minister, Michael Fallon, said in the other place and what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said at earlier stages of our debate. We are now being told that the Government are not even prepared to undertake to allow your Lordships to see that guidance before we debate amendments which go to the heart of whether or not claimants will be required to take jobs.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
To be fair, I did not precisely say that. I said that I would get back to the noble Lord as soon as possible: I did not say that I would not get the guidance to him before Report. I stick by what I said, both in my letter emphasising that the guidance notes are extremely important and are being worked on at the moment, and, secondly, that I will come back to him as soon as possible—possibly even this afternoon—to give him a time for when the guidance notes will be available. I hope that it will be before Report.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, with each intervention the noble Viscount is more forthcoming. Now it is possibly later this afternoon. I know the Box is working hard and I hope that “possibly” later this afternoon becomes “definitely” later this afternoon.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That is not a guarantee. I am saying that I am hopeful that the information will be available this afternoon.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I spoke too soon. The noble Viscount has now moved back again and now we are not even at “possibly” this afternoon. However, I think he has got the message.
The provision before us is completely contradictory and wholly indefensible. On the one hand the Government say—the noble Viscount said it again this afternoon—that this is about creating a new voluntary employment status which, therefore, potential employees have the right to choose. When the Bill was first before the House of Commons, Michael Fallon said:
“No one wants to see employees pressurised into making a choice that may not be in their own best interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 13/11/12; col. 9.]
He later added, for good measure:
“With regard to the new status being voluntary … people will choose to apply for and accept employee owner contracts”.—[Official Report, Commons, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 6/12/12; col. 497.]
This principle, however, is then flatly contradicted by not allowing benefit claimants to make such a choice. On the contrary, if benefit claimants decline to apply for or accept shares-for-rights jobs, they stand to lose their benefits or have them docked. This is a fundamental point that goes to the heart of this debate. Michael Fallon was explicit about this in the House of Commons. He said:
“The Government believe that jobseeker’s allowance claimants must actively seek and be available for work … it is right that employee-shareholder jobs should be as much a part of that consideration as any other”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17.12.12; col. 649.]
He went on to say that in cases where there is the offer of a job without employment rights—an employee-shareholder job—the unemployed person should “normally accept the offer”. Those were his words.
It is simply impossible to square that statement with the Government’s commitment that acceptance of jobs on such contracts would be voluntary. It is clear that benefit claimants will be pressurised into accepting contracts that may be against their own best interests, unless the guidance with which the noble Viscount is unable to provide the House makes it clear that that is not the case. This amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will bring the Bill into line with the Government’s own statements that accepting shares-for-rights jobs should be voluntary and not compulsory. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, these two amendments are trying to achieve the same objective. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on the wording of Amendment 82. My Amendment 90 echoes those sentiments. We have already discussed, in the previous group, the complex decision required of an individual being asked to become an employee-shareholder, who must take account of current employment rights versus the slim chance of future capital gains. However, there is a further and even more worrying aspect for one particular group of individuals: those who are currently unemployed and in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance.
What will happen to those offered a position in a company on the condition that they become an employee-shareholder and give up some of their rights? I am aware of people who find themselves being made redundant, through no fault of their own, not once but twice, or even more frequently. I am reminded of a friend in Luton who, following the closure of Vauxhall, moved from one company to another in the supply chain and was made redundant four times in the short space of a year. For people with that sort of history, the idea of giving up the right to future redundancy pay will be horrifying and would make the job extremely unattractive. This is not a run-of-the-mill job offer and I would be extremely concerned if an individual turned down a job and share ownership opportunity, and then discovered that his or her JSA was to be cut.
The Minister in another place said:
“The Government believe that jobseeker’s allowance claimants must actively seek and be available for work … and it is right that employee-shareholder jobs should be as much a part of that consideration as any other. If a claimant applies for an employee-shareholder job and is offered a position, they should normally accept the offer”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12./12; col. 649.]
It is this quote from the Minister that underlies the concern that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has laid out in some detail. I echo that because we have to see the guidance and information to make it exactly clear where the boundaries lie. I will not go back through the timescale of this, but it is essential that all sides of the House—all sides of the House have concerns about this clause—have time to consider the very serious implications for jobseeker’s allowance for people who are sent off for that type of post.
In addition, some people may send off hundreds of job applications but receive only one reply; some may get one interview; some may even get one offer. A job offer for shares-for-rights is a job: do the Government seriously think that someone will turn it down after months of searching? Many people cannot pick and choose jobs, even if they are worried about the reduction in rights, especially in the current climate, with many businesses folding. I cite Paul Callaghan from the legal fund Taylor Wessing, who suggests that shares-for-rights contracts will be optional to the extent that eating and drinking are optional.
The amendment would write into the Bill a statement that makes it absolutely clear that the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus will not penalise an individual who makes the difficult choice to turn down a job. Should they accept it, they must have access to the same legal and financial opinion that we discussed under the previous group of amendments. That needs to be written into the Bill to ensure that protection and to provide Jobcentre Plus with clear and unequivocal direction.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the absence of the guidance that the Government are eventually to publish. The whole point of Committee on a Bill is that we can debate in detail the implications of the Government’s proposals. By not publishing the guidance at this stage, the Government are preventing the Committee discussing the essential detail of their proposals. For my part, I do not find it satisfactory, even if the noble Viscount produces answers this afternoon. It should have been done in time for noble Lords to debate the matter today.
In the absence of any guidance, we can proceed only on the basis that Clause 27 does not at all protect the prospective employee from being denied welfare benefits if he or she refuses to take up a job offer which involves the absence of employment rights. Even if there were adequate guidance, I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that guidance is in principle inadequate. The Bill must state clearly the legal position in order to protect the prospective employee.
Clause 27 is bad enough in its implications for employees, as we explained in a previous debate. It is even worse for the prospective employee. Under Clause 27, the employer can refuse to offer employment to applicants who decline to enter into one of these agreements giving up statutory employment rights. The irony is that the worse the job market, the more willing prospective employees will inevitably be to take the job, even if employment rights are lost. However, the poorer the job market, the greater the employee’s need for the statutory protection against unfair dismissal and redundancy that the employee will be giving up. It is a vicious circle indeed.
Amendment 82 and the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, each address a particular vice of Clause 27 in that respect. The vice is clear. It is that the prospective employee who wishes to maintain his or her statutory employment rights—during the previous debate, the noble Viscount emphasised that this is a matter of choice—and refuses to be bought off, is at risk of losing welfare benefits. That is indefensible for a simple reason. Clause 27 can only be based on a theory of equal bargaining power. It is a wholly unrealistic theory, but that is the theory. That is the fig leaf which shelters the substance of Clause 27. Even the fig leaf—the theory of equal bargaining power—is removed by the fact that the prospective employee’s bargaining power is wholly removed if he or she is going to lose welfare benefits if he or she does not agree to take the job in the absence of the statutory protection of employment rights. Therefore, the absence of protection against losing welfare benefits for the job applicant inevitably means that, in practice, Clause 27 does not simply provide for a choice, it imposes an obligation.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, Amendments 82 and 90 seek to add protections for jobseekers, should they refuse to apply for a job or accept a job offer that is on an employee shareholder contract. I understand the concerns that my noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Pannick, have expressed here and at Second Reading, that jobseekers could be coerced into accepting the new employment status and that jobseekers could lose their benefits.
Jobs that will be offered on an employee shareholder basis will not be better or worse than any other job offered on an employee or worker basis. These jobs are as good as any other and should not be treated differently. It follows that the Government do not believe that a blanket ban on mandation is the right way forward. The different terms and conditions on offer for different jobs do not in themselves make it acceptable for a jobseeker to turn a job down. They are still good jobs.
There are circumstances where a job offered under the employee shareholder scheme would not be suitable for an individual because of their particular circumstances or perhaps because of the particular terms and conditions on offer. Please note that the following is a non-exhaustive list, as all reasons cannot be captured and are dependent on the individual case, but I will list a few circumstances where a job might not be suitable for an individual: if a claimant is not capable of doing the job through a lack of suitable qualifications or experience; if a claimant is not physically capable of doing the job due to a physical or mental impairment; if a claimant has an agreed pattern of caring that is not compatible with the job; if a claimant is unable to get to the place of work by their normal mode of transport in time to start work; or if the expenses incurred by working would be an unreasonably excessive proportion of a claimant’s pay. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, brought up the issue of carers. If a claimant is a carer or is doing voluntary work they will have good reason for refusal or failure if the job requires them to start within less than one week. If a claimant has caring responsibilities for a child and is permitted to take up employment and been given 28 days’ notice, they will have good reason for refusal or failure if the job requires them to start within 28 days. I could go on.
The Government believe that there are already strong safeguards in place that ensure that a benefit claimant will not be forced into an unsuitable role. The sanction will only be applied if a claimant refuses to apply for or accept an offer of employment, including for an employee shareholder’s position, after that claimant has been mandated to apply for a job by a jobcentre adviser. The decision whether to mandate claimants will be considered on a case-by-case basis by jobcentre advisers. Advisers will seek to ensure that the job is suitable for the claimant; for example, that it fits within the hours a claimant is available, taking into account any caring responsibilities, as mentioned earlier, in particular for young children.
There is now guidance for advisers that is publicly available—and I will revert to this issue in a moment. We will supplement that guidance to cover any particular issues that may arise with employee shareholder jobs. I am able to update the Committee on the guidance. First, the guidance document is 3,000 pages long, so it is not a light piece of work. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is aware that I have already written to him on the issue of the guidance and he has cited parts of my letter. The guidance is for decision-makers and we have made it clear that the Government are reviewing the existing guidance to ascertain where it needs revisions. This must be done thoroughly and cannot be rushed, and I hope that the noble Lord will understand, despite the fact that it is not ready today, that this will take time, given the size of the document and the important decisions that need to be taken.
Baroness Brinton
Does the Minister accept that even if the Government say that it is likely that very few companies will be offering this type of employee share ownership, having a couple of points of guidance buried in 3,000 pages, or even 300, would mean that the average member of staff at a Jobcentre Plus would probably be unlikely to find the relevant information straight away? Does this not argue for the need to put this very special interest in the Bill?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I would like to pick up only one of the points made by my noble friend. It is important, and I am sure that the officials are working hard on this, to ensure that the guidance that is offered is simple, and that there is a way that those involved who need to go to the guidance can do so quickly and effectively, despite the fact that it is 3,000 pages long.
Lord Pannick
Does the Minister agree that the simplest way for the guidance to address the matter would be for it to state in one sentence that it was reasonable for the prospective employee to refuse to accept a job because he or she did not wish to give up statutory employment protection rights? Is that what the guidance is going to say or is it not?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I have not seen the guidance but I do not believe that it will say that.
There are two further safeguards for jobseeker allowance claimants. Should a claimant refuse to apply for a job after mandation, a sanction will be imposed only if the claimant does not have good reason. A decision-maker within DWP will be responsible for making that determination. In reaching a determination, they will take into account the claimant’s circumstances, the specific job and the terms and conditions on offer. Again, the Government will supplement the DWP decision-makers’ guidance around any particular issues with the employee shareholder scheme that need to be considered.
Lord Adonis
Several times the Minister has said that the guidance would be updated with regard to any particular issues that arise from employee shareholder contracts. The particular issue that arises is precisely the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which is that these rights are being withdrawn. If that is not the issue that arises, could the Minister tell the Committee what the issue is that arises which the Government are going to seek to address in the revised guidance?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
As I explained earlier, I am not in a position to give the Committee that information just at the moment. The issues will be outlined when the guidance is available. That is the only answer that I can give at this stage.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the Minister has come to the Committee to tell us that he cannot begin to tell us the basis on which the guidance is going to be revised, which is his own defence in response to the arguments that the guidance itself will not be reasonable in the circumstances.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can only reply to the noble Lord that I am not in a position to explain the guidance because I have not seen it because it is being revised. That is the only answer that I can give at the moment.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the Minister for his patience in giving way. Will he deal with this point? If the guidance does not make it clear that the prospective employee is entitled to refuse a job offer because that offer involves sacrificing employment protection rights, the prospective employee does not have a choice. The defence that the Minister has put forward to Clause 27 is therefore simply inapplicable.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
On that particular point, it is important again to emphasise that each case involving an employee shareholder or a would-be employee shareholder will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I hope that I have set out the process by which that will be undertaken by the jobcentre in negotiation and discussion with the potential employee shareholder. That is where we are at the moment. However, the guidance—which, I repeat, is coming—will go much further towards setting out the details and indeed the guidance for that process to work.
The Government do not believe that the right way of providing the protection sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Pannick, is through amending this clause. As I mentioned earlier, the jobseeker’s allowance system works on a case-by-case basis, with all decisions made on the merit of the case. The system is sufficiently flexible and robust, and jobseeker allowance decision-makers, with the support and guidance which we have committed to providing, will be able to understand the new employment status. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Pannick, will not press their amendments.
Baroness Warnock
I wish to raise one question. How can a case-by-case examination of a claimant’s refusal determine whether or not it is reasonable for an employee to be asked to give up his employment rights? This is nothing to do with a case-by-case basis, but an absolutely universal principle that would apply to everybody. If a would-be employee decides that he does not want to give up his rights, this is nothing to do with his particular case, but a general principle. Can the noble Viscount respond?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can only re-emphasise that when a case is taken on a case-by-case basis, this means that, if an individual is seeking a job and an employee shareholder position comes up, the Jobcentre Plus and the officials within the system will be looking at the individual’s case. It is their job to determine the way forward in relation to the employee shareholder position that has arisen.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the noble Viscount ended by saying that he hoped that I would withdraw the amendment in light of the reassurances that he had given. With great respect to the noble Viscount, he gave no reassurances whatever. Though I am not intending to press the matter today, the Committee will have to draw its own conclusions from the total absence of reassurance which the Government have provided so far. Not only have they not provided any reassurance, but they have not even given the Committee the basic information that we need to be able to make a judgment as to whether there is any validity in the statements that the Government have made to the effect that issues relating to the new employee shareholder status will be taken account of by DWP decision-makers.
The noble Viscount has a disarming manner, and we commiserate with him for having to defend this proposal to the Committee—I would not wish to have to do so myself. However, when he says that we need to be sympathetic to the Government’s position because this guidance is 3,000 pages long, I feel bound to point out that it is the Government who are seeking to change the law; it is not Members of your Lordships’ House who are seeking to do so. The fact that the guidance is 3,000 pages long is not a defence for the Government not having prepared for changes which they are proposing to inflict on the country and declaring them to Parliament before we change the law. They say that changing 3,000 pages of guidance is a laborious job. I am sure that it is: I spent a good part of this morning trying to read the guidance and to make sense of it. Goodness, even legal eminences of the height of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would struggle with the complexity of the guidance which the DWP issues. If the Government are saying that they need more time, your Lordships would be very happy to give it to them if they wish to withdraw Clause 27 from the Bill and then bring it back when they have got their guidance in order so that we can then look at it with the clause to which it refers. There would be a generally warm reception to such a proposal from the noble Viscount.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I just want to re-emphasise what I was trying to say about the document being 3,000 words long. I wanted to reiterate that this is no small task. One may well say, “You should’ve done it before Committee stage today and certainly before Report”, but as the noble Lord knows, I cannot at the moment give a guarantee that it will be ready by Report. I simply wanted to state that this is a major document, a lot of detailed work is going on, and it will come.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I apologise for intervening on an intervention, but I just wanted clarification on this. The noble Viscount just said that the document was 3,000 words long, but I understood that we had been told earlier that it was 3,000 pages. There is some difference.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I stand corrected—it is indeed 3,000 pages long.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I repeat: it is the Government’s responsibility to prepare the changes to the law and the guidance that they wish to make and to present them to the House before we change the law. The fundamental point is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made—the difference in respect of these contracts is that employment rights are being withdrawn. The fundamental question, on which we need to see the guidance, is whether the withdrawal of these rights is itself a reason why unemployed people are permitted to decline to attend interviews or accept jobs. If it is not a reason then nothing has changed. This clause therefore flatly contradicts the assurances that have been given to Parliament that the new employee shareholder status is voluntary. I think that that is a very significant point which your Lordships will wish to take into account when we get to Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly at the beginning of this debate because I want to comment on the noble Viscount’s contribution. In the amendments in my name in the group, I simply specify all the rights that it is proposed should be withdrawn through the new employee shareholder status so that the Government will have an opportunity to defend their decision to withdraw them in each case and to provide a longer notice period for early return from maternity and adoption leave. As the noble Viscount knows, we are opposed to each of the withdrawals of rights in Clause 27. The Government have not had the opportunity before your Lordships to explain their justification for the withdrawal of each of these rights. By putting these amendments down, I am giving the Government the opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Strasburger
My Lords, when I spoke to the first group of amendments I declared my interests as an entrepreneur. I forgot also to declare that in a former life I used to play cricket with Mr Adrian Beecroft, who is a very charming man and a very fine opening bat and cover fielder. However, to my knowledge he has no personal experience of starting or running a business. It strikes me that the authors of this clause have about the same amount of experience as Mr Beecroft in that area but are probably not as good batsmen.
I have two specific questions to address to the Minister. First, which of the rights that this clause requires employees to forfeit is going to enhance their business’s chances of success? Secondly, which of those forfeited rights do the Government think will improve the motivation and commitment of these second-class employees?
Lord Deben
First, I apologise for the fact that I have been abroad and therefore not able to follow that part of the Bill that has gone through since I last spent time on it.
On these amendments, I also declare an interest as the founder of a successful small business and as having worked in other successful small businesses. I have to say to my noble friend that I cannot imagine any circumstances whatever in which this would be of any use to any business that I have ever come across in my entire life. One of the problems with government is that not many people who run businesses are in it. I can genuinely say that in 16 years as a Minister, I was one of the few people who had run a big business. Since ceasing to be a Minister, I have run a number of small businesses which are happily getting larger. That is the right way round.
I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to explain in detail why these changes, which are now open to businesses, will be of help. I have not found any businesses that thought that they would be of help. Having explained that, perhaps my noble friend would be kind enough to explain why, if the changes are good in these circumstances, they are not done for everybody. If there really is a huge advantage that would make lots more new jobs, perhaps the proposal is rather limited. I do not think the Government think that, otherwise they would not have limited it in this way.
Lord Deben
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, speaks from her seat, but she has put forward some opinions that I have not heard since 1945. I am not on that side but I still do not see this. I hope that the Government will help those of us who are naturally on their side to get out of this miasma—this difficulty of understanding the connection of the two halves. I have great sympathy with the question asked earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. What is the connection and how will it improve things, one by one? I am very ready to be converted but at the moment I am finding it rather difficult.
Lord Pannick
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, posed a series of questions about the benefits of Clause 27. Perhaps I may add to the burdens on the Minister, who is playing a very straight bat—he would be a credit to the cricket team of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. I will put these questions to the Minister in the hope that he can explain whether the Government have taken account of two very troubling legal consequences that will follow from the current contents of Clause 27 and which are relevant to the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
First, some of the rights that the employee or prospective employee is being invited to sell are concerned with issues that are particularly sensitive in anti-discrimination law. There is the right to request flexible working, which is obviously of particular importance to working mothers—as is the eight-week notice period that would be imposed for the return to work after maternity leave. These are very sensitive matters. It is inevitable that employers who seek to rely on an agreement which purports to override rights in this context will face legal challenges under EU law, the expense of which will far exceed the amounts that they would pay to employees for giving up those rights. Have the Government taken that into account in deciding on the merits or otherwise of Clause 27?
I would be grateful if the Minister would comment also on a second legal implication. If the law allows for the sale of unfair dismissal and redundancy rights, it is inevitable that aggrieved employees, when they are dismissed or made redundant at some stage in future, will not go quietly. Having sold their unfair dismissal and redundancy rights, they will formulate their grievances by reference to whatever legal avenue has not been sold. Nothing in Clause 27 affects—and because of EU law nothing in Clause 27 could affect—their rights of protection under anti-discrimination law. So instead of claiming unfair dismissal, or seeking compensation for redundancy, the aggrieved employee will contend that the dismissal or redundancy was based on a prohibited ground. Therefore, my second question to the Minister is whether the Government have really taken into account that any employer that enters into one of these agreements—and it seems highly unlikely that there will be many of them—will not be protecting themselves against the litigation that will result when an employee is dismissed or made redundant in future.
Baroness Brinton
Clause 27 requires employees to give up a range of rights. Many of these rights are ones that the Beecroft report recommended should be removed from employees more generally. The Secretary of State, Vince Cable, hit out at Beecroft’s unfair proposals. He said:
“One of Mr Beecroft’s recommendations was a suggestion to bring in no-fault dismissal. In my daily conversations with businesses, this has very rarely been raised with me as a barrier to growth. Businesses are much more concerned about access to finance or weak demand than they are about this issue”.
Given that the clause is in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill and that the Secretary of State does not believe that giving up the right to claim unfair dismissal is a barrier to growth, why should we ask workers to give it up under this new status? In fact, Mr Cable went even further and stated that it would be counterproductive. He said:
“At a time when workers are proving to be flexible in difficult economic conditions it would almost certainly be counterproductive to increase fear of dismissal”.
I never thought that I would support Mr Beecroft, but he recommended a compensated no-fault dismissal. The Government are going one step further and do not even provide compensation for no-fault dismissal under the employee shareholder status. Given how controversial Mr Beecroft’s proposals were in the first place, and the Secretary of State’s protest, does this not give us further reason for the removal of subsections (2)(c) and (d)? Beecroft also recommended the removal of the right to request flexible working—another of his recommendations that the Government are trying, perhaps, to sneak in by the back door through this status for certain employees. However, I have to say that this directly contradicts the coalition agreement and the mid-term review, which states that the Government will extend,
“the right to flexible working to all employees”.
How can the Government fulfil that pledge when they will be removing the right from employee shareholders?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, Clause 27 is about providing further choice to the range of employment statuses that employers can consider and choose. I want to take this opportunity to explain to the House the difference between “employee shareholder”, “employee” and “worker”. This will help us understand the context of the noble Lords’ amendments.
People and companies already have a choice in how they wish to work and how they structure their workforce. The choice is usually between hiring someone as a worker, an employee or on a self-employed basis. The difference between these employment statuses is the level of obligation and mutuality to provide and carry out work, and the rights associated with the statuses. I hope that the following explanation goes a little way to answering some questions that my noble friend Lord Deben raised.
Workers have limited rights such as the right to be paid the national minimum wage, protections against unlawful deductions from their pay, paid annual leave and rest breaks, and protection against discrimination, which includes on the ground that they work part time. Employees who meet the relevant conditions have the following additional rights: a general right not to be unfairly dismissed after two years working with the same employer; automatically unfair dismissal rights; statutory redundancy pay; statutory minimum notice period; statutory collective redundancy notice period; TUPE, which was mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner; the statutory right to request flexible working; and, finally, if they work in a large business of more than 250 employees, they have the statutory right to request training.
The self-employed have limited employment rights linked to discrimination and health and safety. The new employee shareholders will have more rights than someone taken on as a worker, but not all those of an employee. They will not have: first, the right to unfair dismissal except for automatically unfair reasons or on discriminatory grounds; secondly, the statutory right to request flexible working or certain statutory rights to request training; and, thirdly, statutory redundancy pay.
I turn to employee shareholders wishing to return to work earlier than originally planned from maternity, additional paternity or adoption leave. When returning early from these types of leave, employee shareholders will need to give 16 weeks’ notice, compared to six weeks for employees returning from additional paternity leave or eight weeks for employees returning from maternity leave or adoption leave. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, proposes with Amendments 83 to 89 to take out the employment law references in Clause 27, where it states what rights the employee shareholder will have that are different from those of an employee. This includes removing the distinguishing features of the clause and therefore it will remove choice from the options that employers can consider when taking on staff. The amendments would create an employment status that is essentially the same as that of “employee”, but where the employee shareholder would be given fully paid-up shares. In effect, we would be regulating for an additional employment status that essentially already exists in that of “employee” in order for the individual to be given shares. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows—he is supported in this by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—employee ownership, either through direct employee share holdings or shares held in trust on behalf of and for the benefit of employees, is already a well known concept that is in use in the labour market. Companies are already free to offer shares to their employees.
My honourable friend Jo Swinson, the Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs, is chair of the implementation group taking forward the recommendations of the Nuttall review which is promoting the employee ownership agenda. The Government do not want to create an additional burden by regulating for something that can already take place in the labour market and that an employer can already offer. Such action would not help growth.
I should like to answer some questions that were raised by noble Lords. First, my noble friend Lord Deben stated that, as he saw it, there was no support from business. I have listened very carefully today to the comments made by other noble Lords. It might be helpful for noble Lords to know that Neil Clifford, the chief executive of Kurt Geiger, the shoe retailer, has stated that this measure would,
“provide a massive boost to innovation and enterprise”.
Becky McKinlay, who runs Ambition, a marketing communications company, is cited as saying that,
“she would have welcomed such a scheme when she started her marketing communications company, Ambition, six years ago because she could not afford to outbid her peers on wages”.
I could go on.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised the issue of why we think there is a statutory right to request flexible working and why it is unnecessary for employee shareholders. The statutory right to request flexible working creates a structure for conversations between employees and employers about changes to ways of working that will be mutually beneficial. Employee shareholders will have a greater interest in the performance of their employer as it is linked to the value of their shares. We consider that employee shareholders are more likely to request flexible working if they think it will help them and the company and do not need the statutory right to request. Employee shareholders can still make non-statutory requests for flexible working.
My noble friend Lord Strasburger raised the issue of which rights will increase motivation. As we see it, this new employment status will increase motivation as the employee shareholder will own shares from the outset and capital gains on these shares of up to £50,000 will not attract capital gains tax.
Lord Strasburger
I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. That was not my question. My question was: which of the removed rights is going to increase the motivation of the employees and therefore improve the performance of the business?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The overall package of the employee shareholder, with the extra risk as well as the extra reward, is designed to ally the employee with the employer more readily. The motivation will be there because the employee will feel more aligned to the objectives of the company and will help more towards building and growing the company. That is one of the clear objectives behind this scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised the issue of the legal consequences of selling rights. A full equality impact assessment has been done and no significant discrimination issues were identified. On the European law issues, I can reassure him that no European guaranteed rights have been affected.
My noble friend Lady Brinton asked whether we can ensure that an employee shareholder is treated fairly and not sacked just because their employer does not like them or has argued with them. An employee shareholder would still retain the majority of protections such as, as I mentioned earlier, automatically unfair dismissal rights and rights underpinned by EU law and discrimination legislation. If an employee shareholder was dismissed in any other circumstances, they would not be able to claim unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal, which we understand. Employees do not get the general right to protection against unfair dismissal or to statutory redundancy pay until they have been with their employer for two years, so there are already employees who currently do not have these rights.
In conclusion, Clause 27 creates a new employment status that gives companies and people more choice. This new status is a creative scheme for companies and people who wish to use it. It gives them a new opportunity to better share the risks and rewards of the business. I hope noble Lords realise that this new, innovative status is a force for good in the labour market, and that they will withdraw their amendments so that companies and people can benefit from this additional choice.
Baroness Brinton
I was slightly confused by some of the Minister’s earlier response on the employee status for employee shareholders. I would welcome clarification on whether they are actually regarded as employees, generally, or whether the only respect in which they are not employees is where those rights have been specifically removed by the Bill.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can confirm that it is an entirely new status, so the individual who agrees with their employer to a contract to be an employee shareholder is not the same as an employee.
Lord Deben
Could my noble friend help the House, before we come to Report, by giving some estimate of how many businesses the Government think will take up this proposition? Given that many of us feel there will be few, it would be helpful to know why we need this big piece of legislation if we do not think many people will take it up. How many employee shareholders of this kind do the Government expect to have in two years’ time?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank my noble friend for that question. It is extraordinarily difficult to ascertain a precise figure. It can be only a guesstimate, and I hope that the House will respect that. However, from the figures that we have ascertained, we think that around 6,000 companies will look at this seriously and take up this issue. However, that is, as I say, a guesstimate.
Lord Strasburger
I am sorry to keep jumping up and down, but I still have not heard from the Minister how the withdrawal of all or any of the rights will improve the performance of any business.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I believe that I have answered my noble friend’s questions, and it is possible that I would not satisfy him, even if I gave him the same answer.
Baroness Turner of Camden
The Minister has just said that it is not clear whether an employee shareholder is an employee. I remind him of the advice that we have received from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which looked at this situation in some detail. It came to the view that an individual who is an employee shareholder was nevertheless a worker, so workers’ rights would normally be applied to that individual. The Government have tried to get over that by saying that because this is all voluntary, the employee voluntarily gives up their rights. During the course of our recent discussion, it has become clear that that is certainly not voluntary. In a situation in which people face either unemployment or the possibility of loss of employment support from the state, it is not really very voluntary, is it?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It may help the noble Baroness if I state again that the employee shareholder agreement between the employer and employee is a specific new contract for a new employment status. However, if, for example, the employer has not fulfilled the basic criteria for ensuring that the employee is properly included and for meeting the criteria for that employee to be an employee shareholder, there is a default position whereby the employee shareholder would revert to being an employee or worker, whatever is applicable. There is a safeguard in place for them.
Lord Pannick
The noble Viscount said a few moments ago that it is the Government’s estimate that up to 6,000 companies might wish to take advantage of Clause 27. Would he kindly undertake to publish before Report the evidence upon which that assessment has been made?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I would be delighted to furnish the noble Lord with whatever information I can find, but I remind him—he may well know the statistic—that the total estimated number of businesses in the UK is 4,794,000. Therefore, breaking down the figure to 6,000 perhaps re-emphasises that this employee shareholder status is not for every company. It is aimed at a particular type of company, and it is important to round off this debate by emphasising that this is not as big a deal as some noble Lords are making it out to be.
Baroness Brinton
I apologise for intervening again. Can the noble Viscount explain what niche group of companies this provision would interest, given that in our discussion on the first group of amendments, when I outlined the problems facing high-tech, leading-edge companies going through rapid growth—which Ministers have told us was exactly the audience the clause was aimed at—the Minister said that it was probably not appropriate for them? Perhaps he could cite the type of company it is appropriate for.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I re-emphasise that the Government stick by their idea and plan that the provision will suit small start-up companies, but not exclusively those. However, from my noble friend Lady Brinton’s comments, it certainly does not seem to suit the companies that she has been in touch with, and I thoroughly respect that. I say again that this will not suit every company, but I have given quotations from individuals who seem to think that this is a good, innovative new scheme, which I very much welcome. I hope that it will take off, despite the fact that it is obviously quite contentious.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, we are full of admiration for the way the noble Viscount seeks to defend these proposals before the House. However, I am afraid that I find myself with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who said that this was a mystifying moment in a mystifying Bill. The mystification gets greater the longer the Government seek to defend the proposal, and does so in three respects. The first is the figure of 6,000, which is in the impact assessment and which the Minister has undertaken to write to noble Lords to defend. However, I have read the impact assessment and the figure appears to be simply plucked out of the air. There seems to be no justification whatever for a figure of 6,000, as opposed to—
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I apologise for interrupting and thank the noble Lord for giving way. I made it absolutely clear that this was a guesstimate. When pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the figure, I felt it appropriate to give a figure to the House, and I am quite prepared to come back to the House on it. That figure may indeed change, but I reiterate it and suggest that it is not worth going further on this particular issue.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, all I need to do to let these proposals collapse is allow the noble Viscount to carry on speaking because, proposal by proposal, his case disintegrates. It turns out that the 6,000 figure is indeed a mystifying figure that has no basis in fact. I am thinking of why he might have chosen that figure—it appears to be twice as long as in the guidance for DWP decision-makers. Perhaps that is the basis on which the figure has been devised. We look forward to hearing the justification for it, and therefore whether this measure is incidental or fundamental.
The truth is that the Government cannot possibly know. However, so far as your Lordships are concerned, we have a responsibility not to put on to the statute book provisions that could be seriously detrimental to the health of the nation. No part of the health of the nation is more significant than people at work and their rights there. It is not satisfactory simply to proceed with the provisions on the basis of figures that have been plucked out of the air.
The second thing that has become clear is that the Government suffer from two fundamental problems of schizophrenia. They want more entrepreneurial zeal in the economy, as we all do, but almost none of the entrepreneurs to whom it looks to generate new companies, new ideas and new ventures supports the proposal and believes it will have the effect that the Government state. A number of noble Lords with a great deal more experience of business ventures than me have made that point. I think I quote the noble Lord, Lord Deben, correctly as saying that he could not imagine “any circumstances whatever” in which he would seek to offer these contracts to employees in a small start-up company as a way of motivating them.
The fundamental problem that the Government have with the proposal—the basis upon which it has been put forward is that it will stimulate in the context of the lack of growth new, vitally needed entrepreneurial zeal and companies—is that the entrepreneurs and companies to which he is looking to provide that energy do not believe that this proposal is necessary. On the contrary, almost all of them are critical because they believe that the reputational damage that it will create may undermine the cause that the Government are seeking to promote.
However, a third big tension that has come through clearly from the noble Viscount’s remarks is that the Government speak with two voices. One part of the Government celebrates the extension of employment rights and says that that is a fundamental objective of the coalition Government established in 2010, at the very same time as another part of the Government celebrates the withdrawal of those rights as being necessary to stimulate the economy in a period of economic downturn. I have a view on these matters, but surely the Government should make up their mind which is true. Is the extension of employment rights essential to stimulate the economy to provide greater flexibility and protection for those at work, or is the withdrawal of those rights necessary to spur economic growth? At the moment, one Minister comes here on one day and says that it is the withdrawal of rights, and another Minister comes here on another day and says that it is the extension of rights.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to the Deputy Prime Minister. At the very time the Bill was going through the House of Commons, he made a speech entitled, “Greater equality for a stronger economy”. That was the title on his website. He said:
“I can also confirm today that the Government will legislate to extend the Right to Request Flexible Working to all employees”.
At precisely the same time, this legislation was brought forward: legislation that withdraws the right to request flexible working from employees who are on these employee shareholder contracts.
Are the Government not aware that there is a fundamental problem when one Minister says one thing and another Minister says another, and the two are totally at variance?
Baroness Brinton
That was indeed why I asked the noble Viscount about employee status and whether this was a new form that would circumvent that. On our Benches, we welcomed the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments about increasing flexible working rights to all employees. I remain concerned that this is under threat for the employees of perhaps around 6,000 firms that may or may not take up this particular option.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness has said. I strongly support the extension of the right to request flexible working. I think what the Deputy Prime Minister said in that respect was a very positive step forward. I am seeking to reconcile what the Deputy Prime Minister said from the Benches 45 degrees away from me from what the noble Viscount has said, as I understand it, representing the same Government. This is about how we put together the different parts of the Government and understand what position is being presented to the House.
Finally, I will comment on what the noble Viscount did not say. He did not respond to the point about the Beecroft report. The Beecroft report is of some significance and has been referred to by other noble Lords. My understanding of the genesis of this employee shareholder proposal is that, having sought to implement the Beecroft report and having been stopped from doing so by our colleagues on the Lib Dem Benches, in particular by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Chancellor of the Exchequer then sought to bring back the proposals in a watered-down form in return for the award of shares valued between £2,000 and £50,000. Vince Cable probably now regrets having done that deal, but he did so because he believed it would be niche and insignificant, although 6,000 is on the large side, if that is the figure the Government are now putting forward. He thought that if nobody took it up, this was a deal he could just about live with.
However, the acute irony of the proposal before the House is the one which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, identified: that in respect of one of the fundamental rights being withdrawn—the right not to be unfairly dismissed—the Beecroft proposal for almost all employees who are likely to suffer under this scheme is significantly more generous than the shares for rights proposals encompassed in the Bill. The Beecroft proposal, as she said, required a tax-free payment related to the employee’s salary up to a maximum of £12,000. I took Beecroft to be proposing that that would be the figure for the no fault dismissal fee: £12,000. The offer that employers who are seeking to recruit employees with minimal rights need to make is £2,000. That is, £2,000 in shares, the value of which may be significantly less when they come to trade them in.
Given the choice between a firm contractual requirement to offer £12,000 for no fault dismissal, and £2,000 worth of shares that may be worthless by the time an employee comes to exercise them, Beecroft might actually turn out to be preferable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis
“(7) This section shall only come into operation after an independent assessment of the revenue implications for HMRC, conducted by the Office for Budget Responsibility, in respect of each financial year from 2014 to 2030, is laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Adonis
My Lords, we are now on the issue of the cost of these proposals to the Exchequer. I would like to invite the noble Viscount to explain more fully to the House what he believes the revenue implications would be as a result of the proposals. The independent assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility suggests very large figures might be at stake, which is why we are asking for figures to be made available in respect of each financial year up to 2030.
I quote from the policy costings document published by the OBR alongside the Autumn Statement:
“There are a number of uncertainties about this costing”—
that costing being the figure of £80 million over the current spending review period—
“The static cost is uncertain in part because of a lack of information about the current amount of CGT arising from gains on shares through their employer. The behavioural element of the costing is also uncertain for two main reasons. First, it is difficult to estimate how quickly the relief will be taken up; this could make a significant difference as the cost is expected to rise towards £1 billion beyond the end of the forecast horizon. Second, it is hard to predict how quickly the increased scope for tax planning will be exploited; again this could be quantitatively significant as a quarter of the costing already arises from tax planning”.
I would like to invite the noble Viscount to expand on what the OBR said so that we have a better basis for understanding the potential costs of what could be an extremely expensive proposal once the tax planners get going on the opportunities available to them.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I apologise for referring again to the coalition agreement, but I am concerned that the tax loopholes proposed under the CGT allowances for employee shareholders conflict with the coalition agreement because the shares that a company gives to employee shareholders will not be liable to CGT.
Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, has said:
“Just as government ministers are falling over themselves to condemn such behaviour, the same government is trumpeting a new tax policy which looks like it will foster a whole new avoidance industry”.
He refers to it as a “£1 billion lollipop”. I am prepared to negotiate the billion with Paul Johnson on the understanding that it is only likely to affect a small number of companies. Or perhaps not, because we know that advisers to companies, if they find a loophole will find a way of making it apply to everyone.
The Government have pledged in the coalition agreement to clamp down on tax loopholes and tax avoidance. The agreement says:
“We will make every effort to tackle tax avoidance, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals”.
These include exactly what I have cited earlier. Why do the Government in the draft Finance Bill 2013 create this loophole where shareholders can avoid paying capital gains tax? I quote:
“Legislation will be introduced to exempt all gains made on disposals of up to £50,000 worth of ‘employee shareholder’ shares from capital gains tax”.
The coalition agreement also says:
“We will seek ways of taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income”.
We have pledged, as a Government, to raise capital gains tax and yet we are removing it for shares related to employee shareholders. I support the amendment because we need to understand the cost to the Treasury. I would welcome an explanation from the Minister why it is acceptable for one small group of shareholders to be exempt from CGT when the Government are moving in the opposite direction for all others.
Lord Deben
I hope that my noble friend will be very careful in his response to this because underneath there are two falsities. The first is the schizophrenia on the side of the Opposition. On the one hand, they say that no one will be taking it up, and on the other hand they say that it might be very expensive. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, should get away with that argument.
I also do not want him to take too seriously the comments about exempting people from capital gains tax. I declare an interest as the chairman of a number of small companies, which are, I hope, growing. I have the feeling that there is a kind of nastiness abroad on this issue, because capital gains tax is very much a destroyer of value and of enterprise. One problem in this country is that many people do not like other people being wealthy as a result of hard work and employment. I dislike that kind of attitude very much. If that is part of the coalition agreement, it is a bad part, because we need a society in which people are encouraged to put their lives into businesses and to gain some of the benefits of that. One reason the United States is so much more successful than other countries is that it has been more sensible about that bit of its taxation. It is very stupid about a lot of other taxation, but on that bit at least it has said that there is a real reason for encouraging people to create businesses. One way of encouraging them is by giving them a lower rate of tax on capital gains and dividends than they would have elsewhere. That seems perfectly right, and one problem that we have is that we have not taken that seriously.
I am not worried about this proposal because I do not think that anyone is going to take it up and so they are not going to lose any money. However, I hope that my noble friend will be kind enough to suggest that the Government will do a great deal more to enable people, through employment, to create wealth and to take some of that wealth in a way that we do not allow them to do at the moment.
It really is sad that we have a society in which it is perfectly proper to say, “We’ve really got to stop people possibly gaining from the creation of jobs”. That is what we mean when we say that we want to make sure that nobody benefits. That is not what I want to happen—and it will not happen—but I hope that in his answers my noble friend will make sure that he does not commit the Government to not taking some pretty radical steps to remove and reduce taxation in a number of areas that will encourage job creation.
Baroness Brinton
I should like to clarify the point that I was trying to make about finding a tax loophole that provides a source of employment for many industry experts. We need a capital gains tax system which is fair and which certainly encourages growth. I do not think that we would suggest anything other than that from these Benches. The concern arises when, on the one hand, the Government say that they want to make a clear, open and transparent level playing field but then, on the other, they create a category that appears to have a built-in loophole.
Lord Deben
I am sorry if I misunderstood my noble friend, and of course I accept what she has just said. I find it very hard when the guns are turned on this issue because of the loose use of the words “tax loophole”. This is not a tax loophole; it is a decision—a mistaken decision, I think—to encourage people to do something through a tax concession. I repeat: it is not a tax loophole. I shall tell noble Lords what a tax loophole is. It is Amazon organising itself so that it runs people out of the high streets of Britain by ensuring that it does not pay proper taxes. A tax loophole—I declare an interest as being concerned with the business of packaging recovery—is when Amazon can put packaging on the marketplace and not pay the proper price of so doing. That is what a loophole is. It is not a loophole if the Government specifically say that in particular circumstances people will pay a lower rate of tax. That is a proper use of the taxation system. For goodness’ sake, do not let us use the term “loophole” in this instance. There are some very big loopholes which we ought to be stopping and, for me, Amazon is the biggest example of a company that does not pay proper tax wherever it operates.
Baroness Brinton
I apologise for intervening again and I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. There is absolutely no doubt that we agree about Amazon. Perhaps I may give an illustration from the early 1990s of the sort of loophole that I was alluding to. The Conservative Government of the day created generous tax facilities for investors in the business expansion scheme. When the scheme was originally devised, it was intended for small high-growth companies—where have I heard that before in this debate? Investors would get those tax benefits because they were investing in something that carried a slightly higher risk. I confess, as the bursar of a Cambridge college, that within two or three years every Oxbridge college, and subsequently every university in the country, used the business expansion scheme, and that tax benefit was quickly closed down by the Government, who described it as a tax loophole.
It is exactly that sort of loophole that I want to avoid. I absolutely understand the Government saying that it is supposed to be a niche group of companies that will apply for this, although I still wait to hear which ones they are. However, I would not want to see some sort of tax provision that suddenly made this proposal attractive to the majority of companies in this country. That was not the intention and it certainly has not been the tenor of the debate.
Lord Deben
I do not disagree with that. However, I think that this proposal is going to be so unattractive to so many companies that that particular problem will not arise.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, first, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Deben for extolling the virtues of employee ownership, which is very much part of the debate today.
This amendment stipulates that the clause should come into effect only once an independent assessment, conducted by the Office for Budget Responsibility, is laid before both Houses setting out the impact on the Exchequer for each financial year between 2014 and 2030.
The OBR’s role is to provide independent scrutiny and certification of the Government’s policy costings ahead of the Budget and the Autumn Statement. The OBR certified the costing of this measure submitted by HMRC using the methodology set out in the policy costings document published at the Autumn Statement, which is available on the HM Treasury website.
The main duty of the OBR is to examine and report on the sustainability of the public finances. The OBR performs this duty independently, with complete discretion to determine the content of its publications and its work programme of research and analysis.
The Government do not publish annual breakdowns of the cost of operating specific tax measures beyond the end of the forecast period, and this has been the case for some time. This will apply to the employee shareholder status in the same way as it applies to the cost of operating any other specific tax measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is understandably concerned about the need to support the Government’s agenda for fiscal sustainability. I emphasise that we believe that investment in policies such as this one—aimed at reducing costs on business and increasing productivity —is exactly what is needed at this time. Strong, sustainable and balanced growth is the key to long-term fiscal sustainability. However, I assure the noble Lord that if further provisions are needed to limit its overall costs, we will have the opportunity to include these at a later date.
At this stage, I think it is worth picking up some points that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, raised concerning the OBR. The OBR, with its responsibility, is right to note that predicting the take-up of new policies such as this one is very difficult. We recognise that, but its comments need clarification. First, the OBR refers to tax planning and not avoidance. Encouraging take-up of this targeted employment policy should not be misconstrued as encouraging avoidance. Secondly, any rise towards £1 billion is estimated to occur well beyond the end of the forecast period—in fact, beyond the 2020s, when national income is likely to be more than twice as high in today’s money. Finally, the draft legislation published on 11 December includes a number of anti-avoidance provisions. If further provisions are needed to address particular avoidance risks, we will have the opportunity to include them at a later date with a view to ensuring that this policy does not become disproportionately costly to the taxpayer.
Lord Adonis
Could I ask a specific question? The OBR said that it expected the cost of this policy to rise towards £1 billion beyond the end of the forecast horizon. Is that a figure that the Government accept?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It gives me the opportunity to answer the noble Lord’s question by saying that the OBR has stated that in the long term this policy could cost up to £1 billion. That figure relates to the future period beyond the 2020s. However, there are uncertainties associated with costs so far into the future and I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that. The Government expect that the new employee shareholder status should help to stimulate business and entrepreneurial activity by affording businesses greater choice on the contract that they can offer to individuals while ensuring that appropriate levels of protection are maintained. If the policy achieves this aim, the cost, which is expected to reach £8 million in 2017-18, is proportionate. The draft legislation published on 11 December sets out a number of anti-avoidance provisions to prevent the manipulation of the capital gains tax exemption on shares received under the status. If further provisions are needed to address particular avoidance issues, as mentioned earlier, the Government will have the opportunity to include these at a later date with a view to ensuring that this policy does not continue.
My noble friend Lady Brinton raised the issue of whether the tax incentives were in effect a tax avoidance scam, if I can put it somewhat indelicately. She did not put it in that indelicate way. The Government have already included provisions to deal with various types of possible abuse in the draft legislation on capital gains tax exemption. If other forms of abuse come to light, the Government will make the necessary changes to combat that with a view to ensuring that the policy does not become disproportionately costly to the taxpayer.
Some concern has been raised, notably by my noble friend Lady Brinton about the capital gains tax exemption. This relates particularly to people taking up this new employment status, and although I touched on it slightly earlier, I shall address it directly. We believe that employee ownership is a good thing. We want people to become employee shareholders and to benefit from the exemption provided. Where it is used properly it should be seen as a measure of success and people should take advantage of this particular exemption. However, the draft Finance Bill published on 11 December takes a robust line on the potential misuse of the exemption and provides several measures that would prevent the misuse of employee shareholder employment status. There are rules to prevent those who control a company, such as company directors, holding exempt employee shareholder shares if they control 25% or more of the voting power in the company. Similarly, rules will prevent people connected to those who control the company, such as spouses or children, benefiting from the exemption. We will prohibit employees from benefiting from multiple £50,000 limits by entering into multiple consecutive employee shareholder contracts with related companies. Instead when related companies are involved, an employee will have a single £50,000 limit applying to all shares received by related companies. We will also ensure that those looking to get around the limit by using company liquidations to dispose of and then receive new exempt shares cannot do so. We will require two years to pass between the liquidation of the company and the employee receiving further exempt shares. This treatment strikes the right balance between preventing abuse and ensuring that genuine entrepreneurs are not unfairly hit.
Finally, the legislation will prevent the manipulation of share values, for example, by placing restrictions on them so that an employee can receive shares that are in fact worth more than £50,000. For the purposes of the capital gains tax exemption the value of shares will be based on an unrestricted market share. Taken together the measures and the safeguards outlined in the draft legislation will ensure that the tax benefits of a new employment status can be misused. I hope that that goes some way to satisfying the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Lord Deben
Is not the fact that if this works, arguing about how much it costs the Treasury is not sensible? If it works, it will create jobs and make wealth, and the cost to the Treasury will be nil. If it does not work, nobody will take it up and the cost to the Treasury will be nil. It seems to me that this is not a necessary discussion. The only thing that we do not want is for it to be misused. The noble Viscount has explained how the Government intend to do that. No doubt they will do their usual thing of bringing in some more measures to stop it if that were to happen. The real fact is that this is one part of the argument that really does not hold water. We have to accept that if it does not work we have wasted a bit of time, which is not terrible, but if it does work we will have been proved wrong and I will be happy about it. The Treasury will not lose out because there will be jobs, people employed and money being made, which is really worth while.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying that and, of course, he is absolutely right. I felt that it would be helpful to the House to outline the safeguards and to reiterate that the Government have thought very carefully about these issues. Taking up some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Deben, I emphasise again that it is a risk-reward status as the employee shareholder. The award is: yes, the opportunity is there to be given from between £2,000 and £50,000 and to be aware that if it is £20,000, £30,000, or whatever the figure might be, and the share price happened to double, the total amount, including the doubling would be free from capital gains tax. That is the reward bit, but equally, I am also realistic enough to say that it is possible that the shares might indeed be worth nothing. That is the risk, and it is best to be quite straight and open about that particular issue. With that in mind I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I do not intend to press the issue today. Let me be brief in response to the noble Viscount. We face a straightforward case of schizophrenia here. One part of the Government tells us that the biggest problem facing the country is debt and another part of the Government produces a proposal, which we are debating today, for a new tax break for substantial shareholders that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates will ultimately cost up to £1 billion a year. When we debate the entirety of Clause 27 on Report, this latest example of schizophrenia will be one of the reasons why we will seek to delete it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I have put down a Motion that Clause 27 should not stand part of the Bill to stimulate a last, wider debate on the issue. I note that the noble Viscount has gone over the same ground several times and I feel for him at having to do it yet again. Perhaps our remarks before he speaks will encourage him to make some new points that will help inform the Committee.
There are three essential points to be made on Clause 27, the first of which relates to the extension of employee share ownership. This is an objective that noble Lords in all parts of the House support. Indeed the Government had an official review—the Nuttall review—which reported last year on the extension of employee share ownership. That review made some 30 recommendations. I have the report here. Most of them were excellent recommendations, some of which the Government accepted and some of which they were unable to accept. I simply note that not one of those recommendations of the review that the Government set up specifically to promote wider share ownership related to the creation of an employee ownership scheme akin to the one that we are debating today, involved issuing shares in return for the giving up of employment rights.
The question I want to ask the noble Viscount is: if this is such a good idea, why was it not recommended by Nuttall? Secondly, I want to reiterate all the specific problems relating to the scheme, which have become very clear in our debates this afternoon. There is the problem of compulsion in respect of benefit claimants and the opening to discrimination claims, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, highlighted. That could mean that there will be an explosion of very expensive and difficult cases before employment tribunals because of the removal of essential rights that will leave employees with no other recourse than discrimination when they believe that they have been badly treated. There is the problem of cost which we have just debated in the previous group of amendments, and a whole set of issues that we have not debated but which were debated in the House of Commons about the status of the shares themselves, such as the voting nature of the shares and how the shares will be tradable, given that most of them are intended to be among the 6,000 companies that the noble Viscount has highlighted. There are start-up companies whose shares will not be listed, so we must ensure that there is a market in which they can sell shares and terms under which they sell them, given that they may have to sell them back to their own companies when those companies are under some stress. There is a whole set of issues relating to the working of the scheme which makes it highly problematic and which may leave small shareholders, in particular, who do have not much money themselves without resources to take independent financial and legal advice. They could be very seriously exposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Flight, told the Committee earlier that if he was 40 years younger, he would relish the opportunity to take advantage of the status and that it would have spurred him to the creation of new companies and new employment. If they were the groups we are talking about, that would be one case. But, as legislators, we are concerned that substantial numbers of employees who do not have access to financial and legal advice will be straightforwardly exploited by these provisions.
The third point I make on the clause as a whole is that almost nobody to whom this proposal is targeted welcomes it. The Government’s own consultation showed that an overwhelming majority of those who responded, including those who responded from within the business community, either thought that this proposal was irrelevant or were actively hostile to it. The noble Viscount cited a few instances earlier of individuals who support it. However, of the 219 consultation responses, only five welcomed the proposal. Five out of 219 is about the same ratio of supporters to opponents as we have seen in your Lordships’ House as this proposal has been debated. That seems to me a compelling reason why the Government would be wise to withdraw the proposal before we debate it again at Report. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I agree with all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. Clause 27 is wrong in principle. It contains inadequate safeguards both in relation to the loss of welfare benefits for those prospective employees who do not wish to give up their statutory employment rights, and also in respect of the need for legal and financial advice for those who are prepared to give up those rights. Clause 27 will also be expensive to the Treasury if there is a take-up, or there is going to be very limited demand. I note that the noble Viscount has attempted to provide the evidence on which the Government estimate that 6,000 companies may be interested in Clause 27. I look forward to seeing that material. I, too, very much hope that the Government will listen to the debates that we have had this afternoon, and take the wise step of withdrawing Clause 27 before we come to consider it again at Report.
Lord Flight
My Lords, although I welcome the suggestion that the Chancellor might allow there to be no income tax on grants of up to £2,000, as I understand it, the spirit of the provision is more about the go-getter employee shareholders. I would suggest that if there is income tax on amounts over £2,000, this scheme will not get anywhere because the amount of tax that people pay will be quite disproportionate to the risk they are taking on their equity and to the values—as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out—of what they are giving up. It is important to sort out by the time we return on Report precisely what the income tax position will be.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Pannick. I will not repeat the detail but there are three or four brief points that I would like to make.
I remain concerned about the clause in principle. After our debate today I am even more concerned about the confusion surrounding jobseeker’s allowance recipients going for job interviews and about some of the details of the eligible tax benefits. It is also clear that employers do not want it: the estimate of 6,000—given the response to the consultation to which the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred—really says it all. Very few employers want it.
The noble Viscount referred to the balance of the risk and reward but there is another “r” in the equation that he did not mention. He omitted reduction—the reduction of rights for employees certainly seems to counterbalance the risk/reward of a long-term holding of shares. That remains one of the most worrying elements of this clause.
Finally, I want to reiterate the point about breaching the coalition agreement specifically in relation to flexible working. I believe that the coalition agreement talks about flexible working for all employees, not excluding one particular small cohort who may have shares that may be of value at some point in the future, but also in relation to any compensation for unfair dismissal where the proposals of the Government are worse than Beecroft.
I hope the Minister will take on board the comments that were made this afternoon. I would prefer the clause to be removed, but it will certainly need substantial amendment at Report if it is to be anywhere near fit for purpose.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I have not spoken to the other amendments to the Bill although I did refer to this issue on Second Reading. Rather than repeat what has already been said extremely eloquently by previous speakers, I just want to remind the House what the Employee Ownership Association has said about this clause. They are the people who are most close to this subject and have the most interest in making sure that this area flourishes, which I think we would all want to happen. The association said:
“Our Members have three main concerns on this matter.
Firstly, proposed legislation has appeared in a Bill before the Government consultation on the possibility of deploying this model of employee ownership has finished. Indeed it has only just started.
Secondly, our Members are very aware that there is no need to reduce the rights of workers in order to grow employee ownership and no data to suggest that doing so would significantly boost the number of employee owners. Indeed all of the evidence is that employee ownership in the UK is growing and the businesses concerned thriving, because they enhance not dilute the working conditions and entitlements of employee owners.
Thirdly, the appearance of this measure in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill appears to our Members to be completely disconnected”—
as my noble friend Lord Adonis has said—
“to the recommendations in the Nuttall Review. That Review contained a series of recommendations on how to grow employee ownership and none of those recommendations suggested the dilution of worker rights”.
I think that that says it all.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, we have heard many opinions about this clause. The Government are taking this action to offer flexibility and choice for both companies and people, and this is the right thing to do. The Government know from their engagement with employer organisations and business that there is concern about facing weak or vexatious claims in employment tribunals. This new employment status will address some of these concerns especially in new and fast-growing companies. Importantly, this new status gives people the opportunity to own part of their company and benefit from any growth with favourable tax treatment, which was mentioned earlier in our debate today. Employee shareholders will receive at least £2,000 of shares in the employing company or its parent company. Gains on the first £50,000-worth of these shares will not be subject to capital gains tax. Employee shareholders will have different employment rights compared to employees and workers.
Before a company offers a person an employee shareholder contract, they will need to think carefully about the implications of offering equity in their company. There are many possible implications, but the current owners will first need to be comfortable with diluting their shareholding, an issue which was raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton earlier. If the shares being offered are part of a fresh issue of shares, this will result in each existing shareholder holding a smaller share in the company. This may not be something that the existing shareholders would be willing to do, particularly if they worked hard to build the company up and invested time, money and know-how in that company.
It is important to recognise that an owner of a company, when giving shares to an employee shareholder, is giving away not only the value of the shares issued but possibly a share in the future profits and some of the control. Offering shares to employee shareholders could in some circumstances lead to a shift in the balance of power in the company. Companies will also need to consider if they can afford to issue shares to potential employee shareholders. If they can, it could impact on the dividends of existing shareholders or entail reserves being reduced.
The rewards for both parties could be significant. Let us remember that companies will have completed an extensive recruitment and selection process, ensuring that any new personnel have the right mix of skills and knowledge. Therefore they will not offer this new status of employee shareholder lightly. A growing company may consider that by offering this new status it is demonstrating a long-term commitment to that person. In turn, the employee shareholder will be able to reap the rewards of a successful company.
I reiterate that this status will not be suitable for all, just those where it makes commercial sense for both parties. We envisage such companies to be those that want to encourage a culture of engagement and shared ownership and—this is the most crucial point—where they expect significant growth and want to use this incentive to attract and retain high-calibre individuals.
Similarly, a person being offered an employee shareholder contract will need to consider the implications of being an employee shareholder. This is a most important point to emphasise. They will need to consider carefully the terms and conditions of the employment on offer and decide whether it is suitable for them in both the long and short term, as we all know that the value of shares can go both up and down. Some potential employee shareholders may not disclose at interview their long-term career plans. Perhaps they expect to stay in the role for only a short time. It may be that they are moving abroad in the future or expect to undertake further studies—that is their own business—and they may not want to invest their time in a company to realise long-term rewards. Equally, someone looking only for short-term work may consider that this is exactly the right kind of contract as they could benefit from any short-term growth in the share value.
To ensure that this new employment status is suitable for both the company and employee shareholder, both will need to be confident that the status is right for them. This means that the company may have to sell its growth prospects to the potential employee shareholder as both a viable investment as well as a potential employer.
It is important that we take time to understand how this new status will work in practice and I am sure that doing so will allay some concerns that have already been raised. Clause 27 establishes three clear qualifying criteria, all of which must be fulfilled before a person can be considered an employee shareholder. The first criterion is that the person must agree to become an employee shareholder—it is their choice. Secondly, the person must receive at least £2,000-worth of shares in the employing or parent company that are fully paid up at the commencement of the employment. This means that these shares will have no debts attached to them. Finally, the individual must not make any payment, in money or in other form, for the shares given. If any of these criteria are not fulfilled and the person is still taken on by the company, they are likely to be legally considered an employee. This, again, addresses the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, earlier. This means that they will have all the employment rights of an employee.
I recognise that there have been some concerns that existing employees will be coerced into accepting a change to their employment contract that would make them employee shareholders rather than employees. The Government do not want people to be coerced into the new employment status. This is why Clause 27 establishes clear protections for existing employees. The clause creates two new employment rights—the right not to be unfairly dismissed and the right not to be subjected to a detriment if an employee turns down an employee shareholder contract. This means that if an employee chooses not to sign an employee shareholder contract and is then overlooked for promotion or disadvantaged in any other way, that person could present a claim to an employment tribunal. Secondly, if an employee does not sign an employee shareholder contract and is dismissed for refusing to do so, it would be automatically unfair.
It is clear that all parties will need to consider carefully whether this status is right for the company. Giving away equity is not to be done lightly and many will not think that this is the right course of action for them. Potential employee shareholders will need to consider whether they want to have shares in the company. To help both parties, the Government will be offering guidance on what both individuals and companies will need to consider before entering into a contract of this type. The House will not need any reminder that we discussed guidance earlier today.
Clause 27 stipulates that the minimum value of shares is £2,000 in the employing or parent company. The clause does not stipulate the type of shares that a company can issue, nor does it stipulate the type of shares issued. We believe that this is best decided by the companies in order to suit their commercial situation. The shares may have varying rights, but it is up to them to decide what is right for both parties. Some companies may want to offer significantly more than the £2,000 minimum value of shares. In some companies, new employee shareholders will want to be fully involved as the company grows and take an active role in the progress of the company.
The Government have considered what happens to the shares when an employee shareholder leaves the company they work for. We expect that employers and employee shareholders will agree sensible terms for the disposal and buyback of shares. These terms should normally be part of the contract that the employee shareholder signs. However, many different scenarios might result from an employee shareholder holding shares. The shares’ value may change; the shares may have been traded; in other cases, the employee shareholder may want to keep hold of the shares on leaving the employment and the company may agree to this. The Government do not want to make rules that tie the employers’ hands; they want to give them flexibility in what they and the employee shareholder decide is the best way to dispose of shares at the end of the employment relationship.
However, the Government recognise people’s concerns that employee shareholders could be at a financial disadvantage if companies decide not to offer a fair way of realising the value of their shares. The Government amended the clause in the other place to include a provision to provide power to regulate buyback where the company has undertaken to buy back shares.
Lord Flight
“Guidance on employee shareholder status
The Secretary of State shall, within two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, set out in guidance—(a) the preferential tax treatment applicable to employee shareholder status including illustrative examples;(b) the respective rights of—(i) employee;(ii) employee shareholders; and(iii) worker employment status;(c) an explanation of how employee shareholder status gives individuals a share in the risk of companies; and(d) a model employee shareholder contract for early stage companies.”
Lord Flight
My Lords, the amendment was intended to be part of the debate on Clause 27. Given that the employee shareholder status is new and that there are still differences of view about its structure, it is obvious that there will be a need for guidance and, in particular, a need for a model employee shareholder contract for early-stage companies. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, in Amendment 95 my noble friend Lord Flight proposes a new clause relating to the publication of guidance on the new employment status. He makes a good point on the need for guidance. The Government agree that guidance should be available to help companies and employee shareholders fully understand all the implications of offering or accepting these contracts. It has always been our intention to publish guidance on the new status. The issue of guidance is an important one. Good, clear and accessible guidance will be vital to both companies and employee shareholders. We want to ensure that people enter into these contracts with their eyes open.
I will outline what the Government propose to publish by way of guidance and explain what that guidance will cover. The .gov.uk website is the new centralised place for publication of government services and information. The website already has a number of pages that provide an overview of the different types of employment status—such as worker and employee—and list the rights that are attached to them. We will provide an equivalent page on the new employee shareholder status.
Within these overview pages there are links to more detailed information on each individual employment right, and these pages will also be updated to take account of the new employment status. People who look for information on employee shareholder contracts will be very clear which rights they are entitled to and which rights do not apply to the status. This will help them to decide if an employee shareholder position is suitable for them.
Changes to these pages are being revised at the moment and we will be in a position to share draft copies with you before this clause is debated on Report. The Government will also update guidance on the tax treatment of shares and capital gains tax to make it clear to employee shareholders what their obligations are and to set out how the associated capital gains tax exemption and other relevant tax treatments will work.
Any contract of employment is an agreement between an employer and employee and is the basis of the employment relationship. We believe that contracts work best when people and companies are free to decide the terms that best suit their business needs, and to attract the right people to their companies. We will provide guidance for companies to enable them to understand the new status. Companies would do well to take note of the comments of my noble friend Lord Flight on the importance of drawing up good employment contracts that apply equally to the statuses of employees and workers.
While I understand my noble friend’s intention behind this amendment, we believe it is not necessary to legislate on this matter. To state this in the Bill would just introduce more legislation, which in turn would create more red tape for businesses. As the Government have already committed to publish guidance, I hope that with these assurances my noble friend will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Brinton
I apologise for intervening. I am grateful for many of the points the Minister raised about guidance and other things that will come forward to us, I hope, before rather than on Report. On a technical point, I wonder whether those who raised issues in this debate could be copied into any correspondence rather than it just going to the single noble Lord who raised the point.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend makes a very fair point. Of course I will copy in all noble Lords who should or would like to be copied in.
Lord Flight
I thank the Minister for his response. I am pleased to find that the matter is in hand. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust Inquiry
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, will the Minister make it clear that brief interventions are required? Otherwise not everyone will be heard.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Today Robert Francis has published the report of the public inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.
Mr Speaker, I have a deep affection for our National Health Service. I will never forget all of the things doctors and nurses have done for my family in times of pain and difficulty. I love our NHS. I think it is a fantastic institution and a great organisation that says a huge amount about our country and who we are. I always want to think the best about it. I have huge admiration for the doctors, nurses and other health workers who dedicate their lives to caring for our loved ones.
Nevertheless, we do them—and the whole reputation of our NHS—a grave disservice if we fail to speak out when things go wrong. What happened at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 2005 and 2009 was not just wrong, it was truly dreadful. Hundreds of people suffered from the most appalling neglect and mistreatment. There were patients so desperate for water that they were drinking from dirty flower vases. Many were given the wrong medication, treated roughly, or left to wet themselves and then to lie in urine for days. Relatives were ignored or even reproached when they pointed out the most basic things which could have saved their loved ones from horrific pain or even death. We can only begin to imagine the suffering endured by those whose trust in our health service was betrayed at their most vulnerable moment. That is why I believe it is right to make this Statement today.
There was a healthcare commission investigation in 2000; a first independent inquiry from Robert Francis in February 2010; and, long before that, the testimony of bereaved relatives such as Julie Bailey and the Cure the NHS campaign. They all laid bare the most despicable catalogue of clinical and managerial failures at the trust. But even after these reports, some really important questions remained unanswered. How were these appalling events allowed to happen and how were they allowed to continue for so long? Why were so many bereaved families and whistleblowers who spoke out ignored for so long? Could something like this ever happen again? These were basic questions about wider failures in the system—not just at the hospital but right across the NHS, including its regulators and the Department of Health. That is why the families called for this public inquiry and that is why this Government granted one. I am sure that the whole House will want to join with me in expressing our thanks to Robert Francis and his entire team for all their work over the past three years.
The inquiry finds that the appalling suffering at Mid-Staffordshire hospital was primarily caused by a “serious failure” on the part of the trust board, which failed to listen to patients and staff and failed to tackle what Robert Francis calls “an insidious negative culture involving a tolerance of poor standards and a disengagement from managerial and leadership responsibilities”. But the inquiry finds that the failure went far wider. The primary care trust assumed that others were taking responsibility and so made little attempt to collect proper information on the quality of care.
The strategic health authority was “far too remote from the patients it was there to serve, and it failed to be sufficiently sensitive to signs that patients might be at risk”. Regulators, including Monitor and the then Healthcare Commission, failed to protect patients from substandard care. Too many doctors “kept their heads down” instead of speaking out when things went wrong. The Royal College of Nursing was “ineffective both as a professional representative organisation and as a trade union”, and the Department of Health too remote from the reality of the services that they oversee.
The way Robert Francis chronicles the evidence of systemic failure means we cannot say with confidence that failings of care are limited to one hospital. But let us also be clear about what the report does not say. Francis does not blame any specific policy; he does not blame the previous Secretary of State for Health; and he says we should not seek scapegoats. Looking beyond the specific failures that he catalogues so clearly, I believe we can identify in the report three fundamental problems with the culture of our National Health Service.
The first is a focus on finance and figures at the expense of patient care; Francis says that explicitly. This was underpinned by a preoccupation with a narrow set of top-down targets pursued in the case of Mid Staffordshire to the exclusion of patient safety or listening to what patients, relatives—and indeed many staff—were saying.
Secondly, there was an attitude that patient care was always someone else’s problem. In short, no one was accountable. Thirdly, he talks about defensiveness and complacency. Instead of facing up to and acting on data which should have implied a real cause for concern, Francis finds, all too often, a culture of explaining only the positives rather than any critical analysis. Put simply, managers were suppressing inconvenient facts in favour of looking for comfort in positive information.
That is one of the most disturbing findings. It is bad enough that terrible things happened at that hospital, but this inquiry is telling us is that there was a manifest failure to act on the data available not just at the hospital but more widely. As Francis says:
“In the end, the truth was uncovered … mainly because of the persistent complaints made by a determined group of patients and those close to them”.
The anger of the families is completely understandable. Every honourable Member in this House would be angry—furious—if their mother or father were treated in this way, and rightly so.
The previous Government commissioned the first report from Robert Francis and, when he saw that report, the former Secretary of State, now the shadow Health Secretary, was right to apologise for what went wrong. This public inquiry not only repeats earlier findings but also shows wider systemic failings, so I would like to go further as Prime Minister and apologise to the families of all those who have suffered for the way that the system allowed such horrific abuse to go unchecked and unchallenged for so long. On behalf of the Government—and indeed our country—I am truly sorry.
Since the problems at Mid Staffordshire Hospital first came to light, a number of important steps have been taken. The previous Government set up the National Quality Board and the quality accounts system. This Government have put compassion ahead of process-driven bureaucratic targets and put quality of care on a par with quality of treatment. We have set that out explicitly in the mandate of the NHS Commissioning Board, together with a new vision for compassionate nursing. We have introduced a tough new programme for tracking and eliminating falls, pressure sores and hospital infections, and we have demanded nursing rounds every hour, in every ward of every hospital.
However, it is clear that we need to do more. We will study every one of the 290 recommendations in today’s report and respond in detail next month, but the recommendations include the three core areas—patient care, accountability and defeating complacency—on which I believe we should make more immediate progress. Let me say a word about each.
The first is how we put patient care ahead of finances. Today, when a hospital fails financially, its chair can be dismissed and the board suspended, but failures in care rarely carry such consequences. That is not right. We will create a single failure regime where the suspension of the board can be triggered by failures in care as well as failures in finance, and we will put the voice of patients and staff at the heart of the way that hospitals go about their work.
In Mid Staffordshire, as far back as 2006, there was a survey in which only about a quarter of staff said that they would actually want one of their own relatives to use the hospital they worked in. During the following two years, bereaved relatives produced case after dreadful case and campaign after chilling campaign, but those voices and horrific cases were ignored. Indeed, the hospital was upgraded to foundation trust status during that period. We need the words of patients and front-line staff to ring through the boardrooms of hospitals and beyond to the regulators and the Department of Health itself.
From this year every patient, every carer, every member of staff will be given the opportunity to say whether they would recommend their hospital to their friends or family. This will be published and the board will be held to account for its response. Put simply, where a significant proportion of patients or staff raise serious concerns about what is happening in a hospital, immediate inspection will result and suspension of the hospital board may well follow.
Quality of care means not accepting that bed sores and hospital infections are somehow occupational hazards and that a little of them is somehow okay. They are not okay. They are unacceptable—full stop, end of story. That is what zero harm means. I have asked Don Berwick—who has advised President Obama on this issue—to make zero harm a reality in our NHS.
Francis makes other recommendations. Today, you can give hands-on care in a hospital ward with no training at all. Francis says that that is wrong, and I agree. Some simple but profound things need to happen in our NHS and our hospitals. Nurses should be hired and promoted on the basis of having compassion as a vocation, not just academic qualifications. We need a style of leadership from senior nurses which means that poor practice is not tolerated and is driven off the wards. Another issue is whether pay should be linked to quality of care rather than just time served at a hospital. I favour this approach.
Secondly, there is accountability and transparency. The first Francis report set out clearly what happened within Stafford hospital. It should have led to those responsible being brought to book by the board, the regulators, the professional bodies—and, yes, even by the courts. But this did not happen.
Most people will want to know why on earth not. We expect hospitals to take disciplinary action against staff who abuse their patients. We expect professional regulators to strike off doctors and nurses who seriously breach their professional codes, and, yes, we expect the justice system to prosecute those suspected of criminal acts, whether they take place in a hospital or anywhere else. In Stafford, these expectations were badly let down. The system failed. That is one of the main reasons we needed this inquiry.
Now that the recommendations about systemic failure are public, the regulatory bodies in particular have difficult questions to answer. The Nursing and Midwifery Council and the General Medical Council need to explain why, so far, no one has been struck off. The Secretary of State for Health has today invited them to explain what steps they will take to strengthen their systems of accountability in the light of this report, and we will ask the Law Commission to advise on sweeping away the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s outdated and inflexible decision-making processes.
The Health and Safety Executive also needs to explain its decisions not to prosecute in specific cases. Indeed, Robert Francis makes a strong argument that the executive is too distant from hospitals and not the right organisation to be focusing on healthcare and criminal prosecutions in such cases. We will look closely at his recommendation to transfer the right to conduct criminal prosecutions from the Health and Safety Executive to the Care Quality Commission.
Thirdly, we must purge the culture of complacency that is undermining care in our country. This requires a clear view about what is acceptable and what is not. In our schools, we have a clear system of deciding whether a school has the right culture and whether it is succeeding or failing. It is a system based on the judgment of independent experts, who walk the corridors of the school and analyse more than just statistics. The public therefore know which schools near them are outstanding and which are failing. They have a right to know the same about our hospitals. We need a hospital inspection regime that does not just look at numerical targets but examines the quality of care and makes an open, public and explicit judgment.
So I have asked the Care Quality Commission to create a new post—a Chief Inspector of Hospitals—to take personal responsibility for this task. I want the new inspections regime to start this autumn. We will look at the law to make sure that the inspector’s judgment is about whether a hospital is clean, safe and caring, rather than just an exercise in bureaucratic box-ticking. In the mean time, I have asked the NHS Medical Director—Professor Sir Bruce Keogh—to conduct an immediate investigation into care at hospitals with the highest mortality rates and to check that urgent remedial action is being taken.
Complacency in the system has meant that all too often, patient complaints have been ignored. I am today asking the honourable Member for Cynon Valley and the Chief Executive of South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Tricia Hart, specifically to advise how hospitals in the NHS should handle complaints better in future.
I have talked today about some of the systemic failures, but at the heart of any system are the people who work in it and the values and vocation that they hold. As Francis says early on in his report, and it is worth me quoting in full:
‘Healthcare is not an activity short of systems intended to maintain and improve standards, regulate the conduct of staff, and report and scrutinise performance. Continuous efforts have been made to refine and improve the way these work. Yet none of them, from local groups to the national regulators, from local councillors to the Secretary of State, appreciated the scale of the deficiencies at Stafford and, therefore, over a period of years did anything effective to stop them’.
What makes our National Health Service special is the very simple principle that the moment you are injured or fall ill, the moment something happens to someone you love, you know that whoever you are, wherever you are from, whatever is wrong, however much you have in the bank, there is a place you can go where people will look after you and do everything they can to make things right again. The shocking truth is that this precious principle of British life was broken in Mid Staffordshire. We would not be here today without the tireless campaigning of the families who suffered so terribly, and I am sure that the whole House will join with me in paying tribute to their incredible courage and determination over these long and painful years.
When I met Julie Bailey and the families again on Monday, she said to me that she wanted the legacy of their loved ones to be an NHS safe for everyone. That is the legacy that together we must secure. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement and also for the tone that he has adopted in repeating the Statement. I remind the House of my health interest in the register.
The NHS represents the best values of this country, but what happened at Stafford was an appalling betrayal of those values. We all place trust in the National Health Service. We expect hospitals to be places of the utmost compassion and the highest standards of care. However, at Stafford patients became victims, left lying in soiled sheets, with untreated bedsores, desperately calling for help, but with no response. Relatives who pleaded for assistance were ignored or even made to feel intimidated. I join the noble Lord the Leader of the House in paying tribute to all those former patients, relatives and staff who came forward to speak out, including those who gave evidence to this and to previous inquiries. I also thank Robert Francis for his work on this and his previous inquiry.
What happened at Stafford was not typical of the NHS. Day in, day out, the vast majority of those who work in the NHS deliver great care to patients up and down the country. They are as horrified at all of this as we are. When the first investigation laid bare the facts in 2009, the then Prime Minister apologised on behalf of the Government and the NHS to the patients and families who suffered so badly at Stafford hospital. He was right to do so. I reaffirm that today and our thoughts are with all the victims and their families. What happened has no place in any NHS hospital. We must ensure that it does not and cannot happen again.
Today’s report makes clear that primary responsibility for what happened lay with the board of the hospital. However, there are wider lessons that politicians on all sides must learn, including a lesson for all parties about the dangers of frequent reorganisations of the NHS.
I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House some specific questions. First, regarding the voice of the patients, effective regulation is essential, but regulators cannot be everywhere, spotting every problem. Patients, their families and staff are everywhere, so we must ensure that they are properly heard. The challenge is to change the culture of the NHS and to support rather than to shut out people who complain. The NHS constitution offers protection for whistleblowers and we support moves to strengthen that. However, the report also highlights criticisms and concerns about both previous and current arrangements for patient bodies. Does the noble Lord agree that, whatever bodies we choose to represent patients, they need to be independent and to have the powers to be an effective voice and challenge to the system. I am sure the noble Lord will have had reported to him last night’s debate on the regulations in relation to local Healthwatch and concern that, as they were drafted, they restrict the activity of local Healthwatch to campaign. I wonder whether, as part of the consideration of the recommendations of the Francis review, the Government would agree to look at the remit and powers of local Healthwatch in order that we might consider strengthening them.
I move to the question of staffing. The basic requirements of any NHS hospital are that there are sufficient staff to look after patients and that they act with compassion. In too many cases at Stafford, this did not happen. Compassion should always be at the heart of nursing, and it needs to be at the heart of nurse training. We support moves to make this more central to nurse training. As Robert Francis has previously said in explaining what went wrong,
“the overwhelmingly prevalent factors were a lack of staff, both in terms of absolute numbers and appropriate skills”.
Does the noble Lord accept the report’s point that we need to consider benchmarks on staff numbers and skills? Can the noble Lord comment on any resource implications that follow from such agreement? Noble Lords will be aware that many NHS trusts are facing severe financial challenges at the moment. Do the Government consider that the NHS has enough resources to ensure that it has the right number of staff in place? This morning the Prime Minister assured the other place that funding is there, but I wonder whether we can be so confident.
My third question relates to regulation. The problems at Stafford should have been picked up much earlier. Monitor and the Healthcare Commission should have worked together much more closely. The Francis report recommends that the two should come together or evolve into a merger. I was rather surprised to read on the Health Service Journal webpage tonight that the Secretary of State has already rejected this recommendation. I was very surprised because in the Statement that the noble Lord has just repeated he said that every recommendation would be studied fully. Can he confirm whether a decision has been made that a merger of Monitor and CQC will not take place? That is a very important matter.
In his Statement the Prime Minister also said that a chief inspector of hospitals would be appointed in the autumn. Can the noble Lord confirm that legislation would be required for that, or is there to be an instruction to CQC to make such an appointment? Is it intended that the remit of the chief inspector of hospitals should cover other parts of the National Health Service? Will there be a chief inspector of primary care? Will there be a chief inspector of social care? Is it intended that the chief inspector will become in effect the boss of CQC, or is this to be a separate appointment? If it is to be a separate appointment, will this person hold independent office, or will he or she be part of the managerial hierarchy of CQC?
Robert Francis rightfully made a great deal of the importance of patient safety. He also referred to the functions of the former National Patient Safety Agency with regard to incident reporting. He said:
“More could be made of this important source of information”.
The noble Lord will be aware that the Health and Social Care Act abolished the National Patient Safety Agency. As part of their consideration of the recommendations of Francis, I ask that the Government consider re-establishing the National Patient Safety Agency as a wholly independent organisation.
I come to the question of healthcare assistants, who do so much important work in our hospital wards and communities. Does the noble Lord agree that we need training and registration to improve standards and safety? In paragraph 1.194 of the summary of Robert Francis’s findings, he makes the point that,
“healthcare support workers … are not subject to any system of registration”.
He says firmly:
“A registration system should be created under which no unregistered person should be permitted to provide for reward direct physical care to patients currently under the care and treatment of a registered nurse or a registered doctor or who are dependent on such care by reason of disability or infirmity in any hospital or care home setting”.
I am sure the noble Lord will have been briefed that in our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill as it went through your Lordships’ House we argued strongly for there to be regulation of healthcare assistants. The Government resisted that. In their consideration of the Francis inquiry recommendations, will they now give sympathetic consideration to the registration of healthcare workers?
I come to my fourth question, which concerns foundation trusts. I am the chair of a foundation trust. I am enthusiastic for them, as I think are many noble Lords on both sides of the House. The journey to foundation status has been a beneficial process for many trusts, but in the case of Stafford it was not. Has the noble Lord made any reassessment of the current timetable for a trust to achieve foundation status and whether more flexibility is needed? Can he assure me that no pressure will be put on the NHS Trust Development Authority to speed up the authorisation of foundation trusts?
The original government intention was for all NHS trusts to become foundation trusts by 2014. I understand that that has slipped. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would confirm that the essential requirement is that a trust is ready to become a foundation trust, not having to fit a timetable that would lead to the kind of pressures that the Mid Staffordshire trust clearly felt itself under.
That brings me to targets. It was suggested, in the briefing before the report was published, that targets themselves were to blame. However, today’s report does not support that. It says that,
“it is not suggested that properly designed targets, appropriately monitored, cannot provide considerable benefit to patients”.
Does the noble Lord accept, as Francis’s analysis suggests, that the problem at Stafford was how the A&E target was managed by the hospital, and that many hospitals up and down the country have delivered excellent care while meeting the accident and emergency target? We must never go back to the bad old days when people were left waiting for hours on trolleys and 18 months for an operation.
I turn to integration. The ageing society is bringing a whole new set of demands on to the NHS: a group of elderly and infirm patients who require not just physical treatment for their immediate illness but much greater care and attention for their basic needs. As Francis says, we must address this new challenge that the NHS faces and ensure that we avoid a repeat of what happened at Stafford. Does the noble Lord agree that in every hospital we need to put in place the right support for the whole of a person’s needs, including for our elderly population? Does he agree that that means breaking down the barriers between healthcare and social care? Does he also agree that the cultural change that the Prime Minister referred to in relation to hospitals applies as much to community, primary and social care?
The number of noble Lords who are here at this time of night to listen to the Statement indicates that many noble Lords have a great deal of interest in this. I ask the noble Lord to pursue through the usual channels the opportunity for an early and lengthy debate on the Francis report. That would be very much appreciated by noble Lords.
We cannot turn back the clock and undo the damage at Stafford but we owe it to those who have suffered, to the people of Stafford and to the country as a whole to work together to act on this report and prevent a scandal like this from happening elsewhere. We on this side of the House will play our part in making that happen.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, put his questions and responded. I agree with what he said at the outset about the NHS representing the best values of our country, his important point that these awful things are not typical of everything that goes on, and that there are many hundreds of thousands of people delivering great care. He is right to remind us of that but also right to be clear, as he was, that together we need to face up to the problems that this extremely important report from Mr Francis has uncovered. I also take the noble Lord’s point, which the Francis report mentions, about the dangers of over-frequent reorganisation. All parties need to be conscious of that, and I think that all politicians are sometimes guilty of it. One of the great lessons of all systems is that the simpler and more stable one can keep them, the better the framework in which people have to operate.
I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of patients having a strong and independent voice. I think that is the way he put it. I certainly know from the world of education that it is hugely important to find ways to ensure that parents and those who care and have to use the services can plug into the system and can help to hold those services to account, and the findings in the Francis report underline the effort that we need to make to ensure that that happens.
On the noble Lord’s specific question about Healthwatch, I know that my noble friend Lord Howe spoke yesterday evening about some of the ways in which we are trying to strengthen the role and voice of patients and the public through local Healthwatch. We are determined to ensure that local Healthwatch can act as an independent and powerful voice for patients in local areas, and we are creating Healthwatch England so that there is a national voice for patients as well. I agree with him about the importance of that.
I also agree with the noble Lord’s emphasis on having compassion at the heart of medicine. Again, that point came out of the Francis report.
On the question of skills, numbers and finances, the noble Lord is right to say that that question was put to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister by the Leader of the Opposition earlier on. My right honourable friend said that he believes that the resources that are going into the health service, which are increasing, are in place. I agree that we have to ensure that every ward has the right mix and number of doctors, nurses and healthcare assistants so that staff have the time and the skills to ensure that they are providing safe and effective care. I believe that the recent nursing vision, Compassion in Practice, set out new measures to help to ensure that locally, but I know that my right honourable friend the Health Secretary will study the report to see whether there are other steps that may need to be taken.
On the subject of the chief inspector, again there is an analogy with schools. Having a figure that we can identify as a champion of standards is going to be a good step forward. He or she will be part of the CQC. The precise process by which they operate will need to be sorted out in detail over the days and weeks to come, but obviously we will share that with the noble Lord and other interested Peers.
On the noble Lord’s question about the National Patient Safety Agency, I understand that that was merged into the Commissioning Board to try to make safety integral to the commissioning of care. We need to ensure that happens.
On the merging of Monitor and the CQC, another important question, the noble Lord asked for reassurance that a decision on that has not already been taken. I can say to him that it has not. We have already made clear that we aim to create more generally a single failure regime under which organisations can be held accountable for failures in care, as well as with their finances. Francis’s recommendation to merge those two organisations is one that we will consider. There are clearly questions about the balance between making sure that quality is high and money.
On the noble Lord’s important question about the registration and training of healthcare assistants, we are certainly committed to supporting healthcare assistants and support workers to provide proper, compassionate and safe care. We will take Francis’s recommendations seriously, but the report in another place also points out, rightly, that compulsory statutory regulation does not necessarily prevent poor care, and that cultural issues—one of the recurring themes of the report—are indeed central.
The noble Lord asked about the effect on the quality of care of the process of moving to foundation trust status. Like the previous Government, we believe that foundation trusts can make our hospitals more accountable and responsible and better able to take decisions. However, the move to trust status for Mid Staffs was at the expense of patient care, and that was clearly wrong. I agree with the noble Lord that it is a move that must not be rushed and that patient care must come first. In answer to his question: yes, there will be no pressure. The essential requirement is that they be ready.
In response to the noble Lord’s question about targets, I accept—and this is clearly the case in all sorts of areas—that there is a place for sensible targets. We also know and accept that if we have the wrong targets, or too many of them, there is sometimes the danger of perverse incentives and confusion as well. As the noble Lord said, getting that balance right is extremely important.
On integrated services, it is important to make sure that we are able to look across the piece, and that there are not the barriers that he described. Of course I recognise the amount of interest in the subject. I know how much expertise there is here, and I am very happy to see whether we can find an opportunity for a fuller debate through the usual channels, which I think would be well received by noble Lords.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions in order that my noble friend the Leader of the House can answer as many questions as possible, which I am sure he is very keen to do. If necessary, I can help.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, we, too, welcome the Francis report, and the many recommendations that we believe will strengthen the whole NHS. In particular, we welcome Francis’s recommendation of a statutory duty of candour: the duty of a clinician to explain and apologise when things go wrong. When and how does my noble friend see this being implemented?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As my noble friend said, Robert Francis certainly recommended a statutory duty of candour, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will give full consideration to that. So far, he has said that he will work through all 290 recommendations in the report, and that the Government aim to give an initial response within a month. Precisely what the timeframe will be on all these elements, I cannot say. As my noble friend will know, in the interim we created legally binding rules that require the NHS Commissioning Board to insert a contractual duty of candour into the NHS standard contract in 2013-14. That means that NHS hospitals will be required contractually to tell patients when they have been significantly harmed by a patient-safety incident during their care. Otherwise, I take my noble friend’s point on board.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, the Statement says:
“every carer, every member of staff will be given the opportunity to say whether they would recommend their hospital to their friends or family. This will be published … where a significant proportion of patients or staff raise serious concerns about what is happening in a hospital immediate inspection will result and suspension of the hospital board may well follow”.
That is a very radical proposal. My question is very simple: will a member of staff making such a report have their name published, or will their contribution be anonymous? If it is not anonymous, this system will not work.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand the noble Lord’s point. Like many things in this report, we will need to consider exactly how the details of the system will work. Generally, on whistleblowing and giving people the opportunity to make their views known, we have already taken steps to try to protect and support whistleblowers. We are funding a helpline to support them, we are embedding rights in their employment contracts, and we are issuing new guidance. We will be studying the report to see whether there are any further procedural or legal measures, and I hope that we will be able to provide more information to the noble Lord in due course.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, would that it were only the Mid Staffordshire hospital that was guilty of the kind of wrongdoing that we have been talking about tonight. My noble friend has made a wonderful, genuinely caring, speech about what has been happening and his determination to stop it. However, I feel very strongly about this, because I have tried for years and years, from 2002 onwards, to bring cases to this House. We should sometimes listen to people, here and in the other House, who bring cases before their House to be considered.
As many Members know, I produced a long document of 26 cases of the various bad treatment of patients. I went to endless trouble to make absolutely certain that every fact I put forward was correct, and that each patient for whom I pleaded had given me full permission to raise his or her case. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might remember the occasion when I went to him with a long and detailed dossier of these cases. It was certainly not his fault, but a number of those 26 cases were never investigated at all, and I never got an answer. I even tried to get through this House a parents’ protection Bill, which was quietly squashed at the time. My plea to my noble friend is that he also lets Members of Parliament, in one House or the other, be heard. They do not raise cases for fun but because of their feeling for the patients or relatives who have contacted them. I ask him please to listen in future, because what they say is of crucial importance.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I very much agree with the broad point that my noble friend is making. One of the recurring themes of the report is that whomever complaints came from—family or whoever—they were not being listened to. I am sure that my noble friend will have noted the part of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s Statement that announced that there will be a complaints review, which will be jointly led by Ann Clwyd MP—that makes the point about Parliament being involved in this process—and Professor Tricia Hart, chief executive of South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. We need to make sure that we have these proper mechanisms and that where there are concerns, they are raised and listened to.
Baroness Emerton
The report calls for NICE to devise tools to calculate safe staffing levels, which have already been mentioned this evening. The evidence is growing. A group of senior nurses has come together to collect the evidence. The evidence base determines that safe and cost-effective care is determined by the safe levels of trained staff—registered nurses—to support workers. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House be taking from this report that NICE will be devising tools to determine safe staffing levels as an urgent requirement because until we get them right, we are not going to see safe care delivery?
On the registration of support workers, one reads in the report that patients were suffering appalling neglect and mistreatment. Hundreds of people suffered from being given the wrong drugs because support workers were not trained. Please will the noble Lord take away the recommendation on the registration of support workers as a matter of urgency?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As I think I said in my earlier response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the registration of support workers is something that the Government will consider as part of their response to the Francis recommendations. We need to have well trained staff at all levels.
On the noble Baroness’s other point about ratios, I am sure that my colleagues in the Department of Health will reflect on what she said. Ultimately, decisions about staffing levels and so on need to be made locally, but I know that as part of this whole debate the department will be thinking in every way it can to try to make sure that all these sensible points are acted upon.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The noble Lord the Leader of the House has referred to the fact that there is now to be a contractual obligation of candour on healthcare organisations. Presumably Robert Francis was aware of that in framing his recommendations, feels that it is inadequate and is advocating a statutory duty of candour, which, so far, the Government have resisted. I hope that policy will change. The noble Lord the Leader of the House also talked about the importance of an independent voice for patients. Given the suggestion that has been made about merging Monitor and the CQC, will he accept that it is therefore inappropriate that Healthwatch England, the national voice of patients, should be subordinate to that monster new body? Secondly, does he also accept that it is inappropriate, if you are to have an independent voice, that local Healthwatch is subordinate to local authorities, some of the organisations that they are supposed to monitor?
Lord Hill of Oareford
On the duty of candour, I said in my response to the noble Lord’s noble friend that the suggestion about a statutory duty of candour is something that the Government will consider in their response to Francis. I pointed out that there is already a contractual duty in place, but I understand the point that he makes.
So far as Healthwatch England is concerned, I understand that that was debated at length. My noble friend Lord Howe is sitting here, and I am sure he will have heard the points that the noble Lord has made.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, like many others, I am sure the House would like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to pass on our appreciation of the very restrained and moving Statement by the Prime Minister which in many ways reflects his own experience of the National Health Service in respect of his son, which I shared in respect of the death last year in an NHS hospital of my son-in-law. One could not have asked for better treatment.
In some ways, the tragedy of Mid Staffs is precisely that it is one of the few things that have lowered trust in the NHS, and that is a very serious outcome. The many relatives who waited for month after month and year after year for some kind of justice—there are echoes of Hillsborough in that—felt that they were not being listened to, despite the agony that they were going through.
Let me very quickly say just a word about accountability. My only criticism of the Francis report, although I have not had the opportunity to read every word of it, revolves around that word “accountability”. Accountability has to go to the very top. It cannot stop half way. I need to say quite loudly that two gentlemen have something to answer for, if only to comment on the recommendations and see if they meet the difficulties that have arisen in Mid Staffs. The first is Sir David Nicholson, the chief executive of the NHS Commissioning Board, who was present in a very senior capacity. I am not trying to blame him, but to say that I think his advice on how to avoid what happened then would be very valuable. The other person was Secretary of State in the last year of the period which the Francis report covers and is the right honourable Mr Andrew Burnham. Many of us—
Baroness Williams of Crosby
Many of us during the course of the debate were obliged to listen to a very great deal of what I might call Twitter propaganda, and I think it is only fair to say that Mr Burnham has a responsibility to respond to this report.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I am going to continue, so noble Lords had better get used to it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think the sense of the House is that we would like to hear from the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree about the theme, which I think we have all accepted, that there is a common responsibility. One of the themes of the report is that we should not seek to single out individuals or particular organisations for risk of not seeing the bigger picture which, as my noble friend said, is that there is a common responsibility.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, for some 35 years, my constituents in South Staffordshire had good healthcare from Stafford hospitals. It was only in this very bad period that we had these appalling stories, and we all feel ashamed. It is important to recognise that there was good healthcare before, and there must be after. In that context, will my noble friend assure me that all those appointed to boards of hospitals will receive adequate training about what their true responsibilities and powers are?
Lord Hill of Oareford
That is an extremely important point, and it is part of what the Government need to do in their response in ensuring that boards accept their responsibility and understand what it is. It is not just to do with running hospitals economically and efficiently; above all, it is to do with patient care.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I have questions relating to two areas in the Statement on which a decision has already been made. The first relates to the Prime Minister asking Sir Don Berwick to advise on zero harm. The noble Lord the Leader of the House did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about whether it is now the Government’s intention to re-establish the National Patient Safety Agency. I declare an interest as I was chairman of the National Patient Safety Agency for four years. I have worked with Sir Don Berwick in my hospital. The implementation of zero harm is possible in patient care in certain areas, but to implement it requires an organisation in every hospital and a national organisation to monitor it. How is it intended that that will happen? The second decision was to ask Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director, immediately to investigate hospitals that have high mortality rates. That implies that we know which hospitals they are. Will the noble Lord the Leader comment on that? I hope that investigation will also include all higher mortality rates including still births, neonatal deaths and infant deaths.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, perhaps I responded elliptically to the noble Lord’s first point about whether we had plans to reintroduce the agency by saying that it had been merged. We do not have plans to reintroduce it. On his second question about Sir Don Berwick, it is for him now to work out how he will carry out his review and come back to us with his recommendations. On his third question about the immediate inquiry being carried out by Sir Bruce, mortality rates are the factor he will take into account in identifying the cases that would most benefit from his urgent attention.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s emphasis on the importance of involving patients and their relatives more centrally in decisions about their own care. Does the Minister think that principle should be extended throughout the NHS, including the new policy on value-based pricing for new medicines?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I certainly take the point that that principle is one we need to apply in our response. As regards the specific question, my noble friend Lord Howe will follow up with the noble Lord.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, Francis quite rightly recognises the contribution made by healthcare support workers. He makes seven recommendations about how they should be included within a reinvigorated National Health Service. The report makes the claim that healthcare support workers have to be properly trained to appropriate standards. I want to ask the Leader of the House two questions. First, will those standards be set independently, by the NMC or another body, and not the department? Secondly, will he guarantee to the House tonight that, whatever those standards are, the training will be mandatory, not an optional extra?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, at the moment I cannot give the specific assurance my noble friend would like because the Secretary of State for Health has to look at all the recommendations, working out how to respond to them and the most sensible way forward. However, it is clear that the standards would need to carry weight and be recognised as doing so. I know my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will reflect on that and that my noble friend Lord Howe will have heard the points the noble Lord has made.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, can the Leader assure me that there will not be bullying and that there will be kindness? Kindness does not cost money. Nurses should be kind and treat patients with dignity.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I could not agree more. One of the things that are most distressing when one strips away everything to do with structures is the lack of common humanity. That is the most extraordinary thing. I agree very much with the noble Baroness about the importance of compassion.
Council of Europe: Local and Regional Democracy
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Dundee
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the United Kingdom’s recent chairmanship of the Council of Europe, what plans they have to assist local and regional democracy in Europe.
The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, in my remarks today I would like briefly to connect together three themes. The first is the huge importance of local democracy—its obvious and immediate relevance; its scope for enhancing national and international democracy; and conversely regarding the latter, its ability to reduce or remove what to some extent has lately become alienation or even mistrust. Secondly, there is the role of the Council of Europe in promoting local and regional democracy. Thirdly, there is the opportunity which our Parliament and Government now have to assist, to guide, to lead initiatives of good practice and to nurture and encourage progress.
The European Court of Human Rights was able to sharpen our focus upon local democracy. For its recognition of the right to individual petition puts state and citizen on an equal footing. However, it took the devastation of two world wars for that notion to be adopted. Previously, it had been assumed that the state would always come first even if that precedent infringed the rights of the individual. Then after European Union expansion in 2004, there was the Warsaw Summit declaration in 2005. This calls for the reinvigoration of democracy, both nationally and internationally, through its strengthening at local and grass-roots levels. Not least, therefore, have those two interventions helped to revise political theory and how we view the Council of Europe’s affiliation of 47 states. For now we evaluate the worth of political delivery much more in terms of the well-being of families, communities and people in their daily lives. To those priorities we believe governments and institutions should play second fiddle; yet at the same time we know perfectly well that thereby the role and sovereignty of nation states need not be in the least undermined or diminished.
National democracy is never short-changed by local democracy. In fact, the reverse is the case. For more often than not its quality and validity reflect a combination of local results in the first place. It follows from this that the advance of local democracy or active citizenship is no longer speculative or part of some new political advocacy. Instead, it has become a consensual matter for all of us to see how best to put it into practice within Europe’s present stage of development.
This leads to the role of the Council of Europe. Already that institution has made a wonderful and unprecedented contribution to stability, human rights and the rule of law. Its membership now includes most of central and eastern Europe. We are enormously grateful. However, its current dealings with local democracy should be changed in certain respects. Within the Council of Europe itself there should be a common agenda. This is lacking. Such a common agenda ought to seek to implement the Chavez report—agreeing priorities annually, undertaking activity competently and transparently and adopting administrative structures which correspond to the new approach.
Here I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Hanham. During the United Kingdom’s six-month chairmanship of the Council of Europe last year, she was the Minister responsible for local democracy. A very good start was made in drawing attention to these prescriptions. As a result the Committee of Ministers has recently agreed to the case for much better internal co-ordination and has referred matters arising from the Chavez report to an expert group. For the reforms he encouraged I also pay tribute to Keith Whitmore, who retired last year as President of the Council of Europe’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities.
Yet the Council of Europe’s two main branches, the congress and the parliamentary assembly, still do not work enough together. They should do so, and there ought to be an annual procedure for that. Will the Committee of Ministers call for this? What predictions this year does my noble friend make for the progress of the Chavez report itself? In what ways will she and her department be able to help that process?
Then, started in 2006, there is the Council of Europe’s Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform. Already to states within central and eastern Europe it has provided much useful guidance on the nuts and bolts of local government systems and methods. This year it starts a new venture and facilitates a working programme between parts of the United Kingdom and parts of Croatia, a country about to become the 28th member of the European Union this July. Within the programme certain regions and cities directly work together. The agenda includes mutual trade, education and cultural exchanges and those on good practice for sustaining stable communities. It is a great pleasure for me to assist this programme as Scottish consul for Croatia, as well as in my capacity as chairman of this Parliament’s all-party group for that country. Thereafter, and between different cities and regions elsewhere in Europe, the centre aims to encourage further working synergies. Clearly, those expedients serve to strengthen local and regional democracy. What plans therefore have the Government to support them?
Germane to the quality of local democracy in Europe, there are also inquiries and policies currently embarked upon by the Government for the benefit of the United Kingdom. Two such include the well-being of communities and the promotion of active citizenship. Both considerations lie at the centre of effective local democracy. What intentions on these subjects have the Government to use, once information is available, our own United Kingdom analyses and recommendations to assist Europe? During an economic crisis some might possibly object that it is wrong to spend time and effort on local democracy at all. However, the complete opposite is surely the case. For improved local democracy reduces costs and facilitates growth, initiative and creativity. At the same time it is also what is needed to protect values and rights. The United Kingdom has much experience in this field. Last year, our Council of Europe chairmanship pointed the way. That direction we must now follow with confidence and vigour.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this debate tonight. He has great experience and tremendous commitment to the Council of Europe, and it is good to hear him speak on the subject. There will be other speakers in this debate and in the gap who will bring a great deal of intimate knowledge and commitment to our proceedings.
Looking back on my own time, some years ago in the Council of Europe, I am convinced that it has a potentially huge contribution to make in strengthening democracy across Europe, not least in some of the former Soviet bloc countries. At the end of the Second World War, the founders of the Council of Europe—indeed, those behind the whole European initiative, including the whole European Union—not only saw democracy as key to the future stability of the continent but also saw that if democracy was to work it was not simply parliamentary institutions and elections but all the other infrastructure that was so necessary, including the rule of law and, of course, human rights. They had a searing experience of a denial of human rights that led to, and was involved in, the Second World War and saw that as absolutely basic to stability and an effective democracy. So the European Court of Human Rights, to which the noble Earl made reference, was an essential part of this.
I want to concentrate my short intervention on one very significant member of the Council of Europe—Russia. The extent of its pervasive corruption, the weakness of the courts and legal procedures at national, regional and local level, with a penal system that is appalling and enshrines some of the most barbaric treatment of prisoners possible, and the carefully neutered political role of the Duma itself, have significance for the quality of democracy and, of course, for the countries on Russia’s borders. Here I turn to the north Caucasus. I was very much involved there as rapporteur on the conflict in Chechnya to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Some people say now that things are better because there is order. We have to understand that, in so far as there is an appearance of order, it is the order of tyranny, oppression and fear.
It is essential to recognise that extrajudicial killing still takes place on the say-so of those who hold power. Still intimidation of witnesses happens, and of the relatives of those who are being pursued. There is harassment across the whole nature of society for those who would wish to generate independent thinking.
In the midst of all this, there are, of course, very brave and courageous people who are trying to put things right. There are lawyers, academics and professional people who make their stand. There are, of course, voluntary and non-governmental organisations—and I think particularly of Memorial, one of the most courageous organisations that I have ever encountered, with a tremendous degree of professional competence and excellence that it has built up over the years. These organisations make civil society and are absolutely essential to a functioning democracy, but they are being deliberately curbed within Russia and places such as the north Caucasus.
With the quality of democracy at local, national or regional level, it is terribly important to be able to bring cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Memorial and others have done this. There are an impressive number of judgments by the court that uphold the complaints that have been brought. Those complaints go to the Committee of Ministers to see to the follow-through and the implementation by Russia of the findings of the court. For year after year the performance of the Committee of Ministers has been lamentably weak; it goes through the formalities of reprimanding or criticising Russia, but it has really not put the muscle or force of argument as it is essential that it should have done. I ask the Minister for a specific assurance that, if we are to make democracy work in these areas, we must recognise the importance of the European Court of Human Rights, which needs to be properly resourced for its work, but also make sure that the Committee of Ministers follows through and does not let Russia off the hook in its failure to implement what is recommended by the judges.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I feel a little bit out of place, in that I am not expert at all in the matters of the Council of Europe and local and regional government in Europe, or indeed the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, although I have spent a lifetime reading about their activities of interest. I was very grateful for the extensive briefing from the House of Lords Library, which alerted me to all kinds of things.
I shall speak very briefly about these matters, to echo the generous commendation of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, of my Liberal Democrat colleague, Keith Whitmore, for the enormous amount of work that he has done on these areas over many years, and in particular for his work as chair of the congress last year. I have a note here from the secretary-general of the congress, which says:
“First of all the tremendous work of Keith Whitmore should be mentioned … he does not seem to be appreciated enough in his home country”.
That may be so. I remember Keith when he was a bright leading light of the Young Liberals in Manchester, and a very important person in the resurrection and regeneration of liberalism in that historically very great Liberal city.
I shall say no more about that, because I am taking part in this debate as an excuse to say a few words about the north of England as a very important region in this country and in Europe. In general, the larger countries of Europe have regional governments. The systems vary a lot. In Germany, with the very strong länder, there is a fully fledged federal system entrenched in the constitution of the country. Spain is constitutionally a unitary state, but it has extensive though asymmetric devolution to autonomous democratic regions. The strongest of these, particularly Catalonia and the Basque country, approach something akin to the status of regions within a federal system.
In France and Italy there are democratic regional authorities that are more akin to very large local authorities in their constitutional status and some of their functions. Nevertheless, they are important bodies within their spheres. Here we have a real constitutional mess. We have devolved elected bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland in particular, regardless of what happens in the forthcoming referendum, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are approaching the status and powers that they would have in a fully federal system.
In the rest of England, apart from Greater London, we have nothing at all. In Greater London, we have a sort of city region with the Greater London Authority, the mayor and the London Assembly, but in the rest of England there is zilch, so our system is a bit like that of Spain except that throughout England we have nothing at all. I would argue that the north of England is a distinctive region. Anybody who visits it knows that it is a distinctive region within both this country and Europe. Socially, culturally, environmentally and economically it is regionally distinctive and forms a regional unit.
In the three subregions of the north of England—the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire, although they may have slightly wonky boundaries at the moment, but never mind—regional bodies have developed on an ad hoc basis over the past few decades, which resulted in the regional development agencies, which had considerable influence and finance but were not democratically accountable. Regional assemblies were set up in these regions which, if they were democratic at all, were not directly democratic. They were indirectly democratic and they included representatives of business, trade unions and so on. Nevertheless, they met and they represented the regions, although it is fair to say that they did so in secrecy—not of their own volition—because nobody noticed them. I should say that I was a member of the North West Regional Assembly for a while.
In November 2004, there was a referendum in the north-east to set up a formally elected north-east regional assembly. The proposal was thoroughly trounced by some 696,000 votes to 197,000 on an almost 50% turnout. That really killed off the idea of elected democratic regional assemblies or government in the north of England for quite some time. The Conservative spokesman for the regions at that time was Bernard Jenkin—at least they had a spokesman for the regions at that time, so they must have recognised that regions existed. He said that,
“the whole idea of regional government has been blown out of the water”,
and that what was being proposed was a “toothless talking shop”. Both those statements were effectively true. The scheme that was put forward was flawed, the proposals were feeble and the Government at the time failed to put it in the context of what they wanted for the country, or at least for the north of England.
I argue that it is time to start talking about regionalism again in the north of England. I remember that back in the 1960s a group of Liberal candidates in the north-west, of whom a leading light was my noble friend Lord Tordoff, produced a report on regional government in the north-west. That started the ball rolling as far as our party was concerned and had considerable influence.
A body which has been founded fairly recently—it is not a Liberal body—is the Hannah Mitchell Foundation, which is based in and around Huddersfield, the general-secretary of which is Professor Paul Salveson, who is not a political colleague of mine but is a friend. The body has as its first aim,
“influencing the political agenda to support elected regional government for the North”.
Its second aim is that of developing,
“a distinct ‘Northern’ politics based on Labour, Co-operative, Radical Liberal and other progressive traditions”.
I can associate with at least three of those descriptions. Although Professor Salveson is a socialist, and says that he is, I think that a lot of his views, and the views of his foundation and of his campaigning, are ones with which radical Liberals will go along.
A serious debate has to begin again in the north of England. In particular, we need to think about the future and whether, if Scotland is to be an autonomous unit—I do not use the word “independent”—in whatever form, and if it is to have considerable financial powers and influence, effectively the people of Scotland will be running their own affairs to a very large extent. Whatever happens in the referendum, in the coming years it seems that the north of England will have to look at itself and ask, “Are we actually three subregions comprising the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire, or should we get together as the north of England and say that we are twice as big as Scotland in population, and that if Scotland can do this, why cannot we in the north of England do it?”.
Perhaps that is the future. That is the thought I want to put in the minds of your Lordships this evening. Then we can join in with all the Europeans who talk about regional government and talk to each other from regions in Europe. We can be one of them. At the moment, we have more and more direct rule from London and it is not satisfactory.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I am delighted to speak tonight, albeit briefly, in support of my noble friend Lord Dundee and his championing of local democracy, the role of the Council of Europe in promoting such local democracy and the opportunity which our Parliament and Government now have to assist local democracy in Europe and to guide and lead institutions and good practice initiatives and to encourage progress.
I am a very new delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. For the past few years—certainly for the past two years when I was the Minister for Business and Intellectual Property in this House—I seemed to be in the European Community every week. I thought that it was the biggest show in town. We worked very hard to achieve a single patent and eventually got it after we had been at it for 41 years.
Before that, when I chaired the National Consumer Council, I worked with DG11 in the European Community on consumer empowerment and rights. During that time, things happened in Russia—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to them. I went there several times in connection with the European Community programme for the democratisation of Russia. Therefore, I felt that I would be perfectly okay when I got to the Council of Europe. However, I have been there only once and have already realised that I do not know a thing. It is enormous. Forty-seven countries are involved in it, from the Russian Federation to Iceland, Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan. The range, size and shape of the countries involved, which represent 800 million people, is extraordinary.
As we have heard, the work of the Council of Europe concerns human rights, the rule of law and democracy. I took great pleasure in reading Winston Churchill’s speeches and learning how this all started and how we got to where we are today. It is a great honour and delight for me to speak on this matter tonight. I have a lot to learn.
Following the UK’s recent chairmanship of the Council of Europe, the priorities of the current chair, Andorra, are very much the same: that is, improving local democracy and building people’s capacity to participate in grass-roots democracy, which chimes with our Prime Minister’s vision of a big society. Andorra wishes to ensure that democratic principles are established at the lowest level as a solid foundation for national-level democracy and the rule of law. Improved local democracy reduces costs and facilitates growth. It protects values and rights. We in the United Kingdom have much experience in this field and we can certainly lead the way in this work. What plans do the Government have for all this to happen within the area of which we are speaking?
The reason I wanted to speak tonight was not only to support my noble friend and colleague because I believe that what he is saying is absolutely right, but because I believe deeply that we need stable markets and stable economies with which to trade. We need to trade our way out of recession and this is a wonderful way for us to do it. We have the talent, the background and the knowledge to help them bring forward local and regional democracies. If we are able to do it, we will prosper. Our small and medium-sized businesses will feel safe to trade in some of the 47 countries where, at the moment, they would be terrified to trade. This is really important. The Local Government Association’s idea of a team-UK approach to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is a very good one. We have a wonderful opportunity which we should not miss.
Lord Kirkhill
My Lords, I rise with considerable pleasure to thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for introducing this debate. We do not talk about the Council of Europe often enough in this Chamber. Indeed, we do not talk about external organisations often enough. The debate gives us an opportunity to say something about this important body. I emphasise at the outset that the Council of Europe does not, as such, have a statutory authority, but it is the guardian of the Convention on Human Rights and there is, of course, the court in Strasbourg.
A glance at the recent history of the Council of Europe gives an indication of its place in the scheme of things today. In 1989, which is going back a bit, President Gorbachev made his first major European speech. He made the speech in Strasbourg and his theme was that the Council of Europe could become Europe’s common home. What prompted him to develop that theme? Simply put, Europe’s new democracies were a considerable distance from membership of the European Union which was, without doubt, their ultimate aim. It still is, although most have now been able to join. It therefore fell to the Council of Europe to monitor their political and legal aspirations, to keep in touch with the new development and to attempt to assess the legal difficulties some of these new democracies faced, to which end the Committee on Legal Affairs traversed most of Europe much of the time, perhaps for too many months in my own case.
I am getting past making relevant contributions in your Lordships’ House and I forgot to say that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has played a significant role in attempting to develop within the European framework a prison system that is tolerable and humane. He has pushed very hard for change in certain areas. It is correct publicly to state that and to commend the noble Earl for those endeavours.
The recent UK chairmanship of the Council gives an opportunity to decide on future regional and local initiatives. Does the Council envisage an association with the Maghreb states? Do the Government envisage the geographic delineation of the Council to move further eastwards than it presently extends? Does the Council feel that its local government—that is to say bringing together the difficulties envisaged by some local authorities and placing the question to others for amelioration—has always been rather cumbersome and not likely to achieve any positive result? These matters should be discussed.
The Council of Europe now finds itself in a position where most of the aspirant states that were young democracies have now been able to join the European Union, which was always their principal aim. They are now much more interested in supporting initiatives of the European Union than they are of the Council of Europe. This diminishes the current role of the Council and its European responsibilities, other than maintaining and underpinning the court in Strasbourg. It is important to understand that the Council of Europe today is more criticised, rather than supported, than was ever the case in the past. These are defining days for the Council of Europe and I await with interest the Minister’s response to these few remarks.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dundee for securing this debate. Winston Churchill was the first to speak about the benefits of creating a Council of Europe, so it is fitting that the Council was established by the treaty of London. The Council of Europe was founded upon the principles of upholding democracy and civil liberties. Since its creation, the Council has continued to adapt and expand as a means of tackling the common challenges facing the continent. The streamlining of the Council of Europe’s activities in support of local and regional democracy was one of the priorities of our Government’s recent chairmanship. This included efforts to reach a consensus on the establishment of a single programme of the Council of Europe’s activity on local and regional democracy, to be overseen by the Committee of Ministers. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities has an important role to play in achieving this aim. It represents a distinct and unique form of grass-roots democracy. It also represents local authorities across all 47 member states.
In 2010, a British councillor was elected as president of the congress. It is the first time that this position has been held by a Briton. This branch of the Council of Europe, in conjunction with increased co-operation with the parliamentary assembly and with Governments, can improve the lives of citizens in member states. The priorities for each year concerning local and regional democracy should be agreed upon in an open and transparent way.
The 2011 Chaves report correctly stated that due to the challenges in an ever-changing world, the level of interrelation between local, regional, national and international institutions must be strengthened. This suggests that multi-level governance is vital for Europe to meet the global challenges facing the continent.
The Reflection Group, chaired by Felipe Gonzalez, previously stated that,
“in a multilevel governance system, each level of authority—European, national, regional and local—exercises its powers according to its own legal responsibility”.
Each decision-making body should act within its powers. The promotion of local and regional democracy should be considered as an essential priority, thereby enhancing its key role in the consolidation of democratic processes in Europe and bringing good practices to other regions of the world. I should be grateful if the Minister could inform your Lordships’ House of any recent dialogue Her Majesty’s Government have had concerning this issue with the current Andorran chairmanship of the Council of Europe.
The Chaves report also stated that the elevation of local and regional democracy in Europe is a fundamental part of the democracy pillar and highlights the synergies required between the Committee of Ministers, the Conference of Ministers responsible for local and regional authorities, and the congress. It is for these reasons that the Chaves report should be fully implemented.
The reforms instigated and continued under the British chairmanship of the Council of Europe with regard to local and regional democracy aim at avoiding duplication, suppressing red tape and maximizing the utility of resources. The Kiviniemi report recommended budget austerity as a result of the current economic crisis. The report also called for greater visibility of the Council of Europe’s work on local and regional democracy. Greater transparency will lead to citizens having increased confidence in the workings of the Council of Europe.
It is important that an annual report be published recording the allocation of funds and the priorities for the coming year. This will lead to greater value for the taxpayer and more efficient spending. I am pleased that the Department for Communities and Local Government regularly publishes transparency reports on its website, showing how and where any sum of more than £250 is spent.
In order to strengthen local democracy and give value for money to European taxpayers, efforts to reform the Council of Europe’s work on local and regional democracy must continue. Achieving strong local governance is vital to the Council of Europe’s democracy agenda. The Council’s support for improving local democracy is in accordance with the European Charter of Local Self-Government and the “Twelve Principles of Good Governance at Local Level”. It follows that reinforcing local democracy will lead to the reinforcement of the local economies of Europe. It is therefore vital to continue the process of streamlining the Council of Europe’s activities in support of local and regional democracy. I look forward to learning more on the progress of the single programme as proposed by Her Majesty’s Government.
Finally, I support the comments of my noble friend Lady Wilcox regarding more trade with European countries.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on securing this debate on the Council of Europe, in which we have had some activities in the past. He referred to his concern about democracy in its national context, and I, as he knows, have been actively involved in the national democracy in one particular country, Armenia. He will recall that the elections were held for the President of that country. I was the leader of the Labour delegation and appointed to be the rapporteur for Armenia for one of the committees of the House. I went to that country during those elections to observe. I have to tell the noble Earl that the result created a riot; 10 people were killed and 130 were thrown in jail, under the threat that they were usurping the powers of the state. I was sent by the Council of Europe to see what had happened and what we could do about it.
My main influence related to the fact that Armenia had entered into an obligation under the human rights convention to observe the democratic process. I could see, on a very quick visit there, that most of those rights had not been observed. It was an eastern European country coming out of being a communist state and wanted a kind of social democratic European stature. It was therefore concerned to make the changes. I also found that I had to convince the President and the rest of Armenia’s Parliament to rewrite the laws on public protest. I got the 130 people out of jail. The election law was rewritten, as were the laws regarding the press and freedom. Even the judiciary was changed in that process. I congratulate the Parliament in that country for seeking to do those things very quickly.
What was the power and influence that enabled that to happen? It happened largely because the country had signed up to an agreement, and I was able to say, “You have an obligation under your membership of the Council of Europe, and you must observe them, or I will have to report back to the Council that you are not observing them. The Council of Ministers would have to take some kind of action”. When European rights were being used to bring about a more democratic framework, there was a stupid argument going on in the other House about whether prisoners should have the vote and whether, therefore, we should withdraw from the convention on human rights.
What may be different in this country is certainly different there. Funnily enough, in Armenia they do not give prisoners the vote, but on the prisoner issue a number of routes can be pursued. It is the people who want to make the issue to leave Europe. Most of them thought they were in the European Union. It had to be pointed out to them in the debate that this was not the European Union but the Council of Europe, and it was different. Those circumstances are a very important part of maintaining democratic accountability.
What is the position now? We have gone through all sorts of manoeuvres and changes and the Court still accepts that we have got it wrong and wants to hear an alternative from us. What is the alternative? What are the Government doing? Are they going to observe the convention on human rights? If not, they can leave the Council of Europe, because the obligation is on Britain to observe human rights. I do not know where the Government stand on this at the moment. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us.
Next week I return to Armenia with a delegation to observe the new presidential elections. I certainly hope that it will go much better. I certainly have more confidence that these changes will make the election more democratic than it was on the last occasion. I am encouraged by the independent group of observers at last year’s election, who reported a 62% turnout—a pity we could not get that here, but let us leave that aside—and a quiet and peaceful, vibrant election. Fabulous. I hope that will happen when I observe the presidential election. Unfortunately, one of the presidential candidates was shot in the shoulder last week, but he has insisted that the election takes place. I am waiting to see, since it will be a cold part of the year. I hope it will be a very colourful and peaceful election.
The Council of Europe can play an important part in the democratic process. Sometimes we forget that, but they have obligations, particularly in eastern Europe, to measure up to the democratic accountability that they promised. Any of us who have had influence and been to these eastern European countries—I will leave Russia out of it for the moment—know that accountability is definitely needed. The Council of Europe can fulfil that role; it is a centre of democratic accountability. It can be used effectively, as it was in Armenia. There is still a lot of work to do, but it is not going to phase itself out and is desperately needed if we want democracy to continue in all parts of Europe.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. It is always an education as well as a pleasure to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. This was true on this occasion as it has been on other occasions when I have heard him speak in this House. I join my colleague, my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, in commending him for his work in the Council of Europe.
The Council of Europe is one of the great achievements of the post-war settlement. It was the first immediate product of Churchill’s great call for Europe to unite. We have had many references to Churchill in the discussion tonight. “Europe unite” is still a very relevant call, not on the basis of conquest, as people such as Hitler and Napoleon had tried, but on the basis of democracy and human rights. In that cause, the Council of Europe has played a vital role. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, well in her new role at the Council. Strasbourg is a lovely place to go to, but this is also a very important role, as I think several speakers tonight have demonstrated.
The Council of Europe has gone through several cycles in its life. It was very important right at the start, in the post-war era, then lost importance with the process of European integration through the coal and steel community and then the European Community. At that time a lot of cynics talked about it as a talking shop for superannuated politicians, and like all international organisations there are always problems of efficiency in the way they are run.
The Council never lost its relevance, particularly because of the convention and the European Court of Human Rights. It is good that all we have heard in this debate is praise for this role. So often in our national life, all we get are brickbats thrown at us. It is important that while there is always a case for looking at how we can do things better and reform them, the essential principles are vital for the future.
As my noble friend Lord Kirkhill reminded us, in the period when communism was beginning to collapse and Gorbachev made his great speech about the Council of Europe being Europe’s common home—incidentally, I do not think my noble friend’s speech was the speech of a man who does not have a lot more speeches to make in this House; it was a wonderful speech to listen to—that was a turning point in the Council’s life. It had a very important role post the fall of communism. I saw it when I was an adviser at No. 10 and went to the Baltic states and saw the vital role that the Council of Europe was playing in helping the Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia to establish their human rights. Without the Council’s intervention, that would have been much more difficult.
With the enlargement of the European Union, there are questions about what the Council’s role now is. Of course, even with an enlarged EU, there is still a lot of Europe beyond the Council, and therefore it has an important and crucial role for the future. My noble friend Lord Judd reminded us—this is relevant to the post-communist world in that part of the globe—that democracy is not just about holding elections but about human rights and the rule of law. As part of that, the promotion of local government and local democracy is crucial.
In many of these countries, local government is seen not as a democratic organ but as an instrument of the central state—an instrument of central administration to keep control, to sustain a political machine with jobs and favours, and to make sure that, when the elections come round, they go the right way. I saw that at first hand in some of the countries that I visited a decade or so ago.
We have to be insistent that local government is not administration; it is about democracy and about communities deciding their future for themselves. Sometimes, to be frank, I think we should remember that in our own country as well. Democracy is not just about majority rule. It is important that the protection of minorities is pursued. On a visit to Ukraine, I saw the way in which the Tartars are treated in the Crimea. It is very important that these minorities are protected.
I wish to make a couple of points on what noble Lords have said and I should like the Minister to expand on them. What is her view of what my noble friend Lord Judd said in his eloquent speech about the role of the Council of Europe in the North Caucasus?
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made a very interesting speech, with which I totally agreed. I endorse his compliments on Keith Whitmore’s role but I think that the rest of his speech is for another day.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhill made an important point about the Council of Europe and the Maghreb. This will be one of the biggest challenges facing Europe in the future. The question is: what relationship could we have with those states?
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, posed questions about the implementation of the Chavez report, about whether the way in which the Council operates at present is internally coherent, and about promoting the work of bilateral exchanges. Those seem to be very relevant questions.
At the end of the debate, we heard from my noble friend Lord Prescott about the real value of what the Council does. I suppose that its real value can be seen in situations such as that in Armenia, with my noble friend turning up on the doorstep to make sure that things do not go too awry. I do not mean that as a joke; I mean it seriously. That is one of the Council’s values—that people of great distinction can give advice and hold people to the standards that they say they adhere to. That is absolutely crucial.
This has been an excellent debate, and we look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to give your Lordships a reply. I think that I am going down with a parliamentary bug. I shall do my best but if I squeak at noble Lords, I hope they will forgive me.
First, like other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dundee for tabling this debate. It has, as usual, been a really good debate, with contributions from people who know what they are talking about and who have been closely involved in this subject. My noble friend is a significant member of the Council of Europe and the parliamentary assembly. I am enormously grateful to him because he provided me with great support during our chairmanship of the Council of Europe, when I tried to streamline—as my noble friend Lord Sheikh said—Council of Europe elements.
An effectively operating local democracy is an essential feature of every modern democratic state. Good democratic governance is a foundation on which can be built prosperous and stable societies where there is respect for fundamental freedoms, human rights and the rule of law. The issue of human rights is very germane to the Council of Europe.
It is for each individual state to decide its own governance arrangements, taking into account its own circumstances, traditions and culture. Across Europe there is, rightly, a wide diversity in the form that local and regional democratic governance takes, but throughout there are common principles at heart. This is the context in which states can work together to improve, strengthen and update their own democratic governance. All speakers today have demonstrated why that is important.
As noble Lords know, and have said, the Council of Europe is potentially well placed to provide a framework and mechanisms to support this development of democracy. We referred to the Government’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe. There were two main areas in which we wanted to achieve success. Our top priority was to reform the European Court of Human Rights, the importance of which we recognise. We successfully agreed measures to improve the working of the court.
The second was to streamline the Council of Europe’s activities on local and regional democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, said, the great thing about the Council of Europe is that its three elements managed to work entirely separately, not coming together at all. In many cases, these elements were doing exactly the same thing without joining together. It was becoming really important, to get the best out of them, to try to bring them together. Their usefulness was seriously impaired through a lack of co-ordination and collaboration between the three elements: the Committee of Ministers, the parliamentary assembly and the congress.
As noble Lords have heard, these weaknesses were not straightforward. As has been said, there are now 47 member states in the Council of Europe. To try and get 47 member states to agree wholeheartedly to anything was not the easiest thing that we have ever done. In fact, the most we could do was to try and ensure that streamlining took place and that there was far more co-ordination and co-operation between them. The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, made a powerful speech about what we were trying to do to ensure that everything came together.
Tribute has been paid to Keith Whitmore, who was president of the congress. He was particularly well regarded and helpful when we were trying to do what we wanted to do. Bearing in mind that he was president of the whole congress, he was not able to do anything politically, but he helped us sensibly and sensitively with what we were trying to do. We cannot underestimate what he did. Keith never lost sight of the big picture and that is very important. I also want to put on record how we were helped by the UK delegation to the parliamentary assembly, particularly my noble friend Lord Dundee, and by the contribution of the honourable Member for Mansfield in the other place.
Concerns were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Prescott and Lord Kirkhill, about where we go from here. I accept that there is still considerable room for improvement in the way in which congress and the Council of Europe work together. All the elements are now in place to make things better. The noble Earl asked about the future. The 47 states, through their ambassadors and after more than a year of discussion, agreed in November the programme of intergovernmental work on local and regional democracy. That implements much of the substance of the Chavez report, which was set in train by the Council of Europe precisely to see how it could work better. We have been co-operating with that, and there is now the prospect of Committee Ministers co-operating better in the future. With our influence still there in congress, I believe that we can continue to make progress.
There have been so many stirring speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, strongly drew attention to the lack of democracy in some parts of eastern Europe. I say to the noble Lord that one of the elements of the work of the Council of Europe is to educate emerging nations in democracy. The fact that they are sucked into the Council of Europe is becoming absolutely essential, because it gives them confidence and security not to be blown off-course and sucked back into the communist system. That is really important for us all for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred to the Baltic states; they all need their confidence boosted, they all want to be part of Europe, and they all want to have the same sort of democracy. One of the roles of the Council of Europe is do just that and to provide that support. Many things have happened in Europe over the last 50 years which we would all prefer had not happened, and that we can never forget about. If the Council of Europe and the European Union help with that, they are making a major contribution to our future.
We intend to continue to assist in Europe by supporting the work of the Council. We are still working with Andorra. The chairmanship passed from Ukraine to us, and from us to Andorra, and there is a sort of seamlessness about it which I hope will continue.
The new congress president, Mr van Staa, has also decided that he wants a better arrangement in the congress. One of our Belgian friends, Mr Lambertz, is committed to improving the structures, but the structures are only important because of the work that the congress and the Council of Europe does. That is going to affect all the things that people have talked about. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, mentioned President Gorbachev’s role, and he asked about the widening of the geographical area of Europe. It is probably as wide as it can go and we cannot take it too much further, but it does not mean that the Council cannot be encouraging.
I was very interested in the influence of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, in Armenia. That is not somewhere I would have connected with him, but it is good that it was there. He asked for my views on prisoner voting. It would be fair to say that we are still considering our position on that, and I am not going to be able to give him a firm answer to that question today.
Lord Prescott
We in this country have been in breach of our human rights obligations; it has been confirmed twice by the courts. Are we not doing anything about it?
Baroness Hanham
We will consider it, my Lords. There we are. I will just say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that there are no plans at present to extend the Council of Europe further east or south, but I can tell the noble Lord that the congress and the Council of Ministers and the parliamentary assembly are all considering how they can contribute to the democratic processes in those parts of the world.
I look forward to the outcomes of the better collaboration in the Council of Europe and the quality of the programmes which are going to be run. I know that congress is seeking to improve its preparation of the work that it undertakes and what it does in monitoring other states. We in this country are due to be monitored in the not-too-distant future and I understand that is to be done by Russia. So that should be interesting.
Lord Judd
I warmly endorse what the noble Baroness says about the importance of some countries in eastern Europe and Russia being involved and the part that that can play in building democracy. However, it all will be negated if, when it comes to the point, the Committee of Ministers does not rigorously pursue the matters indicated by the court as being wrong.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I agree. The Council of Europe has to grip the fact that it has to do things.
We are very supportive of the European Court of Human Rights. After all, it was this country and Winston Churchill who set it up. We have always supported it and believe that there is a great strength in it. Although the changes that we managed to make were only administrative, the noble Lord is right that there is no point in just talking. People have to do things, otherwise we might just as well all save the fare of going to Brussels and Strasbourg.
I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I have tried to cover the points raised by everyone who has spoken but I am not sure that I have done so. I value the appearance of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and what he said. My noble friend Lady Wilcox will, I am sure, be a great contributor to the parliamentary assembly. She has a great deal of experience and is quite capable of putting it in its place, which is just as well.
My noble friend Lord Greaves has taken the opportunity to “Christmas tree” into this debate, if I can put it that way, the subject of regions. He and I will never quite agree about that but, as I said in the House the other day, whatever you call it, the northern part of England is beginning again to become dynamic; there is plenty going on. I occasionally go to see what is happening up there. It is a lovely part of the world and it deserves to be brought out of its dormancy because it has always been a very important part of this country. Whatever we call it, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, calls it, we all love it.
My noble friend Lord Dundee has done us a great service by enabling this debate today.